Is San Jose Clerk’s Office Email the Right Place for the Incendiary Blue Flag?

The thin blue line has found its way to San Jose—brazenly displayed in a city employee’s official email signature.

Barbara Gregory is an Analyst II, working in San Jose's Office of the City Clerk preparing analyses, slides and reports with recommendations to city officials, earning a salary of $94,787 in 2019, according to OpenPayrolls.

Gregory’s flag logo was first published in public documents in December 2020, but the Fly’s spies confirmed it was still in her email signature by June 11.

While some view the flag and “Blue Lives Matter” movement as support for law enforcement, others say it’s morphed into a symbol of white supremacy that evokes fear and mistrust, especially after the modified American flag was visible at the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol Building.

Ironically, the flag is six lines above a customer service survey collecting concerns and experiences with specific staff by name, including Gregory. She declined to comment on the record for this story.

The thin blue line has gotten several local governments in trouble before.

A county in Oregon shelled out $100,000 after a Black employee filed a lawsuit over a flag hung in an office, arguing it dilutes and demeans the Black Lives Matter movement, comparing racial identities to chosen professions. The University of Wisconsin-Madison's police chief banned officers from using any form of the imagery—flags, pins, decals—because it was "co-opted" by extremists with "hateful ideologies.” A Minneapolis suburb issued an apology after the flag was flown at City Hall in recognition of National Police Week in May.

San Jose’s employee email policies ban “anything that may be construed as harassment or disparagement of others,” based on identifiers like race, color, and political beliefs. Employees must also have values that “honor diverse views and backgrounds” and “foster teamwork.”

Send a tip to The Fly

The Fly is a weekly column written by San Jose Inside staff that provides a behind-the-scenes look at local politics.

46 Comments

  1. There was a time in America when the punk inclinations that come natural to some would be targeted for correction by parents, siblings, and, when necessary, neighbor kids. The effect of this cultural convention was that punk behavior seldom persisted past adolescence, sparing adults the annoyance of having to share their world with that particular form of hemorrhoid.

    Things have, obviously changed, to the detriment of all except, apparently, journalism schools.

  2. Maybe the “Fly” could indulge us and provide its salary as well, you know, out of equity and fairness.

  3. City employees should leave personal statements such as this flag out of official correspondence. Everyone has the right to expect non-political speech from the government and their representatives. Where is the supervision in this issue?

  4. Any commercialization of the US flag is wrong. Police and fire need to stop using this twisted flag for their own selfish gain.

  5. Commercialization: The process of managing or running something principally for financial gain.

    I think Ted needs to find another word.

  6. This article is old, but still a true teachable moment.

    1. This is not news, but a warped kind of editorial. Shame.

    2. The blue flag is not incendiary to normal, healthy people.

  7. Not Suckered,

    THE BLUE FLAG REPRESENTS CHAUVIN AND THE MURDERS THAT POLICE HAVE DONE.

    IT IS A WHITE SUPREMECISTS SYMBOL.

    However my solution, BOTH FLAGS BLACK LIVES MATTER AND THE BLUE LIVES MATTER FLAGS FLY SIMULTANEOUSLY.

  8. The blue line flag was around long before Derek Chauvin was sacrificed in service to the national campaign to absolve African-Americans of the heartbreak, blood, and chalk stains left on our streets by the conduct of the worst of their kind. Earlier sacrifices made on behalf of the trash (that the majority of blacks disdain), other than those made by law enforcement over the last five decades, include the safety of once-safe neighborhoods (by Section 8 shenanigans), the prestige of a college degree (which now means less than a H.S. diploma once did), the educational environment of public schools (disruptive, even thuggish behavior now protected), and, most ominously, the merit system.

    But don’t blame Steven Goldstein for his ignorance, for he (like so many others) has been sucking on the tailpipe of the Wokemobile so long he exhales its exhaust with his every thought.

  9. Phu Tan Elli,

    Chauvin was not sacrificed. He like so many out there ARE CRIMINALS. What gets you angry is that he was caught on MULTIPLE cameras being a vicious killer. What other SACRIFICES were there? Remember Rodney King? Those officers were also caught on tape beating the you know what out that man?

    THe reality is that people like yourself are the kind that if you could hurt, mame, or kill anyone you wanted to without recourse you would.

    And what is wrong woith the “MERIT” system? Doesn’t that mean that no one is given any free passes simply because they were born in the right family, or the right place, but rather they get rewarded for ACCOMPLISHING SOMETHING long term? Oh yes DONALD TRUMP’S ORGANIZATION IS GOING DOWN IN FLAMES TOMORROW. Because its indictments will force all lenders to demand their payments all at once and DONALD TRUMP does not have the money. A guy that was given “FREEBEE” because his family was also an exploiter of others, but still managed to go bankrupt 4 times.

    all I can say is IF YOU CAN’T DO THE TIME DON’T DO THE CRIME!!!

  10. And one other observation.

    Hundreds of police officers are quitting because THEY ARE DIRTY and or they have had complaints filed that were determined WITH MERIT. And Chauvin is now putting more CIVILIAN OVERSIGHT on the police departments and these officers know they WILL be eventualy required to LEAVE.

    Remeber I was the cause of another local officer RESIGNING as a Lt. of the Sunnyvale Police Department because he issued citations with no cause, when the court of appeals ruled he did not have it. Thus his work was required to go thorough a complete review, and likely found more problems that he coud survive.

  11. Mr. Goldstein,

    Thank you for your incontinent responses as they provided a welcome respite from an existence otherwise dominated by a reasoning process so robust that, in an era of nation-wrecking political adolescence, it can be a very taxing possession. Had you opted not to comment I might have had no choice but to seek relief by walking through the grounds of an asylum or tuning in to CNN.

  12. Phu Tan Elli,

    TRUMP WAS THE BIGGEST NATION-WRECKING FORCE IN CURRENT HISTORY.

    REMEMBER JAN 6? I CAN’T WAIT UNTIL THE HOUSE COMMISSION HAS HEARINGS UNDER OATH. NONE OF WHICH ARE CLASSIFIED BECAUSE IT WAS A PUBLIC VIDEO RECORDED EVENT AND THERE IS NO CLASSIFIED INFORMATION

    FORTUNATELY HE IS GOING TO BE LKELY PROSECUTED IN GEORGIA, AND HIS BUSIENSS IS GOING DOWN IN FLAMES BECAUSE OF NEW YORK CRIMES.

    I love that instead of discussing the topic you try to just name call and divert attention from the topic.

    In the end you never actually provide any constructive conversation.

  13. “I CAN’T WAIT UNTIL THE HOUSE COMMISSION…” — Steven Goldstein

    That’s the commission to which Adam “I’ve got hard evidence on Russiagate” Schiff has just been named. If that clown can get you excited you must really enjoy circuses, Steven.

  14. Phu Tan Elli,

    I double down in that bet with LIZ CHENEY

    SO there, I would think you would have understood that TRUE CONSERVATIVES and CONSTITUTIONAL ADVOCATES right now have the ship by the wheel. TRUMPERS WERE FASCISTS FROM THE VERY BEGINNING

    This is going to be fun!!!!

  15. “TRUMPERS WERE FASCISTS FROM THE VERY BEGINNING” — Steven Goldstein

    Mr. Goldstein, a fascist government is marked by:
    — centralization of authority under a dictator (Trump was elected, made no attempt to nullify Congress or the Supreme Court, and stood for re-election, thus failing to meet the definition on this count).
    — an economy subjected to stringent controls (Trump worked to free the economy from such controls, thus failing to meet the definition on this count).
    — violent suppression of the opposition (the only violence, and there was lots of it, came from Trump’s opponents, thus failing to meet the definition on this count).
    — a policy of belligerent nationalism (Trump’s Make America Great Again was conducted through diplomatic and trade-related channels, his lack of hostility and aggression thus failing to meet the definition on this count).
    — a policy of racism (Trump appealed to American’s of all races, promoted economic policies favorable to all, and proposed no legislation of a racist nature, thus failing to meet the definition on this count).

    That’s 0 for 5 on the fascism count, you blithering idiot. Get out your dictionary (it may hidden by your comic books and Star Wars collectibles) and find a new word for a man you hate for reasons you can’t explain.

  16. Phu Tan Elli you wrote:

    “— centralization of authority under a dictator (Trump was elected, made no attempt to nullify Congress or the Supreme Court, and stood for re-election, thus failing to meet the definition on this count).

    WHAT WAS JAN 6? Case closed there. You wrote:

    “— an economy subjected to stringent controls (Trump worked to free the economy from such controls, thus failing to meet the definition on this count).”

    Believe it or not the “REMOVAL” of controls actually creates new ones. But most people like yourself do not understand it. For example, by removing the requirement of maintaining clean water from pollutants, is a means to promote the production of unsafe water. The reduction of regulations regarding air quality forces those to live with unsafe air. So I hate to say this but you got that all wrong. Case closed You wrote:

    “— violent suppression of the opposition (the only violence, and there was lots of it, came from Trump’s opponents, thus failing to meet the definition on this count).”

    And DONALD TRUMP DEFENDED THE CHARLOTTSVILEE MURDER, HAS BEEN DEFENDING HIS ARMY FROM JAN 6. AND ALSO ENCOURAGED PEOPLE BEING BEATEN UP AT HIS RALLIES Case closed there. You wrote:

    “— a policy of belligerent nationalism (Trump’s Make America Great Again was conducted through diplomatic and trade-related channels, his lack of hostility and aggression thus failing to meet the definition on this count).”

    HIS ARMY WAS VERY HOSTILE AND WAS SHOWN BY MAGA HATS ATTACKING ANYONE THAT DIDN’T AGREE WITH THEM ON MANY OCCASIONS. HE USED HIS EXECUTIVE POWERS TO IMPOSE TARIFFS THAT DID NOT EVEN HELP ANYONE BUT HIS OWN EGO. ECONOMIC TERRORISM IS STILL TERRORISM, DID YOU EVER WATCH BATMAN BEGINS? You wrote:

    “— a policy of racism (Trump appealed to American’s of all races, promoted economic policies favorable to all, and proposed no legislation of a racist nature, thus failing to meet the definition on this count).”

    REALLY, IT WOUD LOOK LIKE THAT WAS NOT CORRECT BECAUSE VOTERS IN GEORGIA, ARIZONA, NEVADA, and other states that voted for him in 2016 REJECTS THAT CLAIM. And you know it Case closed.

    I LOVE THAT HIS CHILDREN ARE ALREADY NEXT IN LINE REGARDING PROSECUTION IN NEW YORK BY THE WAY. BECAUSE THEY RAN THE TRUMP ORGANIZATION ON THE RECORD.

  17. “Biography of Steven Goldstein” — the working notes of Phu Tan Elli

    Evidence of his delusional cognition: that he was, in defending his grossly inaccurate portrayal of Donald Trump as a fascist, able to double-down on his delusion and support it based solely on contrary evidence. To wit:

    1. To conclude that a president is a dictator based solely on an event that occurred two weeks before he left office, one for which there exists no compelling evidence of his dictating the outcome.
    2. To believe stringent controls can be achieved by the removal of controls.
    3. To see violent suppression in speech devoid of violent encouragement.
    4. To see hostility and aggression in a patriotic hat, or in a corrective tariff.
    5. To see racism in the voting results of the various states.

    This represents a remarkable, Nancy Pelosi-level feat of lunacy, suggesting Mr. Goldstein may have what it takes to become a major player in the Democratic Party.

  18. PHU TAN ELLI you wrote:

    Evidence of his delusional cognition: that he was, in defending his grossly inaccurate portrayal of Donald Trump as a fascist, able to double-down on his delusion and support it based solely on contrary evidence. To wit:

    1. To conclude that a president is a dictator based solely on an event that occurred two weeks before he left office, one for which there exists no compelling evidence of his dictating the outcome.”

    Again there has been far more VIDEO demonstrating DONALD TRUMP (JIMJONES OF THE YEAR 2021 of JONESTOWN of far more encouragement of the claim of “FAKE NEWS”, encouraging violence regarding news reporters and others at his “RALLIES” and you choose to selectively perceive it ou also said:

    “2. To believe stringent controls can be achieved by the removal of controls.”

    YES PRIVATE DICTATORSHIP VIA THE REMOVAL OF PUBLIC SAFETY, MAYBE YOU DON’T UNDERSTAND IT. You wrote:

    “3. To see violent suppression in speech devoid of violent encouragement.”

    AGAIN YOU CAN SEE HOURS OF VILOENT ENCOURAGEMENT AGAINST THE FREE PRESS AND INDIVIDUALS AT TRUMP EVENTS ALONG WITH THE TEAR GASING IN WASHINGTON TO GET A PHOTO OP OF HIM HOLDING A BIBLE UPSIDE DOWN You wrote:

    “4. To see hostility and aggression in a patriotic hat, or in a corrective tariff.”

    AGAIN, UNILATERAL ACTIONS TAKEN WITHOUT APPROVAL OF TRADE TREATY IS AN ECONOMIC WARFARE ACT, IN EFFECT AN ACT OF ECONOMIC WAR. You write:

    “5. To see racism in the voting results of the various states.”

    THAT IS YOUR MADE UP CLAIM, THUS IT DOESN’T EVEN WARRANT A RESPONSE You wrote:

    “This represents a remarkable, Nancy Pelosi-level feat of lunacy, suggesting Mr. Goldstein may have what it takes to become a major player in the Democratic Party.”

    I just saw a documentary about Jim Jones of Jonestown, and I just have the strongest understanding that Donald Trump is Jim Jones. That his followers will never accept anything other than the messages of Donald Trump over all reality. And I think when there is a complete investigation of Jan 6, a major crime against all of the U.S. by a GANG, the conflict will continue. I just think Donald Trump could have been used to destroy the U.S. and create a new Civil War.

  19. “Donald Trump is Jim Jones… I just think Donald Trump could have been used to destroy the U.S. and create a new Civil War.” — Steven Goldstein

    In support of your hysterical perspective of Donald Trump’s presidency, I invite you to educate the rest of us regarding the ways in which his policies restrained your personal freedoms.

  20. Phu Tan Elli,

    His LIES and INCOMETENCE regarding COVID KILLED more than 600,000 people.

    His ability to cause so many people to die and be disabiled is the ultimate cost of his presidency.

    AND AS THE SIGN SAID THE BUCK STOPS AT THE PRESIDENT. HE IS ULTIMATELY ACCOUNTABLE FOR ALL AGENCIES UNDER THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH INCLUDING THE CDC, THE NIH, AND THE HHS. THe fact he told so many about miracle cures and that the virus was under control in 2020 was laughable

    To try to say what did Donald Trump do to me is a FALSE QUESTION. The bottom line is you are a TRUMPER, and you are willing to attack anyone regarding any “disloyalty” to him.

    The guy is going down as the WORST presidnet in the history of the U.S.

  21. “To try to say what did Donald Trump do to me is a FALSE QUESTION. The bottom line is you are a TRUMPER, and you are willing to attack anyone regarding any “disloyalty” to him.” — Steven Goldstein

    There is nothing false about asking someone such a question. History is, in part, based upon the answers to such questions, which gives clarity to events that might otherwise be intentionally obscured. For instance, we know that in 1967 Israel’s air force knowingly attacked a U.S. warship (U.S.S. Liberty) not because of any admissions by the Israelis or honest reporting by the corrupt Johnson administration, but by the many statements of the surviving sailors who witnessed the deadly attacks.

    It’s quite apparent you cannot name a single way in which your freedom was restrained by what you insist were the fascist policies of the Trump administration, so I’ll make it easier: provide the name of, and manner in which, a fellow American’s freedom was impaired by Trump fascism.

  22. PHU TAN ELLI you wrote:

    “It’s quite apparent you cannot name a single way in which your freedom was restrained by what you insist were the fascist policies of the Trump administration, so I’ll make it easier: provide the name of, and manner in which, a fellow American’s freedom was impaired by Trump fascism.”

    THE FACT THAT TRUMP FAILED TO INVADE THE CAPITOL TO THWART THE ELECTIN IS EVIDENCE ENOUGH. THE FACT THAT TRUMP TRIED OVER 60 TIMES TO KILL VOTES IS AN AMERICANS FREEDOM THREAT THAT FORTUNATELY FAILED. GULIANNIS SUSPENSION AND EVENTUAL DISBARREMENT FOR TRYING TO USE FALSE ALLEGATIONS AND EVIDENCE IS PROOF THAT DONALD TRUMP IS A THREAT TO ANYONES FREEDOM. SO PLEASE GIVE US SOMETHING TO PROVE THAT HE DID NOT ACTUALLY TRY TO KILL LEGALLY CAST VOTES? AND WHEN ALL FAILED HE RESORTED TO VIOLENCE ON JAN 6. ANY THTREAT TO ANYONES VOTE IS A THREAT TO MINE REMEMBER MARTIN LUTHER KING SAID:

    “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere! – Martin Luther King Jr.

    What does that mean?

    This quote makes an obvious point, but too many people don’t understand it. When an injustice is done to one person, everyone else has to wonder what it would take for that same injustice to be done to me.

    Sadly, that is a question that many people I know just don’t think about. They may say that it is a shame that something bad happened, but they don’t usually consider the possibility that it could happen to them.

    If you have faith in the system, and faith that the incident was only a one time mistake, that might be a justifiable reaction. But that isn’t the kind of incident that this quote is about.

    This quote is about a system with bias. A system that targets some people while letting others escape. An uneven and unjust system. And sadly, as humans are uneven and unjust, so are the systems we design. Thus the quote urges us to work towards being as even as we can, so all may have justice.

    Why is even application of laws (justice) important?
    It might start out slowly, with the occasional traffic stop motivated by the race or ethnicity of the driver. But once the public decides that this level of injustice is acceptable, is it more likely that the abuses will stop, or that they will get worse?

    Eventually, you become one of the targeted groups. Now what? It may already be too late. Atrocities like these started small but grew quickly in the totalitarian regimes of World War II (see the treatment of “lesser” people in occupied Europe, culminating with death camps).

    While that is as extreme as it gets, we could look to South Africa only a few short decades ago for a country wide, institutionalized form of injustice. In America, you have to go back a little further for the worst of it, but there are still pockets of injustice and retribution going both ways in a few places.

    Being equal in the eyes of the law is the reason why the statues of justice are seen with the scales held in one hand, and a blindfold over the eyes. Everything should be weighed on the merits of the case and the law. Anything less is, by definition, injustice.”

    Where can I apply this in my life?

    Because of the power of the word ‘injustice,’ many people abuse it and try to apply it to situations where uninformed people will react by taking their side in an argument. While it’s sad and frustrating when children use this trick, it is much worse when large groups or even countries try to use this.

    Yes, there is injustice in the world. As I mentioned earlier, we are an imperfect species and all that we do is, by definition, imperfect. But this quote isn’t about a random error, but about a systematic bias. While it does exist, it isn’t as common as some people like to claim. Be wary of being drawn into their fight and used as a human shield.

    That said, the only thing we can directly change is ourselves. Yes, it would be nice to change others and make people be nice to one another, but what about us? How nice are we to others? How about *THOSE* people, whoever they might be?

    It is human nature, in our DNA, to show a preference towards those we like and be far less kind or respectful to those we don’t. Usually there is some solidarity by group, whether it’s nerds or jocks, blacks or whites, boys or girls.

    But not always so clean or well defined. How should a group of male nerds treat a female nerd? Does their combined nerdiness outweigh the gender difference? How would you want to be treated, and how do you think you would treat someone else, were the positions reversed?

    This bias, something we all have to some degree, is the basis of this quote. One person having a bias is noise, often counterbalanced by another with an opposite bias. However, when a large group of people (or a small group of people with a large amount of power or authority) have the same bias, things can get ugly rather quickly.

    So what do we do if we see an act of injustice on the street? Do we sink to their level and do an injustice back to them? Does that make the world more just? I don’t believe it is the best course of action. There are usually ways defined to handle such injustices, and that’s what I would try to do.

    There is much beauty in humanity. However there are other aspects to humanity, and we must start by working constantly to become a better person. From there, we can encourage others to follow their own path to becoming a better person.

    We can be the example for others we wish someone had been for us. Or we can emulate someone we consider to be a shining example of who we wish to become. We can only be more just ourselves, and then try to help others to become so as well.

    Together we can help fight injustice, wherever it might be. It won’t be easy, but it is the best path forward of which I am aware.”

    HOW IS THAT MY FRIEND?

  23. Over a thousand words in response and not one example of a loss of freedom under an administration you describe as fascist. Hardly a surprise, as there is no rational defense to be found for a delusion that, unfortunately, you share with millions of other deranged souls.

  24. PHU TAN ELLI you wrote:

    “Over a thousand words in response and not one example of a loss of freedom under an administration you describe as fascist. Hardly a surprise, as there is no rational defense to be found for a delusion that, unfortunately, you share with millions of other deranged souls.”

    I just love the fact that CNN has just released audio recordings of TRUMP advocates like GULIANNI trying to KILL ALREADY LEGALLY CAST VOTES!!! The so-called Maricopa Audit is going to find nothing and the GOP is going to continue to claim that it was “dirty” with NO EVIDENCE to support it. The facts are there is proof of everything I have stated in court records, on video, on audio, and yourself. The fact that the REPUBLICAN PARTY (ONCE THE PARTY OF LINCOLN) has now reversed roles in politics. The DEMOCRATS were VERY GUILTY of SUPPORTING SLAVERY prior and after the CIVIL WAR by Jim Crow and Poll Taxes. But now the GOP is the ones doing it.

    I just think of Crispus Adams who was slaughtered by the British in the Boston Massacre. Also Prince Estabrook that died in the battle of Lexington. And the countless “FREE” African Americans that fought and died for the American Revolution. And what did that get them? And you wonder why I get so angry about any person trying to be taken away their right to VOTE!!! They have fought and died for this country from the very beginning and still are given hostile treatment, ESPECIALLY from the GOP at this time.

    You simply provide nothing in the way of evidence for your argument, nothing but name calling, the “so what’s your point”, or that “YOU AREN’T BEING IMPACTED SO YOU SHOULD KEEP YOUR MOUTH SHUT” excuses. I hope the readers here can see that you have no justification for making any of your failures to even have a constructive conversation

  25. “You simply provide nothing in the way of evidence for your argument, nothing but name calling…” — Steven Goldstein

    My argument against your depiction of Trump as a fascist was based on the definition of the word, the elements of conduct that distinguish it from other forms of governance. Your inability to provide a single example of his policies having restricted anyone’s freedom prompted you, in John Nash fashion, to assemble mad bits of irrelevant information and present them as supporting evidence.

    With your crazed cut-and-paste method you can mount a defense for your every position, no matter how delusional. Sometimes your rantings offer others the opportunity to attack them, not so much to disabuse you of them, but as a way to expose their folly, lest any others fall victim to them. But frequently your comments are treated as background noise, meaningless static that goes ignored by some of this site’s most interesting participants (all apparently smarter than me).

    Chalk up this exchange as another win for you. Get yourself a “Trump is a Fascist” bumper sticker and display it with pride, for if it is your fate to be shackled by indestructible delusions, you might as well enjoy them.

  26. PHU TAN ELLI you wrote:

    “My argument against your depiction of Trump as a fascist was based on the definition of the word, the elements of conduct that distinguish it from other forms of governance. Your inability to provide a single example of his policies having restricted anyone’s freedom prompted you, in John Nash fashion, to assemble mad bits of irrelevant information and present them as supporting evidence.”

    BUT YOU DID NOT PROVE ANY OF MY EVIDENCE IS FALSE, DID YOU? NO, YOU DIDN’T IN FACT YOU JUST WANT TO TELL EVERYONE TO ACCEPT YOUR CLAIM OF REALITY. YOU SHOW NO PROOF THAT WHAT I PRESENTED DID NOT ACTUALLY HAPPEN? You wrote:

    “With your crazed cut-and-paste method you can mount a defense for your every position, no matter how delusional. Sometimes your rantings offer others the opportunity to attack them, not so much to disabuse you of them, but as a way to expose their folly, lest any others fall victim to them. But frequently your comments are treated as background noise, meaningless static that goes ignored by some of this site’s most interesting participants (all apparently smarter than me).”

    OK, THAT IS RICH, YOU CALL ME DELUSIONAL, BUT IGNORE ALL REALITY? THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT YOU STATED. I THINK THE READERS HERE ARE FAR MORE REALISTIC. OF COURSE, YOU JUST PUT IN IT THE COMON VERNACULAR “FAKE NEWS” You wrote:

    “Chalk up this exchange as another win for you. Get yourself a “Trump is a Fascist” bumper sticker and display it with pride, for if it is your fate to be shackled by indestructible delusions, you might as well enjoy them.”

    AGAIN, I CAN SAY YOU TRYING TO CALL ME DELUSIONAL IS COMEDY. BY THE WAY TRUMP RECENTLY ACTUALLY SAID HE KNEW HE WAS A TAX CHEATER YOU CAN READ THE ARTICLE HERE (https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-acknowledges-tax-schemes-behind-charges-denies-theyre-crimes-2021-7) “Trump seemed to acknowledge the existence of tax schemes the Trump Org is being prosecuted for, while denying they are crimes”

    EVERYONE WITH ANY SENSE ON REALITY KNOWS IT IS A CRIME TO EVADE TAXES. TRUMP HAS LOST HIS SENSE ON REALITY POSSIBLY WHEN HE SAID:

    “”They go after good, hard-working people for not paying taxes on a company car,” Trump said.

    “You didn’t pay tax on the car or a company apartment. You used an apartment because you need an apartment because you have to travel too far where your house is”

    “You didn’t pay tax. Or education for your grandchildren. I don’t even know. Do you have to? Does anybody know the answer to that stuff?”

    “Think of it, think of how unfair it is. Never before has New York City and their prosecutors or perhaps any prosecutors criminally charged a company or a person for fringe benefits. Fringe benefits. Murders, okay. Human trafficking, no problem — but fringe benefits, you can’t do that.”

    ACTUALLY, YOU CAN AND IT WAS DONE REMEMBER AL CAPONE? DONALD TRUMP AND HIS ORGANIZATION IS ABOUT TO SEE A TSUNAMI OF PROSECUTIONS BECAUSE HE TOOK ACTIONS THAT HE IS ULTIMATELY RESPONSIBLE FOR AS LONG AS HE SIGNED THE TAX RETURNS. EVERYONE KNOWS THAT EVEN IF THEY WERE PREPARED BY ANOTHER PERSON OR COMPANY THE TAXPAYER IS LIABLE FOR EITHER CIVIL OR CRIMINAL CONDUCT. HE REALLY JUST THINKS HE IS FREE TO DO WHATEVER HE WANTS.

  27. “BUT YOU DID NOT PROVE ANY OF MY EVIDENCE IS FALSE…” — Steven Goldstein, with apologies to Chicken Little, Creationists, Marshall Applewhite (Heaven’s Gate), Chappaquiddick Ted, OJ Simpson, the Flat Earth Society, and every one of the Russiagate prosecutors.

  28. Phu Tan Elli,

    I would have expected a more intelligent conversation. But it appears you just like to talk with no substance. I live the fact that DONALD TRUMP just DUMPED RUDY GULLIANI. If you read the following story here (https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-cut-off-rudy-giuliani-annoyed-asked-payment-michael-wolff-2021-7) “Trump has cut off Rudy Giuliani, and is annoyed that he asked to be paid for his work on challenging the election, book says”

    It stated:

    “Donald Trump’s family has cut off Rudy Giuliani, and the former president has been irked that the lawyer asked to be paid for his work challenging Trump’s loss in the 2020 election, a new book says.

    On Sunday, The Times of London published an excerpt from “Landslide: The Final Days of the Trump Presidency,” the coming book on the Trump presidency from the author Michael Wolff.

    In the extract, Wolff delves into Trump’s postpresidential life at his Mar-a-Lago resort and describes Trump as frustrated by the lack of progress in his quest to overturn the 2020 election result.

    GIULIANI, A LONGTIME ALLY AND PERSONAL LAWYER OF THE PRESIDENT, STARTED LEADING THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN’S EFFORTS TO OVERTURN THE ELECTION ON NOVEMBER 4 BUT DEPARTED SOMETIME IN FEBRUARY AFTER A SERIES OF SETBACKS.

    SINCE THEN, REPORTS HAVE DETAILED HOW GIULIANI AND HIS ALLIES HAVE SOUGHT TO GET PAID FOR THE LEGAL WORK, BUT TO NO AVAIL, FALLING FOUL OF THE PRESIDENT IN THE PROCESS.

    “TRUMP IS ANNOYED THAT HE TRIED TO GET PAID FOR HIS ELECTION CHALLENGE WORK,” WOLFF WROTE, PER THE TIMES.

    The excerpt said Giuliani had “gotten only the cold shoulder” while seeking payment from Trump amid the prospect of expensive legal battles of his own.

    Trump’s family has “cast out, cut off” Giuliani, the excerpt said, without specifying which members of the clan.
    Giuliani is the subject of a Justice Department investigation into whether he broke foreign lobbying laws while working as Trump’s lawyer. Giuliani has not been charged with a crime.

    ACCORDING TO WOLFF, TRUMP HAS ALSO TAKEN TO ASKING VISITORS TO HIS MAR-A-LAGO RESORT “IF THEY KNOW ANY GOOD” LAWYERS TO HELP HIM CONTINUE HIS PLAN TO OVERTURN THE ELECTION VIA THE US COURTS.

    Representatives for Trump did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Insider.

    The amount owed to Giuliani by Trump is not known, but at one point Maria Ryan, an aide and rumored girlfriend of Giuliani, told the Trump campaign that his rate for working on the election challenge was $20,000 a day, The New York Times reported.”

    It just goes to show that Donald Trump was an attempted DICTATOR, played the plan set forth by ADOLPH HITLER in Germany in the 1920-30s And you do nothing but name calling me is amazing!!!

  29. “It just goes to show that Donald Trump was an attempted DICTATOR…” — Steven Goldstein, off his meds.

  30. Phu Tan Elli,

    I can only imagine what Donald Trump is going through these days if you read this article(https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-melania-eat-alone-mar-a-lago-restaurant-2021-7) “’Like zoo animals’: Donald and Melania Trump eat alone at a ‘roped-off table’ at a Mar-a-Lago restaurant, book says”

    “Former President Donald Trump and his wife Melania often eat alone at a “roped-off table” in the center of a Mar-a-Lago patio restaurant when she is there, a forthcoming book by journalist Michael Wolff says.

    The Trumps are “looked at, somewhat, like zoo animals. No, no, that’s not right. They are like a newly married couple: every night is a wedding at which they spend their dinner greeting friends and wellwishers,” Wolff writes in excerpt of the book “Landslide: The Final Days of the Trump Presidency” published by The Times of London.

    Since leaving the White House, Trump has lived at his club in Florida, receiving GOP senators and members of Congress who are seeking his endorsement. He eats dinner most evenings on the patio, appearing just as it has filled, “at which point everyone stands and applauds,” Wolff writes.

    The book, however, questions whether Melania Trump lives there, as well.

    “For four years in the White House, it was never quite clear how much time she was spending at the White House or in a house in Maryland where she had settled her parents,” Wolff writes. “Aides were careful not to closely inquire or openly wonder. Here too, in Mar-a-Lago, it was unclear.”

    Melania Trump made headlines at the start of the Trump administration by not immediately moving into the White House. She stayed with their son Barron in New York City until the end of his school year, a decision that reportedly cost about $27 million for security.

    Melania Trump now has her own official office but she’s stayed out of the limelight.

    “She’s not a presence at Mar-a-Lago at all. She’s not mingling with people and rarely interacts with her husband’s staff,” a person close to the couple told CNN in April.
    CNN reported the couple shares “a large suite of rooms” at the property and that her parents stay there for weeks at a time in their own personal suite. Melania Trump also “makes frequent trips to the on-site spa — with one person telling CNN she sometimes goes for treatments twice a day,” according to the news outlet.

    Three people familiar with Trump’s dinner appearances told CNN she “smiles and gives a wave as other dinner patrons rise from their seats to applaud the arrival of the former first couple to the dining area.”

    Wolff’s book describes an “old-fashioned club life” at Mar-a-Lago, with Croque Singles, a Prime Rib Night, and poster boards with the schedule.

    “The only membership qualification now, beyond the actual cost ($250,000, up from $150,000 before the presidency, plus a hefty yearly fee), is to be an abject Trump admirer,” Wolff writes. “This may not be so much a political statement as an aesthetic one — the thrall of a super-celebrity.”

    To me this kind or strange isolation cannot be healthy. And the fact that it appears that he does not seem to be with his wife most of the time is also an interesting situation. I wonder if he has been unfaithful to Melania all this time? This again seems to indicate a “echo chamber” mentality just like Hitler had in the bunker at the end of WW2.

  31. “a forthcoming book by journalist Michael Wolff says.”

    This is the same “journalist” who fabricated the story of the three-count indictment of Trump by Robert Mueller, just one of many such fabrications in his earlier book on Trump. The indictment never existed but the TDR herd mooed its approval and stampeded the book stores, as they will do once again.

    Thanks for the fresh cow pie, Steven.

  32. PHU TAN ELLI you wrote:

    “This is the same “journalist” who fabricated the story of the three-count indictment of Trump by Robert Mueller, just one of many such fabrications in his earlier book on Trump. The indictment never existed but the TDR herd mooed its approval and stampeded the book stores, as they will do once again.”

    ACTUALLY, THERE HAS NEVER BEEN A REAL TRIAL, NOR A PUBLIC ACCOUNTING OF ALL EVIDENCE BECAUSE IT WAS PREVENTED FROM DISCLOSURE TO THE PUBLIC. IN EFFECT TRUMP USED THE DOJ TO WITHOLD EVIDENCE FROM BEING MADE PUBLIC. AND YOU KNOW THIS. YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE TO PROVIDE EVIDENCE THAT THE STORY WAS FABRICATED TO MAKE AN ALLEGATION LIKE THIS. OTHERWISE YOU ARE JUST ANOTHER QANON CONSPIRACY NUT.

    I WILL TAKE MICHEAL WOLFFS WRITINGS OVER YOU EVERY DAY AND TWICE ON SUNDAY BECAUSE HIS WORKS ARE PROPERLY RESEARCHED AND HAVE BEEN PROVEN ACCURATE. THE READERS SHOULD CONSIDER THIS INGORMATION:

    “Fire and Fury

    In early January 2018, Wolff’s book Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House was published. Excerpts released before publication included unflattering descriptions of behavior by U.S. President Donald Trump, chaotic interactions among the White House senior staff, and derogatory comments about the Trump family by former White House Chief Strategist Steve Bannon. News of the book’s imminent publication and its embarrassing depiction of Trump prompted Trump and his lawyer, Charles Harder, TO ISSUE ON JANUARY 4, 2018 A CEASE AND DESIST LETTER ALLEGING FALSE STATEMENTS, DEFAMATION, AND MALICE, AND TO THREATEN LIBEL LAWSUITS AGAINST WOLFF, HIS PUBLISHER HENRY HOLT AND COMPANY, AND BANNON, AN ACTION THAT ACTUALLY STIMULATED PRE-LAUNCH BOOK SALES. On January 8, Henry Holt’s attorney, Elizabeth McNamara, responded to Harder’s allegations with an assurance that no apology or retraction would be forthcoming, also noting that Harder’s complaint cited no specific errors in Wolff’s text. JOHN SARGENT, THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF MACMILLAN-HOLT, INFORMED THE PUBLISHER’S EMPLOYEES THAT “AS CITIZENS, WE MUST DEMAND THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP UNDERSTAND AND ABIDE BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT OF OUR CONSTITUTION.”

    According to other lawyers and a historian, threats of a lawsuit by Trump against a book author and publisher were unprecedented by a sitting president attempting to suppress freedom of speech protected by the U.S. First Amendment. BEFORE ITS RELEASE ON JANUARY 5, THE BOOK AND E-BOOK REACHED NUMBER ONE BOTH ON AMAZON.COM AND THE APPLE IBOOKS STORE,[4] AND BY JANUARY 8, OVER ONE MILLION BOOKS HAD BEEN SOLD OR ORDERED.[38]”

    Well, it looks like there was no proof of ALLEGING FALSE STATEMENTS, DEFAMATION, AND MALICE, AND TO THREATEN LIBEL LAWSUITS AGAINST WOLFF, because there is no trial or a jury or judge ordered decision on these BASELESS ALLEGATIONS, correct?

    “Siege: Trump under Fire

    Wolff’s latest book, Siege: Trump Under Fire, was released on June 4, 2019. In it he claims that the Justice Department had drafted indictment documents against Trump in March 2018, accusing him of three criminal counts relating to interfering with a pending investigation and witness tampering. Special Counsel Robert Mueller is reported to have sat on these draft indictments for a year before deciding that Justice Department policy would prevent such an indictment. “The documents described do not exist,” Mueller spokesman Peter Carr said, referring to the purported three-count charging document against Trump.”

    THE BOOK LATER PROVED TO BE CORRECT NAD ON MULTIPLE OCCASIONS. SO THAT INFORMATION APPEARED TO BE ACCURATE.

    WHY SHOULD ANYONE BELIEVE AN ANONYMOUS POSTER WITH NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPRT THE ALLEGATIONS?

  33. “WHY SHOULD ANYONE BELIEVE AN ANONYMOUS POSTER WITH NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPRT THE ALLEGATIONS?” — Steven Goldstein

    I am not anonymous. I use a name here, just as you do. When someone agrees or disagrees with a comment of mine they can, just as easily as they can with you, address me about it, attribute it to me, or decide not to pay me any further attention.

    Is there something more you require? Are you, like the NSA, unwilling to allow people their privacy? If so, why? If another driver honks his disapproval of you must you know his identity? Would you deny the value of a Bitcoin because its inventor used a pseudonym? Do you, Steven, have trust issues?

  34. PHU TAN ELLI you wrote:

    “I am not anonymous. I use a name here, just as you do. When someone agrees or disagrees with a comment of mine they can, just as easily as they can with you, address me about it, attribute it to me, or decide not to pay me any further attention.”

    I USE MY REAL NAME, YOU USE AN ALIAS< A PSUEDONYM< IN FACT A LIE AND YOU KNOW IT. You wrote:

    “Is there something more you require?”

    YES, A RESUME, A CERTIFICATION, AN AUTHENTICATION OF EVERYTHING YOU WRITE. AND THE READERS HERE SHOULD TOO. You wrote:

    “Are you, like the NSA, unwilling to allow people their privacy?”

    IF YOU ARE WRITING ON A PUBLIC FORUM YOU HAVE NO PRIVACY. IF YOU ARE WRITING ON YOUR OWN BLOG YOU ARE ENTITLED TO PRIVACY. BUT NO YOU AREN’T ENTITLED TO YELL FIRE IN A THEATER WHEN THERE ISN’T ONE AND REMAIN ANAYONOUS. YOU KNOW THAT. You wrote:

    “If so, why?”

    I JUST EXPLAINED IT, AND THE READERS SHOULD CONSIDER YOUR FAILURE TO BE AUTHENTIC TO BE PROOF THAT YOU ARE DECIEVING THEM. You wrote:

    “If another driver honks his disapproval of you must you know his identity?”

    DOESN’T APPLY HERE BECAUSE DRIVING IS NOT A PUBLIC FORUM, IT IS A PUBLIC ROAD< BUT NOT A POLITICAL STATEMENT. You wrote:

    “Would you deny the value of a Bitcoin because its inventor used a pseudonym?”

    THAT IS A PRIVATE INVESTMENT AND NOT DISCUSSINO IN A PUBLIC FORUM, PLEASE YOU REALLY ARE DESPERATE TO TRY TO DEFEND YOUR LACK OF AUTHENTICITY. You wrote:

    “ Do you, Steven, have trust issues?”

    AS A CERTIFIED IT SECURITY PROFESSIONAL, I AM PAID TO HAVE TRUST ISSUES EVERY DAY. YES, I DO HAVE TRUST ISSUES WHEN DEALING WITH A FAKE PERSON MAKING UP STORIES TO DECIEVE THE PUBLIC. YOU SO FAR HAVE NOT PROVEN YOURSELF WORTHY OF ANY TRUST.

    We are off topic in any case, the facts are my solution still stands, SIMULTANEOUS inclusion of the Blue Lives and Black Lives Flags solves the problem.

  35. “YES, I DO HAVE TRUST ISSUES WHEN DEALING WITH A FAKE PERSON MAKING UP STORIES TO DECIEVE THE PUBLIC.” — Steven Goldstein

    So now I’m a fake person? Do you have any idea how nuts you are? I’m not surprised you’re certified.

    Here’s a question: if a man about whom you know nothing is standing in a public square sharing his political concerns with anyone who will listen, is he a fake person? If not, how is what he is doing different than what I do here? If so, what must he do to satisfy your particular requirements to become a real person? Also, must he satisfy the requirements of everyone gathered, assuming that differences exist, or are your requirements the only ones that matter?

  36. PHU TAN ELLI you wrote:

    “So now I’m a fake person? Do you have any idea how nuts you are? I’m not surprised you’re certified.”

    YES YOU ARE IF YOU DON’T PROVIDE ANYTHING TO SUPPORT ANY EXPERTISE OR JUDGEMENT TO THE READERS HERE< SORRY THAT’S REALITY YOU WROTE:

    “Here’s a question: if a man about whom you know nothing is standing in a public square sharing his political concerns with anyone who will listen, is he a fake person?”

    NO HE IS NOT, BUT HE IS ALSO NOT WEARING A MASK, NOT CONCEALING WHO THEY ARE, IN EFFECT VALIDATING THEIR CLAIMS BY NOT BEING DECEPTIVE. YOU ARE BEING DECEPTIVE HERE You wrote:

    “If not, how is what he is doing different than what I do here?”

    I JUST POINTED OUT THE DIFFERENCES. BUT YOU CAN NEVER EVEN IMAGINE THAT THE DIFFERENCES ARE SO GREAT. YOU ARE JUST MAKING EXCUSES FOR BEING A FAKE IDENTITY. You wrote:

    “If so, what must he do to satisfy your particular requirements to become a real person?”

    I ALREADY TOLD YOU IT BUT YOU DIDN’T BOTHER TO READ IT I SAID: YES, A RESUME, A CERTIFICATION, AN AUTHENTICATION OF EVERYTHING YOU WRITE AND I WILL ADD AN AUTHENTICATION OF WHO YOU ARE. You wrote:

    “Also, must he satisfy the requirements of everyone gathered, assuming that differences exist, or are your requirements the only ones that matter?”

    I SAY THIS APPLIES TO EVERYONE EQUALLY, I CHOOSE TO STOP USING ANY FAKE NAMES YEARS AGO BECAUSE I REALIZED THAT IN ORDER TO PREVENT THE KIND OF INSANE POSITINGS LIKE YOU AND YOUR FRIENDS HAVE DONE, IT WAS TIME TO STOP ALLOWING THAT KIND OF BEHAVIOR. YOU ARE JUST TRYING TO STIR UP VIOLENCE LIKE TRUMP DID ON JAN 6.

  37. “HE IS ALSO NOT WEARING A MASK, NOT CONCEALING WHO THEY ARE, IN EFFECT VALIDATING THEIR CLAIMS BY NOT BEING DECEPTIVE.” — Steven Goldstein

    Since I specifically qualified the public square speaker in my hypothetical as being someone “about whom you know nothing,” your conviction that his exposed face somehow validates his claims speaks volumes about your gullibility. It is arguable that more people have been duped by the trustworthy faces of con artists than they have by their fraudulent claims.

    When your back is put to the wall you make as much sense as an hysterical child.

  38. Phu Tan Elli you wrote:

    Since I specifically qualified the public square speaker in my hypothetical as being someone “about whom you know nothing,” your conviction that his exposed face somehow validates his claims speaks volumes about your gullibility. It is arguable that more people have been duped by the trustworthy faces of con artists than they have by their fraudulent claims.

    When your back is put to the wall you make as much sense as an hysterical child.”

    Typical reaction by a classic narcissist. When presented with evidence that proves you incorrect, you use the following language, which in itself is NOT Rational Thought or Recourse:

    “There was a time in America when the punk inclinations that come natural to some would be targeted for correction by parents, siblings, and, when necessary, neighbor kids. The effect of this cultural convention was that punk behavior seldom persisted past adolescence, sparing adults the annoyance of having to share their world with that particular form of hemorrhoid.

    Things have, obviously changed, to the detriment of all except, apparently, journalism schools.”

    You went on a rant but provided no substantive evidence to prove your point, and again you are not even a REAL person, I suspect you use multiple names on various places to make it appear you are not alone. The bottom line is this distracting from the topic by criticizing the authors was sad. You went on to say:

    “The blue line flag was around long before Derek Chauvin was sacrificed in service to the national campaign to absolve African-Americans of the heartbreak, blood, and chalk stains left on our streets by the conduct of the worst of their kind. Earlier sacrifices made on behalf of the trash (that the majority of blacks disdain), other than those made by law enforcement over the last five decades, include the safety of once-safe neighborhoods (by Section 8 shenanigans), the prestige of a college degree (which now means less than a H.S. diploma once did), the educational environment of public schools (disruptive, even thuggish behavior now protected), and, most ominously, the merit system.

    But don’t blame Steven Goldstein for his ignorance, for he (like so many others) has been sucking on the tailpipe of the Wokemobile so long he exhales its exhaust with his every thought.”

    Again you went on a rant with no evidence to support your point, I would think that the readers here should expect conduct equal to testifying in either a City Council, an County Board of Supervisors, the State Legislature, or the Congress, and not the conduct you persist to act out on. You went on to say:

    “Mr. Goldstein,

    Thank you for your incontinent responses as they provided a welcome respite from an existence otherwise dominated by a reasoning process so robust that, in an era of nation-wrecking political adolescence, it can be a very taxing possession. Had you opted not to comment I might have had no choice but to seek relief by walking through the grounds of an asylum or tuning in to CNN.”

    What can I say, another RANT but no constructive discourse here. You wrote:

    “That’s the commission to which Adam “I’ve got hard evidence on Russiagate” Schiff has just been named. If that clown can get you excited you must really enjoy circuses, Steven.”

    Classic Narrccissit, when presented with evidence to shut down one argument you change the subjed and use personal insults. You went on to write:

    “That’s 0 for 5 on the fascism count, you blithering idiot. Get out your dictionary (it may hidden by your comic books and Star Wars collectibles) and find a new word for a man you hate for reasons you can’t explain.”

    But the questions you raised were answered, they were NOT EVIDENCE in fact because a question is only a question, it is again an attempt to change the subject and personally attack anyone that does not agree with you. You went on to say:

    “Evidence of his delusional cognition: that he was, in defending his grossly inaccurate portrayal of Donald Trump as a fascist, able to double-down on his delusion and support it based solely on contrary evidence. To wit:”

    Again, you try to change the subject and declare to all readers that the VIDEOS of all conduct of DONALD TRUMP were to be in effect erased from history. Constantly trying to change the subject and personally attack anyone that doesn’t agree with you. You wrote:

    Again, this is not a DEMONSTRATION of RATIONAL THOUGHT OR DISCOURSE, it was nothing but a RANT and did not even present any EVIDENCE to support your statements. I really hope the readers here are seeing the pattern, You wrote:

    “In support of your hysterical perspective of Donald Trump’s presidency, I invite you to educate the rest of us regarding the ways in which his policies restrained your personal freedoms.”

    In which I responded with the attempts to kill legally cast votes. Which then you summarily ignored and attempted to change the subject again and try to personally attack that information. You write:

    “It’s quite apparent you cannot name a single way in which your freedom was restrained by what you insist were the fascist policies of the Trump administration, so I’ll make it easier: provide the name of, and manner in which, a fellow American’s freedom was impaired by Trump fascism.”

    In which of course I pointed out was a stupid argument, another attempt to change the subject, and personally attack one that closes your attempt to distract by proving you incorrect. Classic narccissim. You went on to say:

    “Over a thousand words in response and not one example of a loss of freedom under an administration you describe as fascist. Hardly a surprise, as there is no rational defense to be found for a delusion that, unfortunately, you share with millions of other deranged souls.”

    Classic “erasing” the history by a narcissist, and also just trying to avoid the topic you brought up was a failed rant. In the end you can only personally attack people, and the readers here should see it. You wrote:

    “With your crazed cut-and-paste method you can mount a defense for your every position, no matter how delusional. Sometimes your rantings offer others the opportunity to attack them, not so much to disabuse you of them, but as a way to expose their folly, lest any others fall victim to them. But frequently your comments are treated as background noise, meaningless static that goes ignored by some of this site’s most interesting participants (all apparently smarter than me).

    Chalk up this exchange as another win for you. Get yourself a “Trump is a Fascist” bumper sticker and display it with pride, for if it is your fate to be shackled by indestructible delusions, you might as well enjoy them.”

    Crazed “cut and paste” does prove so many “delusional” perceptions of reality by a narcissist is wrong, and thus you constantly will jus personally attack one that gives you answers you don’t want to hear. You went on to say:

    ““BUT YOU DID NOT PROVE ANY OF MY EVIDENCE IS FALSE…” — Steven Goldstein, with apologies to Chicken Little, Creationists, Marshall Applewhite (Heaven’s Gate), Chappaquiddick Ted, OJ Simpson, the Flat Earth Society, and every one of the Russiagate prosecutors.”

    There it was again, when proven wrong you just try to personally attack the messenger. You went on to say:

    “It just goes to show that Donald Trump was an attempted DICTATOR…” — Steven Goldstein, off his meds.”

    Do I have to repeat myself here? THe history is out in the open but narcissists cannot accept any “version” of history that does not agree with them. Thius another personal attack, You wrote:

    “This is the same “journalist” who fabricated the story of the three-count indictment of Trump by Robert Mueller, just one of many such fabrications in his earlier book on Trump. The indictment never existed but the TDR herd mooed its approval and stampeded the book stores, as they will do once again.

    Thanks for the fresh cow pie, Steven.”

    In which I presented evidence to prove he was far more trustworthy than an mystery writer that has nothing published or recognized. To which you again changed the subject and threw out another personal attack. You wrote:

    “I am not anonymous. I use a name here, just as you do. When someone agrees or disagrees with a comment of mine they can, just as easily as they can with you, address me about it, attribute it to me, or decide not to pay me any further attention.

    Is there something more you require? Are you, like the NSA, unwilling to allow people their privacy? If so, why? If another driver honks his disapproval of you must you know his identity? Would you deny the value of a Bitcoin because its inventor used a pseudonym? Do you, Steven, have trust issues?”

    As I pointed out if this is a true Public Forum, then you would have to conduct yourself accordingly. Your choice to write on this forum in effect explicitly removes your right to privacy. You have the right to privacy of your thoughts, and your homespace, but when your actions involve public consequences, in effect your claim is wrong. But again another changing of the subject and personal attack. You wrote:

    “So now I’m a fake person? Do you have any idea how nuts you are? I’m not surprised you’re certified.

    Here’s a question: if a man about whom you know nothing is standing in a public square sharing his political concerns with anyone who will listen, is he a fake person? If not, how is what he is doing different than what I do here? If so, what must he do to satisfy your particular requirements to become a real person? Also, must he satisfy the requirements of everyone gathered, assuming that differences exist, or are your requirements the only ones that matter?”

    In which I gave you exactly how different that person was to you, but that was again a changing of the subject and a personal attack. You literally are grasping at anything to try to manipulate the readers, and I just show them it was a false idea.

    THE READERS HERE DESERVE BETTER, PLEASE GIVE US SOMETHING OF SUBSTANCE AND NOT JUST THROWING OUT QUESTIONS THAT RESULT IN ANSWERS YOU REFUSE TO ACKNOWLEGE?

  39. “You literally are grasping at anything to try to manipulate the readers…” — Steven Goldstein

    I don’t think anyone other than you has accused me of trying to manipulate them, which speaks well for their mental health. I suspect, of course, that you being alone in your perceptions is the rule, rather than the exception. Asylum’s are full of such people, as is, I presume, the IT security field, which attracts people who share much commonality with frustrating and inanimate objects.

  40. PHU TAN ELLI you wrote:

    “I don’t think anyone other than you has accused me of trying to manipulate them, which speaks well for their mental health.”

    And who are you to diagnose anyone’s MENTAL HEALTH? Boy talking about delusions of grandeur here. You are not able to ever imply what anyone thinks of feels about the topic if they are not writin anything about, THAT’S REAL RATIONAL THINKING. You wrote:

    “I suspect, of course, that you being alone in your perceptions is the rule, rather than the exception.”

    Suspect all you want, but you have NO EVIDENCE to prove it. You just thorw out specualtions, and when directed to proof of the opposite, you personally attack and change the subject.

    BY THE WAY DONALD TRUMP TRIED TO IMPLEMENT A DELAY OR CANCELLATION OF THE ELECTION OF 2020 BASED ON RECORDS OBTAINED BY THE AUTHOR OF A NEW BOOK, THIS IS NOT CONJECTURE< THERE IS PROOF OF IT. You wrote:

    “Asylum’s are full of such people, as is, I presume, the IT security field, which attracts people who share much commonality with frustrating and inanimate objects.”

    Actually 90% of my work unfortunately is dealing with people using the technology wrong, most of the time it involves people adding GARBAGE OR WORSE INTO a SAFE SYSTEM. Rendering the SAFE SYSTEM UNSAFE. Does that sound familiar to what I am doing here?

    But continue to live in your alternate reality.

  41. “You are not able to ever imply what anyone thinks of feels about the topic if they are not writin anything about…” — Steven Goldstein

    Actually, making assumptions based on the absence of a particular reaction is something mentally sound people do every day. For instance, if no one in heavy traffic is honking at you in anger it is quite reasonable to assume your driving is not offending them. Or if you’re making comments during a round discussion and no one casts a disapproving glance your way, you can assume you’re doing okay.

    Based on your comments I suspect you are seriously lacking in social awareness and personal skills. You remind me of others I have met, people who are, as they say, “on the spectrum.” Maybe I should take it easy on you, but then again, given your obsessive-compulsive nature, maybe an outlet is what you need most (and especially needed by those poor souls who have to live with you).

  42. PHU TAN ELLI you wrote:

    “Actually, making assumptions based on the absence of a particular reaction is something mentally sound people do every day. For instance, if no one in heavy traffic is honking at you in anger it is quite reasonable to assume your driving is not offending them. Or if you’re making comments during a round discussion and no one casts a disapproving glance your way, you can assume you’re doing okay.”

    YOU HAVE GOT TO BE KIDDING? First, your premise is WHOLLY unrelated to the topic. Second, it simply does not represent an example that is realistically similar to what you have done. You are just making excuses and thus trying to change the subject. And as far as assuming you’re doing OK, the fact that no one makes a comment or reacts only means that many have the self-discipline to not react to insane ideas. But in a forum like this, there need to be someone to bring us back from fantasyland. You wrote:

    “Based on your comments I suspect you are seriously lacking in social awareness and personal skills. You remind me of others I have met, people who are, as they say, “on the spectrum.” Maybe I should take it easy on you, but then again, given your obsessive-compulsive nature, maybe an outlet is what you need most (and especially needed by those poor souls who have to live with you).”

    He we go again trying to inflict personal damage because your lack of EVIDENCE and the inability to tolerate ANY other persons perspective is quite obvious. In the end you have done nothing but rant again not even on topic.

    I am required to respond to any personal attacks, and I do so with evidence and proof, but you provide none of either. This is not the indications of someone that the readers can trust. Along with a person being “FAKE”.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *