I don’t “need” to phanto.

<<Why do you need to tell us what you would do if you could?>>

Not everything everyone does is done out of a perceived need. The fact that you don’t realise this suggests that everything you do and say is done out of a perceived need, which is why your continuing presence here only makes you look more and more guilty.

<<So you do it too?>>

No, it’s only you. I didn’t mention myself in your quote of me.

<<But we already knew your attitude to women.>>

I would appreciate it if you didn’t project your shabby attitude towards women, characterised by a pre-occupation with feminists, on to me. Thank you.

<<You can go on insulting me as long as you like but it is never really going to satisfy your rage.>>

Who’s insulting? We’re merely discussing your dangerous sexual hang-ups, evident in your defensiveness. There is no rage on my behalf. Sounds like you’re engaging in a bit of transference again. Take a few deep breaths and relax a bit.

<<You will have to up the ante and become physically violent which you seem not to be far away from doing.>>

More transference. Settle down, phanto, or you are going to end up hurting someone. Given the rage you are displaying at the moment, I fear that you may have violent tendencies, and that it is only a matter of time before one of your sexual assaults ends in tragedy.

<<Just hurling insults makes you look a coward. You don’t have the guts to do anymore than that.>>

Transference again. Your level of rage here suggests a concerning tendency toward sexual violence and a taste for violent erotica.

Foxy,

"The man is emotionally and mentally unstable. We'll have to wait and see what provisions there are in the Constitution to deal with that problem."

There are no provisions in the constitution for Trump to be removed because lefties don't like him, or because he acts badly, and even if he were barking mad, he would have to be certified incapable, and be removed by a 60% majority in both the senate and congress. Similarly there is no requirement for conflict of interest or a release of taxes.

In other words. Buckle up, it's going to be at least a 4 year ride.

Shadow Minister:

That is why the Women's Marches were so pointless. Most of the rage was about personal criticism of Trump. It was aggressive, immature and petty.

There are genuine women's issues that may be threatened by the Trump administration but attacking him personally is not going to change anything. It needs a much more concerted and rational approach by cool heads. The way they approach the problem says more about those women than it does about women's issues.

Dear Shadow Minister,

The following link may be of interest:

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/01/presidential-psychiatrist-mental-health-congress-214597

By the way there's a great deal on the web that disagrees
with your take on President Trump. You should Google
at least some of it prior to posting.

Foxy,

There are lots of people that don't like Trump. I don't particularly either. But what you site is generally opinion and conjecture which in the real world carry no weight whereas much of what I post are verifiable facts which can relatively easily confirmed.

Your latest link recommends the use of a presidential psychiatrist due to perceived deficiencies in past presidents. However the Facts are:

- Trump is under no obligation to use or report the findings of a shrink.
- Removal of a president, whether by incapacity or criminal activity cannot be done just by the courts, and even a criminal conviction or psychiatrists certification would require a super majority to vote in both houses.
- Unlike Aus, and other US public and elected officials, POTUS is under no obligation wrt conflicts of interest, and the steps Trump has taken to cede control of his businesses to his family more than meets requirements.
- Similarly submission of tax returns is an electoral play and is not obligatory.

Short of Trump getting caught red handed committing a criminal offense or foaming at the mouth, the only chance to remove him would be at the ballot in 2020

AJ Phillips:

You wrote -

"I, for one, will be grabbing the first pussy that takes my fancy the next time I'm in the US, now that it has been endorsed to some extent.”

You claimed that you were not serious. How come it is serious when Trump says it but not serious when you say it?