Real issues with Trump no hyperbole

Post Reply New Topic

@Adamantium - you're right. MY "close minded" and "medieval" shots were cheap and unwarranted. Here's a thought that, hopefully, shows you where I stand.

I'm a homeless, food stamp-receiving, immigrant black man with autism, bipolar disorder, PTSD, history of substance abuse disorder, chronic depression and anxiety. In other words, I'm basically a ticking time bomb.

Now, you come to someone like me and tell him, "Look, the new president doesn't really care for people like you. As a matter of fact, he may start sending federal troops to your neighbourhood to maintain the peace."

HOW am I supposed to behave when I feel like there's a target being drawn on my back?

@Adamantium - you're right. MY "close minded" and "medieval" shots were cheap and unwarranted. Here's a thought that, hopefully, shows you where I stand.

I'm a homeless, food stamp-receiving, immigrant black man with autism, bipolar disorder, PTSD, history of substance abuse disorder, chronic depression and anxiety. In other words, I'm basically a ticking time bomb.

Now, you come to someone like me and tell him, "Look, the new president doesn't really care for people like you. As a matter of fact, he may start sending federal troops to your neighbourhood to maintain the peace."

HOW am I supposed to behave when I feel like there's a target being drawn on my back?

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

The issues that I was thinking about were:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No. I'm the first person to condemn those disgusting acts. I hate anarchists. I'm talking about the women's march as a whole (excluding Madonna).

Sadly, this is nothing new and i will never understand the reasoning. The former prime minister of Australia wanted to use the same method in Syria...Before he got impeached.

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











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

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

I'm for this. It's the Christian immigrants that are being murdered and no one is taking them in. So yes, I support this fully.

I support taking in Christians too, but to divide people based on their faith is going down a dangerous path.

Mexico had to react the way it did.

Trump is trying to thump down a business competitor. He'll do that with other nations.

The problem: nations aren't businesses, like humans aren't cars. International relations is a complex, nuanced thing like us humans, but unlike cars.

I've been a stoner for years, but I've never tried cocaine. I don't know that I have a problem with it though. He does not seem to have been an addict at any rate.

You can't talk about the Women's March and exclude Madonna - she was a big part. The Pro-Life March had none of that nonsense. That is how a protest should be handled.

If they're being murdered due to their faith, the division is preexisting.

People are divided based on their faith by nature of having different faiths. That's a hell of a lot older than the United States, let alone the current POTUS.

You know whats really weird? Obama snorting coke and having sex with men during his college days.

@Adamantium - you're right. MY "close minded" and "medieval" shots were cheap and unwarranted. Here's a thought that, hopefully, shows you where I stand.

I'm a homeless, food stamp-receiving, immigrant black man with autism, bipolar disorder, PTSD, history of substance abuse disorder, chronic depression and anxiety. In other words, I'm basically a ticking time bomb.

Now, you come to someone like me and tell him, "Look, the new president doesn't really care for people like you. As a matter of fact, he may start sending federal troops to your neighbourhood to maintain the peace."

HOW am I supposed to behave when I feel like there's a target being drawn on my back?

Incidentally, "Look, the new president doesn't really care for people like you. As a matter of fact, he may start sending federal troops to your neighborhood to maintain the peace." reminds me strongly of what certain people -- mostly white males -- were saying about Operation Jade Helm a few years ago. Remember that stuff?

In any case, perception is not reality, the map is not the territory and untested received wisdom is often the least trustworthy guide.