Donald Trump

Make it great again

A fair and balanced analysis of Trump's psyche, based on observations. It is fair and balanced actually, not driven by any agenda, listing the potential pros and cons of a Trump presidency and comparing him to some former presidents.
It's from June so not exactly news, but everything is so agenda driven concerning him, I thought it was great to read something that isn't, for a change.
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/06/the-mind-of-donald-trump/480771/

"

Jojas wrote:

A fair and balanced analysis of Trump's psyche, based on observations. It is fair and balanced actually, not driven by any agenda, listing the potential pros and cons of a Trump presidency and comparing him to some former presidents.
It's from June so not exactly news, but everything is so agenda driven concerning him, I thought it was great to read something that isn't, for a change.
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/06/the-mind-of-donald-trump/480771/

Good read. Thanks for that.

My biggest concern was the (incredibly apt) comparison to Andrew Jackson... who persecuted the Native Americans. It makes me think he's actually serious about that fucking wall. If so, then based on personal politics alone (I live in El Paso) I couldn't support him.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

"

Jojas wrote:

A fair and balanced analysis of Trump's psyche, based on observations. It is fair and balanced actually, not driven by any agenda, listing the potential pros and cons of a Trump presidency and comparing him to some former presidents.
It's from June so not exactly news, but everything is so agenda driven concerning him, I thought it was great to read something that isn't, for a change.
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/06/the-mind-of-donald-trump/480771/

Good read. Thanks for that.

My biggest concern was the (incredibly apt) comparison to Andrew Jackson... who persecuted the Native Americans. It makes me think he's actually serious about that fucking wall. If so, then based on personal politics alone (I live in El Paso) I couldn't support him.

The Atlantic is awesome. Every linked url internet-wide that tries to send people to salon.com should redirect people to a random Atlantic article =/

I've read quite a few articles on The Atlantic at this point, and despite my glowing endorsement from before, this article is a bit week.

Referencing Politifact as both unbiased and scientific was disappointing, and the author makes assumptions I'm not sure I buy into, including

"

Having said that, deal making is an apt description for only some presidential activities, and the modern presidency is too complex to rely mainly on personal relationships. Presidents work within institutional frameworks that transcend the idiosyncratic relationships between specific people, be they heads of state, Cabinet secretaries, or members of Congress. The most-effective leaders are able to maintain some measure of distance from the social and emotional fray of everyday politics. Keeping the big picture in mind and balancing a myriad of competing interests, they cannot afford to invest too heavily in any particular relationship.

Now, me disagreeing with it is one thing, but he offers no factual support for these opinions. It's annoying because up to this point, the author had pointed out where he wasn't on firm factual ground and was participating in conjecture, and when he could, he supported himself with literature and consensus.

This is necessary because the subject matter is already on shaky ground to begin with - historical psychoanalysis. Other branches of hard science already look down at some branches of psychology, and ofc all hard sciences look down on the social sciences. He should be going way out of his way to build his case on methodology and cumulative field knowledge.

Trump to lower taxes.
http://fortune.com/2016/08/06/donald-trump-tax-cut/

I can't think think of too many bad issue with this man

No war unlike hawk Hillary who will have us in WW3 prolly, even UN ambassador under Obama Samatha Power calls her a "monster"
Low taxes unlike Hillary who pledges to raise them
Tariffs which built this country from poor dirt farmers to #1 not to mention we wont enable sweat shops

"

innervation wrote:

I've read quite a few articles on The Atlantic at this point, and despite my glowing endorsement from before, this article is a bit week.

Referencing Politifact as both unbiased and scientific was disappointing, and the author makes assumptions I'm not sure I buy into, including

"

Having said that, deal making is an apt description for only some presidential activities, and the modern presidency is too complex to rely mainly on personal relationships. Presidents work within institutional frameworks that transcend the idiosyncratic relationships between specific people, be they heads of state, Cabinet secretaries, or members of Congress. The most-effective leaders are able to maintain some measure of distance from the social and emotional fray of everyday politics. Keeping the big picture in mind and balancing a myriad of competing interests, they cannot afford to invest too heavily in any particular relationship.

Now, me disagreeing with it is one thing, but he offers no factual support for these opinions. It's annoying because up to this point, the author had pointed out where he wasn't on firm factual ground and was participating in conjecture, and when he could, he supported himself with literature and consensus.

This is necessary because the subject matter is already on shaky ground to begin with - historical psychoanalysis. Other branches of hard science already look down at some branches of psychology, and ofc all hard sciences look down on the social sciences. He should be going way out of his way to build his case on methodology and cumulative field knowledge.

I agree, sort of. That was a bit weak, especially because, in my opinion, he missed out on one very important aspect: If Trump handles the presidency like he supposedly handles his business, i.e. based on "idiosyncratic relationships", where would he a draw the line between a constitutional state and a banana republic?

According to the article:
"On the campaign trail, he has often said that he would simply pick up the phone and call people—say, a CEO wishing to move his company to Mexico—in order to make propitious deals for the American people."

Who would be the people he'd call? Who would he ignore? And why? What would he promise them? And on what grounds?

For me these seem to be the real issues of a "hands-on" approach a la Trump. Not the problems that a potential micromanagment approach might entail. He's got staff, after all. But the enormous potential for favoritism if the US were governed by someone like him - if you assume that he'd really run the government like he said it should, that is.

But as you said, phrases like "the most effective leaders are able to maintain some measure of distance ..." need some data to back them up. He shouldn't have said it as if it were an obvious truth.

Probably people will forget it in a week (as the whole "Obama is from Kenya" or the "vaccines cause autism" thing that should show he is batshit) but Trump seems to have threatened Hillary to death. With the second amendment. Or maybe he joked about it because he has a wonderful sense of humor. Ha Ha.

Either way, he is getting more and more insane (or sounds like that, who knows), and it's top quality entertainment for me.

The spinning about that comment that will come after my post is a free energy source people. Connect a dynamo.

"

NeroNoah wrote:

Probably people will forget it in a week (as the whole "Obama is from Kenya" or the "vaccines cause autism" thing that should show he is batshit) but Trump seems to have threatened Hillary to death. With the second amendment. Or maybe he joked about it because he has a wonderful sense of humor. Ha Ha.

Either way, he is getting more and more insane (or sounds like that, who knows), and it's top quality entertainment for me.

The spinning about that comment that will come after my post is a free energy source people. Connect a dynamo.

Leaving Trump's comment alone for now, both "progressive" Obama and "progressive" Clinton made statements during their campaigns pandering to anti-vaccine idiots. This was after the multi-year literature review was conducted by scientists world wide.

"

innervation wrote:

Leaving Trump's comment alone for now, both "progressive" Obama and "progressive" Clinton made statements during their campaigns pandering to anti-vaccine idiots. This was after the multi-year literature review was conducted by scientists world wide.

Well, shame on them (although it seems they have backtracked from those statements, at least Obama, I haven't found anything about Clinton statements). It's kind of surprising honestly, I didn't expect it.

PS: no, seriously, what the fuck. They changed later but anyone with a brain could have seen it from the beginning.