Adderall toot. #TheTrumpBump. https://t.co/h3pR8uAUoY— Ken Olin (@kenolin1) January 8, 2020
ADDED: I just wanted to cross-reference my October 2019 post, "Are almost all journalists on Adderall?"
I like to know when someone I'm listening to is on drugs. If I don't know, and they are, they are stealing from me. That's how I see it. I'm not talking about people with a genuine mental disorder who take a prescribed drug that's supposed to get them to the medical profession's idea of normal. I respect their privacy. But somebody taking drugs to get a lot of writing done? I want a warning before I spend some of my life's precious time absorbing their addled — Adderalled — verbiage.ALSO: I listened to the speech on the car radio, and from the beginning, I was exclaiming about the sound of his breathing, which, to me, seemed to be that he was out of breath and emotional. I wondered if something had happened, that there was more to the story than he was able to tell us. He was late coming out to speak, so I thought maybe he was just briefed about something — the plane crash? — or was engaged in some difficult problem or rushed to the room.
I remember Trump breathing noisily at debates in 2016. Here's a contemporaneous article in Forbes looking into the causes. It quotes a tweet from Howard Dean (who is a doctor), speculating that it might be cocaine. The Forbes writer lists possible reasons for the sniffing: allergies, sinisitis, irritants (such as perfume), medications (such as for high blood pressure), a tic (which could be caused by a disorder such as ADHD or by stress), crying, head trauma, nose picking, bleeding disorder, or an object in the nose (such as a peanut).
Posts
260 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 260 of 260The Saudi's are not threatening the US and Israel with death like the Iranians.
That's all the explanation anyone needs for why the left supports Iran.
Trump's policy is America First, not Only America. Again, Inga fails to compose an actual argument. Is she claiming Jared is pro-Saudi Arabian? He is willing to work with the Saudi's as they are willing to work with the US. That's all.
@ Drago I also have had a hard time understanding why this evades J. Farmer.
@Rosalyn C:
I don't know that J. Farmer is either right or left or why he wanted to debate whether Saudi Arabia or Iran was worse. Again, I thought that his position on Iran was not legit.
I bring up Saudi Arabia because our relationship with them is emblematic of our confused and incoherent middle eastern policy. On what grounds is Iran a "worst" country than Saudi Arabia? Both are authoritarian theocratic states. In fact, on most objective measures, Iran is a freer and more open society than Saudi Arabia. Both groups support non-state actors in other countries to advance their interests. The Iranians tend to back Shia jihadist groups like Hezbollah, and the Saudis tend to support Salafist groups like Ahrar al-Sham in Syria or Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula in Yemen.
Iran is not a uniquely malignant or aggressive force in the region. It is one of several states jockeying for power and influence in the region. My position has long been that instead of putting ourselves in the middle of the Sunni-Shia split in the middle east, we ought to follow a model more like China's. Triangulate. Do business with both sides and push off against each of them.
I must have missed Inga's explanation for the many things Trump has done which make him the toughest President on Russia in the last 30 years.
Talking points die hard on the left: Carter Page, hoax dossier, russia collusion, Kavanaugh, etc.
“The Saudi's are not threatening the US and Israel with death like the Iranians.”
Like Drago, eh?
Admiral Inga: "Like Drago, eh?"
I defy anyone to make sense of that one.
Rosalyn, don’t you see that you are not forming coherent arguments? You posit your opinion and expect people to accept it as an argument.
Take khashoggi at one time or another he defended islamic state and hamas, even farher back the algerian islamists
Inga, have you looked up Nordstream 2 yet?
Have you checked out the sanctions on companies Trump put into place to stop its development?
LOL
Notice that I asked only if you had checked it out. Not whether or not you understood it because, well, that would be asking a bit too much of you.
Admiral Inga: "Rosalyn, don’t you see that you are not forming coherent arguments?"
Yeah. Inga wrote that. Just now.
Without irony.
@Rosalyn C:
The trouble with your absolute anti-interventionist position is that we have an obligation as the most powerful nation in the world to act at times. If you don't accept that responsibility to mankind there is nothing that would change your mind.
I most certainly do not "accept that responsibility to mankind." Who says we have such an obligation? Where does it come from?
Vastly more people have died in internecine civil wars in Africa than in the middle east. Do we have any "obligation" in alleviating this suffering or punishing the people who cause it?
Who would we support, now the koltan warlords (because thats what their fighting for) are largely in the world court now
Farmer -- again you ignore the obvious fact that Iran is actively threatening the US while Saudi Arabia is not. Claiming that isn't important is strange to me. Can you explain that?
“Notice that I asked only if you had checked it out. Not whether or not you understood it because, well, that would be asking a bit too much of you.”
Can I expect you not to keep mistaking me for other commenters because you are in a manic haste about responding to anyone who you think is a lefty? That was at least the third time you’ve done that. I think it might be asking too much of you especially when you’ve been indulging in your special peach tea.
@Drago:
The Saudi's are not threatening the US and Israel with death like the Iranians.
Why do you think it is Iran isn't trying to attack Russia or China? Because Russia and China are not trying to overthrow them.
The US has a history of rapprochement with former enemies (e.g. China, Vietnam), each of whom killed orders of magnitude more Americans than the Iranians ever have.
Nordstream 2 Inga.
Focus.
Nordstream 2 is the most important economic project for Putin and the Russians and it will give Putin control of over 40% of German energy supply in just a few short years and will provide lots and lots of desperately needed hard currency for Putin.
Yet Trump just leveled sanctions on the construction company that was building it thus shutting down finalization of the project.
Square that with Trump serving Putin.....
LOL
You cannot of course, nor will you try. But just thinking about you trying is enough to generate great hilarity.
“Why do you think it is Iran isn't trying to attack Russia or China? Because Russia and China are not trying to overthrow them.”
I wonder what Saudi Arabia would do if they thought we were trying to overthrow them?
Another 9/11?
Admiral Inga: "I wonder what Saudi Arabia would do if they thought we were trying to overthrow them?"
LOL
Inga comes out strongly in favor of protecting the mad mullahs of Iran who murder gays while simultaneously "forgetting" the Iranians are the biggest state sponsor of terror in the ME.
Where does having a sense of moral obligation to help others come from? Why have that? If you ask those questions you are not really expecting an answer. You are who you are.
@Rosalyn:
Farmer -- again you ignore the obvious fact that Iran is actively threatening the US while Saudi Arabia is not. Claiming that isn't important is strange to me. Can you explain that?
Like every regime, the Islamic Republic's chief interest is survival and self-preservation. It is driven largely by pragmatism and not by ideology. So, for example, other than a few boilerplate condemnations, which it was pressured into, Iran basically looked the other way during Russia's war against the Chechens. For a more detailed discussion of this, you can see this article.
Given that the Islamic Republic wants to survive, it will obviously treat any country that threatens its existence as an enemy. So long as the US refuses to recognize the legitimacy of the Islamic Republic and makes moves to isolate and overthrow the regime, we will be treated like an enemy.
Seeking rapprochement does not require you to like or approve of another country, anymore than Nixon liked or approved of Maoism or the Cultural Revolution. We do business with unsavory, autocratic regimes every single day.
Inga, how many more billions should we give Iran?
Should we use pallets again, or just electronic transfer?
“The US Department of Justice has said it will reveal a key name sought by people suing Saudi Arabia for alleged involvement in the 9/11 attacks.
It says the information will be shared with lawyers representing the victims' families. It is unclear if the person's identity will become public.
Fifteen of the 19 al-Qaeda hijackers who staged the attacks were Saudis.
In 2004, the 9/11 commission set up by Congress found no evidence that the Saudi government funded al-Qaeda.
However, a 2012 report by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) said the agency was investigating Fahad al-Thumairy and Omar Ahmed al-Bayoumi, Saudi nationals who had allegedly helped the attackers.
Mr al-Thumairy is a former Saudi consulate official, and Mr al-Bayoumi was once suspected of being a Saudi intelligence officer, according to the Washington Post.
The FBI report, which was released in a redacted form, also referred to the third person. But the name was blacked out.”
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-49686128
Uh oh.
Inga is at another mental impasse: here comes the non sequitor cut and pastes!!!
Well, that's about it for Inga tonight.
“Inga, how many more billions should we give Iran?”
Nada, nothing, zilch, not a dime.
Inga: "Nada, nothing, zilch, not a dime."
LOL
Gotcha....(wink wink)
So, you, uh, oppose the Iran deal which opens the spigot bigly for hard currency to flow to Iran, right? You support the continued sanctions on Iran and the new Secondary Sanctions Trump is applying to Iran, right?
This should be good....
@Rosalyn C:
Where does having a sense of moral obligation to help others come from? Why have that? If you ask those questions you are not really expecting an answer. You are who you are.
With all due respect, please spare me your moral high horse. Your position is hopelessly naive. What if another country felt they had a moral obligation to help us? Would that give them the right to invade our territory and kill our people? Do we have a moral obligation to help the Rohingya in Burma? The Uyghurs in western China? Do we have an obligation to help the people of central Africa? Do we have an obligation to alleviate the oppressive autocratic conditions of the Saudis? We give money and guns to the Egyptian military dictator who uses secret police and torture. Is that an example of our "moral obligation to help others?" We used or "moral obligation to help others" to justify killing Gaddafi and trying to overthrow Assad. How'd that work out for the Libyans and the Syrians?
The US has a history of rapprochement with former enemies (e.g. China, Vietnam), each of whom killed orders of magnitude more Americans than the Iranians ever have.
Yes, and Trump has expressed willingness to negotiate with Iran as well.
“Inga is at another mental impasse: here comes the non sequitor cut and pastes!!!”
Ooooo three exclamation points, you excited? Despite Drago being a Saudi patriot, SA is not our friend. My excerpt is no non sequitur when one is trying to answer my question, which was what would Saudi Arabia do if they thought we were trying to overthrow them. Do try to keep up Drago. Need another shot of your special peach tea?
@ Farmer The idea that anyone can create perfection or attempt it is more naive than I can imagine. I never said that the US is responsible for all the evil in the world. That's your interpretation. All or nothing is about as naive as one can be.
@Drago:
Iran selling its oil on the world market and getting paid for it is not us "giving them" money.
The point is that being anti-interventionist as an absolute rule is juvenile thinking. Just because you can't fix everything doesn't mean you don't do anything at all ever. Does that mean that we will always do the right thing? NO. If you were walking down the street and someone needed your help would you refuse because helping him means you have to help every single person on the planet? No, that's ridiculous.
@Rosalyn C:
@ Farmer The idea that anyone can create perfection or attempt it is more naive than I can imagine. I never said that the US is responsible for all the evil in the world. That's your interpretation. All or nothing is about as naive as one can be.
This has nothing to do with "perfection" and everything to do with the myriad problems and practical difficulties you bring on yourself by assuming the role of world cop. The wars on Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and Syria could all be justified on some kind of humanitarian grounds. That wouldn't have made any of the interventions any better. As the saying goes, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
It’s trending on Twitter because it is a shithole and these people hate our President. If they really are concerned with drug use they should drug test all the entire government employees. That’s what us lowly people have to endure. Disgusting and disgusted.
The point is that being anti-interventionist as an absolute rule is juvenile thinking.
And if you ever read me once ever defending or describing it as "an absolute rule" then you would have a point. But since I haven't, you don't.
That's the point, we want to get out. Trump wants out. At some point a long time ago people realized we were not helping in Afghanistan but do gooders couldn't leave, or there was too much money to be stolen.
It seemed that you said you were anti-interventionist a few comments back. Under what conditions are an interventionist?
@Rosalyn C:
That's the point, we want to get out. Trump wants out. At some point a long time ago people realized we were not helping in Afghanistan but do gooders couldn't leave, or there was too much money to be stolen.
There are more troops in Afghanistan than when Trump took office, and his own plans call for leaving more than 8,000 troops in the country indefinitely.
Admiral Inga: "Despite Drago being a Saudi patriot, SA is not our friend."
Now wait a minute.
For 3+ years you have called me a Russian asset and troll, probably paid by Putin (with German Euros from the Nordstream pipeline, no doubt!)
Now I'm a Saudi patriot, even though the Saudi's and the russians are not on good terms.
Which is it Inga? I know its getting very late and you're getting very confused and you can't quite keep all the contradictions in your head from spinning out of control, but you really ought to settle on 1 Carter Page-like lie about me.
Otherwise you might lose credibility here.......LOLOLOLOL! (and another couple just for fun: !!)
@Rosalyn:
It seemed that you said you were anti-interventionist a few comments back. Under what conditions are an interventionist?
In self-defense or in defense of a close treaty partner. Mind you, I think we have far too many security commitments around the world, but there are a few instances where I think mutual defense treaties make sense (e.g. the UK, Japan, Australia, perhaps Philippines).
You know, come to think of it, I've yet to see an Inga criticism of Iranian terrorist leader Soleimani.
Isn't that interesting?
Not a peep about this guy whose work helped to kill and maim thousands of American service members.....and Inga claims to be very very concerned about American service members.
Yet no criticism of this guy.
Yep, interesting.
Even more interesting: It's looking more and more like Iran shot that airliner down, but not a peep out of our lefty media about Iran's refusal to release the black box info.
Not. A. Peep.
International relations are always complicated. Noted: Chechens are Sunni and Iran needs Russian support.
What about the Uyghurs? Has Iran attacked China on their behalf?
So apparently Iran is not solely motivated by their expressed obligation to protect all Muslims.
@Rosalyn C:
International relations are always complicated.
Precisely my point.
Noted: Chechens are Sunni and Iran needs Russian support.
Hamas are also Sunni. And yes, I agree, Iran valued support from Russia over picking a fight with Russia over Chechnya. That is an example of the regime acting pragmatically and self-interested as opposed to ideological.
What about the Uyghurs? Has Iran attacked China on their behalf?
I honestly have no idea what this is supposed to mean. But in works with the Russia analogy as well. Iran maintains relations with China and does business with China despite China's oppression of Muslim minorities.
So apparently Iran is not solely motivated by their expressed obligation to protect all Muslims.
Yes, that was exactly the point I was making at 11:14pm when I wrote: "[Iran] is driven largely by pragmatism and not by ideology. So, for example, other than a few boilerplate condemnations, which it was pressured into, Iran basically looked the other way during Russia's war against the Chechens. For a more detailed discussion of this, you can see this article."
"[Iran] is driven largely by pragmatism and not by ideology."
Not in their own locale. There was nothing pragmatic about spending their money to fund terrorism in Lebanon, etc. And that's what caused the outrage and protests recently.
All you have to do is study their religion and listen to the mullahs to understand why they are a danger.
I'm signing off now.
Veliyat al fagih 'rule by the clerics' that was khameneis gig,
@Rosalyn C:
Not in their own locale. There was nothing pragmatic about spending their money to fund terrorism in Lebanon, etc. And that's what caused the outrage and protests recently.
The protests in Iran were sparked initially by an increase in fuel costs and grew more generally against the economic mismanagement and corruption of the leaders.
All you have to do is study their religion and listen to the mullahs to understand why they are a danger.
Again, why aren't they a danger to Russia and China?
I'm signing off now.
Thanks for the interlocution. I hope you enjoy the rest of your evening.
Thats what its called,
“Farmer said:
Iran selling its oil on the world market and getting paid for it is not us "giving them" money”
But Democrats tell me if the Government lets me keep money from my paycheck they are giving me money via a tax expenditure, so by this theory we are giving Iran money by not preventing them from trading oil.
Proof:
1. The US has the power to deny sale of oil by Iran.
2. Sale of oil by Iran provides money for Iran.
3. Discretionary application of US power either allows or disallows Iranian oil sales.
4. Therefore, the US has control of money given to Iran for its oil. QED.
Trump sounded tired. He stumbled over two words and corrected the second.
Ever hear Churchill's speeches? He drank liquor for breakfast. Lunch. Dinner. Kept him alert through WWII. Strange metabolism.
JFK was constantly zonked on fistfuls of prescription drugs. He had medical problems, but probably some of them were made worse by the treatment. Just saw Chappaquiddic on Netflix. These people were monsters. Johnson was a wild drunk. Nixon saw the end of Dr. Feelgood, and it didn't go down well for him.
Trump is a famous teetotaler. Obama and Clinton were users as youths but grew out of it -- all the people doing cocaine around them always said they didn't do much of it, and you can trust that sort of story. Obama got serious about not smoking pot -- for himself at least, not the nation. Bush II was in sobriety. Reagan didn't have a problem. Nor Bush I. Nor Carter. Ford, I don't know. Who could have possibly cared?
The White House has been exceptionally dry for a long time, with the exception of the wives. The British are astonished by this.
Post a Comment