My photo blog is here. +++ Links to all the several dozen articles I cross-posted to Daily Kos with comments are here.
Tuesday, Aug. 30, 2017
What I’ll be thinking about tonight as I fall asleep and working on tomorrow —
PSY-VU Ethics: Psychologists helping Hillary Torture Trump, Guantanamo Redux?
By now you may have heard that Hillary Clinton is (or may be) using one or more psychologists to help her prepare for her debated with Donald Trump. This was mentioned on TV last night after it was reported in the New York Time, and is being talked about on MSNBC this morning. Her surrogate is, as I write this, making a non-denial denial that she is actually using psychologists. He didn’t come right out and absolutely deny it.
There is no doubt in my mind that any psychologist who is helping Hillary prepare to make Trump look bad during the debate want to advise her on ways to “get under his skin” to elicit and decidedly unpresidential reaction. In order to do this he (or she) will have had to make a diagnosis of Trump based on everything we know about him. This may be why Tony Schwartz, the author of “The Arto of the Deal” was bright in to be part of the team. Combine his observations of the unguarded Trump over 18 months with all we’ve seen of Trump on TV and lave learned about him from his Tweets and interviews with Howard Stern, and there is a wealth of information to understand how his psyche works.
From the New York Times
Hillary Clinton’s advisers are talking to Donald J. Trump’s ghostwriter of “The Art of the Deal,” seeking insights about Mr. Trump’s deepest insecurities as they devise strategies to needle and undermine him in four weeks at the first presidential debate, the most anticipated in a generation.
Her team is also getting advice from psychology experts to help create a personality profile of Mr. Trump to gauge how he may respond to attacks and deal with a woman as his sole adversary on the debate stage.
They are undertaking a forensic-style analysis of Mr. Trump’s performances in the Republican primary debates, cataloging strengths and weaknesses as well as trigger points that caused him to lash out in less-than-presidential ways.
In compiling research to help Mrs. Clinton prepare, her advisers have cast a wide net. They contacted Tony Schwartz, the “Art of the Deal” co-author, to give them advice about Mr. Trump this summer — even though Mr. Schwartz’s 18-month immersion in Mr. Trump’s life and homes ended in the mid-1980s. But Clinton advisers said Mr. Schwartz and other writers who had observed Mr. Trump up close, as well as unnamed psychology experts they had spoken to, were critical to understanding how to get under Mr. Trump’s skin.
The has been something of a brouhaha on the comments sections of the diaries I wrote using my minority view interpretation of the “never-diagnose-at-a-distane” Goldwater rule: You should feel free to do so when you believe not to do so would be unethical. Enough about that. I’ll never convince the naysayers here, let alone the found of the Citizen Therapist Facebook page with 2,500 members who personally banned my from posting anything on his page diagnosing Trump.
My point is that now we have one or more psychologists “privately” working for Hillary Clinton to use their diagnostic acumen to help her do something akin to what the psychologists working for the CIA to help them extract information from terrorists.
There was quite a controversy in the profession when this came to light with many mental health professionals saying that basically these people were using their expertise to help torture “detainees."
The American Psychological Association (APA) has a long history of opposing the misuse of psychological knowledge in practice, assessment, research and any other activity utilizing the tools of the field [, ]. The APA Ethical Principles of Psychologists – Code of Conduct has long been the guide to both acceptable and prohibited behavior [ , ], and has long ensured the proper and safe use of psychological methods. It protects U.S. psychologists, but most important of all, those who are most exposed and most vulnerable to the misuse of psychology and its tools [ ].
In the wake of September 11, 2001 and the subsequent "war-on-terror", the APA decided to address the ethical implications of psychologist "contributions" to U.S. national security. Calling the situation an "emergency", APA President Ronald Levant authorized the APA Presidential Task Force on Psychological Ethics and National Security (PENS) . The task force report and process generated a number of controversies. One set revolved around the appointment of task force members who were primarily psychologists serving active military or working in some then current capacity with the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) . Criticism of the task force composition grew when the identification of members revealed deep connections with intelligence gathering, detainee interrogations, and related operations within the DoD .
The ethics of interrogation and the American Psychological Association: A critique of policy and process
The operative text of that resolution, obtained by the Guardian, reads:
“The APA membership has voted to prohibit all psychologists from working at Guantánamo Bay, from the CIA black sites, and any other setting that the UN has declared to be in violation of international law excepting those psychologists who are performing no task other than offering treatment to fellow soldiers.
“Please inform psychologists who are performing any task other than offering treatment to fellow soldiers in these settings that they must immediately seek to deploy elsewhere or find themselves in violation of APA policy.
Within the profession, attention has returned to the issue of psychologist support to abusive interrogations since the Guardian reported last month that the APA declined to censure a former army reserve major and psychologist, John Leso, who played a major role in torturing Guantánamo Bay detainee Mohammed al-Qahtani, whom the US suspects of being the intended 20th 9/11 hijacker.
But the fact is that experts on narcissistic personality disorder (NPD) are the best qualified to explain to Hilary how she can trigger an outburst of what is called “narcissistic rage.”
"Narcissistic rage is the response of a narcissist to anything they perceive as a threat to their ego, their control or their power. It is usually intense, out of proportion, often random and is used to manipulate."
I wrote about this here http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/08/22/1562659/-It-s-Time-We-Talk-About-Narcissistic-Rage but that essay focused on what we might expect from Trump if he loses the election.
Most of the popular literature about narcissism has been about how to live with narcissists in your life. There are dozens of them on Amazon. There have a comparatively fee articles and books written about how to best treat people with narcissistic personality disorder. Many therapists think the disorder isn’t treatable, but other suggest that using empathy once a patient gains trust they can rework the deficits from having parents who lacked empathy and contributed to the child growing up with NPD.
There are way that Hillary can trigger untoward, unflattering, and down-right unpresidential reactions from Trump. In fact, just his knowing she may be using psychologists may be percolating in the back of his mind and giving him pause that she will bring some ammunition to the debate that he doesn’t understand and will find it difficult to prepare for.
Mainly, though, she goes into the debate with a huge psychological advantage because she a woman who won’t defer to him, who isn’t intimidated by him, and certainly doesn’t find him awesome. Consider how he reacted to Megan Kelley, and she wan’t challenging his narcissism in a debate that will probably have more viewers than the Super Bowl.
So here’s the ethic question:
If so many psychotherapists thought it was unethical for psychologists to work for the CIA at Guantanamo, why wouldn’t they give pause to someone in their profession helping Hillary learn how to torture Trump?
Monday, August 28, 2016
From a Trump supporter and surrogate Pastor Mark Burns:
Smile for the camera: Trump’s Grimile
Cross-posted for comments here.
This is from the A.P., a side-by-side on a Huffington Post article speculation on the debates. I want to trust they tried to find comparable smiling photos of each candidate. You have to look through a lot of them (see the photo I put on yesterday) to find one of Trump where he has anything between his nose and chin which could be called a smile. Here are the first photos of an image search just for Trump. Finding one of Trump smiling here is like searching for Waldo.
So in all fairness I asked Google Images to show me “Trump smiling.”
I wouldn’t have posted these photo comparisons had not Trump made so many disparaging comments about how Hillary, and other women, look. Here’s what I posted yesterday in “Mirror, Mirror, on the Wall:
Sunday, August 27, 2016
This is the first Daily Kos essay I am posting under the heading PSY-VU. Let’s see how readers respond.
No, Mr. Plouffe, Trump isn’t a psychopath.
Ever notice department:
Ever notice how the man who changes his policies according to the applause-o-meter at his rallies, often claps for himself?
Saturday, August, 26, 2016
Psychoanalyst Howard Kovitz,* author of the Nazi/Schmazi blog is among the mental health professionals not hesitant to apply his half century of experience with treating the disordered mind to the Republican candidate :
Excerpt:See if this stimulated any reaction of Daily Kos.
Friday, August 25, 2016
Paul Rudnick leak’s page from Melania Trump’s diary, greatest discovery since Dead Sea Scrolls.
What is to become of me? If Donald wins, I will be forced to stand by his side for hours, playing that game where I count the exit signs and imagine that my real life is waiting behind one of them. Or I think about writing a series of children’s books—“The Beautiful Princess and the Ogre with No Friends,” “The Beautiful Princess and the Orange Baboon Who Doesn’t Pay Taxes,” and “The Beautiful Princess Who Misses Her Old Boyfriend Vanko, from Slovenia.”
Donald says that when I become First Lady I will need to have a cause. So far, I’ve come up with the following:
1. Helping women learn to flash their eyes alluringly.
2. Getting poor women tickets to fashion shows, so that they will feel less poor for a few minutes.
3. Avoiding Chris Christie’s sweaty desperation; he knows I can’t help him, because no one can.
Donald says that I will also need to fight radical Islam, but I tell him, “Donald, you already made me shake hands with Scott Baio, so I think I’ve done more than enough.” price can be established
I first heard this from Katy Tur who covers the Trump roadshow for MSNBC and NBC News. She said this what Trump uses to make his policies.
|It would be amusing if it weren’t true. Facts below are from the piece Katy Tur wrote in Marie Claire.|
Katy wasn’t even a political reporter before she started covering Trump. In fact, early in her career, when she was Keith Olbermann’s girlfriend, she was a storm chaser for the Weather Channel. Yet she landed a 29 minute one-on-one interview with him that aired three times on MSNBC.
Her role is mostly to report rather than opine, although her most recent observation — possibly original with her — was not just a snark, but an astute assessment of how Trump pays close attention to the reaction of his rally crowds than to polls.
It makes sense that Trump would trust the evidence in front of him rather than polls which show him losing in great numbers every week. He probably believes that the polls are rigged, and his audiences aren’t. Katy’s use of the applause-o-meter description is shorthand for how she described how he uses his crowds:
Trump is a room-reader. He'll slow down a line, rephrase a point, work in a pause, and ride the energy of his audience wherever it takes him. For 45, 60, even 90 minutes, he'll run through classic riffs, like bomb the hell out of ISIS, build a wall, make America great again. But he'll also experiment, as when he launched an ethnically tinged attack on a Mexican- American judge deciding the civil fraud case against Trump University.
We all are well aware, as scientifically attuned thinkers that polls are designed to sample a diverse segment representative of the entire population. It is as obvious as the dye job on Trump’s comb-over that his “sample” is a self selected like minded cohort.
Katy’s bonafides include being called “little Katy” and a lying third rate reporter by Donald Trump. Not only that, more recently he was actually shushed by him, or in Katy’s own words:
"Mr. Trump, do you have any qualms about asking a foreign government—Russia, China, anybody—to interfere, to hack into the system of anybody's in this country?”
He didn't answer.
So I tried again.
And then it happened: the shushing.
"If they have them, they have them" he was saying. "You know what gives me more pause? That a person in our government, crooked Hillary Clinton—be quiet, I know you want to, you know, save her."
My phone jumped with Twitter notifications.
"Did he just tell @katyturnbc to 'be quiet'?"
"Trump tells @katyturnbc to 'be quiet'."
"A day after a 105 year old woman casts nominating vote for HRC, Trump tells a female reporter to 'be quiet.'"
These quotes and facts are from the piece Katy wrote for Marie Claire:
Thursday, August 24, 2016
Be afraid, be very afraid: Video plays after download and 30 second commercial:
These Are The People Trump Is Recruiting To Stop Hillary From ‘Rigging’ The Election: There are concerns not every volunteer will realize “there are limitations on what they are and aren’t allowed to do.” Huffington Post
|Rachel Maddow had Kellyanne Conway on for three segments on Aug. 24th|
Most of the commenters on MSNBC and elsewhere are saying Kellyanne is responsible for Trump’s attempted reboot of his persona and campaign to soften his rhetoric and policies. Hard right commentators like Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, and Howie Carr have already strongly (hysterically) discouraged Trump from softening his positions on immigration. Kellyanne’s touch has already been seen in Trump’s teleprompter speeches, until he lapses into ad-libbing.
She also didn’t make excuses for Trump not releasing his taxes beyond just saying he was taking the advice of his accountants and lawyers. She didn’t look like she believed it was a good idea; but declined to give an opinion when Rachel asked if she thought it was.
Rachel brought up, and put onscreen, the ridiculous medical letter Trump’s gastroenterologist wrote saying Trump would be the healthiest president in history. Kellyanne made no excuses and seemed to agree the letter was lacking in detail, to put it mildly. Rachel asked if Trump would be willing to submit a more detailed report of his physical condition. Kellyanne said she would convey this request to Trump.
All in all, I thought Rachel was masterful in asking the important questions without making Trump supporting viewers who tuned in just to see Kellyanne not feel that she was being unfair and asking “gotcha” questions. While Hillary supporters often want interviewers to nail evasive, equivocating, and lying surrogates unmercifully, and I admit to wishing someone would dope slap these mealy- mouthed excuses for “normal” people. I think as satisfying as this would be for us, it would be counterproductive.
Rachel finished up by asking that Kellyanne to convey her invitation to Donald Trump to appear on her show. As she always does when she finally gets a Republican to his or her first interview she cheerfully says (I paraphrase) "now that wasn’t so bad was it?" I may be misremembering but I think she actually said something like “that was fun” to Kellyanne. In fact, unless Kellyanne is a great actor, I think she really enjoyed the interview.
I got the impression that the two of them could indulge in the cocktails we know Rachel likes and after a few drinks Kellyanne would admit, in confidence, that working with Trump to civilize him and make his rhetoric palatable to the Republican voters who are leery of voting for him is like trying housebreak a chimpanzee who gets off on throwing his feces.
The poll a week ago:
Wednesday, Aug. 23, 2016
Read: Amazing NEGATIVE response to my latest diary on Daily Kos.
Original image and title:
Hillary would be losing to Jeb by 10 points, half because of Bill
New image and title:
|since the race would probably be much tighter than|
it is now with the “abnormal” candidate oddly
and appropriately called “the Donald."
Quote of the day: “It walks like a duck, quacks like a duck,” he told The New York Times, when asked if he thought Trump is a fascist. “Where’s the Constitution in all this?” Gary Johnson, Libertarian presidential candidate.
Trump’s fantasy: send the bad people back to Mexico. Is it possible?
Also posted, with comments, on Daily Kos.
Tuesday, Aug. 22, 2016
Here’s a great Daily Kos essay with a clickbait title which isn’t about what you think it’s going to be about: “What the media doesn’t know about the Clinton Foundation could sink the Titanic.”
My comment: Pssst… some people are saying that the Clinton Foundation gave millions to ISIS…. but I don’t know if that’s true, but you know, she did help found ISIS…
Psychotherapists want you to believe the profession is open to debating controversial subjects. Unfortunately I find some therapists to be elitist (only THEY can make a diagnosis), arrogant, and dogmatic…
Monday, Aug. 21, 2016
Sunday, Aug. 20, 2016
Yet another “give me a &*^%%# break moment:
|Also on Daily Kos where people may or may not comment|
We know his courting black voters by mouthing the history lesson about the how Republicans are the party of Lincoln (uh, were the party of Lincoln, the Great Emancipator) is really aimed at middle class white Republican voters who don’t want to vote for a racist. Will they buy it…. well, we all know the saying (wrongly) attributed to P.T. Barnum.
Telling it like it is award:
HUGE! In meeting with Hispanic advisers, Trump hints at 'legalization' of undocumented immigrants
From Republicans set to loose control of Senate
Saturday, Aug. 20, 2016
|Read Daily Beast article here|
The second story is about why the C word is spelled “C**ts” in the Daily Beast headline but the word is spelled out five times in the story.
I posted this on Daily Kos and there have been 81 comments.
|Bonus Blog and First blog on the Kos Recommended List|
Why do Trumpians keep letting
themselves get skewered by Joy Reid?
Friday, August 19, 2016
Donald Trump’s America
Swimmer Ryan Lochte and friends won but then lost the Olympics. Instead of our great athletes taking up media time and space, these three disrespectful and immature are putting a face on the worst of American sports.
|Go to Daily Kos to read and make comments|
Here’s an interesting thought: Trump didn’t do Olympic Tweets, Hillary did, with numerous congratulatory Tweets… Politico looked into it and came up with a good reason:
Why has Trump hit the mute button on the Olympics, while Clinton has pumped up the volume? There’s a good reason for that, and a surprising one. The spectacle of America vanquishing its global rivals is—ironically, amazingly—utterly terrible for the “America First” candidate.
A big part of his political message, the one you hear at his stump speeches, is that America has grown weak. America doesn’t win anymore, he says. “Crippled America” is the title of his most recent book. He alone can Make American Great Again. As someone who’s been around a few campaigns, believe me: The Olympics is about the worst thing that could have happened to the Trump train. Here’s a candidate whose message depends entirely on convincing Americans that they’re living in a failing nation overrun by criminal immigrants. And for the past two weeks, tens of millions of Americans have been glued to a multi-ethnic parade of athletes, winning easily. “Make America Great Again” has never felt more out-of-touch than it does against the backdrop of tenacious, over-achieving American athletes driven by their own journeys in pursuit of the American Dream.
Lexicographers are no doubt already trying to find all the definitions of Trumpism for the next dictionary editions. But how do you explain that he he took the word “great” and turned it into a political statement.
|Trump’s plane lands in Baton Rouge but it’s a boring story because Paul Manafort resigned at the same time|
Thursday, August 18, 2016
New word of the day (thanks to Trump’s candidacy -) revanchism |rəˈvän(t)SHˌizəm|
nouna policy of seeking to retaliate, especially to recover lost territory.
"Here’s the thing about Donald Trump: In his 14 months as a political candidate, he has demonstrated an utter indifference to the truth and to reality itself. He appears to seek only his own validation from the most revanchist, xenophobic crowds in America. He is trolling, hard."From Wired Magazine’s endorsement of Hilary.
|Comments on Daily Kos|
by Daniel Shaw LCSW, who is a clinical social worker like me; but he's also a psychoanalyst. He is private practice in New York City and in Nyack, New York. He has gone published numerous psychoanalytic papers, and is the author of "Traumatic Narcissism: Relational Systems of Subjugation."
This analyst admits he is champing at the bit to make a diagnosis but is resisting doing so. Then he goes on to beat around the diagnosis book (i.e. the DSM-5). So without identifying Trump he writes: "Perhaps I could speak a bit about narcissism in general, without naming names ― especially about the kind of narcissistic person that seeks and attracts followers to form some kind of big religious or political movement, with him or her as its supreme leader.” He eventually gives Trump the non-diagnosis of malignant, traumatizing narcissism who is are capable of untold destructiveness. Most therapists have most agreed to constrain themselves by a so-called rule that keeps them from helping the public to understand better why Trump is unfit to be president. I see the reasons offered here and elsewhere by these therapists, I happen to think Trump is the except that breaks the rule! Something to think about: consider the history of psychology and the contributions by those who were willing to break the rules, starting with Freud.
His article begins:
If you have the interest and time here’s an excellent audio discussion on the Diane Rehm radio show about the ethics of “Tumpology” (diagnosis of Trump) in the mental health profession.
Debate Over Armchair Psychological Assessments Of Donald Trump
Weds, August 17, 2016
MORE: An article from MARCH [Inquisitr] Sam Valkin, narcissism expert studies 600 hours of Trump
Sam Vaknin, a mental health expert and author, has studied over 600 hours of Donald Trump footage and made the harsh conclusion that Donald Trump is not simply a classic narcissist — he is, in fact, a “malignant and, probably, psychopathic narcissist.”
In an extensive interview with American Thinker, Vaknin explains that he first connected narcissism to the political stage in a 2008 essaywhere he suggested that then-senator Barack Obama was, in fact, a narcissist, but he also wrote that Obama was intelligent and pro-social, and that while Trump repeatedly to be the former, he is “definitely not the latter,” and that he should be considered “much more of a menace than Obama ever was” to the United States.
There are, Vaknin explains, nine criteria that a narcissist meets, and there is little doubt that Trump is “writ large” on every one.
A narcissist feels grandiose and self-important, and often exaggerates to the point of lying his or her accomplishments and skills. A narcissist is obsessed with fantasies of “unlimited success, fame, fearsome power or omnipotence.” The narcissist is convinced that he or she is special and, because of that, should be treated as a high-status person. A narcissist requires “excessive admiration” and feels entitled, demanding special and often unreasonable treatment. A narcissist is “interpersonally exploitative,” using others to achieve his or her own goals, and is also devoid of empathy. A narcissist is also envious of others and will seek to hurt or destroy people, and, lastly, a narcissist “behaves arrogantly and haughtily,” and “rages when frustrated, contradicted, or confronted by people he or she considers inferior to him or her and unworthy.”Comment here
Read comments here
2,200 shrinks diagnosing Trump: The Goldwater rule goes mainstream (in the New York Times):
"The Psychiatric Question: Is It Fair to Analyze Donald Trump From Afar?"
Count me among the mental health professionals (as a retired clinical social worker and mental health center director who was licensed to diagnose and treat patients) who disagrees with the Goldwater Rule under special circumstances. While the mental health professionals who put together the manifesto do not diagnose Trump, they use their expertise to “analyze” his temperament, character, disposition, as well as his beliefs.
Now, while Republican physicians are speculating about Hillary Clinton’s physical fitness to be president while Trump himself has started not only saying she is (mentally) unhinged, but that she looks like she had a stroke, and has trouble walking up a flight of stairs unaided, and needs to sleep between brief speeches.
Obviously the physicians that speculated on this have scant evidence to go on. Physical diagnosis requires an examination and often tests. Psychiatric diagnosis is usual accomplished with a face-to-face interview or two, and infrequently psychological tests like the Rorschach and MMPI.
However, because Trump has been unscripted in so many of his rallies and demonstrated a wide variety of symptoms of disorders that make him temperamentally unfit to be president. Even if we don’t count his lack of empathy (a characteristic of narcissistic personality disorder), there’s his pathological lying (pseudologia fantastic) and fantastic confabulation and his impulsiveness. Add to this that his narcissism makes him highly unlikely to heed advice that challenges his beliefs.
While not showing enough symptoms to make a likely diagnosis of paranoid personality disorder he does seem to believe a lot of conspiracy theories. Also not a true anti-social personality (aka sociopath) he seems to relish being a bully and his NPD lack of empathy is also a characteristic of this with anti-social personality.
If Trump was somehow persuaded to undergo a psychiatric examination knowing the results would be public he’d be guarded and I’d wager figure out that he’d better not let his unhinged stream of conscious and word salad speech take over. I wouldn’t be surprised if he took some Xanax prior to his interview. In fact, if I was his campaign advisor I’d suggest he do so.
Here’s an excerpt from the New York Times article:
The 2016 Republican nominee’s incendiary, stream-of-consciousness pronouncements have strained that agreement to the breaking point, exposing divisions in the field over whether such restraint is appropriate today.
Psychiatrists and psychologists have publicly flouted the Goldwater Rule, tagging Mr. Trump with an assortment of personality problems, including grandiosity, a lack of empathy, and “malignant narcissism.” The clinical insults are flying so thick that earlier this month, the psychiatric association posted a reminder that breaking the Goldwater Rule “is irresponsible, potentially stigmatizing, and definitely unethical.”
Putting a psychiatric label on a candidate they oppose can be a “seemingly irresistible tool for some in the field,” said Dr. Paul Appelbaum, a professor of psychiatry, medicine and law at Columbia University who disapproves of the practice. “This year, perhaps more than most, they’re persuaded they’re saving the nation from a terrible fate.”A group of professional mental health therapists have a website, http://citizentherapists.com , with a manifesto which over 2,000 therapists have signed:
Here’s another excerpt from the New York Times article:
Dr. Steven Buser, a psychiatrist who with his colleague, Dr. Leonard Cruz, coedited a new book, “A Clear and Present Danger: Narcissism in the Era of Donald Trump,” stressed, “We are careful not to make a clinical diagnosis here, to say that Donald Trump has narcissistic personality disorder.” The contributing writers include psychiatrists and psychologists, but Dr. Buser said, “We are focused on the image he projects, on TV, in tweets, in quotes.”
Dr. Appelbaum ( a professor of psychiatry, medicine and law at Columbia University who disapproves of diagnosing politicians) calls this distinction a convenient splitting of hairs. “It takes a skilled therapist months, sometimes longer, seeing a person regularly and asking probing questions to make a determination of whether a disorder is present,” Dr. Appelbaum said.
My previous and controversial articles about Trump’s likely diagnoses, all published on Daily Kos, which combined I call Trump derangement syndrome:
Tuesday, April 16, 2016
Just a thought: Trump wants extreme vetting for VISA applicants. How about requiring extreme vetting for presidential candidates? Start with requiring they release their income tax returns. A Rorschach Test and MMPI should also be required.
|Not fit enough to fight World War II?|
In what was billed as a major foreign-policy address in Ohio, Donald Trump suggested—as he has in the past—that Hillary Clinton is somehow secretly ill. This time though, he said Clinton lacks the “mental and physical stamina” to take on ISIS, a declaration that comes just a week after conspiracy theories bubbled to the surface once again saying that the Democratic presidential nominee has some terminal ailment. Daily Beast
Monday, August 15, 2016
A rare gift to the electorate from Donald Trump
Simply put, Donald Trump has demonstrated his dark side more that any other candidate in this election and possibly in history. The only candidates in my memory that come close are George Wallace and Pat Buchanan. Add to this that we have seen so many examples of his bullying and mean and/or threatening reactions to slights that even without making a psychiatric diagnosis we can make judgments about his temperament.
Trump believes in himself with such conviction that he sees no need to heed advice from those who want him to win that he has to “act” presidential. Give Trump credit for refusing to act a role that would be dishonest.
As an evil Popeye, he proudly lives by the credo “I yam what I yam.” And that is good for us!
New to this blog… read previous “editions” here.