No, it is just his Mars energy matrix.

It converts aggression back and he sort of uses it the way Ymar uses it online.

What is frightening funny is that when I apply the same energy matrix to people online, they get surprisingly mad at Ymar for tactics that Trum doesn’t even use, because it is too “soft” and “loser like”.

I guess Trum supporters are over stimulated. They need the true s m techniques of the “toughest” guy there, haha.

Title: Hamilton Wouldn’t Impeach Trump

What is an impeachable offense? Rep. Maxine Waters, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, says the definition is purely political: “whatever Congress says it is—there is no law.” She’s wrong.
—
Hamilton didn’t say the process of impeachment is entirely political. He said the offense has to be political [with substantial impact to the nation].
—
Hamilton was concerned that the decision to impeach and remove “the accused” be based not on “the comparative strength of parties,” but rather on “real demonstrations of innocence or guilt.” These words imply a quasi-legal process rather than an exclusively political one.
—
The constitutional criteria are necessary for impeachment, but they do not necessitate it.
—
That’s why they designed both procedural and substantive protections against misuse of this important legislative check on the executive. — The substantive check is the list of offenses justifying impeachment.
—
But if a president paid hush money out of personal funds to prevent his adultery from being disclosed—as Hamilton did when he was Treasury secretary—he wouldn’t be impeached. Adultery was a felony in Hamilton’s time, but nothing Hamilton did constituted a public crime. Perjury to cover up adultery—one of the offenses for which Mr. Clinton was impeached—is a closer call, although I believe it was not impeachable.

It seems to me that if there is a necessary constitutional criterion for impeachment, then the SCOTUS has the ability to weigh in on it.

But I’m not confident that the voters WOULD punish the House, even if it did make up some ridiculous reason for an impeachment vote. The media would be right there all the way, dishing out misinformation to delude people into believing that the impeachment was justified. The Constitution obviously doesn’t have, and can’t have, a mechanism for forcing the media to tell the truth.

But I think Mike Bunge may have something there. Also Aesop, in her quote.

*Deleted by commenter — suspected misreading confirmed*

Oh, I see, Aesop. By “lab rats” you mean the rats in Berridge’s lab, not the people in the labs. OTOH, I don’t know that the rats consider their lives “humdrum,” and obviously the human “lab rats” like Berridge and my physicist Honey don’t (didn’t) consider their lives humdrum.

Berridge thinks that experiencing this in-between state requires the right personal balance of safety and comfort, much like the rush of riding a rollercoaster can be desirable—so long as you’re buckled in—or how a lot of people get a kick out of seeing horror unfold—so long as they’re watching it on a screen from the couch. In a sport like rock climbing, we find that balance through practice and the development of confidence in our abilities. “If I were up there, I would be terrified,” Berridge says. “But your sense of control and confidence is much like the rats being in their homeroom.”

The in-between also has a tendency to focus you. “The world kind of brightens up, and is inviting,” Berridge says. You alternate between experiencing fear itself and the possibility of fear. It’s one way to trigger what many athletes say they are really after: the experience of flow.

I suspect that the lab rats don’t actually experience much of a psychological “flow” in their humdrum little lives.