The Dangerous Case Of Donald Trump

[Peter Deadpan]

I really wasn't sure, and had even tried asking another what your comment could have meant. Still, "do you have any radar for "bad guys" and "I would expect you to get fucked over or hurt quite often", aren't exactly made up quotes that you didn't say, and even now I still don't know what perspective or thought you were trying to provoke.

I'm saying you can't just go by what's visible/measurable. If you did, you would certainly be getting fucked more than others. "You" can mean anyone here, btw, but since the discussion is between us, yes... I was directing it at you, except without accusation.

I also don't run around telling people they don't have intuition because we all do, but if you didn't... well, you'd be super naive and fuckable, and not in the sexy way.

One last thought: It is exceedingly rare for anyone on the antisocial spectrum to get formally diagnosed with a personality disorder. So... like 99% of narcissists/sociopaths/psychopaths are just running around doing their thing, (and probably right next to you).
That doesn't mean that you can't identify them as such with some level of confidence without a diagnostic protocol.

I highly suggest you research such disorders if you haven't already because there is a lot of interesting stuff to learn, and useful too (for me at least, because I thoroughly enjoy quietly psychoanalyzing people).

 

[Tater]

I've been reading this book and have to admit it was a bit eye opening. It's basically got contributions from a bunch of psychologists, psychiatrists and mental health professionals about his mental state. Some of it is obvious bashing but other parts were, I thought balanced and fair. The portrait that emerges isn't pretty. Key themes I found are the following:

1. There is something wrong with him - Actually more than one thing it seems. A study indicated that 50% of presidents before 1974 suffered from some kind of mental illness so that's not the big thing. It's the number of things he has in combination that seems to be the concern.

2. He's a Narcissist - It turns out Narcissism seems to common among people who arise to such positions. A healthy amount of it is ok but the general consensus is that he's not a healthy type. The biggest issue that was described is that he surrounds himself with "yes men". The guy who wrote the Art of the Deal and spent the better part of a year with him said he never once heard someone disagree with him in that entire year. I think you want a president that listens to different perspectives and makes thoughtful decisions based on those perspectives. It seems he doesn't really do this.

3. He is a bully - I don't know how anyone could disagree with this. Any kind of criticism is met with sharp attacks in return and be damned with the truth. I've gotten used to it and some of the things are funny, but he's the president of the United States for God's sake. He's apparently made statements about using nuclear weapons - why do we have them if we can't use them, etc.

4. He is focused on NOW and gives little thought to the future - I hope it isn't true but several of these people say this is the case, one reason being that his actions are often destructive to himself. He reacts in the moment like a child in a schoolyard - beating his chest at the slightest provocation.

5. He is paranoid - There seems to be plenty of evidence of this. They compared him to Richard Nixon. At the least, he seems to have some kind of persecution complex.

6. He's a sociopath - At first, I had a hard time with this but the general consensus that he doesn't trust anyone and he doesn't really care about other people very much. I mean, look at this list. A number of these obviously apply.

Profile of the Sociopath

• Glibness and Superficial Charm
• Manipulative and Conning - They never recognize the rights of others and see their self-serving behaviors as permissible. They appear to be charming, yet are covertly hostile and domineering, seeing their victim as merely an instrument to be used. They may dominate and humiliate their victims.
• Grandiose Sense of Self - Feels entitled to certain things as "their right."
• Pathological Lying - Has no problem lying coolly and easily and it is almost impossible for them to be truthful on a consistent basis. Can create, and get caught up in, a complex belief about their own powers and abilities. Extremely convincing and even able to pass lie detector tests.
• Lack of Remorse, Shame or Guilt - A deep seated rage, which is split off and repressed, is at their core. Does not see others around them as people, but only as targets and opportunities. Instead of friends, they have victims and accomplices who end up as victims. The end always justifies the means and they let nothing stand in their way.
• Shallow Emotions - When they show what seems to be warmth, joy, love and compassion it is more feigned than experienced and serves an ulterior motive. Outraged by insignificant matters, yet remaining unmoved and cold by what would upset a normal person. Since they are not genuine, neither are their promises.
• Incapacity for Love
• Need for Stimulation - Living on the edge. Verbal outbursts and physical punishments are normal. Promiscuity and gambling are common.
• Callousness/Lack of Empathy - Unable to empathize with the pain of their victims, having only contempt for others' feelings of distress and readily taking advantage of them.
• Poor Behavioral Controls/Impulsive Nature - Rage and abuse, alternating with small expressions of love and approval produce an addictive cycle for abuser and abused, as well as creating hopelessness in the victim. Believe they are all-powerful, all-knowing, entitled to every wish, no sense of personal boundaries, no concern for their impact on others.
• Early Behavior Problems/Juvenile Delinquency - Usually has a history of behavioral and academic difficulties, yet "gets by" by conning others. Problems in making and keeping friends; aberrant behaviors such as cruelty to people or animals, stealing, etc.
• Irresponsibility/Unreliability - Not concerned about wrecking others' lives and dreams. Oblivious or indifferent to the devastation they cause. Does not accept blame themselves, but blames others, even for acts they obviously committed.
• Promiscuous Sexual Behavior/Infidelity - Promiscuity, child sexual abuse, rape and sexual acting out of all sorts.
• Lack of Realistic Life Plan/Parasitic Lifestyle - Tends to move around a lot or makes all encompassing promises for the future, poor work ethic but exploits others effectively.
• Criminal or Entrepreneurial Versatility -Changes their image as needed to avoid prosecution. Changes life story readily.

6. He's suffering cognitive decline - He's the oldest president we have had so it isn't entirely surprising. It does seem clear that he is far less articulate than he was 15 years ago - using words like "huge", "tremendous", the incoherent rambling sentences, etc. His father suffered from Alzheimer's and that does seem to run in families.

7. He is delusional - It seems clear that one of two things is going on. Either he is a compulsive liar or he has his own distorted sense of reality. I am reminded of Elizabeth Holmes - the founder of Theranos.

Anyway, that's what I've taken out of it so far. There was some debate as to whether he is crazy like fox or just crazy. I likely vote for the latter.

It's easy to think of him as sort of entertaining character who is shaking things up and (in my case) implementing some policies that I agree with. The key point of it all is that it's dangerous to have a person like this with their hand on the nuclear trigger. How would he fare if circumstances like the Cuban Missle Crisis occurred - or when there was a false alarm that 2500 Soviet warheads were headed towards the US in Carter's administration. Is he the kind of guy you want in that position?

How dare you talk about master that way!

 

[Jonny]

Partisan polemics are generally useful only in supporting confirmation bias.

If Trump annoys you and you don't want to vote for him, don't.

I find most summary of faults like these, which I personally argued against people on similar lists for Obama, are generally worthless. It is simply "I don't like X so I create a big justification for why X is (evil, stupid, immoral, etc)." They were foolish about Obama and foolish about Trump.

Are there legitimate reasons to criticize someone? Sure. The Iraq War was stupid and Bush listened to the idiot neocons. Obama should have thown 10,000 bankers in jail instead of bailing them out and letting them steal 7 million homes. Etc.

@highlander

I think SFP is wrong here. It is common for certain types of people to tell others who compile lists like these that their efforts are either useless or partisan or worse. They'll mention that the same could be done for anyone and such things shouldn't be taken seriously. "If you don't like person X, then simply don't vote for them."

Posts like these can often be distilled into one primary objective: to stop others from spreading information that might be harmful to someone they like. Not always, but generally I'm weary of other people telling me what I should and shouldn't do, especially if those people only seem to pop up on one side of an issue (even though they may claim otherwise--almost always without providing evidence).

A premise of this argument is that you only have one power: casting a ballot on election day. But you don't. We're social creatures, and we have the power to influence others through the spread of information. If you compile a list of faults, to the extent that they have credible evidence to back them up, they might influence others.

Yes, technically I could write the exact same list you wrote about Trump for everyone who ever lived...but, it would be quickly dismissed as outright false for most everyone else. We can never know for certain what motivates a particular person, but we can take note of the evidence and come to reasonable conclusions. People who claim that Obama and Trump are somehow equivalent are being disingenuous; you and I both know it. It's transparent whataboutism.

Just my 2 cents.

The politics subforum has been up for, I guess, less than a month and I already feel gross.

 

[Lark]

Would it be fair then to summarize the Trump supporters' case as "Ethics is overrated"?

I think that could be correct but I think that Trumps supporters are solidly drawn from that scene, it includes incels, net/meme nerds, gamergate nerds, the alt right, who, seriously, seem to have the most terminal case of perpetual male adolescence I have ever, ever seen.

The whole beyond good and evil thing is bullshit. Bullshit writ large.

Maybe it seems all very, very novel to someone who is struggling with a too great/overwhelming superego/conscience, or who has some kind of terrible guilt complex (and boy do many of those on the left of the spectrum have their own version of this, super bad version) but ultimate there's no such thing as beyond good and evil. Its one of natures true dichotomies. You can be extra good or extra evil or scrutinize the content of either good or evil but ultimately good and evil is all there is.

Ethics is definitely not bunk.

 

[Lark]

This is actually a decent article

Unpicking Donald Trump’s psychopathology helps explain the toxic reality facing America ǀ View | Euronews

I definitely do think that Trump is as much of a Joe Average as anyone is liable to ever see in office.

So its pretty serious if Joe Average has decided to be something which is the opposite of his best self.

Most of the best commentators on Hitler's Germany has been right to point out that Hitler was not some sort of demigod but was just an ordinary guy, an ordinary guy with exceptional power because the state had been transformed to make it so.

 

[Lark]

I'm saying you can't just go by what's visible/measurable. If you did, you would certainly be getting fucked more than others. "You" can mean anyone here, btw, but since the discussion is between us, yes... I was directing it at you, except without accusation.

I also don't run around telling people they don't have intuition because we all do, but if you didn't... well, you'd be super naive and fuckable, and not in the sexy way.

One last thought: It is exceedingly rare for anyone on the antisocial spectrum to get formally diagnosed with a personality disorder. So... like 99% of narcissists/sociopaths/psychopaths are just running around doing their thing, (and probably right next to you).
That doesn't mean that you can't identify them as such with some level of confidence without a diagnostic protocol.

I highly suggest you research such disorders if you haven't already because there is a lot of interesting stuff to learn, and useful too (for me at least, because I thoroughly enjoy quietly psychoanalyzing people).

I read a good book lately called In Pursuit of The Nazi Mind or something like that which investigated the different ways in which analysts had tackled Hess and Hitler and the whole idea of Nazism being a psychological phenomenon, it was pretty good.

One of the interesting things about it was that the author described how a lot of analysts had been critical of Freud's biographical examinations of secondary sources about people like Leonardo Da Vinci (it wasnt just Da Vinci that Freud did this with but I cant remember right now the other big example of it) but then after the second world war the same analysts did almost the same thing with Hitler (and with Hess, even though he was there, it was kind of difficult as the guy appears to have descended into proper goose stepping craziness).

So I think its going to at best be a partial picture at best that can be inferred from secondary sources.

Its a good point you make too about the formal diagnosis of ASD or similar pathologies, I've known very few people to adopt those labels or own them, less still to voluntarily enter therapy that is likely to label them that way. In some sense its still because they have such a strongly pejorative aspect still.

Likewise that anyone being labelled that way who challenges it is liable to be described as choosing the course of psychological resistance as an ego defence by a therapist. All the literary deconstructions of the power dynamic within psycho-analysis where not without having a good point if you ask me.

I dont think it means all analysis is invalid, just that its all much more difficult than anyone could possibly suppose it to be.

 

[Lark]

It's how he did the above that has pretty much convinced me of him having NPD. He never seemed like he truly wanted to be president but it was hard for him to give up the steady stream of narcissistic supply he was receiving those groups. And it kept going from there. He's still relying on it now. It makes me wonder if he will become more unstable as the pool of supply dries up.

Who says it will dry up though, he's been pretty good at drawing on it but he's reinforced and replenished it too I would say.

Trump definitely gets energy from the crowds he seems to be fit to keep in thrall but they like his attention too, there's a weird reciprocity about it.

Also, I think you have to consider how long Trump as been involved in this, it goes back before his political involvement too, and I see a lot of it as foreshadowed in things like his appearances related to sports and in particular wrestling.

The whole Trash Talking nature of the wrestling scene and fandom is almost a kind of precursor to what he managed to do within politics, I think its even more significant than his reality TV experience and big, bad boss persona from The Apprentice. Its how his Twitter spats look. Its also a bizarre sort of framework or style Trump has tried to impose upon geo-politics.

 

[Lark]

More like, we understand the nature of power in reality, and how things evolved to create the concept of power. If you think power came from being ethical, or getting along. You forget your ancestors. Peace is built on the backs of bloodshed, deceit, and betrayal. Only the people of today have the luxury to complain about "orange man bad", because they only like to look at the nice things about reality, and ignoring the bitter harsh truths of what it means to hold power.

I'll be honest with you, that sort of musing about power itself, that sort of armchair real politik is only usually engaged in by people are living in pretty comfortable, lawful, peaceable times and places.

Its a little like the skinny white guy in Gran Torino who talks street to a group of genuine Thug Life types and Eastwood's character tells him to stop calling them his brothers as they arent his brothers and no one is likely to want him to be.

Also, like I've said before, its a case of terminal adolescent maleness too. Any society that's been truly based upon "might makes right" hasnt prospered or lasted long and its certainly not been anything to get jealous of. I cant remember the last time I saw anyone on Cribs or any of those other life style shows sit up and say, geezes, homs, I'd trade all the cars and condos in for the opportunity to live it large like they do in Somalia.

 

[Z Buck McFate]

There was some debate as to whether he is crazy like fox or just crazy. I likely vote for the latter.

I think there is a tendency for people with his degree of malignant narcissism to stir up chaos and effectively use that chaos in a smoke and mirrors kind of way to steer shared reality in self-serving direction. But there isn't as much deliberate calculation in it as people would otherwise believe. When people go their whole lives getting what they want by manipulating others this way, they become very good at it. They manipulate themselves as much as they manipulate others, really - in short, their perception distorts reality and they accumulate a lifetime's worth of experience in learning the most effective ways to force that distorted reality onto others. It's just instinct, not deliberate brilliant calculation. But to anyone who doesn't have this accumulation of experience and doesn't directly have this instinct (and/or has never had the obstacle in their own life of navigating around someone who does this), it can indeed look like the stuff of masterminds. It's stunning.

When someone is so accustomed to deciding 'the truth' and forcing it on others, they can no longer recognize there's a difference between deciding the truth vs. discerning it; sharing reality with others becomes nothing more than a power struggle over who gets to 'decide', as if there's nothing more involved in discerning reality. Trump is such a throbbing mass of base instinct to use power to force his 'decided' reality on people - he's proven he's no longer even remotely open to incorporate any other perspective, even though it is his job is to serve a country whose majority of citizens strongly disagree with the reality he's trying to establish (not through its own merit, but solely through power). That's not acceptable. And the degree to which he does it is unprecedented. To say that he's no different from past leaders is just meta-"Trump Derangement Syndrome" pettifoggery. The capacity to discern shared reality is absolutely essential for a leader of a democracy; the alternative is the very definition of autocracy.

One of the things James Comey said about Obama (and it's worth mentioning that Comey didn't consider himself an Obama supporter/didn't vote for Obama) is that Obama had an amazing gift for taking in all the viewpoints offered to him and presenting a new viewpoint that took it all into account. But Trump simply fires anyone who tries presenting something he doesn't want to hear. He doesn't even try to hide that he does this.

Also, I think a lot of breath is being wasted on discussion about whether or not Trump warrants and 'official' malignant NPD diagnosis. Whether or not he qualifies for a diagnosis is rather beside the point. The behavior (and his rather established difficulty in discerning the truth) behind this en masse remote diagnosis is the problem, and that's what should be focused on. To argue about whether it qualifies for an official diagnosis is kinda detracting from the argument of how the behavior itself (and underlying limitation in capacity to process information) is an impairment to effective leadership.

 

[Lark]

If these traits are viewed positively/negatively, I’d want to know why/how they are negative/positive as pertaining to politicians.

Personally, I rely upon virtue ethics as elaborated on by Aristotle, I also think that Kant's categorical imperative, harm principle etc. are valid when I make judgements about the character and conduct of authorities or public life.

Although that would only be the most obvious criteria that I might make reference to. Its also distinct from my own personal coda but then it governs my own private life and I dont expect everyone to conform to it.

Real politik, might makes right, machavellianism and a sort of Al Capone code are not things that you want to begin trending, if they already are then they need to be defeated and not adopted as best practice.

Machiavelli didnt just write The Prince, he also wrote a number of Discourses on Livy about how Republican Polis ought to work, how virtuosity could/should be embraced by a public in order to check the power, corruption, ambition of leaders and not simply more strongly identify with whatever aggressors and power mongers that Fortuna takes a shine to.

 

[Justin of Flavia Neapolis]

Personally, I rely upon virtue ethics as elaborated on by Aristotle, I also think that Kant's categorical imperative, harm principle etc. are valid when I make judgements about the character and conduct of authorities or public life.

Although that would only be the most obvious criteria that I might make reference to. Its also distinct from my own personal coda but then it governs my own private life and I dont expect everyone to conform to it.

Real politik, might makes right, machavellianism and a sort of Al Capone code are not things that you want to begin trending, if they already are then they need to be defeated and not adopted as best practice.

Machiavelli didnt just write The Prince, he also wrote a number of Discourses on Livy about how Republican Polis ought to work, how virtuosity could/should be embraced by a public in order to check the power, corruption, ambition of leaders and not simply more strongly identify with whatever aggressors and power mongers that Fortuna takes a shine to.

Good points. I'd also add to this that the politician "elected" (however you'd like to use that term) may be a reflection of the people itself. Contrary to popular belief, unlike Russian or Chinese "Democratic" elections, the American model still seems to be barely functioning as to its original design. Barring outright usurpation by an "elected" official or changing of the rules by one party or the other, that is.

Maybe the complaints lodged at this particular official (Trump) could be reflected back at the society which produced him?

(assuming the society believes they have as much control over the culture to begin with, which I don't believe to be the case, but that's a different topic.)

 

[Lark]

Good points. I'd also add to this that the politician "elected" (however you'd like to use that term) may be a reflection of the people itself. Contrary to popular belief, unlike Russian or Chinese "Democratic" elections, the American model still seems to be barely functioning as to its original design. Barring outright usurpation by an "elected" official or changing of the rules by one party or the other, that is.

Maybe the complaints lodged at this particular official (Trump) could be reflected back at the society which produced him?

(assuming the society believes they have as much control over the culture to begin with, which I don't believe to be the case, but that's a different topic.)

I do think that Trump's character is a product of the social unconscious or social character but everyone more or less is conditioned that way, its hard to find anyone in history that is ahistorical in their social character, maybe Jesus (which is a kind of special case, at least for believers).

Its less likely that some sort of vague conditioning by "society" takes place so much as a very concrete conditioning by Success takes place, at the moment, like I mentioned already, it seems like you can be really successful or really healthy but you dont seem to be able to manage both, although if you're really successful then maybe you can pay the doctors and therapists bills and it doesnt matter.

One of the unique things about the US system is that a lot of the time republicans argue that it is a representative system as opposed to a responsible system, so government, by their reckoning, should not be interventionist or have any role other than the represent pretty much, now, part of this goes back to democracy's struggle with aristocracy and monarchy, which was its first enemy rather than the later day dictatorships.

Anyway, I always looked at the politicians who did get elected, Chicken George and Trump, and thought, well, if these guys are what a success is, then maybe you can keep it

 

[The Cat]

 

[Jonny]

I think there is a tendency for people with his degree of malignant narcissism to stir up chaos and effectively use that chaos in a smoke and mirrors kind of way to steer shared reality in self-serving direction. But there isn't as much deliberate calculation in it as people would otherwise believe. When people go their whole lives getting what they want by manipulating others this way, they become very good at it. They manipulate themselves as much as they manipulate others, really - in short, their perception distorts reality and they accumulate a lifetime's worth of experience in learning the most effective ways to force that distorted reality onto others. It's just instinct, not deliberate brilliant calculation. But to anyone who doesn't have this accumulation of experience and doesn't directly have this instinct (and/or has never had the obstacle in their own life of navigating around someone who does this), it can indeed look like the stuff of masterminds. It's stunning.

When someone is so accustomed to deciding 'the truth' and forcing it on others, they can no longer recognize there's a difference between deciding the truth vs. discerning it; sharing reality with others becomes nothing more than a power struggle over who gets to 'decide', as if there's nothing more involved in discerning reality. Trump is such a throbbing mass of base instinct to use power to force his 'decided' reality on people - he's proven he's no longer even remotely open to incorporate any other perspective, even though it is his job is to serve a country whose majority of citizens strongly disagree with the reality he's trying to establish (not through its own merit, but solely through power). That's not acceptable. And the degree to which he does it is unprecedented. To say that he's no different from past leaders is just meta-"Trump Derangement Syndrome" pettifoggery. The capacity to discern shared reality is absolutely essential for a leader of a democracy; the alternative is the very definition of autocracy.

One of the things James Comey said about Obama (and it's worth mentioning that Comey didn't consider himself an Obama supporter/didn't vote for Obama) is that Obama had an amazing gift for taking in all the viewpoints offered to him and presenting a new viewpoint that took it all into account. But Trump simply fires anyone who tries presenting something he doesn't want to hear. He doesn't even try to hide that he does this.

Also, I think a lot of breath is being wasted on discussion about whether or not Trump warrants and 'official' malignant NPD diagnosis. Whether or not he qualifies for a diagnosis is rather beside the point. The behavior (and his rather established difficulty in discerning the truth) behind this en masse remote diagnosis is the problem, and that's what should be focused on. To argue about whether it qualifies for an official diagnosis is kinda detracting from the argument of how the behavior itself (and underlying limitation in capacity to process information) is an impairment to effective leadership.

This is an excellent post; very well put.

 

[Forever_Jung]

I think there is a tendency for people with his degree of malignant narcissism to stir up chaos and effectively use that chaos in a smoke and mirrors kind of way to steer shared reality in self-serving direction. But there isn't as much deliberate calculation in it as people would otherwise believe. When people go their whole lives getting what they want by manipulating others this way, they become very good at it. They manipulate themselves as much as they manipulate others, really - in short, their perception distorts reality and they accumulate a lifetime's worth of experience in learning the most effective ways to force that distorted reality onto others. It's just instinct, not deliberate brilliant calculation. But to anyone who doesn't have this accumulation of experience and doesn't directly have this instinct (and/or has never had the obstacle in their own life of navigating around someone who does this), it can indeed look like the stuff of masterminds. It's stunning.

 

[highlander]

Actually, no. I find Trump hating Republicans to be an interesting group. If one goes down a list of actual Trump actions, most would be happy: tax cuts, deregulation, judges, etc. Where does he deviate policywise from the last 30 years of Republicanism? 1. He rejects globalism. This is actually the traditional Republican position, just changed since Bush 41 and his NWO. 2. He is an economic nationalist. Likewise a traditional Republican position. 3. He opposes illegal immigration and is building the wall. Traditional Republican position. 4. He is trying to end the endless wars in the Middle East. 5. He rejects neoliberalism and neoconservativism. None of those issues are core Republican issues, but recent things. Trump is, effectively, the first president to act as if the USA is the only superpower after the Cold War. And as much as some claim he is only about Trump, his language is actually inclusive, using much more "we" and "us" than "I", while Obama was a huge fan of "I". Where I wish he would do something different: 1. Antitrust enforcement 2. National health care 3. Reduce foreign military bases (currently over 800). 4. More bureaucracy reform. 5. Infrastructure spending. 6. Wall Street reform One of my earliest memories was a breaking news report when I was still in preschool about the Fall of Saigon. Strange to say, but I have studied history and politics and foreign relations ever since. I have multiple degrees in those areas and have taught in one of those fields at a major university. I am in a different profession but still study these areas as hobbies. The most despicable individual who was president was LBJ. Every criticism you make of Trump was likely true of Johnson. Yet the country survived. In Obama's last year alone, he dropped about 27k bombs on 7 countries. Before that, he directly ordered drone assassinations of US citizens and foreign nationals. His administration spied on journalists and threw some in jail. His staffers spied on Congress and lied to Congress. He used the IRS against Tea Party groups and others. And that is all besides the spying on the Trump campaign and pushing a fake Russian collusion narrative. And much more. Trump is unique for challenging the bipartisan DC establishment. The media is attacking him nonstop, just as much as they supported Obama for 8 years. Consumer confidence is at the highest since before 9/11. Wages are increasing. People moved from part time to full time and to better jobs. Etc. I was very skeptical of Trump. In 2015 and 2016, I posted a lot of negative articles about him here. I really didn't believe he would follow through. After he was elected, I hoped the Democrats would work with him, as Chuck and Donnie are old friends and I believe there are many things that need to be addressed. Instead they went with Plan B, to cover up their own malfeasance and high crimes. Trump has far exceeded any reasonable expectations. I have a friend who is a federal circuit judge. He is a Bushie and hates Trump and will not vote for him. He does really like his policies, however. He just has an irrational hatred and turns from a calm reasoned man to an angry one, almost violently so, when Trump's name is mentioned. I find it interesting. I argued with plenty who came up with similar lists about Obama. Their hatred of Obama blinded them. I voted for Obama in 2008 and don't regret it one bit. He was the better candidate. I am disappointed he largely wasted his presidency and didn't throw 10k bankers in jail and bombed so many places and screwed up health insurance. So, looking just as policies actually done, what are your objections to Trump? Try to stay away from personality and psychological issues. And remember, most every president has been a narcisstic sociopath, so those types of issues are really immaterial when evaluating a presidential candidate.

I just want to say this is a very good post. You have articulated several policy positions that I agree with. He is not all bad and I like some things he is doing. To a large degree; he HAS exceeded my expectations but I must admit they were pretty low to begin with. I am still concerned about what I said. The hopeful side of me feels he is self serving enough to not blow us all up or something otherwise with serious long term consequences. I thought it unwise to elect someone like this and still do but appreciate hearing your position. It adds substance to the argument for what he is doing that can be perceived as positive.

 

[highlander]

I think there is a tendency for people with his degree of malignant narcissism to stir up chaos and effectively use that chaos in a smoke and mirrors kind of way to steer shared reality in self-serving direction. But there isn't as much deliberate calculation in it as people would otherwise believe. When people go their whole lives getting what they want by manipulating others this way, they become very good at it. They manipulate themselves as much as they manipulate others, really - in short, their perception distorts reality and they accumulate a lifetime's worth of experience in learning the most effective ways to force that distorted reality onto others. It's just instinct, not deliberate brilliant calculation. But to anyone who doesn't have this accumulation of experience and doesn't directly have this instinct (and/or has never had the obstacle in their own life of navigating around someone who does this), it can indeed look like the stuff of masterminds. It's stunning. When someone is so accustomed to deciding 'the truth' and forcing it on others, they can no longer recognize there's a difference between deciding the truth vs. discerning it; sharing reality with others becomes nothing more than a power struggle over who gets to 'decide', as if there's nothing more involved in discerning reality. Trump is such a throbbing mass of base instinct to use power to force his 'decided' reality on people - he's proven he's no longer even remotely open to incorporate any other perspective, even though it is his job is to serve a country whose majority of citizens strongly disagree with the reality he's trying to establish (not through its own merit, but solely through power). That's not acceptable. And the degree to which he does it is unprecedented. To say that he's no different from past leaders is just meta-"Trump Derangement Syndrome" pettifoggery. The capacity to discern shared reality is absolutely essential for a leader of a democracy; the alternative is the very definition of autocracy. One of the things James Comey said about Obama (and it's worth mentioning that Comey didn't consider himself an Obama supporter/didn't vote for Obama) is that Obama had an amazing gift for taking in all the viewpoints offered to him and presenting a new viewpoint that took it all into account. But Trump simply fires anyone who tries presenting something he doesn't want to hear. He doesn't even try to hide that he does this. Also, I think a lot of breath is being wasted on discussion about whether or not Trump warrants and 'official' malignant NPD diagnosis. Whether or not he qualifies for a diagnosis is rather beside the point. The behavior (and his rather established difficulty in discerning the truth) behind this en masse remote diagnosis is the problem, and that's what should be focused on. To argue about whether it qualifies for an official diagnosis is kinda detracting from the argument of how the behavior itself (and underlying limitation in capacity to process information) is an impairment to effective leadership.

Also really admiring this post that is very insightful and great analysis of the situation. That sounds about right.

 

[Tilt]

I gotta hand it to Trump. Say what you will, he definitely knows to how to get people fired up and has a twisted distortion field going on.

I would argue that he's smarter than many people give him credit for... Not brilliant by any means but slightly above average in how he's able to work in spheres of influence well enough to get what he wants.

His NPD-like behavior just makes him look like a flaming idiot because he tramples over social norms like there's no tomorrow and normal people tend to have better impulse control than he seems to possess.

 

[Tater]

I am disappointed that I have spent an inordinate amount of time, energy, and focus on this guy who did jack shit to deserve any of that.

I am disappointed that I have given this person far more attention than I have given to my friends and loved ones since he ran for president.

I am disappointed that I have exposed myself to Trump so much that I have numbed myself to issues being reported on and psychologically exhausted myself.

I'm freaked out that, by proliferating so much material on Trump, I likely acted as an unwitting accomplice for Trump by providing nonstop coverage of Trump to be consumed ad nauseum by people who follow me on social media.

And I am anxious that his supporters would be happy to see me run myself into the ground by acting as his narcissistic supply.

Do I believe that Trump's NPD has an impact? Abso-fucking-lutely.

 

[Tater]

I am disappointed that I have spent at least 2 or 3 hours attempting to discern Trump's MBTI, enneagram, and Sociotype because I was so terrified and perplexed by his behavior that I wanted to have an explanation for his behavior and set an appropriate amount of distance between my ego and my conceptualization of him, which is ironic because MBTI, enneagram, and Socionics offer no explanatory power on a scientific basis.

I am disappointed that I have argued about Trump's enneagram type to shield my conception of people I held in high esteem. And I am disappointed because enneagram holds no scientific weight and Trump deserves nothing from me. That is time I could have been using to learn a new skill, like pottery, gardening, knitting, etc.