I have listened to this man say many things and he simply pulls them out of the air. He is about as accurate as the 8 ball that answers your questions with "yes', "no," and "maybe," plus he is not a politician. He has a thin skin and takes so many things personally.
Recently he has an ongoing "feud" with the Khan family who's son was killed in the military. Despite his attacks on Mrs. Khan, a local businessman told me that investigations show the senior Khan believes in Sharia law so this means he wants to kill us, and he is our enemy. I didn't even check into the allegations of the businessman, but nonsense like this is what you get from Trump supporters. Even if this was true, does it justify what Trump did?
Trump appears to have renewed his "feud" with Megyn Kelly. It's not so much that there is some issue on what any of this is all about, it's the pettiness of it all. We are expected to hand over nuke codes and other sensitive information to a man who acts worse than a spoiled teenager. Are we insane?
Trump will make the Mexicans pay for the wall, and he will also load up the illegals on buses and send them back to Mexico. Ignorant people cheer while we assume due process will be ignored. Hello, Hitler.
Back to my businessman friend again on the national debt. He assumes that Obama did something here and we have to deal with this debt. Obama did nothing. The national debt comes from policies of the previous 8 years with Bush politics and things approved by Congress, but going into practice as law later. Even so, what could Trump do about that? Is he going to give you some of his billions?
"They say, I'm told, I'm hearing, we can figure that out when the time comes," and all the other "yes, no, maybe" of Mr. Trump is not appealing to me. When people say all of his family likes him, even ex-wives, I have to claim they know where the money comes from.
At what stage of this game will Mr. Trump possibly decide to just pull up his pants and go home? When will he decide to quit because the public did not react properly? Will he have or cause "nuke feuds" with others? This man is much more scary than Barry Goldwater ever was.
Any thoughts on this?
I recall that in my area in the early Obama days people asked stupid questions like "you mean you would vote for a black man just to avoid voting for a woman?" That question became redundant once the real race got started. Strangely today, I'm hearing "you mean you would vote for Hillary just to keep Trump from the presidency?"
My, how times change. Sorry. I just cannot imagine Trump with our nuke codes. It's a bad idea.
From the article: 'Although psychopathic traits are generally seen as negative, in fact some can be beneficial and even Jesus and Saint Paul have appeared high on the psychopathic leaderboard....' those two are not necessarily the best role models!!
'Study author Dr Kevin Dutton said: ..."Some of those traits, such as fearlessness or stress immunity, can be positive. Others, such as blame externalisation or being unconcerned about the future, are more likely to be negative. One, cold-heartedness, can contribute to good and bad leadership. ...'
At the bottom of the leaderboard, but still on it, are George Washington, Elizabeth I, Abraham Lincoln, and Mahatma Gandhi.
Psychopaths tend to be "detached, unflinching, and charismatic personalities, fearless, confident, charming, ruthless, and focused."
What does it mean to be a mentally healthy, mature, adult? That was my question in 1974 when I entered college as a middle aged, mother of three 10-year-old children. I didn't know! I grew up in a violent family; I married a man who turned out to be violent from a violent family. We created a violent family for our children.
What do people do when they don't know how to do something? Well, I usually ask others, pay attention to how others function, go to books and experts, experiment, explore, pay attention to changes in my behavior and how it impacts others. Just the usual stuff.
During my research, remember, this was 1974, no computers, I had my old portable from my 1955-6 year and a half at WSU where I majored in horticulture. I had to go to the abstracts and search by word, topic, or author to find citations to journals in the stack at the library. There was not one single book about family violence in all the public libraries at that time in Spokane. I looked for "anger", "violence", "family styles", "power", "conflict,", stuff like that and ran across several authors. One group ran a study over 10 or so years about gender roles.
Broverman, Broverman, Clarkson, Rosenkrantz, Vogel.
The first year, they studied professionals who provide counseling for troubled people. They found that when dependent, passive, and subordinate men sought help from psychologists, religious counselors, and social workers, the men received instruction on how to be more independent, active, and dominant.
When a woman came for counseling who were independent, active, and dominant, the women received instruction on how to be dependent, passive, and subordinate.
The researchers found that if a patient faced challenges that needed solving, the professionals responded with gender role appropriate treatment.
In later research, they found that using double-blind personality profiles results, gender unspecified, the patients were diagnosed and treated to be independent, active, and subordinate when facing life's challenges.
The researchers' questions and mine were how does a mother solve real world problems if her power source is dependent, passive, and subordinate?
That led me to other sets of researchers. Broverman, Vogel, & Broverman; Rosenkrantz, Vogel, Bee, Broverman, Broverman; Neufeld, Langmeyer, & Seeman; Spence, Helmreich, & Stapp.
By the end of my literature review, it became apparent to me that a man and a woman who live in balance with independence/interdependence, active/passive, and dominant/subordinate attitudes and behaviors have a probability of living as mentally healthy, mature, adult human beings.
Trump is a lot of things, many of them nasty and some of them dangerous, but he is also an amateur at politics, picking fights that win him no votes and often stepping all over his own message with comments that are irrelevant and outrageous. At this point it looks as though the chances of his winning are small, but a major terrorist attack or some other event could change that and that is the danger.
Clinton is running a well organized campaign, but she often makes things worse for herself by stonewalling every controversy. People think she is not trustworthy and thus far I don't detect a coherent message in her campaign. What does she want to do if elected?
This election is about who you dislike the most—it's the evil of two lessers.
How does my study on gender-role behavior relate to Trump and Clinton? I perceive Trump to be all the things that others have said; he is narcissistic, self-centered, obnoxious, insensitive to other's feelings, selfish, dominating, sexist, racist, a bully, and a thug. There are other words I would use to describe Trump, but my fingers are getting tired.
Does Trump live in a balance between active/passive, independent/interdependent, dominate/ subordinate?
No, I see no balance.
I perceive Clinton to be out of touch with the reality when her husband holds a world view of US as a nation entitled to the goods and services of other countries. Hillary did not convince him, or want to convince him that NAFTA and other trade agreements exploited the peoples and nations that live under the influence of those evil policies and practices. When confronted by people who hold the reality of unfair treatment to others, she loses her temper, on camera. Her denial and delusion to think the money coming from great wealth, foreign and domestic, has no impact on her decisions in the Senate are naive or stupid. She seems unaware of the polluting effects of coal, oil, gas, and fracking cause. Pollution of water and soils appear to be simply collateral damage. She shows her love of power and control while making decisions that cost human life and property damage. She supports war and violence. Others call her "Hawk". Many articles question her decisions, and I cite only one:
Does Clinton live in a balance between active/passive, independent/interdependent, dominate/ subordinate? She has so many qualities I admire, i.e. she has charisma, takes on tough debates, is fearless even as she is charming. Her focus results in effective action as I experienced years ago when I was in Older Women's League, and she provided legal talking points for that organization. She has commitments to family, women, and children,
Her detached, unflinching, fearless, confident, and ruthless attributes have within them, the reasons why I will not vote for her in 2016.
She doesn' realize the harm her policies cause. I wish she would sit down with Steeve Keen, Wynne Godley, Marc Lavoie, and Michael Hudson for a discussion on money.
I don't know if someone's already posted this link...
Trump’s repellent inner circle (Michael Gerson, The Washington Post)
A heavily snipped sample (bolding is mine):
"Trump’s campaign has been a roiling, noxious, dysfunctional mess from the start.... And Trump’s personnel selections have been both instructive and disastrous....
... Former campaign manager Corey Lewandowski had a brutal and demeaning style that resulted in a staff revolt, and his manhandling of a female reporter overshadowed the Trump campaign for weeks. Former campaign chairman Paul Manafort was paid lucrative consulting fees by foreign interests and resigned after reports that Ukraine anti-corruption investigators were scrutinizing millions in alleged payments there.
... What does all this say about Trump as a prospective president?
First, it means that the ideal of leadership Trump displayed as a reality television star is his actual view of leadership. It is not an act. In Trump’s view, leaders elevate themselves by belittling others. They yell and abuse and bully. And their most important quality is absolute loyalty to the great leader, the star of the show. This is a view of leadership that would make H.R. Haldeman cringe.
Second, Trump has managed to pick a team that directly undermines many of his campaign objectives. Need to appeal to women? Include a man in your inner circle accused by many of misogyny. Need to appeal to minorities? Elevate a figure associated with the racially divisive alt-right.... Trump’s rhetoric is belied by his choice of friends and associates.
... The hiring of Bannon does make Trump’s appeal to the alt-right explicit. But Breitbart News is mainly known in this election for slavish devotion to the cult of Trump. This attribute may well guide most of Trump’s top-level personnel choices, including for the Supreme Court."
Also relevant: last month's WashPost anti-endorsement editorial "Donald Trump is a unique threat to American democracy"
Losers feeling important while revealing their juvenile, sophomoric, imbecilic thoughts. I wonder if they paid attention in elementary school? They surely didn't make it out of secondary school. I hope they see themselves and see others laughing at their reactions.
Proves once again, you can't fix stupid.
What is a "Cheetohead Jesus?
Trump detractors like Rick Wilson, a Republican strategist, unleashed a massive tweet storm that rips on Trump for many things, including how he congratulated himself during breaking news of the Orlando shooting. He nicknames Trump as “Cheeto Jesus.”
Apparently the delightful Ann Coulter has a new book coming out soon. Title:
Posted by Loren in Politics, Economics, and Religion, but it belongs here too:
He's more a loose cannon than Bush II and Cheney combined. Which they were.
Donald Trump is the channel of our arrogance, grandiosity, and paranoia according to Andrew O'Hehir. He calls our decades long decay the American Disorder.
He’s like a funhouse-mirror reflection of America’s overweening pride and vanity,…
We told the world we were a free-enterprise meritocracy where talent rose to the top, and that guy became rich and famous. We told the world we were the exemplar of democracy, a light to all the nations, and that guy almost became president.
... Donald Trump ... is not the real problem. And defeating him at the ballot box, although preferable to the alternative, is not in any sense the solution. At most, Trump is the shaman who has invoked the American disorder in its nastiest form, and the channel through which it has expressed itself in this election.
... Democrats face the same internal struggle between their base voters and their Beltway leadership as Republicans, albeit in less overt and less acrimonious form.
... to believe that Clinton in any way represents a departure from the path of political entropy and paralysis ... is willfully naive.
My point is more that American politics have been in a state of slow decay for many decades and everyone knows it, even if the establishment caste of both parties has studiously pretended not to notice. Donald Trump is ... like the tumor or the boil that makes the disease obvious to everyone. [emphasis mine]