The Atlantic - "The Mind of Donald Trump"

Who cares?

Here is the essential point:

Trump is a GREEDY IMBECILE.

His economic "policies" are geared toward enriching himself (and his cronies) on the backs of the Middle Class.

 

Now there is a classic manifestation of Trump Derangement Syndrome. Funny stuff.

 

HE NARCISSISTIC

Yeah, if you pay 50 psychologist to do so.

To a trained psychologist, behaviour is sufficient indication of a mental affliction.

The guy is sick, sick, sick. And if you think he isn't, then maybe YOU should have your head examined as well since you do not recognize malignant narcissism ...

 

Post your actual data. Bet you can't since the wealth in the top has risen significantly since the Bush tax cuts.

 

No it hasn't.

Figure 5 of https://www.brookings.edu/wp-conten...ngIncomeAndWealthAtTheTop_ConferenceDraft.pdf

 

Sure it has. You are confusing income with wealth.
And I can find a lot more charts like this while you haven't even been able to post one. And try to remember not to post a chart about income.


http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-10-13/1-own-half-worlds-assets-stunning-chart

 

No I'm not. See above:

Figure 5 of --- https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/BrickerEtAl_MeasuringIncomeAndWealthAtTheTop_ConferenceDraft.pdf

BTW you are confusing the world with the US.

 

First chart on my link is the US, guess you couldn't be bothered to go to the actual link, just read the title I guess. Sloppy, sloppy. And your link also supports the fact that wealth at the top is steadily increasing although it doesn't actually provide anyactual data. If you even bother to read the first sentence of your link you would know that it agrees with my point that wealth at the top is continuing to rise.

 

It would seem to go against medical ethics to diagnose someone without their consent without ever meeting them.

 

The first chart is the meaningless data that LB has posted hundreds of times. Piketty himself has objected to those who have used his data to claim that wealth inequality is increasing. In his own words 'there has never been less inequality than we have today.'

It steadily increased during the Obama years. And even that the increase was within statistical error. The entire report is filled with data which was used in figure 5.

The key metric is, as always, the real median household income.

 

Bollocks.

The moment he became a "public person" he was fair-game. Particularly since he was running for the highest office in the land.

What was thought then, at the time, has proven to be very correct. The popular vote for Hillary was done by a significant margin of 2%. The Electoral College, this sham of a device, made a seriously mentally ill person PotUS.

America has become the laughing stock of developed nations ...

 

No it is not. At least not when you make the claim that the percentage of wealth owed by the top few has remained the same since the great depression. I have posted the data indicating that is just not true. Now if you can find data showing othewise post it, otherwise just admit you are wrong.

If you have forgotten what you said ir was post #154.

 

Serious Trump Derangement Syndrome that ^^

 

The top 1% have held the same since the GD. The data clearly show that.

 

Guess you didn't actually look at Figure 5 which shows top wealth data increasing by every possible measure.

And the medisn household income is irrelevant. In case you don't know what median means it means there are an equal numbe of households above and below. Just for an example imagine a three household country with the follwing net worths.

$1, $5, $ 10 for a total of $16

Now another three household country

$1, $5, $100 for a total of $106

Note that the median of $5 remains the same while the percentage of net worth of the top family increases astronomically.

Clear now?

 

Last time I talked to him, that's not what he told me.

In fact, you are making a lie of the main conclusion of both his book and the research that proves his work. As seen here:


At about 20% each, both the bottom 90% of the population own as much of the Wealth as the 0.1%.

Now, lest's see you deny that fact with evidence of your own regarding how the study was done and therefore its results.

Good luck with that one ...

 

That is only because more income is going to the working-class population since the Industrial Age dawned in the middle of the 19th century.

Before that, the mainstay of Wealth was land, and its produce. (Anything from food to lumber). So, yes, the landowners were the richest. (Why do you think Kings fought wars to win land? Why do you think he gave large swaths of land to people who owed him royal allegiance - and paid him "taxation" for the privilege of owning the land.)

All that changed with the Industrial Revolution, where people flocked off the land and into industrial plants located close to energy sources. (Mostly water mills, though coal helped fire those plants that had none.)

Will you PLEASE look at the historical context of a matter/issue/question before making cockamamie statements ... !?!

 

The data from where? The Brooking article you linked to shows no such thing even using the " preferred" method of calculation.

 

If you want to depose a President on mental incapacity grounds you need more than "some guy with a degree says..."

I encourage an examination if you have doubts. I love watching the media machine try to spin their called bluffs as something else.

 

Anybody who lays at the feet of Al Sharpton is being conned.

Sharpton looks out for no one but Sharpton. A few examples:

--He is a race profiteer who inflamed the Twana Brawley incident and others

--He is a hate monger who inserts himself in every corner brawl for personal publicity.

--He is an anti-semite

--He has referred to homosexuals as "homos" in public

--He has been critical of the Mormon Church

--He has dealt drugs in his time.

--He was an FBI informant.

--He has made commercials for loan companies that take advantage of minorities

--He has is a tax cheat who sheltered income from the IRS in phony non-profit organizations

He has played both sides of the street when it suits him. There must be a better representative of the movement than this fraud.

He is one reason by Americans don't trust the Democrat Party.

 

His current behaviour is more than enough.

The man is SICK, and that is patently evident ...

 

Good summary of Sharpton's long history as a reliable "mistress" for the inherently racist DP.

Which makes his denunciation of the DP 's exploitation of black Americans even more telling. Obama may be the last Democrat who can count on the black American vote.

 

Sharpton is just a small element of the Democrat Party. Most people in the mid-west know little about him and couldn't care less. They did not direct their votes against him last November. Hillary is the one they targeted.

She had her own baggage to hide and none of it was lettered in Russian.

 

You have been misled by "fabulist" "alt.left" Fake News media.

“The Trump era has given rise to a vast alternative left-wing media infrastructure that operates largely out of the view of casual news consumers, but commands a massive audience and growing influence in liberal America. There are polemical podcasters and partisan click farms; wild-eyed conspiracists and cynical fabulists. Some traffic heavily in rumor and wage campaigns of misinformation; others are merely aggregators and commentators who have carved out a corner of the web for themselves. But taken together, they form a media universe where partisan hysteria is too easily stoked, and fake news can travel at the speed of light.”
THE ATLANTIC, How the Left Lost Its Mind, Polemicists, conspiracists, and outright fabulists are feeding an alternative media landscape—where the implausibility of a claim is no bar to its acceptance. MCKAY COPPINS JUL 2, 2017.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/07/liberal-fever-swamps/530736/

When serious thinking leftists at The Atlantic warn you it is time to question your sources.

 

Not the preferred measure.

The real median household income is the only measure of the standard of living that makes any sense. Distribution of wealth is meaningless.