I’m sorry but I don’t get it

[rightleft22]

Without taking into account any news editorial, commentary or speculation and only taking into account Trumps tweets, statements and rally performances (at face value)… how can anyone trust the man or believe anything he says let alone think he is mentally fit to lead.
He is so concerned with only positive self reflecting (as he views himself) news stories, books… its scary.

[Crunch]

After 8 years of a narcissist that continually talked about himself, you gotta be kidding.

How can anyone think he’s fit to lead? Have you seen the economy? Have you seen any of the other accomplishments domestically and internationally? Things are going so well that Obama is running around trying to steal the  credit for it.

Focusing on his admittedly abused communication style just means you watch to much MSNBC and CNN where they’re skewing your perceptions so that you can’t see past things to just how frigging incredible things have turned around.

What I don’t get is why so many seem to hate Americans having economic success.

[cherrypoptart]

So far Trump is doing pretty much what he said he'd do on the things that matter. That was the point I was trying to make on the other thread that was not taken very well where my examples of Trump lies were called trivial and stupid but that's pretty much the same with all of the other ones people seem to think are such vital game changers. None of them matter. What matters? Results. The way y'all saw my examples and how annoyingly off base they seemed was my way of showing you exactly how millions of Americans see all the little gotchas you think you are so clever about pinning on Trump. It's all just noise.  All of it. The man is performing better than even his most ardent supporters could have hoped for. I mean he's already delivered enough to justify all the hopes people had for him with just his two Supreme Court appointments. From here on it's just icing on the cake. And there's already a LOT of icing too.

I suppose if I'm looking for a question to ask it'd be why do the people who hate Trump and oppose almost all of his agenda think these little nitpicking things you find so offensive are going to matter to those who want a secure border, robust economy, and judges basing their decisions on the Constitution? It's an especially good question when Democrats didn't have a problem with the peccadilloes of their own leaders when they thought the agenda was moving in the right direction. Nobody cares. Democrats didn't care then. Republicans don't care now. That's one thing we all have in common and another thing we all have in common is that it always DOES matter whenever it's the other guy's guy. Not our own though. It's all consistent and makes perfect sense.  Everybody is so righteous about the faults of leaders of the other party. We point out the specks in the eye of the other guy and ignore the motes in our own guy's eye and then are frantic about why people can't see what we see or why they don't seem to care. Everyone does it. Including me. But at least I see it and admit it.

[Greg Davidson]

cherry,

You have no logical standards behind your assertion. You say in your first paragraph that simply by appointing two Supreme Court Justices, every possible lie would be justified. You discount every single lie by the claim that all lies were trivial. On what basis do you render his lies about providing health care to all Americans at lower prices as trivial?

And crunch is in a fantasy world where Obama was a narcissist always talking about himself.

 

[cherrypoptart]

Most of Trump's so called lies like lower healthcare costs and North Korea getting rid of their nukes are more of what I'd call optimism than lies. You visualize, actualize, and then realize. Or something like that. It's too early to say he's failed yet on most things and he's already succeeded marvelously at many. Now everything here is subjective. I determine that Trump's lies aren't that bad because he's doing what I want him to do, for the most part. That's obvious. Same as Obama's supporters. And Hillary's. Once that simple truth is out of the way then we can get to the rationalizations which we've all been over already and since they use subjective evaluations of the importance of various things relative to other things, it's normal that people won't agree since everyone has different priorities. In other words, we just keep going in circles and don't get anywhere. What I'm trying to do and maybe failing at is explaining why this is so and why it's inevitable. You're right though about it not going to seem logical if people can only see things from their own perspective. If it, meaning why agreement or lack of it on the importance of Trump's lies and character, had to be summed up or boiled down to one word I'd say it was that one there: priorities.

[Greg Davidson]

cherry,

You are flailing. Your argument seems to be:

• I can eliminate lies by pretending that they are mere optimism
• As a Trump supporter, of course I do that, and so do Obama supporters
• This is inevitable

That argument is the last line of defense for liars*, when all of the rest of their arguments have already proven false.


* To be clear, this wording is intended to refer to those who defend liars - this is not specifically calling you a liar. From what I can tell about your writing, I do believe that you genuinely believe what you are saying right now as you are saying it. 

[Fenring]

Greg, that sounds like an inaccurate rendering of what cherry is saying. It sounds more to me like cherry is saying something similar to what used to be very commonly said many years ago. Namely, that politicians are all liars anyhow and there's no point in getting hung up about it. My grandfather says such things all the time, and I think it was a popular sentiment between the 20's and 40's. It only changed as a popular conception of politics after WWII, I think. So when faced with the premise that whenever a politician is speaking you shouldn't take it that seriously, the only priority is whether policy steps are being taken that you approve of. While I would call this view fatalistic, I don't think it has the characteristics you're ascribing to it.

[Greg Davidson]

Fenring, thanks for the polite response but I disagree. People have been making excuses for liars for much further back than your grandfather, but that does not mean that the argument is valid. If we use common standards of judgement, there are significant differences in the degree to which politicians lie. And the premise that "truth is anything my guy says", and the assertion that everybody believes that premise is itself the final argument that liars use to bring everyone down to their level.  Because when they have been proved to be lying, the only mitigating step is to suddenly declare that lying is an acceptable standard.

[TheDeamon]

Fenring, thanks for the polite response but I disagree. People have been making excuses for liars for much further back than your grandfather, but that does not mean that the argument is valid. If we use common standards of judgement, there are significant differences in the degree to which politicians lie. And the premise that "truth is anything my guy says", and the assertion that everybody believes that premise is itself the final argument that liars use to bring everyone down to their level.  Because when they have been proved to be lying, the only mitigating step is to suddenly declare that lying is an acceptable standard.

I for one reject the premise that "truth is anything my guy says." And instead opt for "Truth is something neither guy is going to say." And as such, I will draw my conclusions based on which clown is producing the kind of smoke that appeals more to me.

[velcro]

After 8 years of a narcissist that continually talked about himself, you gotta be kidding.

For every quote that you can provide about Obama talking about himself over 8 years, I can provide one for Trump talking about himself for 1 year.

Here's one for free. First week, Trump stands in front of the wall honoring CIA dead and talks about how wonderful he is.

“Now, I know a lot about West Point. I'm a person that very strongly believes in academics. In fact, every time I say I had an uncle who was a great professor at M.I.T. for thirty-five years, who did a fantastic job in so many different ways, academically—was an academic genius—and then they say, Is Donald Trump an intellectual? Trust me, I'm like a smart persona.”

Apparently as proof, the President noted that he had set an “all-time record” in Time magazine cover stories. “Like, if Tom Brady is on the cover, it's one time, because he won the Super Bowl or something, right?” he told the intelligence officials. “I've been on it for fifteen times this year. I don't think that's a record that can ever be broken.” Time told Politico’s Playbook that it had published eleven Trump covers—and had done fifty-five cover stories about Richard Nixon.

Trump spoke briefly about eradicating “radical Islamic extremism,” a cornerstone of his foreign policy. But he devoted more than twice as many words to the dispute over the turnout at his Inauguration. “Did everybody like the speech?” Trump asked. “I've been given good reviews. But we had a massive field of people. You saw them. Packed. I get up this morning, I turn on one of the networks, and they show an empty field. I say, wait a minute, I made a speech. I looked out, the field was—it looked like a million, million and a half people.”

Crunch says:

What I don’t get is why so many seem to hate Americans having economic success.

Hypothetical:
A horribly human being becomes President.  Through a series of events, some under his control, some not, the economy does well. Let's say over two million new jobs in a year, GDP growth around 3%, and the stock market up over 30% for the year.
Some Americans criticize the horrible human being because he is, well, horrible.

What reason would someone have for then assuming that the critics "hate Americans having economic success"?

[velcro]

Cherrypoptart wrote:

I determine that Trump's lies aren't that bad because he's doing what I want him to do, for the most part. That's obvious. Same as Obama's supporters. And Hillary's.

As an Obama supporter, I can say categorically that you are wrong.  And don't presume to know what I think about anything I don't explicitly state.

my examples of Trump lies were called trivial and stupid

Again, completely wrong.  Anyone here can read the thread and see what was actually said.

why do the people who hate Trump and oppose almost all of his agenda think these little nitpicking things you find so offensive

False or misleading statements about North Korea no longer being a nuclear threat is not nitpicking.
False or misleading statements  about NATO owing us money is not nitpicking.
False or misleading statements  about investigations of Republican congressmen to make it look partisan is not nitpicking.
False or misleading statements  about voter fraud to cast doubt on elections is not nitpicking.
False or misleading statements about poll numbers is not nitpicking.
False or misleading statements about the death toll in Puerto Rico is not nitpicking.

False or misleading statements about whether we will be tired of winning is nitpicking. 
And false or misleading statements about the tallest building in NYC is nitpicking. 

And the guilty party for putting those nitpicking statements in, actually calling them lies?
Cherrypoptart, could you please identify the author of those two nitpicking complaints?

And I would love to have you address any of the other ones on the thread you referenced.

[cherrypoptart]

I said that to me they're nitpicking and irrelevant, and I'll venture to say to millions of other Trump supporters as well. And I stand by my assertion that Obama's lies are not as serious to most of his supporters as Trump's lies. If there are some exceptions out there who take grave and equal offense at all the lies of all the politicians that's great. But when I get asked with a straight face why Obama's lies about how great Obamacare is going to be are worse than Trump's lies that tells me that people have very subjective measures for how serious a lie is based on whether or not the person telling it is their guy. What is and isn't nitpicking is for everyone to decide for themselves. My point is that what's very terribly super utterly serious to one person is just nitpicking irrelevance to another person, and looking at that list I definitely stand by that. All nitpicking and irrelevant, at least to me. I'll go one by one to be very clear.

1. False or misleading statements about North Korea no longer being a nuclear threat is not nitpicking.

Definitely nitpicking and irrelevant and completely trivial in the face of the progress being made with the North and South uniting for the Olympics, families being reunited, and hopefully a truce to a war that has gone on for over sixty years. Can you even imagine if during Trump's term the foundation is laid for reunification, or if it actually happens? Nobel Peace Prize for sure. And maybe saying they weren't a nuclear threat even helped a little. Maybe a lot.

2. False or misleading statements  about NATO owing us money is not nitpicking.

Six of one and a half dozen of the other. It's just a quibble. I understand the technicality but that's all it is. At least to me. If they weren't paying their fair share according to GDP then they were ripping us off. If someone wants to call that owing us money that's fine too. It's a basket of security they are supposed to be putting eggs into and they didn't put in their fair share. If they start paying more than they were because of Trump that proves he was right.


3. False or misleading statements  about investigations of Republican congressmen to make it look partisan is not nitpicking.

I don't care about that so it is nitpicking especially when Hillary and Obama should be the ones under investigation for abuse of power to influence and rig an American election and then for framing the winner with false charges of Russian collusion to undermine our democracy. Big time nitpicking because whatever the crimes of those Republicans pale in comparison to Hillary's and Obama's. Importance can be relative and importance is part of determining what is a nit in the picking process. That's why it's always in the eye of the beholder. I can see how people would disagree. Definitely. When Democrats are in the corruption cross hairs that should always be front page news in my opinion no matter if it's the local dogcatcher all the way up to Obama. I'm sure Democrats feel the same way about Republicans. It's all good.

4. False or misleading statements  about voter fraud to cast doubt on elections is not nitpicking.

I agree with Trump on this one. There hasn't been proof of massive voter fraud but taking absence of proof as proof of absence can be a huge mistake. I believe it's historically accurate to say that Johnson committed massive voter fraud in Texas to steal the election for Kennedy. Now what PROOF is there of that? Who was prosecuted? Who went to prison? None. Nobody, and nobody. So that means it didn't happen right and anyone who says it did is a liar? If there was massive voter fraud the problem is there wouldn't be any proof. Where's the paper trail? How would you prove it? There isn't any and you can't. All you can say is no evidence has been found which could just as well mean that the tracks were well covered. Our system isn't set up very well to prevent voter fraud or to detect it when it happens. If we cared we'd have voter I.D. Also, we'd probably need to know how each person voted but privacy is more important than security. Anyway, total nitpicking IN MY OPINION.



5. False or misleading statements about poll numbers is not nitpicking.

Now this one has to be a joke considering that according to the poll numbers Hillary is now the President.


6. False or misleading statements about the death toll in Puerto Rico is not nitpicking.

At this point what difference does it make? Yeah, still nitpicking just like the attacks on Bush during Katrina because it is the local government that should bear much of the responsibility so blaming Trump for all of those deaths because he's racist and doesn't like Puerto Ricans is nitpicking. Being totally honest here and not even joking, when I saw those numbers before I saw that Trump said anything at all about it I had my suspicions the numbers were being hyped and jacked just to make him look bad. Whether that's true or not, I have no way at all to tell, even now. I mean I can be pointed to story after story and stat after stat but I suppose that's the dangerous thing about a media that is proven to have colluded with Democrats to rig an election (primary at least) and has thrown away all pretense of being impartial or in many cases even honest. I suppose a powerful hurricane could have killed that many people. With this media there is just no way we'll ever know for sure about that. Or pretty much about anything if it's got any kind of political angle.

Maybe a definition of nitpicking would be helpful:

- looking for small or unimportant errors or faults, especially in order to criticize unnecessarily.

Perfect, especially the to criticize unnecessarily part.

Like I said, what's nitpicking is subjective. One person is going to think those criticisms are absolutely necessary and terribly important. Another is going to think these are just people who hate Trump and are looking for any and every excuse to justify their feelings. That's just how it is.

One kind of funny thing though is the side that generally sees in shades of grey, gradations of right and wrong, questions whether evil even exists, insists that everyone has the right to their opinion and to be who they are, loathes passing judgement on others and loathes even more allowing other people to pass judgement on people, somehow makes a great big exception when it comes to Trump. Now all of sudden it's my way or the highway. I'm right. You're wrong. Now there ARE absolutes.

So much for tolerance.

-------------------------------------------------------

Look. We're not going to see eye to eye on this, I can tell. This is one of those times where people generally choose to agree to disagree but too often nowadays when it's about Trump that option is thrown off the table and right out the window. It's like "you're either with us or you're against us" all over again except it's the left throwing down the gauntlet.

To recap, nitpicking is a subjective term and what is or isn't is up to each person. I understand many may believe these are not nitpicking criticisms. Maybe not just believe, maybe they KNOW. That's fine. To me anyway, they are.

His promise that we will get tired of winning is more important than any of those other ones. What does that mean that we'll get tired of winning? When Ginsberg retires is he going to worry about us getting tired of winning and he's not going to want to spike the ball so he gives us another Kennedy instead of another Scalia? That's a lot more important than whether he says North Korea is a nuclear threat or not. It's not like if he says they are not a nuclear threat that's really going to make things more dangerous for us now is it? What are they going to do? Maybe they will say to themselves, ah ha, now that we've got him fooled and he thinks we are no longer a nuclear threat it is the perfect time to launch a sudden surprise nuclear attack. No, not likely. What he said there didn't make things worse and may help make things better so criticism on that is unnecessary. Might be fun, but it's not that important. (Not to get sidetracked but it does remind me of how Obama said the 80s called and they want their foreign policy back. Now was it important that he didn't seem to understand or take seriously the threat that Russia still posed? But when it's our guy we are more apt to just let it go.) Now whether or not North Korea actually is a nuclear threat or not is important, but Trump saying that is not. As long as he doesn't really believe it. I guess that's the point though, isn't it? If he actually believes North Korea is no longer a nuclear threat yeah that could be a problem. But if he doesn't believe it, he just lied right? Yeah, I suppose. But will it make them more likely to attack? If not then it's fine. Hopefully it makes them more friendly.

What wouldn't be a nitpicking criticism of Trump then? That would be going in exactly the other direction. Where is the wall? Why is it taking so long to process illegals out? Why are the DACAs still here? Why aren't there more massive raids on companies hiring illegals? I was promised a wall and I want to see a wall, a massive wall, high and deep, and if we could ride bicycles along the top of it for sightseeing that would be nice too. Now to a Trump hater who is also a wall hater, that might seem like nitpicking.

[Fenring]

I would like to offer a substantive difference that might be helpful in elucidating a nitpick from a real objection. If the false/misleading comment is made in such a way as to describe a situation already in progress, or one in which the government isn't going to take any active steps, then criticizing such a comment would be a nitpick. The person making the comment was wrong, but the fact that it's wrong won't substantively harm the country even though in principle it's bad to make false or misleading comments. If the comment is made in order to change or effect policy then it warrants criticism that is far more powerful than a nitpick. So for instance calling it a lie when a President claims there are WMD's in Iraq isn't just a nitpick but is massively important, because accepting or rejecting that claim would (in this case) mean the difference between going to war or not. So my challenge would be, in the case of any given statement that seems false or misleading, to try to trace whether the statement itself is meant to be the justification for a significant policy change or governmental action. This is more or less a restatement of "pay attention to what they do, not what they say."

[velcro]

If he actually believes North Korea is no longer a nuclear threat yeah that could be a problem. But if he doesn't believe it, he just lied right? Yeah, I suppose. But will it make them more likely to attack? If not then it's fine. Hopefully it makes them more friendly.

The question is not will it make them more likely to attack.  The question is whether lying (your words) to the American public about whether a country has the ability to send a nuclear weapon to California is acceptable. And whether the country will take the proper precautions if 40% of citizens, and possibly the President, think it is no longer a threat.

Apparently that lie, with those effects, is OK with you. And if I understand you correctly, pointing out that lie is just nitpicking.

Most of the arguments you make below ignore the facts I presented, and repeat the falsehoods, e.g. NATO not meeting the 2024 GDP goals in 2018 means countries owe us money.

I don't care about that so it is nitpicking especially when Hillary and Obama should be the ones under investigation for abuse of power to influence and rig an American election and then for framing the winner with false charges of Russian collusion to undermine our democracy. Big time nitpicking because whatever the crimes of those Republicans pale in comparison to Hillary's and Obama's.

So current crimes should be brushed aside because Obama and Hillary.  And your definition of nitpicking is "I don't care".

The correlation of the ideas you are presenting with reality is sufficiently small that communication is not feasible.

I think my conversation with you on this topic will not be productive, so I will no longer be participating.

[velcro]

Back to the OP:

Without taking into account any news editorial, commentary or speculation and only taking into account Trumps tweets, statements and rally performances (at face value)… how can anyone trust the man or believe anything he says let alone think he is mentally fit to lead.
He is so concerned with only positive self reflecting (as he views himself) news stories, books… its scary.

In my opinion, based on Trump supporters here, they don't "trust the man or believe anything he says let alone think he is mentally fit to lead."

They are making a bargain.

They get:
-Supreme Court justices to possibly end abortion and eliminate most if not all restrictions on guns
-elimination of regulations on corporations, which will help American businesses
-temporary tax cuts for individuals
-one-time bonuses from corporations who save permanently from tax cuts
-increased stock values and dividends, if they are lucky/wealthy enough to own stocks
-reduction of immigrants to our country
-a chest-thumping leader that fulfills their fantasy of telling the world to go *&#%@ itself

They give up:
-Supreme Court justices who respect precedent, or private citizens who are opposing corporations
-clean air and water, eventually
-protection from corporations that are now less regulated (the market alone does not replace rational regulation)
-long term financial security (tariffs will eat up most of the temporary tax break, deficits are destabilizing, as are irrational trade policies)
-respect from the vast majority of countries, who we can "beat" in a deal, but have to work with for the lifetime of our nations
-strong NATO alliance, because our allies don't trust us
-trust in the President to tell the truth
-having the President be a role model in any positive way
-trust in the government
-protection from Russian interference

I could go on.

They are willing to make that bargain. They do not believe that the negatives are real, or maybe they just don't care. I can't fault them for making that bargain with their eyes open.  I think they are destroying the fabric of democracy, but by the very nature of that fabric, they have the right to make that bargain.

The frustration comes when they make stuff up to deny the negatives when any unbiased observer would readily recognize them.  Or they just say "because Obama and Hillary" to justify why this President should not be criticized.

[Greg Davidson]

But when I get asked with a straight face why Obama's lies about how great Obamacare is going to be are worse than Trump's lies that tells me that people have very subjective measures for how serious a lie is based on whether or not the person telling it is their guy.

I am about to go on hiatus soon, part of how I will free up time to try and write a novel is by giving up on-line argumentation. However, I can't pass this by without mentioning that I did a comprehensive assessment of all of our comments on Obamacare a few years ago, and through hundreds of pages it turned out that almost every prediction of the anti-Obama advocates was wrong, and almost all of the predictions that I made (which were generally consistent with the Obama positions) were right.  And that analysis was detailed and specific.

[rightleft22]

Thanks velcro

The OP wanted to get away from political reasoning. I can understand if not agree with the political reasons for supporting the man.
Yet if one only watches his performance (performances) I don't understand how one could not wonder about his mental state.

In the past I was fascinated by the documentaries or the rise of men like Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, Franco (Please I am not comparing Trump to being a Hitler or who every) My interest was in how these men got the support of the people that put them in power.
Rational intelligent people who in hind sight could not tell you why they were swept up other then that they were 'swept' it. Sure they could see warning signs but...

I am Biased. I don't don't like what Trump represents (character) and don't believe Trump is mentally well. I really don't understand how his supporters are not at some level a little concerned. 

[cherrypoptart]

Going back to the North Korea not being a nuclear threat, another way to look at that as not being a lie is to consider Israel and India and France all of whom have nukes but I wouldn't say we really consider them a nuclear threat since they don't have hostile intentions. That's maybe where Trump was coming from, being optimistic that North Korea's hostile intentions have diminished substantially. Trump is not saying all their nukes are gone. He's saying they are much less likely to use them on us now. I'm not sure I'd go that far but we are seeing serious signs of a thawing in relations, genuine warmth on many fronts. It's too soon to tell how it's going to all play out but I can appreciate Trump's comment as part of his negotiating style. People can call it crazy and maybe it is but it's something we haven't tried before so who knows it just might work. Now to reiterate I don't agree with Trump that North Korea is no longer a nuclear threat but I'm not the one negotiating man to man with them like he is and I can see his angle.

On the issue of productivity of our discussions, I disagree and am finding them extremely productive. My measure though is not to what degree or how likely I'm getting insofar as convincing people to agree with me, but how far we are going toward understanding each other and how much we disagree and some of the reasons why, whether or not we end up agreeing with those reasons or thinking they are ridiculous at least we appreciate our differences. The value is not in how persuasive we are but in seeing how different we are, knowing we're never getting any closer together on these issues, and valuing those differences anyway. It's a real measure of tolerance and diversity and I appreciate the worth of it. I understand I'm pretty far out there. I don't really expect people to agree with me most of the time. I'm actually genuinely surprised by how often that even happens.

[Seriati]

Without taking into account any news editorial, commentary or speculation and only taking into account Trumps tweets, statements and rally performances (at face value)… how can anyone trust the man or believe anything he says let alone think he is mentally fit to lead.

I'm not sure I follow your challenge.  It's clear by the way that no one that has responded to you ignore "editorial, commentary or speculation" and it doesn't appear to me that you did either.

One can trust Trump to the extent they think he's going the right direction even if he gets the details wrong.  I'd trust my brother with my life, but the words coming out of his mouth at any given point may be complete nonsense.

Hist tweets tend to me towards expressing reasonable outrage and reasonable bragging, with a high factor of gossip thrown in.  Given that we have people on here who applaud anonymous sources that can't be verified when the media uses them, it seems odd to criticize it here.  It's also been made clear  that Trump is usually reacting to media accounts real time (kind of the purpose of twitter) and not putting out considered policy statements (for the most part) or revealing governmental research on a topic.

He is so concerned with only positive self reflecting (as he views himself) news stories, books… its scary.

Is it scary in the same way the "objective" media is only concerned with negative and damaging news stories?

I don't recollect Obama spending a lot of time denigrating himself.  Bill Clinton on the other hand, he loved being a sinner that was repenting. 

Trump's biggest fault on this front is being so arrogant he can't back off a point when he's wrong.  Something anyone that posts on a message board is also guilty of from time to time.

[D.W.]

Trump's biggest fault on this front is being so arrogant he can't back off a point when he's wrong.  Something anyone that posts on a message board is also guilty of from time to time.

Ahh true equality reigns in this glorious nation!  Where the President of the United States is held to the same standard as but the lowliest of internet poster. 

Makes me wish we had an American flag emoji.

[Fenring]

Trump's biggest fault on this front is being so arrogant he can't back off a point when he's wrong.  Something anyone that posts on a message board is also guilty of from time to time.

Ahh true equality reigns in this glorious nation!  Where the President of the United States is held to the same standard as but the lowliest of internet poster. 

Makes me wish we had an American flag emoji.

Hey, remember back when we had that debate about 'principled candidate' versus 'chameleon'? Well luckily for both sides Trump neither has principles nor does he change to suit the people he represents: he's the next level and he is the people he represents. Democracy has finally come home!

[rightleft22]

I just heard the interview that Trump did with Fox and Friends on his wife's birthday.
He was unhinged. Proving to me anyway that the books out warning us of Trump mental stability are true. Even the For Friends look concerned