Not again (yes, again, and again, and...)

Not again (yes, again, and again, and...)
One more time--5:30 or so (man did I get that name right.) Perusing facebook after trying to deal with several problems that I couldn't just roll over and forget about, I found the following:

Regarding Trump the sociopath, Marie Doug provided the following reference on a Jackson Bowman page.

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2016/07/trump-and-sociopathy/491966/

Marie Doug: Donald Trump is a Brooklyn kid and very New York. If you’ve never lived/loved New Yorkers, you are not likely to recognize the big, bold persona... 
Trump’s not a sociopath, in any case... although if ppl only read hostile media about him, they will get wild ideas about him...

Me: Marie Doug, No, but thanks for the reference. Will read it later--seems things always happen on Sunday mornings around here. Cat is meowing, dog can't seem to have a movement or take a leak, one of the various smoke detectors seems to want attention--do you suppose a few angels were reading Job and decided to try again? With me and my life, and maybe more. Maybe if they got together and came up with a way to get those silly humans to start lobbing nuclear bombs at each other they could have a few eons of peace while the earth returned to pre-human existence and began, via evolution, to come up with some other top predator species. Well, I certainly don't know about that, but, Sunday morning or no, I will have to do something about that damn smoke detector, the cat, and, of course, my poor dog. S**t ! And, yes, I've lived with a few New Yorkers, while in the military inTurkey, and you are right. They can be trying. But they also can be thoughtful and fun to be around. Trump, though? Hope God gets wind of those angels before, as "they" say, all hell breaks loose.

Gotta get some sleep. Jennie watching “In Touch.” Maybe that might help

Politics, politics, don’t we all love politics.

My wife is, on occasion, an active Facebooker.  She also is currently being barraged (as are we all) by the current crop of political wannabes and “their” PAC’s and she has developed (as have we all) a certain amount of opinion from the experience.  Not too very long ago she decided she is not a “Republican,” nor is she a “Democrat.”  Nor is she (as am I) an “Independent.”  It seems she has done a good bit of reading about the “Libertarians,” probably due to my Cousin Joe’s posts, and that, so she says, fits her to a Tee. 

Fine.  Who knows, with the current selectees-apparent of the two “major” “parties, I could find myself on board with her too. 

By current “selectees,” I am counting on the opinions of the two so-called “leading” candidates, i.e., T. rump for the Reps and Hillary (Good Wife) for the Dems.  I guess one might ask why I have negative feelings about both these sterling candidates.  Well, no particular reasons—other than, perhaps, the following:

Let’s start with GW Hillary.  In spite of her long list of political qualifications, some of which the Reps may point out as being as much a negative as a positive for her, I just can’t understand why, in a country of 300 million people, anyone would think we would need not one, but two “Clinton” Presidencies.  The first “Clinton” Presidency will best be remembered by the phrase “I did not have sex with that woman!”  Now, the current Clinton candidacy  gives us: "I did not email any classified material to anyone on my email."  Why, oh why, would anyone want to bring that kind of “stuff” back to our oval office?  Who do you suppose might be invited to inspect the underside of our Presidential desk the next time we might invite a “Clinton” to occupy it?  Is there not a single person in the 200,000,000 (a WAG) or so eligible Americans who might be able to do as good a job as she?  I suspect there is at least one other—maybe a few thousand—who might do as good a job.  Maybe even T. rump (then maybe not.)  The Reps agreed we did not need another “Bush.”  What is taking the Dems so long to come to a similar decision?  We need a President—not a “Good Wife.”

Now—as to T. rump—you may have noticed how I have taken the liberty of slightly modifying The Donald’s last name to fit my own nefarious purposes.  In his own way, he is sort of a Tyrannosaurus, is he not?  He tried to eat a couple of lovely Ms’s early in the campaign, alienating quite a few of their sisters.  He tried to eat one of our two closest neighbors, wanting them to build a fence (“and they will pay for it.”)  He’s trying to eat quite a few of us when he singled out a religion for his Islamiphobic purposes, un-American though that may be.  The only question is: Who or what will he be setting his sights on next?  Is this presidential behavior?  Well, while it might be appropriate for the “Boss,” it is not and never will be “Presidential” behavior.  (My thoughts, “T. rump, ‘you’re fired!’”)

Candidates:  Zero for two so far.  How about those “Libertarians?”  My choice would have been Dr. Joseph G. Buchman.    Since, for some reason they selected a guy who’s already been dismissed by the voting public once, I’ll have to do some serious thinking here.  Dr. Buchman’s recommendation will probably carry the day, in this case, mainly because I happen to know just a bit about him (the good Ph.D.,) and he is one good judge of character.   And, as for that “Boss” business, if you want an interesting take on it, one you might have heard before, but one that seems to apply, you might go to: http://stephenvgeddes.blogspot.com/2012/12/oldie-but-goodie-what-it-takes-to-be.html .