The Trump Card...

ATeam

Senior Member
Retired Expediter
It would be easy to take the same pessimistic view with Trump, except he really doesn't have a stellar record of creatively failing, but more the opposite.

Trump's business skills will carry him only so far. His lack of political experience, his narcissistic character traits, the worldwide scope of the office and the fact that not everyone in the world wants to make a deal will test Trump in ways he has never been tested before. He will also be dealing with people who have more power than him in many situations, unlike a simple business deal where you have the luxury of assessing the players before you enter the game, and choosing to enter and exit the game at will.

One might argue that Trump said he would hire the best people and he can delegate important duties to them. That is true to an extent but he is not hiring the best people for the country. Only one cabinet official gets high marks from both sides of the aisle (the commerce guy).

Trump is setting up his White House staff to have multiple powerbases, just like he set up staff in his business. He creates in the same department groups of people who have part of the power instead of a person who has all of it. That keeps a certain amount of tension in the department, keeps people off balance and keeps everyone loyal to Trump, the ultimate decision maker among groups that disagree.

That arrangement is not unlike those seen in dictatorships in other countries. It also sets that stage for high drama if a real crisis develops. Staff people with differing views will be structurally set up to fight each other while the ultimate decision making falls to inexperienced, narcissistic Trump.

The stakes are higher now and the game is different than what Trump is accustomed to. Trump will be impeached because he is not adapting to the presidency game. He is expecting the world to play by his rules. That may work for a time but it will not work for four years.
 
Last edited:

xiggi

Veteran Expediter
Owner/Operator
Personally I think impeachment would be another nail in the coffin for the Republican party. People were already pissed enough at them to say screw you. Such a move could mean ruins for them. Even losing 10% of their support could mean losing the presidential office for decades.
 

ATeam

Senior Member
Retired Expediter
Personally I think impeachment would be another nail in the coffin for the Republican party. People were already pissed enough at them to say screw you. Such a move could mean ruins for them. Even losing 10% of their support could mean losing the presidential office for decades.

While the Trump honeymoon masks it now, the Republican party may very well be the next one to fly apart. The Democratic party is in an awful spot now with no leadership and no articulated agenda. A newly elected party chair is unlikely to change that much.

But for Trump, the Republican party may be flying apart too. And Trump is not a party loyalist. His agenda violates major pieces of what used to be considered Republican orthodoxy. He has no problems bringing a Democratic wet dream to the table like a budget-busting infrastructure spending plan. In the primaries, more Republicans voted against Trump than voted for him. In the general election those same Republicans voted against Hillary more than they voted for Trump (I believe). Trump is the rally point holding the party together now, but I would not count on him to do that forever.

I don't know exactly the voter registration numbers for the two major parties and independents but I believe the number of registered independent voters has grown steadily in recent years. The core problem is not the Democrats or Republicans themselves. It is the rigidity of the two party system in today's mobile world and political districts that have been gerrymandered to create safe seats (no real competition between parties).

These safe districts reward the extremists and send them to Washington. Once there, they align with each other and against the other side with an intensity so strong and a vision so tightly focused that the country suffers (no supreme court appointment, government shutdown, long vacancies in judicial seats, unproductive congress, etc.). It matters to them that the other side looks bad more than the country does well.

Once in Washington, these incumbent partisan extremists look over their shoulders to make sure no one will out-party them back home. Indeed that phenomenon now has a name; "Cantored."
 
Last edited:

Moot

Veteran Expediter
Owner/Operator
While I may be wrong, and am open to that possibility, I continue to believe that after Trump serves for a while, Pence will come to be seen the better alternative and the Republicans who have the power to do so will impeach Trump to get Pence.
Pence may very well come to be seen as the better alternative. But if Trump does do something worthy of impeachment, depending on what the offense is, Pence may be tainted by association. Al Gore had some default
distance between himself and Clinton because there was no mention of a threesome.

I guess I wouldn't be surprised if the Republicans aided the Democrats in trying to oust Trump via impeachment or assassination. It seems both parties can agree on something; neither party likes Trump and I like that.
 

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
Personally I think impeachment would be another nail in the coffin for the Republican party. People were already pissed enough at them to say screw you. Such a move could mean ruins for them. Even losing 10% of their support could mean losing the presidential office for decades.
I agree wholeheartedly. The Republican Party as we know it is on life support as it is. Unless the American people are overwhelmingly behind an impeachment, Republicans who engage in an impeachment will be pulling their own plug.

But for Trump, the Republican party may be flying apart too. And Trump is not a party loyalist. His agenda violates major pieces of what used to be considered Republican orthodoxy.
Trump blew up the Republican Party by winning the nomination and then the presidency. There's no "may be" about it.

In the primaries, more Republicans voted against Trump than voted for him. In the general election those same Republicans voted against Hillary more than they voted for Trump (I believe).
Most of the establishment Republicans, especially those in Congress, are still just spittin' bubbles. Their fun in the sun is over, and they can't survive another midterm if the American people perceive Congress as failing to work with the president or are dragging their feet.

Trump is the rally point holding the party together now, but I would not count on him to do that forever.
Not for the establishment Republicans, no. The Republican Party has already, and is currently going through a major change in their own identity. Whether that change is an evolutionary one remains to be seen.

...his narcissistic character traits... inexperienced, narcissistic Trump.
You say that twice, almost like it's both important and unusual. It takes a snotload of narcissism just to make the appeal to people to "Vote for me! I'm the best!" And there are very few politicians, particularly at the national level, who make such a narcissistic plea with any type of humility and reserve.
 

Moot

Veteran Expediter
Owner/Operator
When it comes to narcissism, Hillary trumps Trump. The Donald's narcissism is of a more superficial and obvious kind, while Clinton's (Hillary and Bill) runs much deeper. Trump thinks he's the best to lead America. The Clintons, in their mind, KNOW they are the best to not only lead America but to save the whole world from whatever it needs saving from.
 

davekc

Senior Moderator
Staff member
Fleet Owner
I think the whole poll thing won't get much traction because they do too many of them. I think many lost credibility in this last election so MSM isn't saying much in the short term. Not sure on the impeachment charge. Republicans aren't likely to let that sail through since they are in control. In two years if they lose it, all bets are off. One big difference I see is that Trump can sell things/ideas, and Pence is a novice at this point.
 

ATeam

Senior Member
Retired Expediter
You say that twice, almost like it's both important and unusual. ..

Your perception is correct. Narcissism is central to my understanding of Trump, my interpretation of his words and deeds, and prediction about his future.

During the campaign, many of Trump's words and deeds were inexplicable to me. Why does he say and do these things that are not only self-contradictory but also unhelpful in advancing his cause? When I read up on narcissism Trump's words and deeds made perfect sense.

I suggest that the best way to understand Trump is to understand that he is first, foremost and always a narcissist. That is the lens through which I view him. That is the framework with which I interpret his words and deeds. Narcissism provides the only logical explanation I have found that consistently explains Trump day by day. If you want to know what Trump is likely to do next (to the extent we can know that about anyone), simply ask, what would a narcissist do? If you want to understand how Trump can so easily contradict himself, sometimes in the same hour and even in the same paragraph, understand the way narcissists tend to think.

As president of the United States, a full-fledged and hard-wired narcissist who has been granted intoxicating powers can only go one of two ways; up or out. He goes up (as a narcissist sees up) by seizing more power with utter disregard to the constitution, or out when the people who support the constitution rise to impeach him.

Notice the ease in the campaign in which Trump freely advocated actions that were clearly unconstitutional. Trump cares little for the constitution. Trump cares about Trump. That has been a strength that propelled his business success (building the Trump brand). It is also the character flaw that will prevent him from avoiding a constitutional crisis that will leave Republicans with two choices: (1) support Trump in becoming an unconstitutional dictator or (2) support the constitution and impeach Trump.

The same applies with Trump's policy views and actions and with his interaction with foreign governments. It's not about what's good for the United States, it's about what makes Trump feel good. Putin has Trump figured out. By being nice to Trump (notice how often Trump talks about people being "nice to me.") Putin has Trump eating out of Putin's hand. In espionage circles and from former KGB operative Putin's point of view, Trump is the type of asset known as a useful idiot. Putin is exploiting Trump every step of the way and narcissist Trump is eating it up because Putin is "nice to me."

I invite readers to read a fair amount about narcissism before dismissing this criticism of Trump. Narcissists see, think, feel and react in ways different than most people. If you take the time to learn what those ways are, I believe you will find that narcissist is a term that describes Trump well.
 
Last edited:

ATeam

Senior Member
Retired Expediter
It appears to me, that many of us folks,,,by that I mean, the nation or the world in general, have part those narcissistic traits. So, here we go,,being of sound mind and ,,,lol,,,I looked this up.

You are exactly right. Every human being has a little narcissism in him or her. The difference with Trump is he is a full-blown narcissist, hard-wired in a way that prevents him from being anything else. The resource you pointed to classifies narcissism as a disorder. Trump would not see it that way. Trump would not believe anything is wrong. Why would he? Being Donald Trump got him this far.
 
Last edited:

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
The difference with Trump is he is a full-blown narcissist, hard-wired in a way that prevents him from being anything else.
There’s no question Donald Trump has observable narcissistic traits - extreme self-promotion, arrogance and boastfulness, low empathy, a willingness to take advantage of others for personal gain, and constant attention-seeking. There's little dispute about those traits and you don’t need to be a mental health professional to observe them. Whether these traits actually coalesce into a diagnosable condition and whether they truly interfere with his life functioning is unknowable to anyone who hasn't met the man and personally assessed him, especially for those who are not mental health professionals, such as, say, someone with a doctorate in psychology or psychiatry.

What we see repeatedly in the media and the public domain does not necessarily correspond to how he actually is and functions in private settings. In order to meet the diagnostic criteria for Narcissistic Personality Disorder one would need to see a steady, rather consistent, and predictable set of behavioral patterns manifest themselves in a variety of social, professional, and private settings, not just in public and in media reports.

It is not good enough to call somebody a narcissist or any other medical term simply because one does not have a political or personal inclination towards the given candidate. Throwing around of such terms can reveal more of the name-callers psychology than it does the political target. While doing so may indeed be a worthwhile pursuit for many, it should however be undertaken carefully and with as much knowledge about psychology and human behavior as possible. Otherwise, we will only be speaking our own prejudices.

Remember how political foes and pundits (conservatives, all) diagnosed Obama as having a Cult of Personality Disorder by some, and by others as having full-blown Narcissistic Personality Disorder, despite the fact that he's relatively introverted, at least for a politician, and almost preternaturally low on neuroticism - emotionally calm and dispassionate, arguably to a fault.

The push to diagnose Donald Trump from afar has a clear political angle. If he’s diagnosed with a mental disorder, the reasoning goes, he is unstable and crazy, therefore unfit to lead. Unfortunately, this is fallacious reasoning. There are plenty of people with narcissistic personality disorders who are strong leaders. They are CEO’s and thought leaders in their fields. They are entertainers and athletes who operate their own million dollar companies. They are politicians who push past resistance and get results. Yeah. sure, they may be insufferable to work with and nearly impossible to be in a relationship with, but they can be effective leaders. This is not to say that Trump would be an effective president, but rather to make the point that a diagnosis of Narcissistic Personality Disorder by itself does not exclude someone from being an effective leader. He may very well be unstable and unfit to serve as president, but not simply because he might have a personality disorder.

Narcissism is central to my understanding of Trump, my interpretation of his words and deeds, and prediction about his future.
So, you may want to rethink that. It will certainly help you avoid false dichotomies like "up or out" and "dictator or impeached."
 

ATeam

Senior Member
Retired Expediter
Whether these traits actually coalesce into a diagnosable condition and whether they truly interfere with his life functioning is unknowable to anyone who hasn't met the man and personally assessed him, especially for those who are not mental health professionals, such as, say, someone with a doctorate in psychology or psychiatry.

I have met the man. At the time it was not for the purpose of assessing him, but I have met and interacted with Trump six times.

What we see repeatedly in the media and the public domain does not necessarily correspond to how he actually is and functions in private settings. In order to meet the diagnostic criteria for Narcissistic Personality Disorder one would need to see a steady, rather consistent, and predictable set of behavioral patterns manifest themselves in a variety of social, professional, and private settings, not just in public and in media reports.

My meetings with Trump were in a limo ride from the MSP airport to a hotel in the northern suburbs, in an office at the Minnesota State Capitol, at a public banquet, in his hotel suite in Minnesota (not a Trump hotel), in his hotel suite in Miami (not a Trump hotel), and at a Cuban community center in Miami.

In the limo, it was Trump, me, a local Chamber of Commerce leader, and a handful of Jesse Ventura staff members. At the capitol, it was me, the governor, Trump and one of his sons in the room (I don't remember which one). At the Minnesota hotel it was me, Trump, Roger Stone and the Mrs. Minnesota pageant winner. At the banquet it was me who introduced Trump at the podium and a crowd of hundreds. In Miami, it was Donald Trump, Melania (then his girlfriend), Roger Stone, me and three other political operatives from various states. Also in Miami, it was Trump, Roger Stone, me, a number of Trump aids, a handful of political operatives from other states and a large group of Cubans, some of them combat veterans of the Bay of Pigs invasion.

These were not social events but they represented a variety of settings and experiences. It was mostly about the business at hand, which related to the presidential exploratory committee Trump then formed (year 2000). Info Here and Here.

It is not good enough to call somebody a narcissist or any other medical term simply because one does not have a political or personal inclination towards the given candidate. Throwing around of such terms can reveal more of the name-callers psychology than it does the political target.

The same could be said of anyone rendering any opinion, including you. You have said a great many things about Trump and his supporters. Are you describing true facts or are you projecting your own issues onto your topic of conversation? Don't answer that. I don't want to get into that debate. I simply wish to point out that while it may be true that a person's comments about another person or topic can reveal something about the speaker's own psychology, it may be equally true that the comments do not.

While doing so may indeed be a worthwhile pursuit for many, it should however be undertaken carefully and with as much knowledge about psychology and human behavior as possible. Otherwise, we will only be speaking our own prejudices.

Everyone speaks from their own prejudices most of the time, and especially so in politics, do they not? What is politics if not people coming together to do exactly that?

Remember how political foes and pundits (conservatives, all) diagnosed Obama as having a Cult of Personality Disorder by some, and by others as having full-blown Narcissistic Personality Disorder, despite the fact that he's relatively introverted, at least for a politician, and almost preternaturally low on neuroticism - emotionally calm and dispassionate, arguably to a fault.

I do not remember that. I paid little attention to Obama until Obamacare messed up our health insurance.

The push to diagnose Donald Trump from afar has a clear political angle. If he’s diagnosed with a mental disorder, the reasoning goes, he is unstable and crazy, therefore unfit to lead.
Unfortunately, this is fallacious reasoning.

Maybe so, but it is not a line of reasoning I follow. While I believe Trump to be a textbook example of narcissism, I do not believe he is unstable or crazy.

There are plenty of people with narcissistic personality disorders who are strong leaders. They are CEO’s and thought leaders in their fields. They are entertainers and athletes who operate their own million dollar companies. They are politicians who push past resistance and get results. Yeah. sure, they may be insufferable to work with and nearly impossible to be in a relationship with, but they can be effective leaders. This is not to say that Trump would be an effective president, but rather to make the point that a diagnosis of Narcissistic Personality Disorder by itself does not exclude someone from being an effective leader. He may very well be unstable and unfit to serve as president, but not simply because he might have a personality disorder.

Well said. I agree. The distinguishing characteristic with Trump is that this full-blown narcissist is about to become the most powerful man in the world under the Constitution of the United States. That is a potentially explosive combination, the outcome of which will be ours to discuss as it unfolds.

So, you may want to rethink that. It will certainly help you avoid false dichotomies like "up or out" and "dictator or impeached."

While I could be wrong, of course, I remain confident in my assessment of the man and my prediction of his future. Having met and worked with the man, I have followed his 2016 campaign with great interest. It was in 2016 that I came to believe Trump is a narcissist. In my personal interactions with him in 1999 and 2000, we had work to do and that was the focus. Then, it was a presidential exploratory committee which has few of the dynamics a full-blown presidential campaign has and none of the intensity.

I met a number of governors, federal elected officials, and candidates for various offices in various states in those days. The Trump meetings were little different than any of the others. We got together to do political work and that was pretty much it. Back then, Trump gave me no reason to believe he was a narcissist and I had no reason to wonder about such things.

When Trump announced his 2016 run for president, I thought it was almost guaranteed that his opponents would dismiss him as a joke and underestimate him. That's exactly what happened. My narcissism theory took shape during the 2016 campaign when I read a news article that made that suggestion. At that time, Trump had me befuddled. Many times I looked at the TV and asked, why, oh why would you say such a thing? Why oh why would you do such a thing? What in the world are you thinking, Donald? What in the world are you thinking? When I read up on narcissism, those questions became easy to answer.

Why does an object fall to the ground when it is dropped? The theory of gravity explains it. Why does Trump say and do the things he does? For me, narcissism explains it. I don't have an advanced degree in physics but I can still speak about gravity. So too with narcissism and Trump. I'm not a psychiatrist but like every voter is allowed to do, I can maintain a theory about what makes Trump tick.
---------------------------------------
P.S. This Wikipedia piece describes Trump's 2000 presidential initiative. With the events of today now known, this piece provides an interesting look back.

P.S.S. After 10 years of intense political activism, Diane and I concluded that politics will rot your soul if you stay in it too long (then an attorney, Diane served as the governor's general counsel). We walked away from it in 2003 to become expediters and subsequently enjoyed 10 fantastic years on the road.
 
Last edited:

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
The same could be said of anyone rendering any opinion, including you. You have said a great many things about Trump and his supporters. Are you describing true facts or are you projecting your own issues onto your topic of conversation? Don't answer that. I don't want to get into that debate.
I'll answer it. The answer is both. And sometimes both at the same time. It is part and parcel of voicing an opinion. What I rarely if ever do, however, is throw out opinion as fact, especially when it comes to a medical diagnosis.

I simply wish to point out that while it may be true that a person's comments about another person or topic can reveal something about the speaker's own psychology, it may be equally true that the comments do not.
That's only true when the comments spoken are devoid of opinion. Social influence and personal psychology are the bedrock of opinion formation, so when someone gives their opinion, they are necessarily revealing at least a portion of their own psychology. When they bandy about pejorative, negative, even demonizing terms about someone or some topic, they reveal more than a small portion.

Everyone speaks from their own prejudices most of the time, and especially so in politics, do they not? What is politics if not people coming together to do exactly that?
Yes they do. But my comment wasn't in the context of speaking from prejudices in politics or in general, it was in the context of calling a political figure a narcissist or some other medical term because of that prejudice. Like I said, it's may be a worthwhile endeavor for some, it should be undertaken carefully.

Remember how political foes and pundits (conservatives, all) diagnosed Obama as having a Cult of Personality Disorder by some, and by others as having full-blown Narcissistic Personality Disorder, despite the fact that he's relatively introverted, at least for a politician, and almost preternaturally low on neuroticism - emotionally calm and dispassionate, arguably to a fault.

I do not remember that. I paid little attention to Obama until Obamacare messed up our health insurance.
It was pretty ubiquitous, especially on conservative television (Fox News) and radio. A simple EO search for "obama narcissist" reveals several examples right here in these forums, some of which include pasted articles from "experts" and even actual doctors of psychology. Back in 2009 when Obama openly criticized Fox News, it wasn't much of a leap for the right to diagnose Obama with extreme pathological narcissism, one symptom of which is narcissistic rage. You criticize Obama's policies, you're a racist. Obama criticizes Fox News' conservative reporting, he's in a fit of narcissistic rage. And so it goes. You gotta demonize the candid you do not support, to make yourself feel better about not supporting him. That's human nature politics, and pretty much no one is immune or above it.

The push to diagnose Donald Trump from afar has a clear political angle. If he’s diagnosed with a mental disorder, the reasoning goes, he is unstable and crazy, therefore unfit to lead.
Unfortunately, this is fallacious reasoning.

Maybe so, but it is not a line of reasoning I follow. While I believe Trump to be a textbook example of narcissism, I do not believe he is unstable or crazy.
But you do feel that he's unfit to lead. Otherwise there's be no talk of losing his supporter base and of Republicans impeaching him. And that's fine. How you got there is up to you.

There are plenty of people with narcissistic personality disorders who are strong leaders. They are CEO’s and thought leaders in their fields. They are entertainers and athletes who operate their own million dollar companies. They are politicians who push past resistance and get results. Yeah. sure, they may be insufferable to work with and nearly impossible to be in a relationship with, but they can be effective leaders. This is not to say that Trump would be an effective president, but rather to make the point that a diagnosis of Narcissistic Personality Disorder by itself does not exclude someone from being an effective leader. He may very well be unstable and unfit to serve as president, but not simply because he might have a personality disorder.

Well said. I agree. The distinguishing characteristic with Trump is that this full-blown narcissist is about to become the most powerful man in the world under the Constitution of the United States. That is a potentially explosive combination, the outcome of which will be ours to discuss as it unfolds.

So, you may want to rethink that. It will certainly help you avoid false dichotomies like "up or out" and "dictator or impeached."

While I could be wrong, of course, I remain confident in my assessment of the man and my prediction of his future. Having met and worked with the man, I have followed his 2016 campaign with great interest. ... The Trump meetings were little different than any of the others. We got together to do political work and that was pretty much it. Back then, Trump gave me no reason to believe he was a narcissist and I had no reason to wonder about such things.[/quote]It's rare for someone to have full-blown narcissistic personality disorder at 70 while exhibiting little or no signs of it at 55, or 50, or even 30. Narcissistic Personality Disorder is actually very rare in and of itself, but those who do develop it usually begin doing so in adolescence and it gets fully developed my the mid to late 20s. It always stems from severe disturbance in the child-parent relationship. And it gets worse with age, for those who can even survive it. Classic complications from NPD are difficulties in school or work, relationship difficulties including casual relationships, chronic clinical depression, drug and alcohol abuse, suicidal thoughts.

By all accounts, Trump's relationship with his parents weren't notably dysfunctional at all (in as much as any family can be functional or dysfunctional). By the same accounts he was a wild and largely rebellious kid without any sense of discipline or drive, and it was only after his father sent him off to military school that he became competitive (both academically and athletically) and driven to win. That would actually the opposite of NPD. His father did have a large influence on him to succeed, but so did another man, who had maybe the biggest influence on Trump's psyche. And what many people see as full-blown narcissism can also be fully explained by gross self-confidence. While extreme self-confidence and narcissism may seem similar, they are very different.

My narcissism theory took shape during the 2016 campaign when I read a news article that made that suggestion.
Could have been any one of several hundred. It was almost like it was a coordinated effort amongst seemingly unrelated media outlets. Suddenly, experts were coming out of the woodwork to satisfactorily label the demon. And they all managed to come up with a remarkably consistent label. Then again, experts did the same for Obama, and Junior, and Bill. I find particularly amusing the ones that pointed out Trump and Obama were narcissists, and "Oh, by the way, so was Hitler. I'm just sayin'." You know, just in case "narcissist" wasn't demon enough. But Hitler references are getting tiresome, so it's mostly back to the tried and true "dictator" references these days (as if somehow a dictator could actually take hold in a country with more guns than people, but I digress).

At that time, Trump had me befuddled. Many times I looked at the TV and asked, why, oh why would you say such a thing? Why oh why would you do such a thing? What in the world are you thinking, Donald? What in the world are you thinking? When I read up on narcissism, those questions became easy to answer.
Quick. Easy. Soul-soothing. I get it. We all have deep-rooted biases that need to be vindicated somehow. That's not necessarily a bad thing. It is, afterall, human nature.

Why does an object fall to the ground when it is dropped? The theory of gravity explains it. Why does Trump say and do the things he does? For me, narcissism explains it. I don't have an advanced degree in physics but I can still speak about gravity. I am not an educated meteorologist deeply observant of the scientific method, but I can still speak about the weather. So too with narcissism and Trump. I'm not a psychologist or psychiatrist but like every voter is allowed to do, I can maintain a theory about what makes Trump tick.
I completely understand. We all need ways to help us understand and reconcile certain things. But do keep in mind that unless you really and truly understand gravity and space-time and how they interact, you're speaking on gravity in the most superficial terms. The same with meteorology and the weather. And, with mental disorders.

P.S. This Wikipedia piece describes Trump's 2000 presidential initiative. With the events of today now known, this piece provides an interesting look back.
Familiar with it, thanks. I think it's interesting how on most things, such as trade, the economy, jobs, etc., he's been remarkably consistent since the 1980s.

Incidentally, I have met Trump (and his first wife Ivana), as well, in 1980. Three times, twice at dinner in Manhattan and once for dinner at our house in Jersey. But I interacted with him very little, and had no business of my own with him whatsoever. My attention was more directed at the food, and quite honestly, Ivana (which may be why I wasn't at any of the other meetings <snort>). One of Trump's many business partners was Equitable Life Assurance (now AXA Equitable), of which my dad was a vice-president from 1971 until 1984, and between 1978 and 1981 was officed in the Equitable Life Building in NYC (famous for several reasons) and was in charge of what would later become Equitable Real Estate Investment Management. That division worked directly with Trump, and my dad had many meetings with him. I formed no real opinion of Trump at the time, other than he was very personable, nice and gracious. I had no interest in real estate or the management of the investments thereof, and thus didn't participate in any of the discussions. I was a musician doing mostly studio and theater work in NYC.
 

ATeam

Senior Member
Retired Expediter
But you do feel that he's unfit to lead.

I did not say that and I was intentionally careful not to. Obviously Trump is fit to lead his business. His business accomplishments are proof positive of that. But I do not believe his particular style of leadership is a good fit for the seat he is about to take. There is a subtle but important difference.

Example: A really good leader of a YMCA may not be well equipped to lead a region of 12 donut shops because the for-profit, multi-location, high-turnover staff realities of that business are significantly different and the management personality required is different too. That does not mean the person is unfit to lead. It means the leadership style is not a good fit.

It's rare for someone to have full-blown narcissistic personality disorder at 70 while exhibiting little or no signs of it at 55, or 50, or even 30. Narcissistic Personality Disorder is actually very rare in and of itself, but those who do develop it usually begin ....

So you caution me about applying the narcissist label but you talk freely and with a fairly liberal use of psychological terms and Trump family analysis about why it should not apply?

Could have been any one of several hundred. It was almost like it was a coordinated effort amongst seemingly unrelated media outlets.

That's the case with many if not most news stories. I was once invited to sit in the daily huddle of a major newspaper to observe their process. In this meeting the senior editors of each department gathered to decide what was going to fill up the newspaper the next day. I gained an appreciation for their task. Every day they start with a newspaper full of blank pages. Every day they have to fill those pages with consideration given to a host of factors (community response, subscription rates, journalistic ethics, effect on advertisers, the duties and responsibilities of the Fourth Estate, what competing publications are doing, advertiser response, and many more considerations).

The meeting began by looking at the advance notice of what the New York Times was going to write about the next day. The Times provided that. Editors offered what they thought was gong to be hot or pertinent. They shared what their reporters were learning and sending up. They were mindful of the season, the calendar, special events that might capture the public attention, the editorial voice of the newspaper, and other such considerations.

Back when I was a frequent and welcome visitor in the press room at the State Capitol, this dynamic repeated itself on an ongoing basis. In that room, dozens of news services had their capital bureau desks where their capitol reporters worked. These people were coming and going all day long, gathering info from the street and continually checking in with each other about what they were going to write or talk about next. All of these folks were very well acquainted with each other. Little had to be said by any of them for all of them to pick up on the hot theme of the day.

None of them wanted to be the one to miss out on the big news of the day. The safe course was not to follow the leader but to follow the lead story, whatever that might be at the time. External events like a big fire or an unexpected flare-up in the legislature upstairs would become the big news when it happened but in the absence of a dramatic external event, the news reporters and editors were often the ones to set the theme of the day.

But do keep in mind that unless you really and truly understand gravity and space-time and how they interact, you're speaking on gravity in the most superficial terms. The same with meteorology and the weather. And, with mental disorders.

Granted. I have never suggested otherwise and I believe readers understand this too. News flash ... Phil is not an educated expert in all fields he feels free to discuss. No one is, Turtle, but people remain free to talk.

Familiar with it, thanks. I think it's interesting how on most things, such as trade, the economy, jobs, etc., he's been remarkably consistent since the 1980s.

It is also interesting how Trump was pro-choice in 2000 and is pro-life now, and how he is a fierce critic of Obamacare now but was an advocate of universal health care in 2000. The health care thing may not be a total, 180 flip-flop but the choice/life thing is.

Do a Google search of "Trump contradictions" for some interesting reading and videos. In the spirit of fairness, also do a search of "Trump consistency."

You are fond of saying how consistent Trump is in certain areas. There are others who are fond of saying how contradictory he is.
 

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
But you do feel that he's unfit to lead.

I did not say that and I was intentionally careful not to. Obviously Trump is fit to lead his business. His business accomplishments are proof positive of that. But I do not believe his particular style of leadership is a good fit for the seat he is about to take. There is a subtle but important difference.
You didn't say it in those exact words, no, but like I said, within the context of of the virtual inevitability of him losing his supporter base and being impeached by his own party, those aren't the kinds of predictions people make about those they think are fit to lead in the position they are about to hold. Saying that his style of leadership is not a good fit for the seat he's about to take is just another way of wording that he's unfit to lead as president.

Example: A really good leader of a YMCA may not be well equipped to lead a region of 12 donut shops because the for-profit, multi-location, high-turnover staff realities of that business are significantly different and the management personality required is different too. That does not mean the person is unfit to lead. It means the leadership style is not a good fit.
We're not talking about hypothetical examples, we're talking about Trump and the presidency. That's the context. Either you think he's fit to lead as president or you don't. I have inferred from your comments here that it's the latter. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

It's rare for someone to have full-blown narcissistic personality disorder at 70 while exhibiting little or no signs of it at 55, or 50, or even 30. Narcissistic Personality Disorder is actually very rare in and of itself, but those who do develop it usually begin ....

So you caution me about applying the narcissist label but you talk freely and with a fairly liberal use of psychological terms and Trump family analysis about why it should not apply?
Yes, no, no, and no. I do caution you about applying the narcissistic label, particularly because it's one that so many people have recklessly and freely bandied about over the last several years with regards to a candidate they do not support. I don't talk about it freely, no, not unless someone brings it up., because (A) I know how rare is the genuine article, and (B) I know how ignorantly it is so often used. No, I'm not using psychological terms in a fairly liberal manner, I'm using them in a fairly dry clinical usage. And on the Trump family analysis, I didn't bring that up as to why narcissism should not apply, but to point out that factors others than narcissism may apply. One should not summarily dismiss one or the other.

Could have been any one of several hundred. It was almost like it was a coordinated effort amongst seemingly unrelated media outlets.

That's the case with many if not most news stories.
It is the case today, but it didn't used to be that way. Outside of the wire service stories, every newspaper had their own slant and angle on a story, and they rarely all matched up in anything other than the Five Ws. it used to be where you might have 100 newspapers with one or two of them with, say, a narcissistic angle about someone, and then a few of the other publications may pick up on it a day or two later, whereas now you have a situation where 95 of them will all at once on the same day magically have that particular narcissistic angle on the story. It's an astonishing coincidence.

But do keep in mind that unless you really and truly understand gravity and space-time and how they interact, you're speaking on gravity in the most superficial terms. The same with meteorology and the weather. And, with mental disorders.

Granted. I have never suggested otherwise and I believe readers understand this too. News flash ... Phil is not an educated expert in all fields he feels free to discuss. No one is, Turtle, but people remain free to talk.
Just as you're free to bandy about the narcissistic label, I'm free to voice the opinion that more thought and restraint should be employed before doing so in such a settled, matter of fact fashion. That's all I'm saying.

Familiar with it, thanks. I think it's interesting how on most things, such as trade, the economy, jobs, etc., he's been remarkably consistent since the 1980s.

It is also interesting how Trump was pro-choice in 2000 and is pro-life now, and how he is a fierce critic of Obamacare now but was an advocate of universal health care in 2000. The health care thing may not be a total, 180 flip-flop but the choice/life thing is.
I did note "most things" and not "all things." It is not uncommon for people (most people, probably) to change their stance on some issues over a 30 year time frame, especially when it comes to social issues. Personally, I find Trump flipping from one side to another on abortion to be one of the least interesting things about him and his change of positions. He's said all along that he wants to overturn Roe v Wade and put the issue back to the States and get the federal government out of it. That stops federal dollars from being spent in any way, shape or form on abortions, and taking the pro-life stance was the politically expedient way to get the evangelicals on his side to put him in a position to appoint Justices who will do just that. I think deep down he's still pro-choice, but even more than that, he's indifferent about it, not feeling strongly about it one way or the other, because it doesn't really affect one way or the other his core issues of trade, economy, jobs, and immigration. His ideology is that of pragmatism.

The idea of universal health care is not a bad idea, in and of itself. It's very appealing to many people. What is thoroughly unappealing to the point of leaving a bad taste in your mouth is the way in which Obamacare was rammed down the throat of the American people as with a gavage to produce fois gras. Obamacare is so far-reaching and so all-encompassing so as to have a direct effect on the lives of every citizen that is should have been put forth as a Constitutional Amendment affirmatively proposed by tho-thirds of both Houses and ratified by three-quarters of the States. It's that big a deal. So being an advocate of universal healthcare but firmly against Obamacare isn't a contradiction at all.

You are fond of saying how consistent Trump is in certain areas. There are others who are fond of saying how contradictory he is.
Well, I don't know how fond I am of saying how consistent he is in certain areas, but I do on occasion like to point out how someone with no serious political ambitions or prospects in the early and mid 80s had certain positions on the major big picture issues, has remained true to those positions over the years. Many people stay consistent on the emotional issues, the social issues, but not so much on the big pictures issues I previously mentioned. Those who are fond of pointing out his inconsistencies are fond of pointing out even the smallest of flaws in those people whom they do not support, even to the point of looking up quotes from high school yearbooks and trying to use it to their advantage in discreditation. Investigative reporters have talked extensively with many of Trump's classmates at military boarding school to see what dirt and inconsistencies they can dig up on him. The worst the NYT could find was that Trump was a very competitive winner on the athletic field and that he regularly protected smaller, weaker classmates, so they framed it inside subtle references to the possibility that Trump might possibly have been a bully in middle and high school. Oh, and that even back then, you rarely saw him not in the company of extremely beautiful women, so he was a dog from an early age, apparently.
 

ATeam

Senior Member
Retired Expediter
You didn't say it in those exact words, no, ... Saying that his style of leadership is not a good fit for the seat he's about to take is just another way of wording that he's unfit to lead as president.

Those are your words, not mine, Turtle. I did not say it, and intentionally so. You are putting words in my mouth that I myself am not saying. Hear what you wish to hear. I know what I am saying, I know what I mean and I am confident readers will know it also.Some won't and that's fine. Such is the way of the written word.

I don't even like the phrase "fit to lead." It is nebulous and ill defined. It can mean almost anything, depending on a speaker's context and intent. I've talked about a lot of candidates and public officials in my day. I cannot recall a single time where I characterized any one of them as fit or unfit to lead.

The sole exception is me using it above in response to your use of the phrase and I regret doing that. Saying "Donald Trump is fit to lead" is akin to saying Sparky is a good dog. It could mean anything.


Please correct me if I'm wrong.

See above.

Yes, no, no, and no. I do caution you about applying the narcissistic label, ...

Noted.

Just as you're free to bandy about the narcissistic label, I'm free to voice the opinion that more thought and restraint should be employed before doing so in such a settled, matter of fact fashion. That's all I'm saying.

Noted
 
Last edited:

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
Those are your words, not mine, Turtle. I did not say it, and intentionally so. You are putting words in my mouth that I myself am not saying. Hear what you wish to hear. I know what I am saying, I know what I mean and I am confident readers will know it also.Some won't and that's fine. Such is the way of the written word.
That's fine. I do know that the definition of unfit is "not of the necessary quality or standard to meet a particular purpose, unsuitable," so when you say, "I do not believe his particular style of leadership [necessary quality or standard] is a good fit for the seat [a particular purpose] he is about to take," it means exactly the same thing as "unfit to lead as president" (as the style of leadership and the man himself are inextricably intertwined).

But, to clear up the apparent semantic confusion over the written word, which so often happens, please answer the following multiple choice question...

Donald J Trump _____ fit to lead as President.

1 - is
2 - is not​

In keeping with the standards of Common Core, there is no right (correct) or wrong (incorrect) answer here.
 

skyraider

Veteran Expediter
US Navy
Ok,,,time out now,,,,its time for that old expeditor favorite....


smokem if u got em........................
 
Top