Donald trump. what is your take on him?

[jasonallenh]

President Trump has other sources of intelligence , but it is less likely to watch MSNBC over Fox due to the tone of coverage. A lot of the liberal media have abandoned any pretense of objective reportage and just openly attack his administration, for every minor transgression, real or imagined.    I won't defend every utterance, but the Sweden remark has been explained. It was his inarticulate response to a segment he saw on the Tucker Carlson show the night before, about problems with the recent asylum seekers there not assimilating into the swedish culture, and causing public safety concerns. There does not seem to be a very honest assessment from swedish leaders and news organizations regarding this.

Sweden has very generously accepted more immigrants per capita than most european nations, but immigrants from regions that were fighting each other before moving to sweden have been slow to forget old conflicts. In january Sweden announced plans to expel as many as 80,000 asylum seekers.  I have seen/heard a number of anecdotal reports about people feeling unsafe in their own home neighborhoods.

I'm sure our swedish forum members can correct me if I am wrong (maybe even if I'm not.  ;D ). that is the "job" of an honest adversarial media, but they spew so much venom it can be hard to take them seriously. Yes, he has misinterpreted news images/stories before. One of the most striking that I recall was during the campaign when he claimed that muslims were celebrating in the streets (in NJ) after the 9/11 attack. He (or somebody near him) clearly confused TV images of people in the middle east shown openly celebrating the attack in the arab street back then. Somehow that got conflated with events across the river from the WTC in NJ. 

Trump speaks with zero filters on his stream of consciousness...  I wish he was more thoughtful before speaking but he seems unwilling to change dramatically (he has slowed down a little but not enough IMO). He routinely steps on his own messaging with spurious unrelated tweets. He will pay a price for any blatantly wrong claims that he doesn't walk back. Adversarial media would be more effective (and more believable) if they weren't so hyperbolic. They are at risk of turning into the boy who cried wolf, so many times that nobody believes them when the wolf really comes.

Neither side is behaving in their own self interest while in the short term ratings are up for the aggressive anti-trump media attackers, so somebody likes watching the drama.

JR

PS: N Korea is a can of worms. In response to their nuclear missile development tests, we have moved anti-missile batteries to south korea, to protect allies in the region (Japan, So Korea, etc). China is unhappy about the missile defense in their backyard but they have been unwilling or ineffective at keeping N Korea in check. The N Korea issue has been kicked down the road by several past US administrations. At some point we will have to deal with a nuclear capable rogue nation.

I caught a pretty miserable example of Trump trusting Fox more than the people that work for him. in a recent tweet about detainees in Guantanamo reentering the fight against us. He claimed 120 detainees under the Obama administration had rejoined the fight. The Fox graphic he clearly took the information from had said the number had come from both the Obama/Bush administrations. The actual number under Obama was 9, the rest were under Bush (of course, a lot more time has passed since Bush, so it's not a parallel comparison). He could literally get on the phone and ask if it were true or not.

The fact that he takes this stuff at face value is very concerning when you consider Steve Bannon is his top advisor. There's already been signs that he's more amenable to and trusting of the farthest-right media sources (blowing his top after the Breitbart wiretap article) than he is actual fact. Once again, he could literally call James Comey and ask. If he's trusting aggregated news blogs more than undisputed fact, then all of his actions are coming from an uninformed stance.

This is how you end up with a Border Wall when most of your illegal immigrants came here legally and overstayed their visas...

 

[JohnRoberts]

I caught a pretty miserable example of Trump trusting Fox more than the people that work for him. in a recent tweet about detainees in Guantanamo reentering the fight against us. He claimed 120 detainees under the Obama administration had rejoined the fight. The Fox graphic he clearly took the information from had said the number had come from both the Obama/Bush administrations. The actual number under Obama was 9, the rest were under Bush (of course, a lot more time has passed since Bush, so it's not a parallel comparison). He could literally get on the phone and ask if it were true or not.

The exact count is hard to know, but I don't look to Trump for numeric precision. He is almost always wrong even when right.

The last figure I heard was something like 30% recidivism. IIRC one of the terrorists killed in that yemen raid was a Gitmo graduate? 

The fact that he takes this stuff at face value is very concerning when you consider Steve Bannon is his top advisor. There's already been signs that he's more amenable to and trusting of the farthest-right media sources (blowing his top after the Breitbart wiretap article) than he is actual fact. Once again, he could literally call James Comey and ask. If he's trusting aggregated news blogs more than undisputed fact, then all of his actions are coming from an uninformed stance.

This is how you end up with a Border Wall when most of your illegal immigrants came here legally and overstayed their visas...

The border wall is unlikely to be a physical wall running the entire length of the border.  That said recent policy changes have dramatically dropped (raised the cost of) illegal immigration.  As an unintended (?) side effect farmers are having a hard time filling crews to do agricultural work, traditionally done by illegal workers.  Some legal immigrant crews avoid states that have recently clamped down (like GA?) to avoid the hassles. 

This is a bit chaotic right now but will get sorted over time. (IMO) The issue with overstayed visas is serious and should be addressed too.

Indeed if the easy benefit goes away, the draw to immigrate here will diminish. Illegal immigration dropped in 2008 when the economy softened  and jobs were harder to get..

A new study revealed that  high tech visas (H1B) lowered the pay and employment of US tech workers (duh), while generating higher profits for tech companies. I expect this to be addressed by an "american worker first" administration agenda... Trump and silicon valley are far from best buddies anyhow. Musk is about the only high profile tech executive routinely communicating with Trump, but his businesses get so much help from government incentives he'd be crazy to turn a cold shoulder on DC.

JR

 

[fazer]

H1B is a very misused visa that needs attention. Come on DT let's fix this loophole.  Shame on tech for only considering bottom line .  There agument will be they can't find people. BS on top of BS.  Wait till they invent AI to replace the CEO. Bunch of crying fffing billonaires next.

 

[mattiasNYC]

  I won't defend every utterance, but the Sweden remark has been explained.

You're probably smarter and more educated and informed than a lot of voters John, but you seem to fail to grasp the severity of his statements. You keep complaining that he media is parsing his statements incorrectly, or in the worst possible light, but at the very least there is parsing going on, which is exactly what you're doing (which I appreciate).

However, that bigger issue is everyone else in this country that isn't as informed and smart as you are who is NOT parsing his statements... at.... all.... To them Sweden certainly either suffered a terrorist attack which was unreported by the biased liberal media (a view you help perpetuate) or it doesn't matter whether or not it's literally true, because the gist of the statement is true (to them); Muslims are a security risk.

So, with the speech he engages in he manages to;

- flirt with xenophobic and racist undercurrents in US society
- obliterate the difference between "literally true" and "figuratively" and "something else altogether"
- thereby destroy any remaining resemblance of democracy, since it really does require an informed population to make relevant decisions.

That's the problem. And 'yes', I do find that you a) allowed that into the  White House (by voting for it) making it far worse, and b) now perpetuate it by taking every opportunity to mitigate his choice of words with excuses and reinterpretations all while perpetuating the narrative of the dishonest media.

  It was his inarticulate response to a segment he saw on the Tucker Carlson show the night before, about problems with the recent asylum seekers there not assimilating into the swedish culture, and causing public safety concerns. There does not seem to be a very honest assessment from swedish leaders and news organizations regarding this.

It's a matter of whether or not we listen to what the president of the most powerful nation on the planet says and sort of assume that he means what he says. I guess if we just assume that any and all things he says could be anything from poorly phrased to a straight up lie then the response could be different. But if the latter is the approach we take then why bother in the first place? Truth is dead. Speaking clearly  is dead. None of that matters apparently. Why comment?

Sweden has very generously accepted more immigrants per capita than most european nations, but immigrants from regions that were fighting each other before moving to sweden have been slow to forget old conflicts. In january Sweden announced plans to expel as many as 80,000 asylum seekers.  I have seen/heard a number of anecdotal reports about people feeling unsafe in their own home neighborhoods.

I'm sure our swedish forum members can correct me if I am wrong (maybe even if I'm not.  ;D ).

There's a lot to be said about that issue. I think the most important thing to consider when looking at it is who is saying it and what the motivation is. I know it sounds like attacking the messenger but I really only mean that one needs to do this to see if any "red flags" are raised which in turn warrant further investigation on the topic rather than just accepting the statement to be likely true.

So, as food for thought:

- What is the reporting when there's a soccer riot in, say, Sweden or England? What are headlines domestically and internationally claiming is the cause? Sports culture? Or the predominant religion of the rioters? Poverty? Exclusion? Tap water with contaminants that make people go nuts?

- What is the reporting when there's a different riot in the same nation and the majority are Muslims?

There's clearly a difference. There's a reason there's a difference. The reason isn't as obvious as some might think, which is to say that I don't entirely disagree with what you say, only wish to point out that there's a lot more to the story, and to the story about the story....

 

[JohnRoberts]

You're probably smarter and more educated and informed than a lot of voters John, but you seem to fail to grasp the severity of his statements. You keep complaining that he media is parsing his statements incorrectly, or in the worst possible light, but at the very least there is parsing going on, which is exactly what you're doing (which I appreciate).

However, that bigger issue is everyone else in this country that isn't as informed and smart as you are who is NOT parsing his statements... at.... all.... To them Sweden certainly either suffered a terrorist attack which was unreported by the biased liberal media (a view you help perpetuate) or it doesn't matter whether or not it's literally true, because the gist of the statement is true (to them); Muslims are a security risk.

So, with the speech he engages in he manages to;

- flirt with xenophobic and racist undercurrents in US society
- obliterate the difference between "literally true" and "figuratively" and "something else altogether"
- thereby destroy any remaining resemblance of democracy, since it really does require an informed population to make relevant decisions.

That's the problem. And 'yes', I do find that you a) allowed that into the  White House (by voting for it) making it far worse, and b) now perpetuate it by taking every opportunity to mitigate his choice of words with excuses and reinterpretations all while perpetuating the narrative of the dishonest media.

It's a matter of whether or not we listen to what the president of the most powerful nation on the planet says and sort of assume that he means what he says. I guess if we just assume that any and all things he says could be anything from poorly phrased to a straight up lie then the response could be different. But if the latter is the approach we take then why bother in the first place? Truth is dead. Speaking clearly  is dead. None of that matters apparently. Why comment?

There's a lot to be said about that issue. I think the most important thing to consider when looking at it is who is saying it and what the motivation is. I know it sounds like attacking the messenger but I really only mean that one needs to do this to see if any "red flags" are raised which in turn warrant further investigation on the topic rather than just accepting the statement to be likely true.

So, as food for thought:

- What is the reporting when there's a soccer riot in, say, Sweden or England? What are headlines domestically and internationally claiming is the cause?

I am not aware of football riots in Sweden but in UK and on continent they are often attributed to "lager louts"  poorly behaved fans. Drinking a bottom fermenting beer (lager) versus top fermenting (ale), is probably alluding to their socio-economic status more than beer tastes.

Sports culture? Or the predominant religion of the rioters? Poverty? Exclusion? Tap water with contaminants that make people go nuts?

- What is the reporting when there's a different riot in the same nation and the majority are Muslims?

There's clearly a difference. There's a reason there's a difference. The reason isn't as obvious as some might think, which is to say that I don't entirely disagree with what you say, only wish to point out that there's a lot more to the story, and to the story about the story....

Prejudice is wired into humans because it helped our caveman ancestors  survive to reproduce and make us what we are.

We need to balance being politically correct, with being correct.  Most people underestimate the risks of the modern world and fixate on lesser issues. President trump has surrounded himself with pretty knowledgeable people that I trust to advise him well to make good decisions.

I wish he would stop acting like he is in a reality TV show, but I wish for lots of things.

JR

 

[mattiasNYC]

I am not aware of football riots in Sweden but in UK and on continent they are often attributed to "lager louts"  poorly behaved fans. Drinking a bottom fermenting beer (lager) versus top fermenting (ale), is probably alluding to their socio-economic status more than beer tastes.

Prejudice is wired into humans because it helped our caveman ancestors  survive to reproduce and make us what we are.

Right, and so why does the media and predominantly right-wing elements always leap to "'cause they're Muslims" when a riot involves mostly immigrants, and not the above?

We need to balance being politically correct, with being correct. 

Most people underestimate the risks of the modern world and fixate on lesser issues. President trump has surrounded himself with pretty knowledgeable people that I trust to advise him well to make good decisions.

I wish he would stop acting like he is in a reality TV show, but I wish for lots of things.

JR

Trump is fueling the prejudices you speak of above. By electing him you have accepted that the president of this country does exactly that. It's exactly the same argument you've used before yourself when you've hinted at the fact that he was elected showed that the people wanted some type of change. If this logic is true then it goes both ways. This xenophobia and anti-Muslim sentiment that he perpetuates is legitimized by virtue of you having elected him.

As for his competent cabinet, what I see is ties to Russia, a previous editor-in-chief of a website perpetuating xenophobia and untrue 'news', plus several people who now head departments they wished to dismantle in the first place.

Americans are going to get exactly what they asked for. They're going to get underfunded institutions which causes them to run poorly which in turn turns into "See what we said; government doesn't work" which in turn justifies further cutbacks, except for the military (because, you know, 9/11). Meals on wheels, education, the arts, the environment etc... all expendable.

It's just stupid.

 

[Gold]

Travel Ban - No
Repeal/Replace Obamacare - No
Next up: Tax Reform
I thought we would be sick of winning by now. Tearing down EPA regulations in the name of the economy is going well. The only problem I see is that loosening environmental regulations helps some industry but in the process creates things like poisoning  fish in the Great Lakes, Adirondacks, Lake Champlain, and Finger Lakes.  Commercial fishing and foodie fish tourism would sure help the rural parts of rust belt states and some New England States (Trump country).

 

[dmp]

It seems like Trump isn't the great negotiator after all.  What a surprise.

Another regulation on the chopping block: A rule Obama made that ISP (internet service providers) could not sell your browsing history (all your internet activity ) without permission first. For some reason Republican's think ISPs should be able to sell your private information without your permission.

 

[mattiasNYC]

Travel Ban - No
Repeal/Replace Obamacare - No
Next up: Tax Reform
I thought we would be sick of winning by now.

lol......

Hope Twitter upped their Twit-bandwidth.....

Tearing down EPA regulations in the name of the economy is going well. The only problem I see is that loosening environmental regulations helps some industry but in the process creates things like poisoning  fish in the Great Lakes, Adirondacks, Lake Champlain, and Finger Lakes.  Commercial fishing and foodie fish tourism would sure help the rural parts of rust belt states and some New England States (Trump country).

Shut up. The free market solves everything. And when it doesn't we regulate... a little... we don that when it affects the wrong right people... otherwise regulation is bad and free freedom of the free market makes us free to make the goodest decisions....

 

[Matador]

The poisoning of the lakes and streams is just an opening negotiation with the fish.

 

[Gold]

The Great Lakes are in better shape than they have been in over a century. Emissions regulations have stopped the acid rain that killed Lake Champlain and the Adirondack lakes.  Kids and pregnant women still can't eat the fish and no one can eat the shell fish. I grew up near the Love Canal. I'd hate to see that again. I live in Greenpoint Brooklyn which is the largest brown field in the US. You sometimes see oil oozing up from the ground.

I was heartened to see  Mike Huckabee's defense of the N.E.A.

 

[mattiasNYC]

@ Mattias - I see you've no doubt had run ins with hard core Trumpies or Trump Junkies? but I'm not one of them.  I'm not really beholden to  any side and am continually fascinated with the ongoing partisan wars.  I'd probably be considered more Left leaning if it came down to it but I try to stay away from the gang mentality of the Liberal/Conservative wars.

So for the first five:

Has a grandiose sense of self-importance (e.g., exaggerates achievements and talents, expects to be recognised as superior without commensurate achievements).

Maybe this is a matter of semantics and definitions but the chosen words here, to me, imply someone who is out of touch with reality. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vzbHXKp6Y6I&list=RDQMmaHj6SEQ7fg

He's amassed a fortune in personal wealth and won the presidency when he arguably did not deserve it, and arguably had no business even running for office.  Those are all real achievements.  I've never heard him talk much at all about how he built his personal wealth. 

Because as far as I know he sold the right to use his name rather than actually "create wealth", a name that was "built" not by him (in the first place). And as for getting elected being a particular achievement when one doesn't deserve it, well, I suppose one could blame voters for being subpar, if one was elitist. Clearly I am not. But maybe you get the drift; how much of an achievement is it to dumb down everything? I guess some. But the argument to me brings my mind to the movie "Idiocracy"; not because he's the smartest around to lead, but because of the voting public.... again... not to be elitist....

Now, I'm not making excuses for his bombastic and often tactless rhetoric during the election campaign, but I see much of his over the top behavior was fueled by circumstance.  He was certainly not the same person we saw on numerous TV appearances in the past (Letterman, Oprah).  He appeared pretty low key and not a braggart during those appearances.

Perhaps he changed?

  In fact, if you will go to you tube and watch the very first Letterman appearance from back in 1997 you will see man who actually doesn't seem to really know who the hell he is. 

A bit of a difference between being 50 and 70. 20 years of age can make a bit of a difference.
   

Is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love.

IMO you missed it on this by one word - "Fantasies".    To have said "preoccupied with unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, ideal love" would have been pretty much on point.  But fantasy implies the never never land of a dreamer and regardless of his numerous other shortcomings Trump is clearly much more of a "Doer" than a "Dreamer".  He's attained plenty of power and material success (spiritual . . hmm).

I get the feeling that you, like John and a million other Trump supporters, are hell-bent on giving him the benefit of the doubt, and the benefit of the doubt in this case being that he's lying to people when he's opening his mouth. So rather than acting like someone who is mentally ill he's just a liar (knowing full well that some are on the bandwagon where "lie" is redefined at every turn).

I think the best case scenario with that interpretation is that he's a dishonest opportunist bullshitter, and that's not a great scenario; where as the worst would be that 'yeah, he's not mentally ill the way people say he is, but he is a pathological liar'.

However, there's something to the fact that he keeps making these statements, over and over and over. At some point don't you just go; 'oh, well, perhaps what he says is what he means when he says it', and that it therefore should be taken as such? After all, this is all we have to go on, yes?

I said the above because you object to the word "fantasy", but the only way that's a valid argument is if we assume Trump doesn't mean what he says... over and over and over... and what he does say, as can be seen in the video above, as well as in numerous interviews and speeches, is that he is the one who will get things done. That, as we can surely see now after the past couple of weeks, is pure fantasy. And if it isn't, then as I said we're either dealing with a pathological liar or an opportunist bullshitter of the highest order.

.........lunch time.........

 

[lassoharp]

@ Mattias - I see you've no doubt had run ins with hard core Trumpies or Trump Junkies? but I'm not one of them.  I'm not really beholden to  any side and am continually fascinated with the ongoing partisan wars.  I'd probably be considered more Left leaning if it came down to it but I try to stay away from the gang mentality of the Liberal/Conservative wars.

You used the above quote of mine to head up your reply so you no doubt read it.

I get the feeling that you, like John and a million other Trump supporters, are hell-bent on giving him the benefit of the doubt, and the benefit of the doubt in this case being that he's lying to people when he's opening his mouth. So rather than acting like someone who is mentally ill he's just a liar (knowing full well that some are on the bandwagon where "lie" is redefined at every turn).

Yet your comment betrays that you apparently didn't comprehend it.  Either that or your judgment is in error, or you're trying to resort to throwing hooks (rabbit punches) by making accusations.  I do not appreciate being told I am something I am not.  Maybe you should reread my original comment. With this one comment of yours you have turned this into another partisan issue.  My intention was to be objective.


As for the rest of your reply,  I think you have misunderstood my meanings and intentions.  I was criticizing your use of terms from clinical psychology .  I feel I explained many points regarding those terms well in my last reply.  And just because I don't think many of those disorders  are being correctly applied it does not follow that I am supporting Trump, nor that I think that his behavior and policies are ok and without fault.

I said the above because you object to the word "fantasy", but the only way that's a valid argument is if we assume Trump doesn't mean what he says.

Fantasy would be when a person believes they are something they are clearly not.  Lee Harvey Oswald lived in a world of fantasy.  He thought he was an important member of the KGB (if i recall correctly) and also thought he was  valued by the Cuban government.  I think he also thought this was true for the FBI as well but the reality of the situation was that they viewed him as unreliable, eccentric, and incompetent and regarded him with little of the importance he ascribed to himself. 

I assumed that Trump did not mean what he said when he claimed he was going to build a wall along the US-Mexico border.  It sounded like an outlandish campaign promise that I didn't think anyone would take seriously.  The wall hasn't been built but the motions look like they're headed that way.

I think the best case scenario with that interpretation is that he's a dishonest opportunist bullsh*tter, and that's not a great scenario; where as the worst would be that 'yeah, he's not mentally ill the way people say he is, but he is a pathological liar'.

I don't argue that he is free of lying.  Again this was mostly a matter of definitions re clinical disorders.  Trump is highly functional and I think he knows exactly what he's doing.  His denials - as continually relayed to us by Sean Spicer - are shallow and tiring but I think he knows the truth about them.  He knew there weren't that many people attending his inauguration yet continued to insist there were.  I think there's some personal ego and pride in the denials - but, first and foremost I think those denials were part of a deliberate political strategy not to lose face to his followers.  And, please don't think that just because I think it's a political strategy means that I view it to be acceptable.  It's mainly just annoying.  A person who was mentally ill and delusional might really believe there were more people there and not realize that many people were in gross disfavor of him being elected.

However, there's something to the fact that he keeps making these statements, over and over and over. At some point don't you just go; 'oh, well, perhaps what he says is what he means when he says it', and that it therefore should be taken as such? After all, this is all we have to go on, yes?

I've been paying more attention to what he says nothing about, like his apparent lapse in staffing key positions in various government offices.  Of course, I, like everyone else in the common world has to get my information from internet news outlets and it has come to a point to where it's near impossible to separate the wheat from the chaff.  If the stories are true, then he is apparently trying to intentionally grind certain agencies down to extinction.  That would qualify as intentional destruction.  So the question becomes whether it paves the way for something better (and for the whole country too . . . .not just for the uber wealthy ) to be built in its place and at what cost.  We'll have to wait and see how that turns out.


The partisan cross fire is mind numbing most of the time.  It becomes exasperating just to try and get a clear and objective picture of how any particular president performed for example.  I personally do not like where things appear to be heading under Trump right now.  If all of his staff picks are as bad as they appear, then time should see them fall as failures.

 

[mattiasNYC]

You used the above quote of mine to head up your reply so you no doubt read it.

Yet your comment betrays that you apparently didn't comprehend it.  Either that or your judgment is in error, or you're trying to resort to throwing hooks (rabbit punches) by making accusations.  I do not appreciate being told I am something I am not.  Maybe you should reread my original comment. With this one comment of yours you have turned this into another partisan issue.  My intention was to be objective.

Actually I think it's the opposite. I wasn't calling you a Trump supporter, I was saying that you, along with other people who in contrast to you are Trump supporters, seemed bent on seeing the glass as half-full. You can be opposed to Trump and still view it that way.

As for the rest of your reply,  I think you have misunderstood my meanings and intentions.  I was criticizing your use of terms from clinical psychology .  I feel I explained many points regarding those terms well in my last reply.  And just because I don't think many of those disorders  are being correctly applied it does not follow that I am supporting Trump, nor that I think that his behavior and policies are ok and without fault.

No, I got all of that. But if you go back to what I wrote initially I actually said "Food for thought:

The American Psychiatry Association has a nine-point checklist for narcissism - if someone displays just five of the traits, they have Narcissistic Personality Disorder:"

So I'm not saying that evaluating him clinically would yield the conclusion that he is, clinically speaking, suffering from Narcissistic Personality Disorder, I'm merely saying that I think he is at the very least awfully close to displaying traits that makes him at least appear to qualify. You can take that as a half-full "he just acts that way" or a half-empty "oh crap, the man might actually have mental issues" where the latter doesn't have to be as severe as being seriously debilitating on a daily basis doing basic things but at the very least questioning whether or not he's mentally suited for the job (since it should certainly place the bar fairly high for mental health).

Fantasy would be when a person believes they are something they are clearly not.  Lee Harvey Oswald lived in a world of fantasy.  He thought he was an important member of the KGB (if i recall correctly) and also thought he was  valued by the Cuban government.  I think he also thought this was true for the FBI as well but the reality of the situation was that they viewed him as unreliable, eccentric, and incompetent and regarded him with little of the importance he ascribed to himself. 

I assumed that Trump did not mean what he said when he claimed he was going to build a wall along the US-Mexico border.  It sounded like an outlandish campaign promise that I didn't think anyone would take seriously.  The wall hasn't been built but the motions look like they're headed that way.

I don't argue that he is free of lying.  Again this was mostly a matter of definitions re clinical disorders.  Trump is highly functional and I think he knows exactly what he's doing.  His denials - as continually relayed to us by Sean Spicer - are shallow and tiring but I think he knows the truth about them.  He knew there weren't that many people attending his inauguration yet continued to insist there were.  I think there's some personal ego and pride in the denials - but, first and foremost I think those denials were part of a deliberate political strategy not to lose face to his followers.  And, please don't think that just because I think it's a political strategy means that I view it to be acceptable.  It's mainly just annoying.  A person who was mentally ill and delusional might really believe there were more people there and not realize that many people were in gross disfavor of him being elected.

I understand what you're saying, and it's what I said you were saying and what you have in common with people who actually support Trump. The glass is half-full. He's not actually mentally.... "questionable", he's just an opportunist liar. But this just brings us back to my question to you, which you declined to answer; just what type of evidence would suffice then?

The way I see it - and I'm not working in the medical field - is that we don't actually know to what degree he's "functioning" and to what degree what we see isn't actually "pathological". Think about it this way: Among the many outrageous things he's said, he's bragged - in what he thought was 'private' - about sexually molesting women without consent. Now take that and add to it the fact that he was accused of sexual abuse before that recording. So, we can perhaps consider the possibility that the allegations were in fact true, in which case while he's most certainly functional in many ways it's not always in ways we want.... and that those ways would probably earn him a "dysfunctional" label.

And there's more to be said on this topic, given that you hinge your objection upon your 'less negative' interpretation of his behavior in conjunction with the term "functional", which incidentally I think you might be misreading in at least the pdf I linked to.

The partisan cross fire is mind numbing most of the time.  It becomes exasperating just to try and get a clear and objective picture of how any particular president performed for example.  I personally do not like where things appear to be heading under Trump right now.  If all of his staff picks are as bad as they appear, then time should see them fall as failures.

I agree.

 

[lassoharp]

I understand what you're saying, and it's what I said you were saying and what you have in common with people who actually support Trump. The glass is half-full. He's not actually mentally.... "questionable", he's just an opportunist liar. But this just brings us back to my question to you, which you declined to answer; just what type of evidence would suffice then?

I think it has to do with some of the things i mentioned in my first post.  Like many other syndromes and dysfunctions, there is a spectrum - a continuum that challenges the doctors to place some demarcations on where one thing stops and another begins. So you get concepts like high functioning or low functioning autism for example.  I haven't heard of those types of distinctions being applied to BPD/NPD in my readings on those disorders but they could exist.  From what I've read they are considered fairly serious clinical conditions with little hope for improvement via therapy.  Do I think Trump qualifies for being within  the spectrum?  Possibly but I was basing my comments on him having what appears to be a fairly stable family and marriage.  BPD/NPD shows a distinct pattern of systematic destruction and involves a target victim.  I think we could call Trump a combative loudmouth  who has obvious problems with women, and a very sensitive ego  who wants to wish ever journalist who says 'bad things; about him into the cornfield.  He also seems to be an insufferable snob at times.  If there is more serious destructive behavior going on behind the scenes that we don't know about, and it eventually surfaces then I may change my opinion.  So, yes he has many problems, and just because those problems may not be clinical level BPD/NPD doesn't mean they are necessarily "good" of "glass half full".  I don't think it excuses anything or makes it right.

One thing I have been increasingly worried about is over the repercussions  from  potential enemies due to their lack of respect for him.  His brash impulsive ways seem to have cultivated an atmosphere of "ok - you want to fight - we're ready for you too".  It all spells another war and Trump has proven to be on the no compromise end of diplomacy.

 

[DaveP]

Last night's air strike looks like redefining our perceptions about Trump.

It sends a message to Putin that he is not the only one who can take the initiative and that there are limits to what the US will allow.

It could not have been better timing to convince the Chinese President that he is serious about North Korea.

If it ever needed saying, we now know for sure that Trump is not Obama.

These are not the actions of an incompetent IMHO and it had full UK support.

DaveP

 

[Gold]

I just ordered my custom red baseball cap. It says "Donald J Trump" in an arc on the first line. The second line says "Stole My Weed"  I plan on parading around Fox News headquarters and see if I can get interviewed.

 

[ungifted]

Bravo Donald, western civilized world again teaches savage people to live. CIA knows for sure who is behind the poison attack, and voila - we bomb sovereign country. Oh it was just a message to Putin (not even to Assad)?
US are making show again, like Hollywood movies or HBO series: everything we love so much - booom, baaaah, and good guys from US army and US navy are saving the world again. But now we watch it online.
No comments needed, let's better discuss global warming and obamacare here we have another topic about Syria.

 

[tands]

Bravo Donald, western civilized world again teaches savage people to live. CIA knows for sure who is behind the poison attack, and voila - we bomb sovereign country. Oh it was just a message to Putin (not even to Assad)?
US are making show again, like Hollywood movies or HBO series: everything we love so much - booom, baaaah, and good guys from US army and US navy are saving the world again. But now we watch it online.
No comments needed, let's better discuss global warming and obamacare here we have another topic about Syria.

Well, we can all thank the good Lord it's Trump, and not Clinton, ungifted. And, let's not forget that Bernie would have won, had he not been cheated out of the nomination. On this day of all days. This is what Clinton supporters knew she would do, and much more.

https://twitter.com/lhfang/status/850231750164754432

Monsters.

 

[DaveP]

Bravo Donald, western civilized world again teaches savage people to live. CIA knows for sure who is behind the poison attack, and voila - we bomb sovereign country. Oh it was just a message to Putin (not even to Assad)?

Ungifted, you know what my views are, and they have not changed.

It was of course a message to Assad.  He has put Putin in a difficult situation, with this gas attack and others, because Putin made the clever deal to get rid of chemical weapons, yet here they are still being used.  Assad has taken liberties whilst under the Russian umbrella.

This may also be more important than Syria, because it sends a message to China and North Korea which is an even more serious issue.  Children and politicians have to know where the boundary limits are, it appears that Trump is not going to fail in that area like Obama did.

DaveP