Real issues with Trump no hyperbole

Post Reply New Topic

It's useless to offer you evidence, as, contrary at what you're saying, you're obviously biased in his favor and don't have the maturity to see it. But here are some proofs anyway.











http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2016/12/20/trump_omb_chief_pick_mick_mulvaney_questions_need_for_funding_science.html

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/12/13/rick_perry_is_trump_s_energy_secretary_pick.html

The Shia to me seem less extreme and Iranians are known for their relative modernity but that might be more appearances as their beliefs are hierarchical and esoteric whereas Sunnis don't derive religious authority that. They may have extreme religious beliefs but they don't partake in terrorism, not all Shia are the same either in terms of how conservative or not they are.

I don't necessarily oppose Muslim immigration(I oppose mass immigration across the board fwiw) so much as I oppose anti-Western fundamentalist beliefs, some of the finest most exemplary Americans are Muslims who have completely integrated which is something pretty unique to America. I think there definitely can be a better way of vetting people than what we have now, it might not be PC but not all religions and its sects are created equal and I don't believe it is bigotry or religious persecution to want restrict the growth of extremist ideologies. The values of a nation and its culture are important and need be protected, that is the fatal flaw in multiculturalism in that it places no value at all at preserving native culture and is a surrender to their rules and customs.

Shia are similar to Catholics to me and Sunnis like protestants, the Sunni view of Shia beliefs that I've heard are somewhat similar to how hardcore Lutherans see the Catholic church as idolatrous heretics. I wonder if Sunnis think the Ayatollah is the anti-Christ or anti-Muhammed or whatever the equivalent is in Islam like Lutherans consider the Papacy the anti-christ.

The tape of Trump discussing sexually assaulting (a broader category than rape) women without repercussions may have emboldened certain people who lean towards that behavior.

Trump is also dismantling at least one program that targets violence against women with disabilities. Numerous other umbrella programs that would include grants help both females and males with disabilities, i.e. kids in domestic situations, are in this Department of Justice Trump-killed list.

"Training and Services to End Violence Against Women with Disabilities Grant Program"
http://addictinginfo.org/2017/01/19/tru ... -programs/

A friend was assaulted in a way similar to what Trump described just after Trump's election. (One can't prove a connection in any one case; one needs statistics; however there are recorded increases in attacks by Southern Poverty Law Center against numerous groups he's publicly denigrated in some way.)

I've had severe reactions even to unwanted touch that is in the "milder" range of such things, let alone what the tape of President Trump records that he's done. While these behaviors cause trauma to NTs too; I suspect that many of us autistics could have magnified reactions; meltdowns and other emotional regulation issues after such a traumatic event. We might have more trouble getting "support" that works for us afterwards too, since that seems to involve lots of eye contact and verbalizing. Lots of us have depression and PTSD already from bullying, terribly done therapy, etc.; our brains might have less chemical buffers against such things worsening a lot if we get assaulted.

I hope everyone will take good care of themselves and others too, if you hear about incidents.

WHAT

Do you extend that logic to other things of public consumption like rap music or violent video games? Barack Obama invited rappers and entertainers who promote bad morals and violence against women to the White House, did that cause you trauma and outrage? Lets not even get started on the Clinton's issues with women.

People should understand that their constant outrage about Trump is hard to take seriously when there is no consistency. "We're not talking about them" doesn't work as an answer if you have selectively ignore the same fault on your side consistently, you've lost your credibility at that point.

Trump has a potty mouth and was recorded without his knowledge, it was a private conversation between him and Billy Bush crude and juvenile as it may be and shouldn't of been exposed. NBC wanted to sink Trump's candidacy and sat on that tape the entire election thinking that would do it, if just the exposure of it is has an effect on violence against women then it is the media that acted irresponsibly.

Your point is technically reasonable but in context ridiculous. You're not arguing that the ACA was somehow based on rumors and smears about Obama's drug use and sex life, so why claim that this is somehow legitimate to bring up.

This is precisely the kind of vapid US vs. THEM point scoring I was hoping to avoid.


I know it's asking a lot, perhaps too much, but if you could lower your Partisan Armor for a moment and look at what's actually there, you would be quite surprised.

Had you actually read the article about his personality, you would have noticed that Professor McAdams did not claim that Trump has a personality disorder or any other pathology. He does describe aspects of Trump's personality and makes some informed speculations about how those aspects may influence his actions as President.

A reflexive partisan viewpoint can make it hard to see what's really there. McAdams' article says this about Trump, for example:

Does that really sound like a claim that he is mentally defective to you?

The article is quite good. There is a lot of useful insight in it that will be helpful in understanding what is driving Trump as reacts to the challenges he is facing and will face as President.


Again, it seems that you totally ignored the sources I linked to. You and I don't know Trump personally, but Tony Schwartz knows him well and has observed him very closely in a variety of situations. I found that what he had to say, while tinged with more anti-Trump sentiment than Professor McAdams' analysis, was useful additional information on the personality traits discussed by McAdams.

Your reject these sources of information about him on the basis of irrelevancies and falsehoods because you think you know what the argument is without ever bothering to read it.

Your supposed implication about his qualification to hold office is nowhere in my post.

The real issues that I am talking about are Trumps actions as president. His public positions on trade, immigration and foreign policy are useful information to bring to analyze what he does as President, as are the observations about his personality from a trained professional and a person who has worked with him, observed him very closely and knows him far better than you or I.


No, the strawman you raise is not the issue, and the articles I linked to were not smears.

The issues that I was thinking about were:

* the wall with Mexico
* the focus on the size of the crowd at the inauguration
* the effort to discover millions of illegal voters to prove that he had not really lost the popular vote

The issue of the wall has now blown up into a diplomatic incident with mexico because of Trump's use of twitter to make statements about the then scheduled discussions. President Enrique Peña Nieto responded in kind, cancelling the meeting and declaring that the new Mexican negotiating strategy would be "Mexico First."
It's not some kind of anti-Trump smear to say that US-Mexico relations have deteriorated as a result of Trump's statements about the wall. This conflict with one of our most important trading partners, our second largest export market, is a real issue. We were told the reckless tweeting would stop when Trump began to take on the serious duties of the President. McAdams' description of Trump's motivating personality traits suggests that there is unlikely to be any moderation in this behavior and we'll see it again while the President engages with other foreign leaders.

The President seemed unduly upset by the suggestion that the crowd at his inauguration was smaller than the crowd at Obama's inauguration. Spicer was sent out to tell off the press for reporting things the President like and Conway came out to present alternative facts to the Sunday pundits. Trump spent time on this while speaking to the CIA, while saying little about foreign policy or intelligence. The focus on this inconsequential issue seems weird, but is predictable when viewed through the lend of McAdams' notes on Trump's personality.

I believe the effort to uncover widespread voter fraud will be a fruitless waste of time and money. Based on the statements from many Republican and Democratic officials about the integrity of local voting, I think this effort is motivated more by Trump's emotional reaction to the news that he lost the popular vote by a wide margin than by any real problem with voter fraud.

These are real issues and I think Trump's personality is as important as his political beliefs when he makes decisions about them. To me that's interesting and worth discussing.

Another issue like this would be Trump's reversal of his position on NATO after meeting with May. I wonder how that position will continue to evolve as he meets other foreign leaders. Mad Dog Mattis seems to have persuaded Trump of the importance of NATO, too. I am sure this will be an interesting area to watch.

I would be happy to see other "real issues" raised, by which I mean actions and statements Trump makes and love it if people could avoid the tit-for-tat partisan point scoring and posturing that has been typical of many other threads related to Trump.

Thanks for reasserting control of the thread, Adamantium. I had one good exchange the other day and it stoked my appetite for more reasoned exchanges with people.

Maybe if we each police our own side when we see things escalating, but ignore people on the other side trying to escalate, we can make progress. Would that be worth trying in this one thread?

I give a lot of props to you guys who continue to bandy words back and forth with the close-minded, medieval Trump contingent. I gave up days ago. All they were doing was leading me towards another stroke. I REFUSE to engage them in an argument that will go nowhere.

Let's cut it out with the armchair psychology. We don't have enough information either way, neither are we qualified to make a mental disorder diagnosis of any public figure.

I have to decide for myself how to deal with him, and I stand by my record. You can take me at my word on that or not, I guess. It is my carefully considered opinion, worded carefully.

Yes, and therein lies the rub; Trump would of course never agree to such an assessment. What does he have to win from it? Have you noticed a lot of psychiatrists and psychologists making such determinations about other public figures? I suspect you haven't, and for the reason you mention; it would be unprofessional, and it could cost them a lot in terms of professional respect, job opportunities and so on. So why do they do it anyway when it comes to Trump? Probably because they assume that a Trump presidency would cost them a lot in terms of job opportunities, security, a decent education for their children.....the list goes on. Try to explain it in another way, and we're in conspiracy theory country.

You know what? That's what you do when you vote for someone. You base your vote on incomplete information, but part of deciding who to vote for involves making up your mind about whether they are rational or not. You don't have to give them a diagnosis, but I think it's fair enough to say that Trump has an inordinately fragile ego, and that I wonder how he is going to fare when he gets into a fight he can't win.

The logical conclusion to your statement is that we can't know whether anyone has a personality disorder or not unless they've seen a shrink for it. Since cluster B personality disorders avoid shrinks, we should then pretend they don't exist? That's a really bad strategy for a democracy.

The speculation about personality is just not something I am ever going to accept, perhaps to you it's simply an exercise in understanding but to me it has other implications. Pathologizing your political opponents has a long history and I think it hurts the general discourse, your understanding and what most people read into things won't be the same. Patrick Kennedy who is an outspoken advocate for the mentally ill and definitely not a Trump supporter has raised issue with this as well so it's not simply partisan armor.

As for the issues you mention; I think we've had some good discussions about the wall, the crowd size thing is an irrelevancy that nobody cares about, and I feel like the final thing has been vindicated by the academic studies which are holy scripture to progressives saying there could of been up to 3 million illegally cast votes. That's the high number but 800k is still significant enough that it changes the outcome of elections and is evidence of mass fraud on a wide scale. It's the tip of the iceberg I think and warrants further investigation, we cannot be afraid of investigating something because you might not like what you find. People were trying to argue it was a myth but I think there are ulterior motives.

Has Mexico treated the US fairly? Has Mexico lived up to its own responsibilities to its citizens? I think the answer to both of those are no, we've been taken advantage of far to long by the elite corrupt Mexican government. They try to hide behind la raza but Mexican society is very racist and divided social class, look at the Mexican politicians/celebrities and compare them to the people they send over our border. Mexico like Cuba dumps what it considers its undesirable population on the US simply because they can, look up how Mexico treats immigrants from Central America and still cast moral judgement on the US for reasserting itself in this relationship. Just because the US has been an aggressor towards Mexico in the past does not give their country free reign to do whatever they and relieve them of all responsibility, millions of their citizens are in illegally in our country and they will pay for their removal like it or not.

Thanks for this post. You make a lot of excellent points. Sometimes, on PPR, exhaustion sets in, and I start asking myself whether this is really worth ignoring my laundry for. But we live in dangerous times. When I was a child, the big worry was over whether the Soviet Union would hit us with an atomic bomb, and Jaruzelski was the face of evil. But Jaruzelski was rational, and the Politburo was rational. With Islamic terrorists and Trump, there is no comforting belief that they would decide not to do something because they have nothing to win from it.

Mexico has a lot of problems. I don't see any disagreement on that front, but I'd rather not get into the manner in which you laid them out.

Maybe they can figure out for themselves what to do better than by listening to the US Federal Government? I'm just sayin'.

edit: I hope this doesn't come across as just more of me trying to back people into a corner!

I don't think it's going too far out on the limb to armchair diagnose Trump as ADHD. All you have to do is listen to him; he can't complete a sentence for one thought racing to another. Now, I'm not saying that's a bad thing; people with ADHD can be as successful as anyone, but it's silly to ignore the obvious.