Why Is A 73 yr old. "President" Taking Precious Time To Mock 16 y/o Greta Thunberg?

Greta Thunberg has a Mensa level IQ which propels her grasp of climate science and energizes her climate protests. Trump is a moron tyrant and  bully who'd rather take time from his supposedly busy schedule to attack assorted perceived enemies via tweets. This time he picked on the wrong person.

 It was pretty well a no -brainer that once Dotard got nixed for TIME's person of the year he would go off on  Greta Thunberg, the 16-year-old climate  activist who's featured prominently in the news the past 2 months.   Traitor Trump, the most monstrous narcissist buffoon ever to occupy the Oval Office, couldn't take it so he had to mock the girl (diagnosed on the autism spectrum) with his infernal sideways putdowns.  Thus, Trump tweeted last Thursday:

 “Greta must work on her Anger Management problem, then go to a good old fashioned movie with a friend.  Chill Greta, Chill!”

Of course, here we see Trump projecting his own psychological failings on Thunberg.  She isn't the one with the "anger management" issues, it's him. She doesn't pitch incessant tirades in an oval office, hurling half eaten sandwiches across the room at fretful aides, nor go on tweet attacks - starting at 3 a.m.  

 But it appears Greta, for some reason, seems to be really making Trump upset but without meaning to.   I mean she isn't posting images of his orange orangutan face on her instagram, nor is she calling him an ignorant pestilence who knows next to nothing about climate change. So it has to be: a) that she has an I.Q. at least six standard deviations in excess of his on the Bell curve, and b) she got named the person of the year and he didn't.    What's a mentally afflicted, malignant narcissist bully to do? Well,  strike out at the one who's one upped him in intelligence, and in prominence - at least for this TIME cover.

So it's no mystery that when Ms. Thunberg was named TIME’s person of the year, an honor Trump reportedly wanted,  he careened off the mental rails once more. Hence, did what he always seems to do when he perceives someone has stolen his thunder, edged him out of public attention: taken to  Twitter while on the crapper, and hurled verbal taunts at the object of his ire.  Thus,  he lashed out by accusing the person upsetting him (Greta) of the very things he’s  guilty of: uncontrolled anger episodes - so frequent that his aides have lost count. (One reported they exceed his lies, totalling 13, 400 -odd, since entering the WH.)

But a $64 question emerges here for both Trump's defenders, and his bilious, brainless base who believe the orange maggot walks on water.  (Like the woman at one of his Pennsylvania rallies who burbled in one CNN interview:  "He is just so fantastic, how can those Democrats do this to such a fine man?")  The question:  How does the putative leader of the nation and free world - with at least a dozen issues of critical import pending (including a new China trade and tariff deal) -  find the time to fire off putdowns at a 16 year old girl? Priorities anyone? Anyone?

Perhaps Dotard Donnie was roused to fury because Thunberg doesn't fit the mold (in Trump's misshapen excuse for a mind)  of how girls are supposed to act. She isn’t trying to be a contestant in one of his beauty pageants.  Nor would she ever have allowed Trump  and  (now deceased) pal Jeffrey Epstein to enlist her in their salacious schemes. She’s too busy trying to get world leaders like him to do something about the climate crisis. She’s too occupied by giving speeches at places like the UN – where Trump was laughed at, when he gave a speech in 2018, and Thunberg was met with respect, despite slamming the entire body for “misleading” the public with inadequate emission-reduction pledges

Meanwhile, Trump, detested as the most odious "leader" on the planet, was roundly mocked by his peers at the NATO summit in London.  The mutt was so humiliated that he turned tail and bolted the next morning - instead of attending the final conference.  But this is Trump,  a coward at heart. He can't take any level of pushback at all, but always believes he's entitled to "punch back", especially when confronted by powerful women - say like Nancy Pelosi.  Thus, his recent puerile remarks to a reporter about her teeth, i.e. that "because Nancy's teeth were falling out of her mouth, and she didn't have time to think!"

That was after Pelosi was seen answering the reporter's question, then moved her mouth slightly and took a sip of water. But her teeth did not appear out of place and her speech was not interrupted.  But see this is the nature of Trump,  who despite being 73 years of age chronologically is barely 13 mentally.  So his behavior and words match,  often resorting to jabs about people's appearance.   One of the most outrageous episodes is when he mocked a disabled reporter, and Rep. Maxine Waters was compelled to bring the image to the House to convince the gathered Reeps who even then believed their golden (errr....orange) boy could do no wrong.


 Thus, strong women, disabled reporters, and legions of the defenseless have all become Trump targets because the arguably most powerful man on Earth is the psychological equivalent of a 13 year old with a perpetual chip on his  shoulder.  That chip flies off at the slightest hint of challenge, or if Trump sizes up an individual as ripe for twitter predation out of some imagined transgression.

By contrast,  Greta Thunberg-  like the majority of girls growing up in the digital age  -   has been cyberbullied before .  By Trump himself, who, after her celebrated speech before the UN General Assembly 2 months ago, sarcastically tweeted, “She seems like a very happy young girl looking forward to a bright and wonderful future. So nice to see!”

Both times Trump has tweeted about her, Thunberg’s responses have been jocular, and sarcastic in kind. This week, she changed her Twitter bio to: “A teenager working on her anger management problem. Currently chilling and watching a good old fashioned movie with a friend.”

In her handling of being cyberbullied by the president of the United States, at age 16, Thunberg has become an inspiration for girls two times over – first as a climate activist, then as a social media ninja.

But that doesn’t mean that Trump’s cyberbullying of Thunberg is any less despicable, or dangerous. What it says to girls all over the world is: no matter what you do, no matter how much you achieve, powerful bullies with XY chromosomes can and will try to cut you down.  But the funniest aspect is how the deranged Trumpie nitwits have tried to redeem the loss of the TIME cover prestige by photo-shopping Trump's visage on Greta's.  Hey maybe Trump aspires to having XX chromosomes

While we may howl with derisive laughter at this pathetic move,  the underlying message is depressing and not without potentially dire consequences. It’s a message that has contributed to a precipitous rise in the suicide rate among girls, in efforts to diminish girls' own identities. This has contributed to rising anxiety and depression among girls and young women, not just in the U.S. but the UK. It’s a message that Trump’s wife, Melania, is supposed to be combatting, with her "Be Best"  campaign against cyberbullying.  But it's too bad her bullying scrutiny is too limited, failing to target the biggest bully of all: Trump. 

Nonetheless, Melania, recall, whined about son Barron being singled out by Prof.  Pamela Karlan  during the House Judiciary hearings.  Joy Reid on her MSNBC show Saturday morning put things in perspective:

"Keep in mind this kind of cyberbullying is exactly the kind  that Melania Trump is supposed to be against. Remember the outrage over the mere mention of her son Barron's name during the impeachment hearing? Well, the White House says this is totally different though because her son is not an activist'."

But this is more disingenuous,  false equivalence. Prof. Karlan did not single out Barron for personal attack only mere nominal mention to point out the limits of Trump's aspirations to monarchy.  Thus,while Trump can name his son "Barron" he can't appoint him as a Baron.  Big deal    It was a perfect pun-type illustration to clarify the limits of the presidency. Trumpie crybabies need to get over it.  There is no negative aspect there, though it's doubtful Trump's dumb base can see it.

But leave it to them to come up with the specious argument that even  a pun-wise bare mention of the first son's name is verboten, given he's not an "activist".  But it's ok to mock and take sarcastic shots at a teen girl who does something besides play video games all day long, act as an "influencer" for goofy junk products, or keep the nose buried in tiny screens. 

Greta is at least  trying to get fellow humans to get off their butts and work to preserve the planet for future generations.

Meanwhile, Trump lavished his praise on fellow turncoat, House Dem Jeff Van Drew - who announced he plans to vote against impeachment and cross over to join the bad guys, i.e. Repukes. This after Trump "personally wooed him" according to a CBS News report this morning.  So yet another POS out to show he lacks any moral compass as he joins the most lawless political party in U.S. history.   

See also:

Amy Goodman and Denis Moynihan

Education Policy | Energy Policy

The Kids Know Another World Is Possible

And:

• 73-year-old Trump bullies 16-year-old Thunberg on Twitter. She once again makes a fool of him 

And:

Donald Trump

MSNBC Guest Explains Why Trump’s Disgraceful Attack on Nancy Pelosi Backfired

When Their Homes & Farms Are Foreclosed Will Trump's Zombies Still Stick With Him?

"Doh! Trade wars are great!  Ya can always win!"  

That question must be asked after hearing a South Carolina political commentator tell Joy Reid (AM Joy) Sunday morning that as far as Trump's base is concerned - "Yes he could stand on Fifth Avenue and fire point blank at somebody's head, and they'd stick with him".  As Joy's mouth began to drop open, he quickly added: "They'd just say that he had it coming!"

Wow! So following that logic, and turning it around, it also means these imps and misfits (otherwise called deplorables or "the lower half of the IQ curve"  e.g.

Would also accept any amount of economic pain and sacrifice, say emanating from Trump's tariff and other policies, to stay behind the Dotard?  Inquiring minds must ask given all the ways things are going south for the Trump base and those associated with it. This includes farmers in 'flyover country', and the many millions of ordinary Donnie boosters now realizing they've been had by the Con man- in- chief .  This is after seeing their expected tax refunds morph into huge tax hits, like one elderly couple reported in the WSJ  10 days ago who expected a $2,000 refund but instead ended up paying that amount to the IRS.

In the meantime we've seen headlines (in the WSJ) like the following: 

'Trade Deficit In Goods Hits Record'  (March 5, p. A1)

'Federal Budget Deficit Jumps 77 %'  (March 6,  p. A2)

 And we're not even including  the dozens of local papers across flyover country that are replete with tales of woe regarding value destruction and lost income from Trump's trade wars.  We can debate from now until doomsday the definition of "trade war" but the fact is that Trump's tariffs are already costing millions millions. And hurting tens of thousands of his devotees.   

How bad is it really? According to a WSJ piece last Wednesday:

U.S. Posts Record Annual Trade Deficit - WSJ

"The U.S. trade deficit hit a record in 2018 defying President Trump's efforts to narrow that gap as imports jumped and some exports - including soybeans and other farm products - got hammered by retaliation against U.S. trade policies."

Showing again that despite Dotard's delusions,  trade wars and tariffs have no winners.   Recall Trump imposed tariffs on some $300 billion worth of goods the U.S. imports from other countries (especially China) in the hopes of giving U.S. producers an edge.  It was a dumb cluck move bound to fail and bigly - given it supposed the tariff or boycott backlash would be acceptable.

It wasn't. Ask the farmers in flyover land. Trump's "genius" move didn't do squat to the Chinese who simply started buying loads of soybeans from Brazil.  The move "forced U.S. farmers who had been holding on to their soybeans in hopes of better prices to sell at a loss." (WSJ, ibid.)

One Minnesota soybean farmer interviewed in the piece, who plants arojnd 2,000 acres, said:

"It's really tough. There's a lot of farms going bankrupt now."

Then why did you midwestern farm guys hitch your wagons to a loser and con man like Trump?

As for the exploding trade deficit, you could bet on the Wall Street Journal's editors glossing over the issues and spinning like there's no tomorrow ('Trade Deficit Freak Out', March 7, p. A16) snarkily asking "Where's the valium?" and then claiming for the benefit of the FOX zombots:     

  "The rising gap is the result of faster growth, there's no need to panic."

A pity these editors never read the material from their own stable of contributors - the very small stable, to be sure  - of actually competent writers, columnists. Such as Greg Ip who admirably explained the basis of huge trade deficits last June.  Indeed, Mr. Ip  answered the question of why the US. itself consistently runs large trade deficits:

"Because it consumes more than it produces while its trading partners collectively do the opposite.. Another way of saying this is that the U.S. invests more than it saves while other countries save more than they invest."

 In other words it has nada to do with growth - fast or slow.  Growth implies expansion of GDP, more than 70 percent of which is dependent on consumption - i.e. blowing money not saving it. (To be fair, as blogger Dean Baker notes - see link at bottom  -it is conceivable some element of "growth" factored into the trade deficits.  I.e. Trump's tax cuts put more $ into worker's pockets and they promptly went out to spend it on cheap foreign -made crap, like Chinese umbrellas. Or the ever popular 'Kung Fu fighting robots'.)

The trick, by Ip's account, is for Americans to invest less, and save more.  (Note: investing, i.e. in the stock market,  isn't saving, which ought not need explaining!) If then average people-  even Trumpies - saved more, they'd be able to afford higher end U.S. goods if they wanted them, as opposed to buying cheaper Chinese, or Japanese electronics or cars.  The trade gap is being generated because the cheaper foreign goods are more popular because of the economics.    This is not rocket science or Mensa admission test criteria. 

Let's break it down so even a Trumpie could grasp it:

More cheap goods =  more items bought, i.e. from the Chinese, so the Chinese run up a trade surplus.   

Trump, senseless buffoon that he is, can't seem to appreciate that lower income Americans (i.e. mainly the Trump base) benefit from competitively priced Chinese electronics, or cheaper Mexican produce, or cheaper Japanese cars and Canadian steel.

So why are tariffs bad then? Because they are a tax on imports which ultimately turn out to be a tax on citizens, especially dinging those with low incomes.  By way of example, say an American retailer purchases 100 umbrellas from China for $5 each.   The U.S. tariff rate is 6.5 % on each one.  Then the retailer would have to pay a total of:

(100) x (0.065) x $5   =   $32.50 

Or the tariff the retailer would then have to pay on the shipment.   This raises the total price for the retailer to:   (100) x $5   +   $32.50  =   $532.50,

Some of which will be passed on to customers since the higher tariff amount would be unsustainable for the retailer to 'eat' over time. The same sort of calculations apply to electronics good, cars, or other import goods.

 It seems kind of dumb to enact a tax cut, then to clobber your people with a tax increase, no? (Mind you,the tax cut for most of Trump's base was incrementally adjusted to show up in each pay check, perhaps $10 every two weeks. Then time came to complete taxes they were clobbered by getting no refunds because they didn't adjust withholding!)  

As if all this trade and tariff  deficit insanity wasn't enough, Donnie Dotard now believes he can sneak through a $4.7 trillion budget which includes a mammoth $845 m cut to Medicare- something the Liar -in- Chief promised never to touch in his 2016 campaign.  Many worry-  and they are correct- this fungal, humanoid  rat will try another federal shutdown if he doesn't get his way.  All I can say is, given what we've seen earlier from this 72 year old toddler, folks better get ready for it.    

See also:

Economic Policy

The Yuge Republican Lie about the Deficit

by Robert Reich | March 13, 2019 - 6:23am | permalink

Excerpt:

"The biggest reason America has the highest deficit relative to our total economy among all 35 advanced economies is because of a shortage of tax revenue. Of all these countries, we’re bringing in the fifth-lowest total revenue as a share of GDP. And why is that? Mainly because of Republican tax cuts on corporations and the wealthy. The big Trump Republican tax cut is already breaking the bank. It will cost us 1.9 trillion dollars over the next decade. Let me repeat that: 1.9 trillion dollars.

Remember, Trump and Republicans in Congress claimed that their tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations would pay for themselves by boosting economic growth. It’s the same trickle-down fairy tale they’ve been telling for decades."

And:

Trade

Donald Trump Deserves an “F” on Trade

by Dean Baker | March 12, 2019 - 5:45am | permalink

— from Truthout

Excerpt:

"The sharp rise in the trade deficit in the last decade had a devastating impact on manufacturing workers and whole communities in large parts of the Northeast and the Midwest. We can’t hope to reverse this damage, as those jobs will not come back.

However, we could design a trade policy that would move us toward more balanced trade and create millions of relatively good-paying manufacturing jobs. Unfortunately, Trump’s policy seems to be going in the opposite direction."

And:

Terry Schwadron

Article Tools E-mail | Print Comments (0)

Donald Trump | Economic Policy

Is President Trump’s Economy Floundering?

by Terry Schwadron | March 11

Pelosi Merits Kudos For Teaching Man Baby Dotard About Article I Powers Re: State Of Union Speech

"The people in this country are now getting a forced lesson on the Article I branch of the Constitution - for which Nancy Pelosi is putting on a clinic. She's wielding her power so thoroughly and efficiently as well as publicly that we normally don't see women do. She's not doing it in the usual demure way women do. And we're so used to weak speakers, we're just not used to it.  So Donald Trump is getting this lesson along with the rest of the country, because he knows nothing about the Constitution. 

So for the first time, his infliction of pain on people, his lack of empathy for people is coming  up against another power trying to stop him.  The tragedy is the other half of the Article I power is  apparently just as callous as Donald Trump. I see no more  concern or compassion in Mitch McConnell than I see in Trump."  - Joy Reid, on All In last night.

"The result of this is that the obscuring fog of both-sidesism lying atop this whole situation has been dissipated. What has been laid bare, instead, is a simple reality: Democrats actually do control one chamber of Congress, after having won a major electoral victory, and that actually does give them some veto power over Trump’s conduct and agenda.  Pundits can claim all they want that Pelosi is being “as petty as Trump,” as if this is all just a matter of interpersonal conduct. That objection is now irrelevant: What really matters is that Trump will not deliver the speech. He will not use this ceremony as a platform to browbeat Democrats or to spread gales of disinformation about the shutdown and about the wall fantasies driving it." Greg Sargent -'There Is Only Way To Break Trump's Pathology, Pelosi Has Found It'. Washington Post today

It was the stuff of political high drama as the bombastic con man and criminal in the White House actually dared the Speaker of the House - Nancy Pelosi- to stop him from giving the State of the Union next Tuesday. Well, Dotard met his match and more when Nancy replied after  Trump wrote:.

“I will be honoring your invitation, and fulfilling my Constitutional duty, to deliver important information to the people and Congress of the United States of America regarding the State of our Union,. I look forward to seeing you on the evening on January 29th in the Chamber of the House of Representatives.”

Trump, as uninformed on the Constitution as he is everything else, actually believed HE could just sashay into the House and deliver his spiel of lies and braggadocio.  Further he was challenging Pelosi to stop him.  He bluffed like the con man he is (as with all his phony real estate deals) but Nancy called him on it, writing:

“I am writing to inform you that the House of Representatives will not consider a concurrent resolution authorizing the President’s State of the Union address in the House Chamber until government has opened.”

The message was clear as day: She was informing Donnie Dotard there's a new Sheriff in town and she isn't taking any more shit from him, or his sycophants and disciples.  Meanwhile,  the hedge fund-owned, corporate mainstream media (in their cartoons) can make all the fun of her they want,  e.g.  

But contrary to their Neoliberal ignorance and skewed perceptions, it is actually Pelosi who is now the adult in the room, showing the sentient part of the nation (not including these imbecilic  cartoonists with heads up their asses) that the First Brat will not be unilaterally appeased, or accommodated anymore just because he pitches a hissy fit or bawls about "unfairness".   In other words, checks and balances have at last returned after a 2-year hiatus dominated by Repuke enabling.  That these cartoonists don't grasp that discloses they're really zombie dolts playing into the  Swine-in -chief's hands as his putative bitches.

Janice's take is basically the same as mine but with some added snark, e.g.

"The male cartoonists are just male chauvinist pigs and misogynists like Trump,  terrified of strong, intelligent women leaders. The female cartoonists mocking her- if any- are just slaves to their male captors,  suffering from Stockholm syndrome. They lack brains and courage and ought to be looking up to Nancy as an inspiration instead of playing into the hands of their corporate male bosses!"

 Ouch!

Not long after Ms. Pelosi's missive, Trump conceded the whole charade, saying he would use an “alternative" method of delivering his address and that it wouldn’t be in the Capitol. In a word, He caved and admitted his bluff got called - big time.  But instead of manning up he reverted to his two year old diaper -soiling self, bawling out:

“The State of the Union has been cancelled by Nancy Pelosi, because she doesn’t want to hear the truth," 

Actually, Dotard, she didn't want to hear your shit-faced lies on a grand public stage and was reminding you who else has power in the Beltway now.   And again, there's that education aspect that too many media pundits and scribes (as well as brain -dead cartoonists)  forget when they blab about "both sides" tossing tantrums or draw cartoons mocking Pelosi..  The past two years'  exposure to the brat- in- chief  &  Twitter Troll has doubtless taken its toll on most citizens' minds and emotions, I admit.   But that's no reason for the rest of us to cede ground to the Trumpers or to forget  that Nancy is the now the strict mom prepared to call 'time out' on the orange- hued man baby.  And even deliver the occasional lash or two on the backside,  if needed.  Besides she has every right.

Legally speaking, Trump has no right whatsoever to deliver the SOTU in the House chamber. The Constitution only stipulates that a president must provide an update on the state of the country. This used to be done in writing.  This was also an option Pelosi helpfully suggested in her letter to Trump last week, though she had to know that apart from signing his scrawling name he doesn't know how to write. Hell, he can't read.

 It is true that Congress can provide the venue and has for more than 100 years, but it is not a gimme. It must be done through a joint resolution. 

Basically, Pelosi made Trump eat shit...errrr...humble pie. She  has also shown she has steel cojones and won’t back down from a fight.  In other words, she's shown what a strong female leader can do,  especially one who isn't prepared to kowtow to male fantasies of domination.

 We look forward to many more of Nancy's showdowns with Trump  and his getting his fat orange heinie handed to him . At least until we get rid of him permanently-  probably in the 2020 election.

See also:

Donald Trump

Trump’s Approval Rating Is Tanking as His Futile Shutdown Scheme Backfires

And:

Donald Trump

Trump Voter: "What the Fuck Were We Thinking?"