That's a fair point. I looked at his Twitter feed today and most of it was quite positive. He really CAN be an inspirational tweeter when he wants to be. But then there's the 1% of the time that he lets something out that totally clears the room. IMO all the positive stuff doesn't make up for those bombs he drops.

I’m not sure if Obama used Twitter (I’m not on Twitter) but let’s presume Trump is the first President to use it prolifically.   

If NOT for Twitter, how do you think Trump would get his message out?  Would the MSM give him daily air time if he asks for it?  Not on your life.

I occasionally cringe at some of his Tweets, but I’d much rather have a president telling me what he thinks on a regular basis than to have a president whisperer to a Russian “After my election I’ll have more flexibility.”

If the good Tweets are wiped out by the occasional bad Tweet, who’s fault is that?  It’s the MSM trying to control the message of a President unable to be controlled, and they despise that and are doing everything they can to further THEIR message, not his.

I wouldn’t have said this two years ago when I didn’t like the Tweets, but now I say “Keep Tweeting.”  When you are running a daily gauntlet with the MSM, the Dems, and many Republicans against you, it’s the only way. 

I was hacking Voting Machines, that aren't even run by a microprocessors, nor connected to the internet so it was a pretty nifty trick. 

Seriously, I only took Russian because a language was required to graduate, and I was sick of Spanish.  My school actually required a core curriculum that everyone had to have science, math, humanities and a language.  Oh, the horror!  I quickly forgot the Russian after the final exam. 

I took one semester of Russian.  I took 4 years of French and 2 or 3 of German and can speak and understand some of those two to this day.  I did not take Spanish simply because everyone else was and I don't do the herd.  Now I wish I had taken Spanish, I would have tons of opportunity to use it, and very little opportunity to use French or German.  I did use my Russian however to ensure Trump won in 2016.

 HOW THE D-DAY INVASION WOULD BE REPORTED BY TODAY'S PRESS



  NORMANDY, FRANCE (June 6, 1944) Three hundred French civilians were killed and thousands more were wounded today in the first hours of America's invasion of continental Europe. Casualties were heaviest among women and children. Most of the French casualties were the result of artillery fire from American ships attempting to knock out German fortifications prior to the landing of hundreds of thousands of U.S. troops.

  Reports from a makeshift hospital in the French town of St. Mere Eglise said the carnage was far worse than the French had anticipated, and that reaction against the American invasion was running high. "We are dying for no reason," said a Frenchman speaking on condition of anonymity. "Americans can't even shoot straight. I never thought I'd say this, but life was better under Adolph Hitler."

 The invasion also caused severe environmental damage. American troops, tanks, trucks and machinery destroyed miles of pristine shoreline and thousands of acres of ecologically sensitive wetlands. It was believed that the habitat of the spineless French crab was completely wiped out, thus threatening the species with extinction.

 A representative of Greenpeace said his organization, which had tried to stall the invasion for over a year, was appalled at the destruction, but not surprised. "This is just another example of how the military destroys the environment without a second thought," said Christine Moanmore. "And it's all about corporate greed."

 Contacted at his Manhattan condo, a member of the French government-in-exile who abandoned Paris when Hitler invaded, said the invasion was based solely on American   financial interests. "Everyone knows that President Roosevelt has ties to 'big beer'," said Pierre Le Wimp. "Once the German beer industry is conquered, Roosevelt's beer cronies will control the world market and make a fortune."

 Administration supporters said America's aggressive actions were based in part on the assertions of controversial scientist Albert Einstein, who sent a letter to Roosevelt speculating that the Germans were developing a secret weapon -- a so-called "atomic bomb." Hitler has denied having such a weapon and international inspectors were unable to locate such weapons even after spending two long weekends in Germany.

 Shortly after the invasion began, reports surfaced that German prisoners had been abused by American soldiers. Mistreatment of Jews by Germans at their so-called "concentration camps" has been rumored, but so far this remains unproven.

 Several thousand Americans died during the first hours of the invasion, and French officials are concerned that the uncollected corpses will pose a public-health risk. "The Americans should have planned for this in advance," they said. "It's their mess, and we don't intend to help clean it up."

 

 The invasion is blamed on Roosevelt's hawkish military advisers and the influence of British Prime Minister Churchill, who have repeated ignored calls for a negotiated settlement to end the war and who have reportedly rejected peace overtures from Germany through several neutral parties. Instead, the Roosevelt administration and its allies have chosen to insist on maintaining their extreme policy of demanding unconditional surrender.

 

 There have been notable voices of opposition from sports figures and celebrities decrying the horrific violence and saying that this is not who we are.

If you roam, roam with an AR-15 or at least a .45. 

.357 magnum but with .38 +P. It’ll have to do.

I think extreme behavior is prevalent among extremists. The particular behaviors Stan mentions are prevalent among leftist extremists, other behaviors are prevalent among ultra-right extremists. Branding of all Muslims as terrorists, all gays as degenerate, physically attacking liberal protestors (think Charlottesville). I'm not saying you or anyone here falls into that group.

I do think some of the crazier behavior might be more prevalent on the left because people tend to be more left-wing when they're young, and the brain centers that inhibit impulsive and violent behavior usually mature after one is legally an adult. Maybe even people who never develop good impulse control tend to be more liberal? I don't really know, that's just a thought.

I certainly don't want to defend liberals, or conservatives in this. I just don't particularly like "they" thinking that stereotypes a whole group, regardless of who does it. Both sides of the political spectrum do this, and it is part of why the country is so strongly polarized.

I agree there are extremists on both sides. And right now I do think much more on the left. Very interesting insight you have about why that may be! Correct that young people are more inclined to violent protest or any kind than older people and liberals tend to be younger.

I don’t know about impulse control. Jordan Peterson and Jonathan Haidt I think both have talked about personality traits of liberals and conservatives. Liberals are high in openness to new experiences. Conservatives are high in need for order. Neither is better or worse than the other. Without openness society becomes stagnant. Without order it is chaos and can’t function.

One of them used the issue of the border to illustrate. Without a border we don’t even have a country. Conservatives or those who need order want “the wall”. But if you close the country completely and never let anything or anyone in from the outside, you die as a nation. To thrive you need to trade and invite others in, but not in an uncontrolled manner.

There were other personality traits that seem inborn that differ between the camps. So there may be something to the idea we tend to be more drawn to one side or the other of the political spectrum.

This is one of those issues where lesbian feminism is 100% allied with scientific reality (and just plain common sense). That it's unfair to allow biological males to compete with biological females in most sports is something pretty much everyone who has given this much thought agrees with - except for the trans community of course, and the Far Left. I would contend, though, that the Far Left really hasn't thought this through and is too focused on the (very real) oppression and ostracism that trans people endure. The trans community, unfortunately, pushes the lie that cross-gender hormones completely undo years of natural masculinization. I will pick one nit with what you said, regarding muscle mass: as the IOC found, a sufficient time on estrogen (something like 2 years) does erase the advantage males have in sheer muscle bulk. What remains, though, an androgenized bone structure that anchors those muscles, can't be erased by hormones and the advantage it gives doesn't go away even after years and even decades.

This is not a new issue btw. Google Michelle Dumaresq for an example of someone who triggered lots of controversy a decade and more ago.

There is also the flip side of this, the question of how much (if any) unfair advantage *natural* androgens confer to biological females with conditions like CAH. Olympian Caster Semenya is someone unfortunately caught at the center of this controversy right now. Sadly we're going to be hearing more and more about this in the next few years.

You brought up an excellent point about CAH!  Even among normal humans there is great variation in lots of factors conferring and denying various advantages to individuals. It would be ludicrous to try to equalize every relevant factor, levels of adrenal and why stop there? Thyroid plays a huge part in energy and motivation. To be truly fair you’d have to equalize blood sugar, neurotransmitters and even height or leg length down to the last fraction of an inch.

The unfortunate reality is nature dishes out all these things unequally and in all sports we must for the most part accept these inequities and just assume that individual training is a far greater effect and can overwhelm these other differences. We ban artificial drug or hormone enhancement and we set the bar differently for males vs females.  In some sports we try to account for congenital physical differences like body size by having different competition classes. That’s the best we can do. If you overthink this to the nth degree then the whole idea of competitive sports goes out the window. What about mental sports like chess? You would have to worry about intellectual differences. Asians have on average 10 more IQ points than Caucasians. Should we not ban them from chess competition?

One could argue for transgenders competing as females based on the above. However the sexual dimorphism of our species is on average greater than any of these other things one presumes. Still you could argue that the advantage given by height has made basketball evolve over time to include only very tall people. Isn’t that unfair to short people? How is trannies in track different than that? I’m being devil’s advocate here. I don’t think anyone would argue that short people have a “right” to play professional basketball and then complain it’s harder for them to make a basket. Likewise women don’t have a “right” to run track and then complain a TG has an unfair advantage. Or do they? Women’s track being for women only is a defined constraint of the sport. To my knowledge no one has made a rule that being abnormally tall is mandatory to play basketball. Or have they?

Wow. It’s going to edge out biological women completely and the sport will end up being men’s and tranny’s.

Good job liberals and feminists. Once again your insanity only hurts women.

Edit: make no mistake, I want transgenders to be accepted and to live happy lives. One of my best friends was transgender. He committed suicide and drives my desire to see more research to help these people.

At the same time there is no denying that being born male endows you with greater muscle mass and more strength. It is unfair to women to complete on the same field with biological males even if they transition completely. It sounds unfair to the tranny but life isn’t always fair and this is a case of the greater good for the most people.

This sort of problem only serves to make people resent transgenders and doesn’t help their cause.