The Dangerous Case Of Donald Trump

[Nicodemus]

There was some smell of sarcasm but it seems that many believe exactly what you said.

Many do, but nobody here does.

Ranting. The fucker is actually still ranting on my TV. Am I in the USA or have I been transported to some shit hole country without my consent?

The answer depends on how you voted in 2016.

 

[Z Buck McFate]

I saw a debate on Quora recently, of all things, about the show The Walking Dead, but someone wrote that it was unrealistic how a group of fairly diverse people ranging from gay to straight, white to black, etc could never form such close bonds and friendships in an apocalyptic scenario as they have on that series. But others argued that being thrown together like that in a crisis world and just being around one another 24-7 would make people see past a lot of those petty differences and form close bonds. Maybe I'm naive but I like to think the latter is true.

I'm pretty sure there are actually studies to support the idea that crisis and/or tragedy can blur differences and spur good faith bonding, but I'm far too lazy to try to find them right now.

 

[ceecee]

Thanks for mentioning Phelps and Picciolini. The idea that fire needs to be fought with fire because no one listens to respectful differences of opinion is unfortunate. I wish the Antifa types could realize this.

I don't know, I grew up in a southern home, a lot of very conservative people in my extended family, so I learned from an early age that just railing and insulting them doesn't tend to work. If anything, it makes people double down on their own views and dig in their heels. I used to have a lot of discussions in the car with my grandmother. Sometimes they led to her changing her mind on things. And sometimes I changed my mind after hearing her perspective, or at least evolved my own views. When we isolate ourselves in an echo chamber and dehumanize people with opposing opinions, it doesn't do anyone any favors. This is why it's a good thing some of the democrats running for president have sought to appear on fox news.

And yeah, John Oliver is kind of a tool. For that matter, so is Bill Maher. I probably agree more than I disagree with either of them, but there's a reason both tend to be so hated by people on the right. Talking down to people and using self-righteous 'it's the current year' logic rarely works. I'd wager neither of them have swayed very many people to change their minds, and they may have even driven a few more moderate minded folks further right.

John Oliver, Bill Maher, Trevor Noah...we need less of these people although I give John Oliver credit. The majority of his deep dive stories are on topics that most have not an inkling about (civil forfeiture, cash bail, compounding pharmacies, robocalls, debt buyers... these things impact Americans far more and the feeling that people should be learning about this stuff is the right direction.

I don't really buy the argument that moderate people will be driven right simply by having a conversation with them as a person on the left. If they are inclined to find comfort in right wing ideology, they weren't very moderate to begin with and nothing I say is responsible for their already existent views.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

John Oliver, Bill Maher, Trevor Noah...we need less of these people although I give John Oliver credit. The majority of his deep dive stories are on topics that most have not an inkling about (civil forfeiture, cash bail, compounding pharmacies, robocalls, debt buyers... these things impact Americans far more and the feeling that people should be learning about this stuff is the right direction.

I don't really buy the argument that moderate people will be driven right simply by having a conversation with them as a person on the left. If they are inclined to find comfort in right wing ideology, they weren't very moderate to begin with and nothing I say is responsible for their already existent views.

No, I don't think a respectful conversation would really drive someone right, however I think condescension and talking down to them might. Perhaps like you say they already took some comfort in right wing thinking, but it might also be the case they just go that way as a big fuck you to the people they felt were condescending or sanctimonious. I don't think all of the people who flipped for trump did so because they were already ideologically there. I'd wager that a lot of people don't think too much about ideology and politics in the "off-season", so for those particular people, it's not necessarily a matter of abandoning or changing ideologies.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

I'm pretty sure there are actually studies to support the idea that crisis and/or tragedy can blur differences and spur good faith bonding, but I'm far too lazy to try to find them right now.

It seems like the intuitive conclusion (not necessarily in the sense of intuition as the cognitive function).

 

[ceecee]

No, I don't think a respectful conversation would really drive someone right, however I think condescension and talking down to them might. Perhaps like you say they already took some comfort in right wing thinking, but it might also be the case they just go that way as a big fuck you to the people they felt were condescending or sanctimonious. I don't think all of the people who flipped for trump did so because they were already ideologically there. I'd wager that a lot of people don't think too much about ideology and politics in the "off-season", so for those particular people, it's not necessarily a matter of abandoning or changing ideologies.

I never hear anyone tell people on the right to have a respectful conversation with a person on the left, don't be condescending or sanctimonious or simply a raging asshole. I wonder why this is. Is it simply a disability for someone on the right? Or is it more of a do as I say not as I do thing? What do you think?

The off season thing is very applicable to both sides, I find almost daily.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

I never hear anyone tell people on the right to have a respectful conversation with a person on the left, don't be condescending or sanctimonious or simply a raging asshole. I wonder why this is. Is it simply a disability for someone on the right? Or is it more of a do as I say not as I do thing? What do you think?

The off season thing is very applicable to both sides, I find almost daily.

I dunno, I don't really talk to people on the right much these days. Personally I tend to avoid anyone condescending or sanctimonious, I don't care what their affiliation is, they're not worth my time.

In my experience, assholes on the right tend to present and act a bit differently than assholes on the left. I see left types will usually do the sanctimonious, talking down thing, whereas the right types tend to do this loud, confrontational thing, i.e. 'you don't like my values, then you can kiss my ass', or the types who might loudly talk about enjoying steak when they know they're in the same room as a vegan. The behavior and tones tend to differ, both are pretty insufferable though.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

There was some smell of sarcasm but it seems that many believe exactly what you said.

I know. People are dumb.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

John Oliver, Bill Maher, Trevor Noah...we need less of these people although I give John Oliver credit. The majority of his deep dive stories are on topics that most have not an inkling about (civil forfeiture, cash bail, compounding pharmacies, robocalls, debt buyers... these things impact Americans far more and the feeling that people should be learning about this stuff is the right direction.

I don't really buy the argument that moderate people will be driven right simply by having a conversation with them as a person on the left. If they are inclined to find comfort in right wing ideology, they weren't very moderate to begin with and nothing I say is responsible for their already existent views.

Though I gotta say, I do miss John Stewart. But he tended to attack the politicians, wasn't as condescending about the supporters/voters. And it was always nice to see him own Bill O Reilly whenever they guested on one another's shows. Seems a classic ESTJ-ENFP activity relation as predicted in socionics.

 

[ceecee]

Though I gotta say, I do miss John Stewart. But he tended to attack the politicians, wasn't as condescending about the supporters/voters. And it was always nice to see him own Bill O Reilly whenever they guested on one another's shows. Seems a classic ESTJ-ENFP activity relation as predicted in socionics.

Bill O'Rilly getting owned is a supreme pleasure no matter who is doing it but yeah, I always took special satisfaction in Jon Stewart. He also understands how to use shame directed at politicians with purpose and precision.

 

[Jonny]

Hey China, I know that I'm putting tariffs on a lot of your goods, and I know you don't like that. If you're willing to dig up (or makeup!) dirt on my political opponents, you just might find yourself with a sweetheart trade deal. How about it?

FYI, for you idiots on the forum, I'M NOT DIRECTLY QUOTING THE PRESIDENT!

This is insanity. He needs to be impeached.

 

[Jaguar]

And people wonder why I've never texted a message in my life and never will:

Democrats release Ukraine scandal texts from State Department officials
“I suggest we stop the back and forth by text.”

Read: Democrats release Ukraine scandal texts from State Department officials - Vox

 

[The Cat]

Gosh what a lousy time to be in a Ukrane text group. How am I supposed to stay connected to my fgriends who are passionate about NuAngels? Oh that I should live to see such dark times as these. Alack! Alack! The grim twists of fickle Fortune's follies! Surely tis but a coup? Pray thee good horse, do not trample overmuch in thine hospital. O Horatio what light from yonder window breaks?

 

[Jonny]

Andrew Sullivan: Trump Wants to Be Impeached. So Do It Now.

Trump's strength has always been his incredulity. He refuses to believe he is ever wrong or in the wrong. As such, it's easy for him to convincingly play the part.

As humans, our perception of a person's guilt is strongly influenced by their public admission and/or expression of shame. It's why, even after a guilty verdict in a murder case, many families of the victims still desperately long for an admission of guilt from the perpetrators as a form of closure.

I think part of this is because our feelings of being wronged are largely socially constructed, and we need the consent of others for them to be valid. That need extends to the person who wronged us. Trump, however, never consents.

It's a bizarre and uncomfortable situation.

 

[Z Buck McFate]

Andrew Sullivan: Trump Wants to Be Impeached. So Do It Now.

Trump's strength has always been his incredulity. He refuses to believe he is ever wrong or in the wrong. As such, it's easy for him to convincingly play the part.

As humans, our perception of a person's guilt is strongly influenced by their public admission and/or expression of shame. It's why, even after a guilty verdict in a murder case, many families of the victims still desperately long for an admission of guilt from the perpetrators as a form of closure.

I think part of this is because our feelings of being wronged are largely socially constructed, and we need the consent of others for them to be valid. That need extends to the person who wronged us. Trump, however, never consents.

It's a bizarre and uncomfortable situation.

There are actually chapters in self-help books about narcissism dedicated to explaining how -even if you come up with the perfect words - there will never be closure, you will never get them to own the effect they have on others, and time/energy is much better spent doing literally anything other than hoping or expecting it.

The best possible way to deal with a narcissist is to remove legal power and then paying absolutely no attention to them.

 

[The Cat]

- - - Updated - - -

and thus decrease the surplus population right?

 

[ceecee]

Andrew Sullivan: Trump Wants to Be Impeached. So Do It Now.

Trump's strength has always been his incredulity. He refuses to believe he is ever wrong or in the wrong. As such, it's easy for him to convincingly play the part.

As humans, our perception of a person's guilt is strongly influenced by their public admission and/or expression of shame. It's why, even after a guilty verdict in a murder case, many families of the victims still desperately long for an admission of guilt from the perpetrators as a form of closure.

I think part of this is because our feelings of being wronged are largely socially constructed, and we need the consent of others for them to be valid. That need extends to the person who wronged us. Trump, however, never consents.

It's a bizarre and uncomfortable situation.

If he could be impeached and then pardoned (by Pence) for any federal crimes, why not? He doesn't care about the country so the appeal to what he does care about - his freedom and old life he misses and says so - is all that matters.

 

[Z Buck McFate]

In attempt to clarify my above post so that people who are sane and/or not psychic can also maybe catch my meaning:

From the article above:

It is as if Nixon held a press conference and began it by saying, “Yes, I’m a crook. And the American people deserve to know it. But McGovern would have been a terrible president and so it was entirely worthwhile. Sure, I committed a high crime in tampering with the last election. But sometimes high crimes are necessary to save the country from the Democrats.”​

But it's not. It's more as if Nixon held a press conference and said, "Yes, I did these things - and haters with shady partisan motivations are putting a 'crook' spin on what I did. There was nothing wrong with what I did. They're only saying there is because Nixon Derangement Syndrome; they'll lie and spin anything they can into FAKE NEWS about me. No President of the United States has ever had to deal with the media spinning so many lies like I have. I have done nothing wrong. I have accomplished amazing things for our country! I know all of my supporters will believe THE TRUTH though. I have done NOTHING WRONG, and these accusations are treasonous. I just hope it doesn't take a civil war to make the haters see the TRUTH!"

There are a lot of excellent points in that article. It is patently clear to the majority of citizens in this country (sadly, not the majority of land mass, which is what actually matters more in the election process) that Trump believes he is above the rules - that he can break whatever rule he wants. This seems to be so deeply ingrained in his being that he doesn't seem remotely aware of it, that it's impossible to point it out to him (or his sheeple for that matter) because he will only ever spin enough chaos around the accusation to drown it out, and the point I was getting at in the first post is that we shouldn't even try. Because it's not going to happen. He does inflammatory things and then uses the negative emotional charge he causes to discredit those who are angry. That's just what narcissists do. Every book I've read on narcissism points this out, and emphasizes the futility in trying to point out how they talk circles around anything - because they are fucking masters at it, they've been (unconsciously) mastering the skill of doing this to get what they want since they were toddlers. It's a fool's errand to try. The guy who wrote that article is absolutely right about a lot of things - except Trump isn't begging to be impeached. What Trump is begging for is people to write more emotionally charged articles exactly like that, because it serves him. That writer is trying to point something out that can't be pointed out to Trump or Trump supporters. He's preaching to the choir, and overall it's relatively ineffective (because this particular choir already fucking knows all about it).

There are enough actual crimes to warrant impeachment. Trump uses the pitchforks we wave around on less consequential things - like "liddle'", or plain old character assassinations - to discredit the more consequential accusations. He uses the hate he incites towards himself (for his general buffoonery, grade school bullying, seeming 5th grade intelligence level and 3rd grade emotional level, etc) to discredit the more important issues. And it's working.

And so, when I say we need to focus on removing legal power - I mean we need to stop getting wound up about his petulant spoiled toddler personality and stick to the facts. [The impossible dream here is] We need to increase the signal to noise ratio. There is enough wrongdoing there, and if it can be presented in a truly emotion-less and succinct enough manner - to prove that he did things wrong and that he is beyond unfit, without character assassinations but plain cold facts - then the signal might get through. But the stuff that's getting our attention is giving him all he needs to create enough noise to drown it out. We need to stop giving him that kind of attention.

Pfft. Not confident I'm making more sense now than before, but it's taken a half hour of my life that I'm never getting back to write it so I'm posting it regardless. (Congratulations on losing the 5 minutes of your life that you'll never get back to read it, though).

 

[The Cat]

I read quickly; part of my insane psychic powers.

 

[Firebird 8118]

In attempt to clarify my above post so that people who are sane and/or not psychic can also maybe catch my meaning:

From the article above:

It is as if Nixon held a press conference and began it by saying, “Yes, I’m a crook. And the American people deserve to know it. But McGovern would have been a terrible president and so it was entirely worthwhile. Sure, I committed a high crime in tampering with the last election. But sometimes high crimes are necessary to save the country from the Democrats.”​

But it's not. It's more as if Nixon held a press conference and said, "Yes, I did these things - and haters with shady partisan motivations are putting a 'crook' spin on what I did. There was nothing wrong with what I did. They're only saying there is because Nixon Derangement Syndrome; they'll lie and spin anything they can into FAKE NEWS about me. No President of the United States has ever had to deal with the media spinning so many lies like I have. I have done nothing wrong. I have accomplished amazing things for our country! I know all of my supporters will believe THE TRUTH though. I have done NOTHING WRONG, and these accusations are treasonous. I just hope it doesn't take a civil war to make the haters see the TRUTH!"

There are a lot of excellent points in that article. It is patently clear to the majority of citizens in this country (sadly, not the majority of land mass, which is what actually matters more in the election process) that Trump believes he is above the rules - that he can break whatever rule he wants. This seems to be so deeply ingrained in his being that he doesn't seem remotely aware of it, that it's impossible to point it out to him (or his sheeple for that matter) because he will only ever spin enough chaos around the accusation to drown it out, and the point I was getting at in the first post is that we shouldn't even try. Because it's not going to happen. He does inflammatory things and then uses the negative emotional charge he causes to discredit those who are angry. That's just what narcissists do. Every book I've read on narcissism points this out, and emphasizes the futility in trying to point out how they talk circles around anything - because they are fucking masters at it, they've been (unconsciously) mastering the skill of doing this to get what they want since they were toddlers. It's a fool's errand to try. The guy who wrote that article is absolutely right about a lot of things - except Trump isn't begging to be impeached. What Trump is begging for is people to write more emotionally charged articles exactly like that, because it serves him. That writer is trying to point something out that can't be pointed out to Trump or Trump supporters. He's preaching to the choir, and overall it's relatively ineffective (because this particular choir already fucking knows all about it).

There are enough actual crimes to warrant impeachment. Trump uses the pitchforks we wave around on less consequential things - like "liddle'", or plain old character assassinations - to discredit the more consequential accusations. He uses the hate he incites towards himself (for his general buffoonery, grade school bullying, seeming 5th grade intelligence level and 3rd grade emotional level, etc) to discredit the more important issues. And it's working.

And so, when I say we need to focus on removing legal power - I mean we need to stop getting wound up about his petulant spoiled toddler personality and stick to the facts. [The impossible dream here is] We need to increase the signal to noise ratio. There is enough wrongdoing there, and if it can be presented in a truly emotion-less and succinct enough manner - to prove that he did things wrong and that he is beyond unfit, without character assassinations but plain cold facts - then the signal might get through. But the stuff that's getting our attention is giving him all he needs to create enough noise to drown it out. We need to stop giving him that kind of attention.

Pfft. Not confident I'm making more sense now than before, but it's taken a half hour of my life that I'm never getting back to write it so I'm posting it regardless. (Congratulations on losing the 5 minutes of your life that you'll never get back to read it, though).

Took me only a couple of minutes actually, I’m a pretty fast reader anyway, I completely agree.