quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

Whats the matter CD, cant read??? do you have something equally supported about Obama?

Equally supported? You mean someone who was willing to take money to ghostwriter a book and then, several years later, come out and say that "while much of what I wrote was bullshit...handed off as truth...written to earn a paycheck, what I am telling you now IS the REAL truth. Oh, and nobody has offered me anything for the truth...that I'm telling now...not the 'truth' I wrote when Trump was paying me."

That looks like a "no, I can't back up anything I've claimed", Lucy.
Who'd'a thunk it, eh?

No, it looks like the truth about the source of this thread. No, it looks like an answer that says iz made no claim, only made a sarcastic statement. Rest assured, any claim I make about Obama will be backed up by something more credible than a ghostwriter looking to disparage the very person who paid him. Someone much more credible than someone who took that check and never said a word UNTIL...oddly enough...the RNC.

Yes, he's credible...to others claiming the same thing.

So no, no evidence about Clinton doing the same, then.
What a surprise.

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods

Never mind the sources: where's there any word about Clinton being called an unpleasant asshat by his biographer in any of that stuff?
That's what's under discussion, after all.

Biographer...secret service agent protecting her...long time political consultant. Why is one less credible then the other two? Which of the three spent more time in her presence and dealt with her more often?

You missed that the idiot I was talking to posted two links to stories about Bill being paid for speaking engagements, rather than anything about ghost writers or biographies, then?

No, neither that idiot or I missed that post. I believe that post mentioned that it wasn't Clinton's thing. Clinton had other people close to her discussing different primary character flaws. If we assume that the point of the biographer was to make assertions about Trumps possible character flaws, then any source of character flaws is relevant to the discussion. If we limit it to only biologrophers that appear to be disgruntled employees, who have no training in pathological mental disorders, then, in that very narrow circumstance you'd have a point in an silly and unless post.

Right, so the fact that Flump's ghost writer feels that he's an evil twat can be disproven by talking about something else entirely then.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods

Never mind the sources: where's there any word about Clinton being called an unpleasant asshat by his biographer in any of that stuff?
That's what's under discussion, after all.

Biographer...secret service agent protecting her...long time political consultant. Why is one morecredible then the other two? Which of the three spent more time in her presence and dealt with her more often?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji
Second, there have been two books out from people that have been around hill a lot more, a lot longer and a lot closer to hill that describe her actions as being a lot more severe than anything the biographer said.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods

Never mind the sources: where's there any word about Clinton being called an unpleasant asshat by his biographer in any of that stuff?
That's what's under discussion, after all.

Biographer...secret service agent protecting her...long time political consultant. Why is one morecredible then the other two? Which of the three spent more time in her presence and dealt with her more often?

Well for one thing, Schwartz' labelling of Trump as a "sociopath" is consistent with all the public evidence that we have seen ever since Trump first ran for President

I am referring to, amongst other evidence from other sources, Trump's divisive politics, grandiose claims, self aggrandisement, lies, racist and/or personal abuse of his opponents (or anyone perceived to be an opponent), egomania, absurd policies and ridiculous posturing, combined with his refusal to acknowledge the divisions he is enlarging or the ugly hatreds he is spurring on.

There is also the evidence from the so-called Trump University fiasco, which seems to have little more than a scam using very dubious business practices to fleece naive and uninformed would be investors of their money, and other seedy allegations of impropriety arising from Trump's business affairs. There is also Trump's use of bankruptcy provisions to avoid meeting his commitments to others.

It all adds up to the unavoidable conclusion that Trump is a sociopath whose only agenda is self aggrandisement. This is hardly a controversial statement rather a statement of what Basil Fawlty refers to as "the bleeding obvious". Any one who thinks Trump is Presidential material really ought to have a good long look at themselves. Trump is a obviously fraudulent snake oil salesman and anyone who buys his snake oil must have rocks in their head instead of brains.

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji
Second, there have been two books out from people that have been around hill a lot more, a lot longer and a lot closer to hill that describe her actions as being a lot more severe than anything the biographer said.

So why did you not link to either of those, rather than a load of irrelevance about Clinton's husband taking speaking fees?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods

Never mind the sources: where's there any word about Clinton being called an unpleasant asshat by his biographer in any of that stuff?
That's what's under discussion, after all.

Biographer...secret service agent protecting her...long time political consultant. Why is one morecredible then the other two? Which of the three spent more time in her presence and dealt with her more often?

Well for one thing, Schwartz' labelling of Trump as a "sociopath" is consistent with all the public evidence that we have seen ever since Trump first ran for President

I am referring to, amongst other evidence from other sources, Trump's divisive politics, grandiose claims, self aggrandisement, lies, racist and/or personal abuse of his opponents (or anyone perceived to be an opponent), egomania, absurd policies and ridiculous posturing, combined with his refusal to acknowledge the divisions he is enlarging or the ugly hatreds he is spurring on.

There is also the evidence from the so-called Trump University fiasco, which seems to have little more than a scam using very dubious business practices to fleece naive and uninformed would be investors of their money, and other seedy allegations of impropriety arising from Trump's business affairs. There is also Trump's use of bankruptcy provisions to avoid meeting his commitments to others.

It all adds up to the unavoidable conclusion that Trump is a sociopath whose only agenda is self aggrandisement. This is hardly a controversial statement rather a statement of what Basil Fawlty refers to as "the bleeding obvious". Any one who thinks Trump is Presidential material really ought to have a good long look at themselves. Trump is a obviously fraudulent snake oil salesman and anyone who buys his snake oil must have rocks in their head instead of brains.

Wow, again you're dancing around the point. Perhaps you'll re read what I wrote.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods

Never mind the sources: where's there any word about Clinton being called an unpleasant asshat by his biographer in any of that stuff?
That's what's under discussion, after all.

Biographer...secret service agent protecting her...long time political consultant. Why is one morecredible then the other two? Which of the three spent more time in her presence and dealt with her more often?

Well for one thing, Schwartz' labelling of Trump as a "sociopath" is consistent with all the public evidence that we have seen ever since Trump first ran for President

I am referring to, amongst other evidence from other sources, Trump's divisive politics, grandiose claims, self aggrandisement, lies, racist and/or personal abuse of his opponents (or anyone perceived to be an opponent), egomania, absurd policies and ridiculous posturing, combined with his refusal to acknowledge the divisions he is enlarging or the ugly hatreds he is spurring on.

There is also the evidence from the so-called Trump University fiasco, which seems to have little more than a scam using very dubious business practices to fleece naive and uninformed would be investors of their money, and other seedy allegations of impropriety arising from Trump's business affairs. There is also Trump's use of bankruptcy provisions to avoid meeting his commitments to others.

It all adds up to the unavoidable conclusion that Trump is a sociopath whose only agenda is self aggrandisement. This is hardly a controversial statement rather a statement of what Basil Fawlty refers to as "the bleeding obvious". Any one who thinks Trump is Presidential material really ought to have a good long look at themselves. Trump is a obviously fraudulent snake oil salesman and anyone who buys his snake oil must have rocks in their head instead of brains.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods

Never mind the sources: where's there any word about Clinton being called an unpleasant asshat by his biographer in any of that stuff?
That's what's under discussion, after all.

Biographer...secret service agent protecting her...long time political consultant. Why is one morecredible then the other two? Which of the three spent more time in her presence and dealt with her more often?

Well for one thing, Schwartz' labelling of Trump as a "sociopath" is consistent with all the public evidence that we have seen ever since Trump first ran for President

I am referring to, amongst other evidence from other sources, Trump's divisive politics, grandiose claims, self aggrandisement, lies, racist and/or personal abuse of his opponents (or anyone perceived to be an opponent), egomania, absurd policies and ridiculous posturing, combined with his refusal to acknowledge the divisions he is enlarging or the ugly hatreds he is spurring on.

There is also the evidence from the so-called Trump University fiasco, which seems to have little more than a scam using very dubious business practices to fleece naive and uninformed would be investors of their money, and other seedy allegations of impropriety arising from Trump's business affairs. There is also Trump's use of bankruptcy provisions to avoid meeting his commitments to others.

It all adds up to the unavoidable conclusion that Trump is a sociopath whose only agenda is self aggrandisement. This is hardly a controversial statement rather a statement of what Basil Fawlty refers to as "the bleeding obvious". Any one who thinks Trump is Presidential material really ought to have a good long look at themselves. Trump is a obviously fraudulent snake oil salesman and anyone who buys his snake oil must have rocks in their head instead of brains.

Wow, again you're dancing around the point. Perhaps you'll re read what I wrote.

My post was in direct response to your question about Schwartz' credibility.

You are refusing to comment on or acknowledge that there is a mountain of other evidence from other sources, evidence that I listed in my post, that damns Trump as a fraud and a sociopath. This is the evidence of Trump's own public behaviour and statements, his business practices, his bankruptcies and so on, all of it confirming the accusation that Trump is a sociopath and a fraud.

Actually your silence on this evidence, your utter failure to refute or even contest any part of it, speaks volumes and adds even more weight to that evidence, all of which points to Trump as a sociopath.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods

Never mind the sources: where's there any word about Clinton being called an unpleasant asshat by his biographer in any of that stuff?
That's what's under discussion, after all.

Biographer...secret service agent protecting her...long time political consultant. Why is one morecredible then the other two? Which of the three spent more time in her presence and dealt with her more often?

Well for one thing, Schwartz' labelling of Trump as a "sociopath" is consistent with all the public evidence that we have seen ever since Trump first ran for President

I am referring to, amongst other evidence from other sources, Trump's divisive politics, grandiose claims, self aggrandisement, lies, racist and/or personal abuse of his opponents (or anyone perceived to be an opponent), egomania, absurd policies and ridiculous posturing, combined with his refusal to acknowledge the divisions he is enlarging or the ugly hatreds he is spurring on.

There is also the evidence from the so-called Trump University fiasco, which seems to have little more than a scam using very dubious business practices to fleece naive and uninformed would be investors of their money, and other seedy allegations of impropriety arising from Trump's business affairs. There is also Trump's use of bankruptcy provisions to avoid meeting his commitments to others.

It all adds up to the unavoidable conclusion that Trump is a sociopath whose only agenda is self aggrandisement. This is hardly a controversial statement rather a statement of what Basil Fawlty refers to as "the bleeding obvious". Any one who thinks Trump is Presidential material really ought to have a good long look at themselves. Trump is a obviously fraudulent snake oil salesman and anyone who buys his snake oil must have rocks in their head instead of brains.

Wow, again you're dancing around the point. Perhaps you'll re read what I wrote.

My post was in direct response to your question about Schwartz' credibility.

You are refusing to comment on or acknowledge that there is a mountain of other evidence from other sources, evidence that I listed in my post, that damns Trump as a fraud and a sociopath. This is the evidence of Trump's own public behaviour and statements, his business practices, his bankruptcies and so on, all of it confirming the accusation that Trump is a sociopath and a fraud.

Actually your silence on this evidence, your utter failure to refute or even contest any part of it, speaks volumes and adds even more weight to that evidence, all of which points to Trump as a sociopath.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

Trump's hopes of a successful controversy free coronation from the GOP convention were dashed twice in recent days. First the co-author of "The Art of the Deal" Tony Schwartz dumped on Trump calling him a "sociopath" and pathological liar:
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/07/25/donald-trumps-ghostwriter-tells-all

"“[T]he prospect of President Trump terrified him[Schwartz]. It wasn’t because of Trump’s ideology—Schwartz doubted that he had one. The problem was Trump’s personality, which he considered pathologically impulsive and self-centered.

I put lipstick on a pig,” he said. “I feel a deep sense of remorse that I contributed to presenting Trump in a way that brought him wider attention and made him more appealing than he is.” He went on, “I genuinely believe that if Trump wins and gets the nuclear codes there is an excellent possibility it will lead to the end of civilization.”

If he were writing “The Art of the Deal” today, Schwartz said, it would be a very different book with a very different title. Asked what he would call it, he answered, “The Sociopath.”

If that wasn't bad enough, wife Melania got busted for plagiarising Michelle Obama's speech when she tried to persuade the GOP convention of her husbands (ahem) merits.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jul/19/melania-trump-plagiarism-scandal-michelle-obama

Well they do say imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, though I suspect Trump might object to that optimistic interpretation of his wife's plagiarism. Hands up all those who desire thieving sociopaths as the First Family .....

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx
Is it your point that you find her caustic?
Roflmfo....stop by mcrd sometime and offer to buy a di a beer...you may get an inkling what "caustic" means.