Video Updates from Stable Genius Fest 2019

[sonatine]

It may not be dementia, though. It could just be cognitive lapses, which start to come more often with age.

Vin Scully, for example, was super-sharp and made about zero mistakes throughout most of his career, but in his final 15 years or so announcing for the Dodgers, he started to make an increasing number of mistakes, such as identifying players by their father's names (who also played baseball at one point).

That didn't mean Scully had dementia, and in fact he's still sharp today at age 91.

It just means he wasn't as sharp at age 70 as he was at age 50.

This, along with the stamina issue, is why it also starts to get so hard to play poker well after age 70. It's more common to commit too many mental lapses and get confused too easily, even if overall you are still sharp and self-sufficient in normal life.

Is it possible Trump is suffering from some major mental deterioration?

Yes.

But it's also very possible this is being exaggerated by his critics. There's a constant spotlight on him, and even sharp young people will make mistakes at times.

It definitely happened to Reagan starting around 1986, and by the time he died, he didn't even remember he was President.

That's the danger of electing older people as President.

Keep in mind that Joe Biden will be 78 a few weeks after election day, and Bernie Sanders will already be 79.

arguably the biggest downside to the lefts and msm's timbre/tone is that it tends to water down the opinions of professionals breaking ranks to call out what they see as profound issues with trump's mental state. of which there have been an unprecedented number.

[Daly]

It may not be dementia, though. It could just be cognitive lapses, which start to come more often with age.

Vin Scully, for example, was super-sharp and made about zero mistakes throughout most of his career, but in his final 15 years or so announcing for the Dodgers, he started to make an increasing number of mistakes, such as identifying players by their father's names (who also played baseball at one point).

That didn't mean Scully had dementia, and in fact he's still sharp today at age 91.

It just means he wasn't as sharp at age 70 as he was at age 50.

This, along with the stamina issue, is why it also starts to get so hard to play poker well after age 70. It's more common to commit too many mental lapses and get confused too easily, even if overall you are still sharp and self-sufficient in normal life.

Is it possible Trump is suffering from some major mental deterioration?

Yes.

But it's also very possible this is being exaggerated by his critics. There's a constant spotlight on him, and even sharp young people will make mistakes at times.

It definitely happened to Reagan starting around 1986, and by the time he died, he didn't even remember he was President.

That's the danger of electing older people as President.

Keep in mind that Joe Biden will be 78 a few weeks after election day, and Bernie Sanders will already be 79.

arguably the biggest downside to the lefts and msm's timbre/tone is that it tends to water down the opinions of professionals breaking ranks to call out what they see as profound issues with trump's mental state. of which there have been an unprecedented number.

Has profound issues with his mental state. Still better President than Hillary.

Mental state may get worse. TBD if worse candidate then the left puts forward. 50/50 at this point. Id take a proxy Govt led by handlers over Warren for sure.

[sonatine]

Salty_Aus: Rudy hiding in Tine's rolls of fat


lol yeah where the fuck did he slither off to?

[Salty_Aus]

Salty_Aus: Rudy hiding in Tine's rolls of fat


lol yeah where the fuck did he slither off to?

He didn't slither off, he simply relocated from under your bodacious man breasts, and now resides in your ample butt cheeks.

[Dan Druff]

The problem these days -- and I've said this in another thread -- is that you're basically voting for the party, and not the individual.

Truthfully, I hated Hillary the individual more than Trump the individual, but I liked neither.

There are Democratic candidates whom I like better on a personal level than I do Trump, but I disagree with their politics so sharply that I'd be completely going against my own beliefs to vote for them.

The far-left is in the process of hijacking the Democratic Party -- or at least they're putting intense pressure on the mainstream Democrats to cave to their demands. Therefore, even a moderate Democrat elected to the Presidency will be pushing all kinds of leftist policies I strongly disagree with.

So if it comes to choosing Trump, who is an unethical asshole but is going to push mostly for agendas I believe in, versus a more likable Democrat, who will push for exactly the opposite of what I want, obviously I have to choose Trump.

And to be honest, for all of the rhetoric of Trump's extreme military 4th of July program, it turned out to be mostly leftist screeching, as the actual program was quite mild and not particularly controversial.

It's also kind of bullshit to draw conclusions from the small crowd showing up, because the weather really was dreadful.

The left is very contradictory that way. They love to try to make it look like Trump has no supporters and his rallies are empty, yet they also claim that Trump is bamboozling large portions of the US population. They also waver back and forth between claims that he's a master manipulator and that he's a clueless moron. Which one is it?

[gimmick]

The left is very contradictory that way. They love to try to make it look like Trump has no supporters and his rallies are empty, yet they also claim that Trump is bamboozling large portions of the US population. They also waver back and forth between claims that he's a master manipulator and that he's a clueless moron. Which one is it?

He's good at grifting. That's what he has done all his life. He's good at getting what he wants from people that don't know better. That's something elected populists tend to be good at. The getting elected part, not so much the actual governing.

The moron part comes from that. Or that he believes any of his resume carries to politics at any level. He's just outmatched when pitted against mediocre politicians. The poker equivalent comes from getting the most from fishes and then handing it over to better pros. The games are dry at the national and especially at the international level. He gets played all the time.

From his past we can say he was good at getting funding, but really sucked at running businesses. Intentionally or otherwise doesn't really matter. Investors got shafted and he moved on to the next project. Usually he got payed the way he set these things. He was good at selling the idea, that when he wins, the investors win. But he only ran schemes where his interests were opposite to investors.

[MumblesBadly]

The problem these days -- and I've said this in another thread -- is that you're basically voting for the party, and not the individual.

Truthfully, I hated Hillary the individual more than Trump the individual, but I liked neither.

There are Democratic candidates whom I like better on a personal level than I do Trump, but I disagree with their politics so sharply that I'd be completely going against my own beliefs to vote for them.

The far-left is in the process of hijacking the Democratic Party -- or at least they're putting intense pressure on the mainstream Democrats to cave to their demands. Therefore, even a moderate Democrat elected to the Presidency will be pushing all kinds of leftist policies I strongly disagree with.

So if it comes to choosing Trump, who is an unethical asshole but is going to push mostly for agendas I believe in, versus a more likable Democrat, who will push for exactly the opposite of what I want, obviously I have to choose Trump.

And to be honest, for all of the rhetoric of Trump's extreme military 4th of July program, it turned out to be mostly leftist screeching, as the actual program was quite mild and not particularly controversial.

It's also kind of bullshit to draw conclusions from the small crowd showing up, because the weather really was dreadful.

The left is very contradictory that way. They love to try to make it look like Trump has no supporters and his rallies are empty, yet they also claim that Trump is bamboozling large portions of the US population. They also waver back and forth between claims that he's a master manipulator and that he's a clueless moron. Which one is it?

What about Trump’s alleged incidents of criminal obstruction of justice detailed in the Mueller report? Even if insufficient evidence to prosecute Trump on related crimes was forthcoming in that investigation, Trump did behave like mob boss trying to use his power to criminally obstruct fact-finding by the FBI and the special prosecutor, which was not entirely effective given the large number of criminal indictments that were leveled against his lackeys and affiliated parties. I’m guessing that if a Democratic president were the alleged perp of such obstructions, you’d be screaming bloody murder and calling for impeachment. Comment?

[sah_24]

The problem these days -- and I've said this in another thread -- is that you're basically voting for the party, and not the individual.

Truthfully, I hated Hillary the individual more than Trump the individual, but I liked neither.

There are Democratic candidates whom I like better on a personal level than I do Trump, but I disagree with their politics so sharply that I'd be completely going against my own beliefs to vote for them.

The far-left is in the process of hijacking the Democratic Party -- or at least they're putting intense pressure on the mainstream Democrats to cave to their demands. Therefore, even a moderate Democrat elected to the Presidency will be pushing all kinds of leftist policies I strongly disagree with.

So if it comes to choosing Trump, who is an unethical asshole but is going to push mostly for agendas I believe in, versus a more likable Democrat, who will push for exactly the opposite of what I want, obviously I have to choose Trump.

And to be honest, for all of the rhetoric of Trump's extreme military 4th of July program, it turned out to be mostly leftist screeching, as the actual program was quite mild and not particularly controversial.

It's also kind of bullshit to draw conclusions from the small crowd showing up, because the weather really was dreadful.

The left is very contradictory that way. They love to try to make it look like Trump has no supporters and his rallies are empty, yet they also claim that Trump is bamboozling large portions of the US population. They also waver back and forth between claims that he's a master manipulator and that he's a clueless moron. Which one is it?

The crowd wasn't small ... as the pics show lol … sonatine is a moron

[Dan Druff]

The left is very contradictory that way. They love to try to make it look like Trump has no supporters and his rallies are empty, yet they also claim that Trump is bamboozling large portions of the US population. They also waver back and forth between claims that he's a master manipulator and that he's a clueless moron. Which one is it?

He's good at grifting. That's what he has done all his life. He's good at getting what he wants from people that don't know better. That's something elected populists tend to be good at. The getting elected part, not so much the actual governing.

The moron part comes from that. Or that he believes any of his resume carries to politics at any level. He's just outmatched when pitted against mediocre politicians. The poker equivalent comes from getting the most from fishes and then handing it over to better pros. The games are dry at the national and especially at the international level. He gets played all the time.

From his past we can say he was good at getting funding, but really sucked at running businesses. Intentionally or otherwise doesn't really matter. Investors got shafted and he moved on to the next project. Usually he got payed the way he set these things. He was good at selling the idea, that when he wins, the investors win. But he only ran schemes where his interests were opposite to investors.

Someone who was good at campaigning and bad at actually governing was Obama. Great speaker, sounds logical on the surface, but when it came to getting anything done, he either failed or misunderstood the problem in the first place.

You claim that he's been outmatched by mediocre politicans, but I'm not seeing it. I actually think that his loose-cannon reputation prevents other countries from fucking with us to some degree, because they know Trump is going to show aggression if pushed.

If you want to look at this in the poker sense, it's the reason why it can tough to play a tournament against an opponent who always wrongly thinks he can push you off hands, because then you're stuck making critical decisions repeatedly with mediocre holdings. It's actually easier to play against someone who you know is only putting a ton of chips in if he really has something big, because then you can use well-timed aggression of your own to push him around, provided you don't do it too often.

There was a belief by other leaders in the past that our prior Presidents could be kicked around to some degree without much consequence, but nobody thinks that about Trump.

Remember the LOL situation with Obama, where he basically paid a $400 million ransom to Iran in order to get hostages back, making it clear that he was just paying off an old 1979 judgment against the US, and not paying ransom? And that the hostages were just released as a "courtesy" right after that? Remember what followed? Iran postured all over their national media that they totally owned the US, and that the US just paid them $400 million ransom for hostages. Obama looked like a compete gullible clown in that situation.

I couldn't see them pulling this shit with Trump. They were moments away from getting attacked for shooting down a fucking drone.

[Salty_Aus]

He's good at grifting. That's what he has done all his life. He's good at getting what he wants from people that don't know better. That's something elected populists tend to be good at. The getting elected part, not so much the actual governing.

The moron part comes from that. Or that he believes any of his resume carries to politics at any level. He's just outmatched when pitted against mediocre politicians. The poker equivalent comes from getting the most from fishes and then handing it over to better pros. The games are dry at the national and especially at the international level. He gets played all the time.

From his past we can say he was good at getting funding, but really sucked at running businesses. Intentionally or otherwise doesn't really matter. Investors got shafted and he moved on to the next project. Usually he got payed the way he set these things. He was good at selling the idea, that when he wins, the investors win. But he only ran schemes where his interests were opposite to investors.

Someone who was good at campaigning and bad at actually governing was Obama. Great speaker, sounds logical on the surface, but when it came to getting anything done, he either failed or misunderstood the problem in the first place.

You claim that he's been outmatched by mediocre politicans, but I'm not seeing it. I actually think that his loose-cannon reputation prevents other countries from fucking with us to some degree, because they know Trump is going to show aggression if pushed.

If you want to look at this in the poker sense, it's the reason why it can tough to play a tournament against an opponent who always wrongly thinks he can push you off hands, because then you're stuck making critical decisions repeatedly with mediocre holdings. It's actually easier to play against someone who you know is only putting a ton of chips in if he really has something big, because then you can use well-timed aggression of your own to push him around, provided you don't do it too often.

There was a belief by other leaders in the past that our prior Presidents could be kicked around to some degree without much consequence, but nobody thinks that about Trump.

Remember the LOL situation with Obama, where he basically paid a $400 million ransom to Iran in order to get hostages back, making it clear that he was just paying off an old 1979 judgment against the US, and not paying ransom? And that the hostages were just released as a "courtesy" right after that? Remember what followed? Iran postured all over their national media that they totally owned the US, and that the US just paid them $400 million ransom for hostages. Obama looked like a compete gullible clown in that situation.

I couldn't see them pulling this shit with Trump. They were moments away from getting attacked for shooting down a fucking drone.

Guy couldn't even recognise Rudy Gulliani, somebody he knows extremely well. He was sitting right in front of him.

You make some good points Druff but he's simply not fit for the job.

[Salty_Aus]

I don't dislike Trump. I do think he's a textbook narcissist though, but hes entertaining and Hillary is an evil cunt, I'm pleased he beat her.
I like Bernie on a personal level, but feel he would be a terrible president. Lot of low hanging fruit on the left!
Seriously though, he's not up to the job. His cognitive decline is indicative of Alzheimer's disease.

Reckon the shit-storm is just going to get worse, the entire world knows what's going on already, and they will exploit it... especially folks like the Russians and Chinese.

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

"President Donald Trump said the UK's ambassador to the United States "has not served the UK well," after the ambassador called Trump "inept" and "incompetent" in leaked diplomatic cables.
Cables sent from the ambassador, Kim Darroch, back to London describe Trump as "inept," "insecure" and "incompetent," a UK government official confirmed to CNN.
When asked for his reaction to Darroch's comments, Trump told reporters, "No I haven't seen it, but, you know, we've had our little ins and outs with a couple of countries and I would say that the UK, and the ambassador has not served the UK well, I can tell you that.

We're not big fans of that man and he has not served the UK well, so I can understand it," Trump said. "And I can say things about him but I won't bother."
In secret cables and briefing notes, Darroch warned the UK government that Trump's "career could end in disgrace," and described conflicts within the White House as "knife fights," according to the Daily Mail.
A UK government source tells CNN the memos described in the Daily Mail story, which span the period between 2017 to present day, are genuine."

[blake]

He's good at grifting. That's what he has done all his life. He's good at getting what he wants from people that don't know better. That's something elected populists tend to be good at. The getting elected part, not so much the actual governing.

The moron part comes from that. Or that he believes any of his resume carries to politics at any level. He's just outmatched when pitted against mediocre politicians. The poker equivalent comes from getting the most from fishes and then handing it over to better pros. The games are dry at the national and especially at the international level. He gets played all the time.

From his past we can say he was good at getting funding, but really sucked at running businesses. Intentionally or otherwise doesn't really matter. Investors got shafted and he moved on to the next project. Usually he got payed the way he set these things. He was good at selling the idea, that when he wins, the investors win. But he only ran schemes where his interests were opposite to investors.

Someone who was good at campaigning and bad at actually governing was Obama. Great speaker, sounds logical on the surface, but when it came to getting anything done, he either failed or misunderstood the problem in the first place.

You claim that he's been outmatched by mediocre politicans, but I'm not seeing it. I actually think that his loose-cannon reputation prevents other countries from fucking with us to some degree, because they know Trump is going to show aggression if pushed.

If you want to look at this in the poker sense, it's the reason why it can tough to play a tournament against an opponent who always wrongly thinks he can push you off hands, because then you're stuck making critical decisions repeatedly with mediocre holdings. It's actually easier to play against someone who you know is only putting a ton of chips in if he really has something big, because then you can use well-timed aggression of your own to push him around, provided you don't do it too often.

There was a belief by other leaders in the past that our prior Presidents could be kicked around to some degree without much consequence, but nobody thinks that about Trump.

Remember the LOL situation with Obama, where he basically paid a $400 million ransom to Iran in order to get hostages back, making it clear that he was just paying off an old 1979 judgment against the US, and not paying ransom? And that the hostages were just released as a "courtesy" right after that? Remember what followed? Iran postured all over their national media that they totally owned the US, and that the US just paid them $400 million ransom for hostages. Obama looked like a compete gullible clown in that situation.

I couldn't see them pulling this shit with Trump. They were moments away from getting attacked for shooting down a fucking drone.

i'm not sure this is actually playing out this way. iran isn't scared at all of us, and other leaders realize that if they want to get in our good graces, they just need to praise trump ala kim jong un or putin.

he threatens china, but have any of the proposed tariffs gone into effect yet, or did the chinese end up telling him he smells nice so trump called them off?

[gimmick]

He's good at grifting. That's what he has done all his life. He's good at getting what he wants from people that don't know better. That's something elected populists tend to be good at. The getting elected part, not so much the actual governing.

The moron part comes from that. Or that he believes any of his resume carries to politics at any level. He's just outmatched when pitted against mediocre politicians. The poker equivalent comes from getting the most from fishes and then handing it over to better pros. The games are dry at the national and especially at the international level. He gets played all the time.

From his past we can say he was good at getting funding, but really sucked at running businesses. Intentionally or otherwise doesn't really matter. Investors got shafted and he moved on to the next project. Usually he got payed the way he set these things. He was good at selling the idea, that when he wins, the investors win. But he only ran schemes where his interests were opposite to investors.

Someone who was good at campaigning and bad at actually governing was Obama. Great speaker, sounds logical on the surface, but when it came to getting anything done, he either failed or misunderstood the problem in the first place.

You claim that he's been outmatched by mediocre politicans, but I'm not seeing it. I actually think that his loose-cannon reputation prevents other countries from fucking with us to some degree, because they know Trump is going to show aggression if pushed.

If you want to look at this in the poker sense, it's the reason why it can tough to play a tournament against an opponent who always wrongly thinks he can push you off hands, because then you're stuck making critical decisions repeatedly with mediocre holdings. It's actually easier to play against someone who you know is only putting a ton of chips in if he really has something big, because then you can use well-timed aggression of your own to push him around, provided you don't do it too often.

There was a belief by other leaders in the past that our prior Presidents could be kicked around to some degree without much consequence, but nobody thinks that about Trump.

Remember the LOL situation with Obama, where he basically paid a $400 million ransom to Iran in order to get hostages back, making it clear that he was just paying off an old 1979 judgment against the US, and not paying ransom? And that the hostages were just released as a "courtesy" right after that? Remember what followed? Iran postured all over their national media that they totally owned the US, and that the US just paid them $400 million ransom for hostages. Obama looked like a compete gullible clown in that situation.

I couldn't see them pulling this shit with Trump. They were moments away from getting attacked for shooting down a fucking drone.

As Blake said before, others are adjusting how they deal with Trump. Trump does his fair share of posturing and likes to present every outcome as victory. Globally he has only lost so far. NK disarmament isn't going anywhere and Iran got another victory. You can debate if shooting down a drone is worse than 400 million, but it doesn't really matter.

And then you can say that defunding UN, leaving Paris accord and pissing of Nato are also victories, but i don't see it that way. But i can see selling those as victories would be easier to his base. I can only see them leading to America Last or America Never. How is becoming an outcast beneficial?

China trade thing is just stupid. They give you stuff and you give them paper that you print yourself. How are you ever getting a better deal and why would you want to get less stuff to begin with?

I don't really remember anything he has done domestically besides the tax cut and that was something most lobbies/donors from both sides wanted. I'd say getting Obamacare through was a tad bit harder.

[gimmick]

Oh and for gay poker equivalents global politics are more like a never ending limit ring game. Tight passive straightforward opponents are very nice to have, but you still make more money of loose aggressive tricky opponents. It does require adjusting and there's a ton more variance. Maniacs are though also closer to optimal in some tables where as rocks are (maybe) never.

[Salty_Aus]

Question for sahtard. How would you explain the stable genius looking left, then right, then left again. .. and asking where is Rudy?
It's not like he's hiding is it?... plus he's known Rudy for more years then you've been alive.
You cannot dismiss this as normal age related decline.
Those with altzeimers often can't recognise their own family. Furthermore this is NOT an early sign of altzeimers. Early signs are near impossible to detect, he is suffering from late stages.
Combined with his wandering off many times, other nonsensical things he has said, it's blatantly obvious.
Sometimes he has a certain look on his face and you know the lights are on but he's not home.

[duped_samaritan]

Remember the LOL situation with Obama, where he basically paid a $400 million ransom to Iran in order to get hostages back, making it clear that he was just paying off an old 1979 judgment against the US, and not paying ransom? And that the hostages were just released as a "courtesy" right after that? Remember what followed? Iran postured all over their national media that they totally owned the US, and that the US just paid them $400 million ransom for hostages. Obama looked like a compete gullible clown in that situation.

That was literally their money.

Iran released the American prisoners in exchange for us releasing some Iranian prisoners.

Claiming we just "gave them money" is just another false narrative pushed by the right. Almost identical to the whole "omg, Obama just gave Iran a plane full of cash as a gift" for the Iran Nuclear deal.

We were in the process of selling them a bunch of weapons during the hostage situation in the 70s. Ended up cancelling the deal and keeping their money for 40 years, along with freezing tons of accounts all around the world.

[DJ_Chaps]

Remember the LOL situation with Obama, where he basically paid a $400 million ransom to Iran in order to get hostages back, making it clear that he was just paying off an old 1979 judgment against the US, and not paying ransom? And that the hostages were just released as a "courtesy" right after that? Remember what followed? Iran postured all over their national media that they totally owned the US, and that the US just paid them $400 million ransom for hostages. Obama looked like a compete gullible clown in that situation.

That was literally their money.

Iran released the American prisoners in exchange for us releasing some Iranian prisoners.

Claiming we just "gave them money" is just another false narrative pushed by the right. Almost identical to the whole "omg, Obama just gave Iran a plane full of cash as a gift" for the Iran Nuclear deal.

We were in the process of selling them a bunch of weapons during the hostage situation in the 70s. Ended up cancelling the deal and keeping their money for 40 years, along with freezing tons of accounts all around the world.

where is jewdonk and that handicapped kid pic when you need him?