Fifty percent of Clinton supporters say they are voting affirmatively for Clinton, while 44 percent say they are backing her out of opposition to Trump.
In contrast, 51 percent of Trump's backers say their vote is primarily out of opposition to Clinton.
Many of those who say they are backing Trump out of opposition to Clinton have a visceral dislike for her. It isn’t only the emails, they’d dislike her no matter what. Part of it is that she’s a woman who wants to assume a position they believe is only worthy of a man. Both men and women feel this both for overlapping and for distinct reasons. I won’t get into how women can be as misogynistic in their own way as men.
Here’s what’s important. Some of these voters dislike Trump too, and I believe just find Clinton off-putting because she can come across as medium cool (to take a phrase from the movie) and humorless. They don’t find her relatable, not they they find Trump more relatable. But they have a different standard for Trump because he’s a man.
They’d sit at a bar and (if he drank) have a beer with him, but never invite him to their table. They might say later “what an asshole that guy was."
We know that when Clinton shows her serious side it isn’t possible for her to be warm and fuzzy at the same time. Men can be serious and talk about serious issues and nobody cares that they furrow their brows. Hillary Clinton talks about grave matters and there are those who aren’t comfortable with her because, again, she’s a woman. It is entrenched sexism at play.
My thesis is that there are some who are open to abandoning Donald Trump, perhaps not many, but a significant enough number to add up to a landslide for Hillary Clinton. I suggest that there are more voters willing to change in the Trump camp than in the Clinton camp.
This is because Trump is a foul potion to all those who aren't disciples. These are voters who would never want their daughters to marry someone like him. These people are mostly Republicans who wish they could have been able to support one of the other 16 Republicans from the primary, and would have voted for a Democrat like Bernie but for their negative feelings for Hillary Clinton.
The 44% of Hillary voters who say they are voting for her because of opposition to Trump are sometimes called the nose-holders (a horrible term), though that’s not fair to people who just disagree with lots of her policies but know Trump would be a disaster. Count George H. W. Bush among them. Some of them are the more avid of the Bernie supporters. All in all, this is a solid group and no changes in Trump’s behavior will sway them. They are, even with reservations, all in for Clinton
This next part is crucial.
The thankfully larger group of 51% of Trump backers who say they are voting for her in opposition to Clinton I see as being willing to change their minds between now and the election.
There are things Clinton can’t control, like terrorist attacks which Trump has and will exploit. No doubt he is hoping there’s an attack in the United States attributable to an immigrant. This would hurt Clinton. There’s nothing Clinton can do to prevent this although she needs to have her response ready.
However there are things Clinton can control to lure away Trump voters who up until now are supporting him out of opposition to her.
The easiest is advertising. So far her ads have been good. She can make sure she has a balance between ads exploiting Trump’s unfitness for the presidency, and focusing on herself in two ways. One is easy, highlighting resume, because it is extraordinary. She must remind people that she has been engaged in the noble profession of public service since she was a young adult, and will be the most experienced president to assume office in history.
The harder one for the ads is to show her as warm and funny and relatable without the ad coming across as too slick, too saccharine. It can be done.
Next is her public appearances. She has proven to be really good at handling these but still needs to make sure she strikes the balance between seriousness and smiles. Clinton has a great genuine laugh, and I think is really relatable when she shows this side of herself. If she throws in a one-liner jab at Trump it has to be really, really good.
Trump’s teleprompter public appearances are snoozers. His ranting doesn’t gain him any new voters and puts him at risk of losing voters who finally admit to themselves he doesn’t have the the,percent to be president. As far as making himself more relatable, Trump only has a self-satisfied smirk. Combine that with how he always claps his hand for himself — I mean — who does that (except a germaphobe like Trump who is only comfortable touching himself and curvaceous women)?
Finally, the debates. Politico had a good article about what debate strategy would be best for Clinton. They suggested that the best advice would be to let Trump screw up. Here are some quotes:
"He’s going to say some cockamamie stuff. Give him the rope,” said Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee Chairman Jon Tester (D-Mont.).
Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) said “inevitably, he’s going to say enough dumb things to dominate the headlines. He’s gonna make mistakes; the question is, how big are the mistakes? And I’m certain there are things she can do that would cause his mistakes to be bigger.”
“She has to be unafraid,” said Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada. “He’s a bully; he can’t help himself. I don’t know how he’s going to use a teleprompter in a debate situation. And he can’t control himself. His attention span is nonexistent.”
“He’ll do it himself,” said Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.). “There’s never been a time where he’s talked for longer than 30 seconds where he’s managed to say anything. He just says nothing. He’ll say the same empty phrases over and over again, and I think it will become obvious after an hour and a half.”
Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.) said: “It’s important for people to see this side of him that is very much unpresidential and out of control,” “It’s temperament, as much as anything. People want to trust that their president … is in control.”
It's a risk to follow the Politico advice, but Trump is a proven counter-attacker, so the rope-a-dope may be the best strategy. He comes across as almost somnolent when reading the teleprompter. He seems to be boring himself. I think he's addicted (literally) to the rush he gets by going off script into his usual venomous rants. The question is whether or not he can control the rants and come across as "presidential." Hillary has 90 minutes, so halfway through if Trump seems to be winning she can move into a plan B which would involve attacks calculated to provoke him to lash out at her in characteristic fashion and show his unhinged and nasty temperament.
Another unknown and unknowable is what egregious Trump pronouncement or revelation, or combination of the two will catch fire with the public and burn his hairy orange ass. The list of outrages that would derail any other candidate is historic. However you never know which revelation, or what new utterance, will be his undoing.
This election is such a shitstorm, with so much at stake, that it is a shame that in our culture so many people vote for the candidate they could see having a beer with. Unless you’re a glutton for punishment and want to listen to someone who doesn’t give a crap about you while they brag about themselves, Hillary Clinton is without a doubt the only beer-worthy candidate.
P.S. The pic-toon below may actually represent what Trump is thinking….
Lot’s in the news today, but hopefully this doesn’t get lost:
On September 20, 2016, 375 members of the National Academy of Sciences, including 30 Nobel laureates, published an open letter to draw attention to the serious risks of climate change. The letter warns that the consequences of opting out of the Paris agreement would be severe and long-lasting for our planet’s climate and for the international credibility of the United States.
A full list of signers follows the text of the letter.
Members of the media interested in speaking with one of the organizers of the letter should contact responsiblescientists@gmail.com.
An Open Letter Regarding Climate Change From
Concerned Members of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences
Human-caused climate change is not a belief, a hoax, or a conspiracy. It is a physical reality. Fossil fuels powered the Industrial Revolution. But the burning of oil, coal, and gas also caused most of the historical increase in atmospheric levels of heat-trapping greenhouse gases. This increase in greenhouse gases is changing Earth’s climate.Our fingerprints on the climate system are visible everywhere. They are seen in warming of the oceans, the land surface, and the lower atmosphere. They are identifiable in sea level rise, altered rainfall patterns, retreat of Arctic sea ice, ocean acidification, and many other aspects of the climate system. Human-caused climate change is not something far removed from our day-to-day experience, affecting only the remote Arctic. It is present here and now, in our own country, in our own states, and in our own communities.
During the Presidential primary campaign, claims were made that the Earth is not warming, or that warming is due to purely natural causes outside of human control. Such claims are inconsistent with reality.
Others argued that no action is warranted until we have absolute certainty about human impacts on climate. Absolute certainty is unattainable. We are certain beyond a reasonable doubt, however, that the problem of human-caused climate change is real, serious, and immediate, and that this problem poses significant risks: to our ability to thrive and build a better future, to national security, to human health and food production, and to the interconnected web of living systems.
The basic science of how greenhouse gases trap heat is clear, and has been for over a century. Ultimately, the strength of that basic science brought the governments of the world to Paris in December 2015. They went to Paris despite pronounced differences in systems of government, in national self-interest, in culpability for past emissions of greenhouse gases, and in vulnerability to future climate change. The leaders of over 190 countries recognized that the problem of human-caused climate change is a danger to present and future citizens of our planet. They made national commitments to address this problem. It was a small but historic and vital first step towards more enlightened stewardship of Earth’s climate system.
From studies of changes in temperature and sea level over the last million years, we know that the climate system has tipping points. Our proximity to these tipping points is uncertain. We know, however, that rapid warming of the planet increases the risk of crossing climatic points of no return, possibly setting in motion large-scale ocean circulation changes, the loss of major ice sheets, and species extinctions. The climatic consequences of exceeding such thresholds are not confined to the next one or two electoral cycles. They have lifetimes of many thousands of years.
The political system also has tipping points. Thus it is of great concern that the Republican nominee for President has advocated U.S. withdrawal from the Paris Accord. A “Parexit” would send a clear signal to the rest of the world: "The United States does not care about the global problem of human-caused climate change. You are on your own." Such a decision would make it far more difficult to develop effective global strategies for mitigating and adapting to climate change. The consequences of opting out of the global community would be severe and long-lasting – for our planet’s climate and for the international credibility of the United States.
The United States can and must be a major player in developing innovative solutions to the problem of reducing emissions of greenhouse gases. Nations that find innovative ways of decarbonizing energy systems and sequestering CO2 will be the economic leaders of the 21st century. Walking away from Paris makes it less likely that the U.S. will have a global leadership role, politically, economically, or morally. We cannot afford to cross that tipping point.
The following signers of this letter do so as individual NAS members and not on behalf of the NAS itself or their Institutions.
Signed By
Column A
Column B
Benjamin D. Santer, Member, National Academy of Sciences^
Kerry A. Emanuel, Massachusetts Institute of Technology^
George B. Field, Harvard University^
Ray Weymann, Carnegie Institution for Science Emeritus^
Peter C. Agre, Johns Hopkina Malaria Research Institute
Bruce Alberts, University of California San Francisco
Thomas D. Albright, The Salk institute for Biological Studies
Richard M. Amasino, University of Wisconsin-Madison
Jim Anderson, Harvard University
Phillip W. Anderson, Princeton University
Roger Angel, University of Arizona
Luc E. Anselin, University of Chicago
Fred Anson, California Institute of Technology
David Arnett, Univerity of Arizona
Mary T. Kalin Arroyo, University of Chile
Greg Asner, Carnegie Institution for Science
Sir Michael Atiyah, University of Edinburgh
Tanya M. Atwater, University of California Santa Barbara
Francisco J. Ayala, University of California Irvine
George Backus, University of California San Diego
Neta Bahcall, Princeton University
Steven Balbus, University of Oxford
David Baltimore, California Institute of Technology
Allen Bard, University of Texas
Sir David Baulcombe, University of Cambridge
Adriaan Bax, Member, National Academy of Sciences
Barry J. Beaty, Colorado State University
Michael Bender, Princeton University
Charles L. Bennett, Johns Hopkins University
Michael V.L. Bennett, Albert Einstein College of Medicine
Jeffrey L. Bennetzen, University of Georgia
John Bercaw, California Institute of Technology
May R. Berenbaum, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Howard Berg, Harvard University
Robert Bergman, University of California Berkeley
Jacques E. Blamont, Centre National d' Etudes Spatiales
Roger Blandford, Stanford University
Michael R Botchan, University of California Berkeley
Ed A. Boyle, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Daniel Branton, Member, National Academy of Sciences
Winslow Briggs, Carnegie Institution for Science
Steven P. Briggs, University of California San Diego
Wallace Broecker, Columbia University
Axel T. Brunger, Stanford University
Douglas W. Burbank, University of California Santa Barbara
E. Margaret Burbidge, University of California San Diego Emerita
John Cairns, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
Mark A. Cane, Columbia University
Claude Canizares, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Marian Carlson, Columbia University
John Carlson, Yale University
Stephen Carpenter, University of Wisconsin-Madison
Sean B. Carroll, University of Wisconsin-Madison
Emily A. Carter, Princeton University
Katherine Cashman, University of Bristol
Juan Carlos Castilla, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile
Anny Cazenave, Centre National d'Etudes Spatiales
Thure E. Cerling, University of Utah
Sylvia T. Ceyer, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Martin Chalfie, Columbia University
F. Stuart Chapin, University of Alaska
Roger Chevalier, University of Virginia
Steven Chu, Stanford University
Ralph Cicerone, Professor Emeritus, University of California
David E. Clapham, Harvard Medical School
George Clark, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Michael T. Clegg, University of California Irvine
Claude Cohen-Tannoudji, Laboratoire Kastler Brossel
Jonathan J. Cole, Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies
Rita R. Colwell, University of Maryland
Karen S. Cook, Stanford University
Richard M. Cowling, Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University
James Cronin, University of Chicago
Paul J. Crutzen, Max Planck Institute for Chemistry
Roy Curtiss III, University of Florida
Gretchen Daily, Stanford University
G. Brent Dalrymple, Oregon State University
Sir Partha Dasgupta, University of Cambridge
Earl W. Davie, University of Washington
Russ E. Davis, University of California San Diego
Marc Davis, University of California Berkeley
Ruth DeFries, Columbia University
Edward F. DeLong, University of Hawaii Manoa
David L. Denlinger, Ohio State University
George Denton, University of Maine
Donald DePaolo, Univerity of California Berkeley
Bob Dickinson, University of Texas
Rodolfo Dirzo, Stanford University
Michael J. Donoghue, Yale University
Russell F. Doolittle, University of California San Diego
Dennis A. Dougherty, California Institute of Technology
John E. Dowling, Harvard University
Bruce Draine, Princeton University
Alan Dressler, Carnegie Institution for Science
Thomas Dunne, University of California Santa Barbara
Joseph R. Ecker, Member, National Academy of Sciences
R. Lawrence Edwards, University of Minnesota
Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University
John M. Eiler, California Institute of Technology
David Eisenberg, University of California Los Angeles
Richard Eisenberg, University of Rochester
W. Gary Ernst, Stanford University
Mark Estelle, University of California San Diego
James A. Estes, University of California Santa Cruz
Paul Falkowski, Rutgers University
Nina V. Fedoroff, Pennsylvania State University Emerita
Juli Feigon, University of California Los Angeles
Joseph Felsenstein, University of Washington
Alex Filippenko, University of California Berkeley
Gerald D. Fischbach, Simons Foundation, Chief Scientist
Edmond H. Fischer, University of Washington
Donald Forsyth, Brown University
Stewart Fotheringham, Arizona State University
Wendy Freedman, University of Chicago
Katherine H. Freeman, Pennsylvania State University
Perry Allen Frey, University of Wisconsin-Madison
Margaret T. Fuller, Stanford University
Douglas J. Futuyma, Stony Brook University
Fred H. Gage, Salk Institute for Biological Research
Chris Garrett, University of Victoria
Neil Gehrels, Member, National Academy of Sciences
Reinhard Genzel, Max-Planck-Institut für Extraterrestrische Physik
Howard Georgi, Harvard University
Charles Gilbert, The Rockefeller University
Sheldon Glashow, Boston University
Roy Glauber, Harvard University
Alexander N. Glazer, University of California Berkeley
Peter H. Gleick, Pacific Institute
Stephen P. Goff, Columbia University
Robert B. Goldberg, University of California Los Angeles
Peter Goldreich, Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton
Michael Goodchild, University of California Santa Barbara
Richard Goody, Harvard University
Fred Gould, North Carolina State University
Harry Gray, California Institute of Technology
Paul Greengard, Rockefeller University
Diane E. Griffin, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health
David Gross, University of California Santa Barbara
Charles G. Gross, Princeton University
Carol A. Gross, University of California San Francisco
Timothy Grove, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Robert H. Grubbs, California Institute of Technology
Jim Gunn, Princeton University
Sarah Hake, Agricultural Research Service
Alexander Halliday, University of Oxford
Jim Hansen, Columbia University
Susan Hanson, Clark University
Stanley Hart, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
Daniel L. Hartl, Harvard University
Dennis Hartmann, University of Washington
Robert Haselkorn, The University of Chicago
Alan Hastings, University of California Davis
Robert M. Hauser, University of Wisconsin-Madison
Stephen Hawking, Cambridge University (emphasis added)
Wick C. Haxton, Univerity of California Berkeley
John Hayes, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
Martha P. Haynes, Cornell University
Timothy Heckman, Johns Hopkins University
Carl Heiles, University of California Berkeley
Lars Hernquist, Harvard University
Dudley Herschbach, Harvard University
John G. Hildebrand, University of Arizona
David M. Hillis, University of Texas
Sarah Hobbie, University of Minnesota
Bert Hoelldobler, Arizona State University
Paul F. Hoffman, University of Victoria
Albrecht W. Hofmann, Max Planck Institute for Chemistry
Sir Brian Hoskins, Imperial College London & University of Reading
Andre T. Jagendorf, Cornell University
Daniel H. Janzen, University of Pennsylvania
J.R. Jokipii, University of Arizona
Tom Jordan, University of Southern California
Jean Jouzel, Laboratoire des Sciences du Climate et de l'Environnement
William A. Jury, University of California Riverside
H. Ronald Kaback, University of California Los Angeles
Thomas Kailath, Stanford University
Peter M. Kareiva, University of California Los Angeles
David Karl, University of Hawaii
Harvey Karten, Professor Emeritus, University of California San Diego
Guinevere Kauffmann, Max Planck Institute for Astrophysics
Steve A. Kay, University of Southern California
Paul Kay, International Computer Science Institute
Peter Kelemen, Columbia University
Kenneth Kellermann, National Radio Astronomy Observatory
Donald Kennedy, Stanford University
Charles Kennel, University of California San Diego
Robert C. Kennicutt, Cambridge University
Wolfgang Ketterle, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Margaret Kidwell, University of Arizona
Susan W. Kieffer, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Peter S. Kim, Stanford UniversityPatrick V. Kirch, University of California Berkeley
Margaret Kivelson, University of California Los Angeles
Daniel Kleppner, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Catherine L. Kling, Iowa State University
Judith P. Klinman, University of California Berkeley
Eric I. Knudsen, Stanford University School of Medicine
Brian Koblika, Stanford University School of Medicine
M.A.R. Koehl, Univerity of California Berkeley
David Kohlstedt, University of Minnesota
Sir Hans Kornberg, Boston University
John Krebs, University of Oxford
Shrinivas Kulkarni, California Institute of Technology
J. Clark Lagarias, University of California Davis
Kurt Lambeck, Australian National University
Eric Lambin, Stanford University
Arthur Landy, Brown University
Charles H. Langmuir, Harvard University
Brian A. Larkins, University of Nebraska, Lincoln
John H. Law, University of Arizona Emeritus
Sir John Lawton, Former Chief Executive, UK Natural Environment Research Council
Yuan Lee, Academica Sinica Taiwan
Richard E. Lenski, Michigan State University
Simon Levin, Princeton University
Michael Levitt, Stanford University School of Medicine
Gene E. Likens, Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies
Laszlo Lorand, Feinberg Medical School Northwestern University Emeritus
C. Owen Lovejoy, Kent State University
Jane Lubchenco, Oregon State University
Jonathan I. Lunine, Cornell University
Michael Lynch, Indiana University
Akin Mabogunje, Foundation for Development and Environmental Initiatives
Trudy Mackay, North Carolina State University
Anthony P. Mahowald, University of Chicago
Syukuro Manabe, Princeton University
Joyce Marcus, University of Michigan
Rudolph A. Marcus, California Institute of Technology
Douglas S. Massey, Princeton University
Pamela A. Matson, Stanford University
Rowena G. Matthews, University of Michigan Emerita
Michel G. Mayor, University of Geneva
Bonnie J. McCay, Rutgers University
Richard McCray, University of Colorado
Bruce S. McEwen, Rockefeller University
Fred McLafferty, Cornell University
Jim McWilliams, University of California Los Angeles
Jerrold Meinwald, Cornell University
Jerry M. Melillo, Marine Biological Laboratory, Woods Hole
Henry J. Melosh, Purdue University
Sabeeha Merchant, University of California Los Angeles
Joachim Messing, Rutgers University
Mario Molina, University of California San Diego
Harold Mooney, Stanford University
Peter B. Moore, Yale University
James M. Moran, Member, National Academy of Sciences
Nancy Moran, University of Texas
M. Granger Morgan, Carnegie Mellon University
Ellen S. Mosley-Thompson, Ohio State University
Walter Munk, University of California San Diego
Royce Murray, Univeristy of North CarolinaSidney Nagel, University of Chicago
Ramesh Narayan, Harvard University
Jeremy Nathans, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine
Eugene W. Nester, University of Washington
William T. Newsome, Stanford University
Richard P. Novick, New York University School of Medicine
Paul E. Olsen, Columbia University
Peter Olson, Johns Hopkins University
Neil D. Opdyke, University of Florida
Jeremiah Ostriker, Columbia University
Sarah Otto, University of British Columbia
Sir Ronald Oxburgh, Cambridge University
Stephen Pacala, Member, National Academy of Sciences
Norman R. Pace, University of Colorado
Richard D. Palmiter, University of Washington School of Medicine
Stephen Palumbi, Stanford University
Joseph Pedlosky, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
Jim Peebles, Princeton University
Gordon Pettengill, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
S. George Philander, Princeton University
William Phillips, Member, National Academy of Sciences
Dolores R. Piperno, Member, National Academy of Sciences
Terry Plank, Columbia University
William H. Press, University of Texas
Frank Press, Member, National Academy of Sciences
George W. Preston, Carnegie Institution for Science
Peter H. Raven, Missouri Botanical Garden
Maureen E. Raymo, Columbia University
Martin Rees, Cambridge University
Peter Rhines, University of Washington
Frank Richter, University of Chicago
Robert E. Ricklefs, University of Missouri
Lynn M. Riddiford, University of Washington
George Rieke, University of Arizona
Marcia Rieke, University of Arizona
Adam Riess, Johns Hopkins University
Morton Roberts, National Radio Astronomy Observatory
Gene E. Robinson, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
A. Kimball Romney, University of California Irvine
Michael Rosbash, Brandeis University
Mal Ruderman, Columbia University
Roberta L. Rudnick, University of California Santa Barbara
Gary Ruvkun, Massachusetts General Hospital
Roald Sagdeev, University of Maryland
Pedro A. Sanchez, Columbia University
David Sandwell, University of California San Diego
Joshua R. Sanes, Harvard University
Daniel L. Schacter, Harvard University
Paul Schechter, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Randy W. Schekman, University of California Berkeley
Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research
David W. Schindler, University of Alberta
Bill Schlesinger, Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies
Johanna Schmitt, University of California Davis
Robert J. Scholes, University of the Witswatersrand
Julian Schroeder, University of California San Diego
Gerald Schubert, Universty of California Los Angeles
Matthew P. Scott, President, Carnegie Institution for Science
Sara Seager, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Ronald R. Sederoff, North Carolina State University
Jeff Severinghaus, University of California San Diego
Irwin Shapiro, Harvard University
Carla J. Shatz, Stanford University
Peter Shearer, University of California San Diego
Frank Shu, University of California San Diego
Kerry Sieh, Nanyang Technological University
James Simons, Chairman, Simons Foundation
Norman H. Sleep, Stanford University
Susan Solomon, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Pamela S. Soltis, University of Florida
Alfred Sommer, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health
David Spergel, Princeton University
Nicholas C. Spitzer, University of California San Diego
Charles Steidel, California Institute of Technology
Thomas A. Steitz, Yale University
Edward Stolper, California Institute of Technology
Howard A. Stone, Princeton University
Joan E. Strassmann, Washington University, St. Louis
Timothy Swager, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Lynn R. Sykes, Columbia University Emeritus
Harvey Tananbaum, Member, National Academy of Sciences
Joseph Taylor, Princeton University
Saul A. Teukolsky, Cornell University
David Hurst Thomas, American Museum of Natural History
Lonnie Thompson, Ohio State University
Kip Thorne, Member, National Academy of Sciences
James M. Tiedje, Michigan State University
Alar Toomre, Massachusetts Institute of technology
Scott Tremaine, Institute for Advanced Study
Susan Trumbore, Max Planck Institute for Biogeochemistry
James Tumlinson, Pennsylvania State University
Monica G. Turner, University of Wisconsin-Madison
Anthony Tyson, University of California Davis
Joan Selverstone, Valentine University of California Los Angeles
James L. Van Etten, University of Nebraska
Martha Vaughan, Member, National Academy of Sciences
Inder Verma, The Salk institute for Biological Studies
George Veronis, Yale University
Peter H. von Hippel, University of Oregon
Gerhard Wagner, Harvard Medical School
David B. Wake, University of California Berkeley
David Walker, Columbia University
John M. Wallace, University of Washington
E. Bruce Watson, Member, National Academy of Sciences
Steven Weinberg, University of Texas
Rainer Weiss, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
William J. Welch, University of California Berkeley
Mary Jane West-Eberhard, Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute Emerita
Simon D.M. White, Max Planck Institute for Astrophysics
Torsten N. Wiesel, President Emeritus, The Rockefeller University
Edward O. Wilson, Harvard University
Robert W. Wilson, Member, National Academy of Sciences
David Wineland, Member, National Academy of Sciences
Steven Wofsy, Harvard University
Julian Wolpert, Princeton University
John Wood, Member, National Academy of Sciences
George M. Woodwell, Woods Hole Research Center
Stanford E. Woosley, University of California Santa Cruz
Carl Wunsch, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Keith Yamamoto, University of California San Francisco
Martin Yanofsky, University of California San Diego
Tilahun Yilma, University of California Davis
William Young, University of California San Diego
Mary Lou Zoback, Stanford University
Maria T. Zuber, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
By Hal Brown, MSW and Howard Covitz, PhD. Hal is retired clinical social worker, psychotherapist, clinical supervisor, and mental health center director. Howard Covitz is a still practicing psychoanalyst. He was long-time Director of the Institute for Psychoanalytic Psychotherapies (Bryn Mawr, PA) and author of Oedipal Paradigms in Collision (1998/201) and many papers.
Gandering the Golden Goose -- Three Tough Decisions Obfuscated by the Trumpets of Campaigning
Tip that Canoe and Dump Tyler, Too
It Broke the Straw on the Camel's Back
Language is a knife that cuts every which way and loose. We’re thinking of three bits of language, describing three types of behavior that are the consequence of suffering through opposing goods …
Journalistic Neutrality ... The decision to err on the side of fairness by neutering the powers of the Fourth Estate in the face of someone who likely acts out in ways that may be detrimental to the entire engaged society or even the World.
Racial/Ethnic Profiling ... The decision to err on the side of abbreviating an individual's rights that protect her/him from illegal search and seizure rather than equal protection under the law of the suspected which would neuter some of the testosteronic powers of our armed police force.
The Goldwater Rule ... The decision to err on the side of protecting the public figure's privacy rights by neutering the powers of psychotherapists of all stripes to carry out their mandated requirement to report the likelihood of lethal damage by that public figure.
The first DSM which we used before laymen ever heard of it.
Some diplomats are breaking the article in the 1961 Geneva Convention which advises against speaking out on the politics of foreign nations (emphasis added), just as some psychotherapists, the authors among them, are speaking out against Trump using every relevant aspect of our special knowledge, most especially our expertise in diagnosis and our understanding of what some people with a certain diagnose are capable of doing as far as inflicting harm on others.
Article 41 of the Geneva Convention
1. Without prejudice to their privileges and immunities, it is the duty of all persons enjoying such privileges and immunities to respect the laws and regulations of the receiving State. They also have a duty not to interfere in the internal affairs of that State. www.mfa.gov.tr/...
Politico has an article about this changing among some diplomats because of Trump. (emphasis added) :
Trump has diplomats abandoning vows of silence
The Republican presidential candidate's international insults are making it tough for envoys to stay quiet as diplomatic custom requires.
The Republican presidential candidate's international insults are making it tough for envoys to stay quiet as diplomatic custom requires.
NEW YORK — There's a longstanding custom among the world's diplomats: You don't trash-talk candidates running for office in a foreign country.
Donald Trump is close to destroying that tradition.
As thousands of diplomats gather for the U.N. General Assembly here this week, many are struggling to hold their tongues about the brash billionaire running for the White House, a man who has managed to tick off much of the planet.
“If you represent one of these countries that has been insulted or attacked, you tend to react,” said one Latin American diplomat attending the General Assembly. Speaking of his own background, he told POLITICO, “We are very passionate, and our blood is pretty hot. But we have to play it cool and understand that this is a campaign, and an election, and that we are diplomats.”
To be fair, Trump's candidacy is testing the norms of plenty of professions, including journalism and psychiatry. But perhaps nowhere are the stakes higher than the realm of international relations.CONTINUED
The last paragraph (emphasis added) led two of your Daily Kos diary psychotherapists to reopen the discussion about whether we have been justified in using diagnosis terms and even postulating a diagnosis for Trump. (Hal’s diaries. Howard’s diaries)
As for diplomats, a few world leaders have come out with highly negative views about Trump (from the same article)
But in 2016, the Mexican president has compared Trump’s rhetoric to that of Adolf Hitler; the German foreign minister has warned that the Republican’s fear-driven brand of politics would be “dangerous” for the whole world; and the French president has said the real estate mogul’s “excesses” provoke a “retching feeling.”
Other diplomats have chosen to remain more “diplomatic,” for example:
It doesn't help, several foreign diplomats have privately said, that Trump's campaign structure is so opaque and his policy positions so mercurial.
"For our people in Washington, Trump is an enigma. When they look at his foreign policy views and advisers they're scratching their heads," a U.N.-based European diplomat said.
At a recent gathering in Washington, D.C., a handful of European diplomats were urged to share their true feelings about the U.S. presidential candidates.
David O’Sullivan, the European Union's ambassador to the United States, quipped that his confidential cables to his superiors back home about the election "will have to remain something that only future historians will read."
But, he added: "There’s a sense that this election is different from previous ones. But maybe there’s a temptation always to think that about every election.”
If you haven’t been following them, many of our diaries are about the psychopathology of Donald Trump. As experienced diagnosticians we analyze our myriad observations of Donald Trump’s behavior (his temperament and disposition as evidenced by television and radio, as well as accounts of people who spent a lot of time with him, especially “Art of the Deal” author Tony Schwartz. Schwartz now calls Trump a “sociopath” (he isn’t) and say’s “I put lipstick on a pig.” But he also describes numerous observations and interactions with Trump when he was presumably let his guard down and this a rare treasure trove for experts to make a distance diagnostic assessment.
We have more information about Donald Trump by far than psychiatrists ever had about Barry Goldwater.
Here’s what the controversy in the mental health community is all about.
When Barry Goldwater was running for president a large group of psychiatrists wrote that he wasn’t fit to be president:
The issue arose in 1964 when Fact magazine published the article "The Unconscious of a Conservative: A Special Issue on the Mind of Barry Goldwater."[1][4] The magazine polled psychiatrists about American Senator Barry Goldwater and whether he was fit to be president.[5][6] In Goldwater v. Ginzburg Goldwater filed a libel suit in response to the article, he won $75,000 in damages.[1]Wikipedia
Whether this was a decision based strictly on ethics or out of a fear of losing lawsuits only cynics would even consider.
The rule itself was formulated by the respected American Psychiatric Association. This is a professional association and membership isn’t required to practice psychiatry although most psychiatrists are members. It came out in 1973 and reads:
On occasion psychiatrists are asked for an opinion about an individual who is in the light of public attention or who has disclosed information about himself/herself through public media. In such circumstances, a psychiatrist may share with the public his or her expertise about psychiatric issues in general. However, it is unethical for a psychiatrist to offer a professional opinion unless he or she has conducted an examination and has been granted proper authorization for such a statement.[3]
Of course, it is highly unlikely that a public figure who thinks there may be less than a clean bill of mental health is going to submit to a mental health examination and authorize public disclosure of the results.
What has happened with Trump is that a large number of psychotherapists have in various forms made public their opinions about Trump, obviously from their unique point of view, i.e., as mental health professionals. This isn’t like librarians or teachers coming out with negative opinions about Trump. When mental heath professions express such opinions they are quite obviously speaking from the standpoint of having special knowledge about psychopathology.
PSY-VU While not breaking the letter of the Goldwater “rule” some therapists break the spirit. www.dailykos.com/… The opinions shared in comments to this diary were spirited
The controversy within the mental health field is between those who don’t want to make an actual diagnosis and those who do. Both groups think there are aspects of his personality that make him unfit or even dangerous to be president. The “don’t diagnose”group chooses instead to use words and terms that fit a diagnosis without actually making the diagnosis. The “it’s okay to diagnose Trump” group feels that the public is smart enough to see through the equivocating words (McAdams says “narcissism, disagreeableness, and grandiosity”) and see why these add up to a diagnosis which makes Trump not only unfit, but potentially dangerous to be president. Those of us who make and justify a diagnosis believe we should share our expertise to warn the public that because of what they have concluded is his diagnosis he represents a danger.
As most of you know, therapists have a duty to warn when the believe a client is a danger to self or others (it’s sometimes referred to as Tarasoff which you can look up). The authors believe that we are justified, and are acting ethically in ignoring the Goldwater rule and warning the public about Trump.
The psychological focus on Trump’s personality first came to national attention from the June cover story of The Atlantic, “The Mind of Donald Trump: Narcissism, disagreeableness, grandiosity—a psychologist investigates how Trump’s extraordinary personality might shape his possible presidency,” by Dan McAdams, Ph.D.
(McAdams) field is cited on Wikipedia as Narrative psychology and Thematic coherence. McAdams is the author of The Person: An Introduction to the Science of Personality Psychology,[4] a classroom textbook.[1] He co-edited, with Amia Lieblich and Ruthellen Josselson, the eleven-book series "The Narrative Study of Lives".[5]
His three level model of personality [7] has been widely cited[8] and was used in The Happiness Hypothesis book.[9] The three levels are :
Dispositional traits, a person’s general tendencies. For example, the Big Five personality traits lists: Openness, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Agreeableness, Neuroticism.
Characteristic adaptations, a person’s desires, beliefs, concerns, and coping mechanisms.
Life stories, the stories that give a life a sense of unity, meaning, and purpose. This is known as Narrative identity.
We focus on this because this article because it seems to have opened the door to other mental health professionals coming out about their opinions about Trump. But it should be noted that McAdams, highly qualified in the study of personality, has not devote his career to abnormal personality and the diagnosis and treatment of psychiatric disorders.
Following this the next major publication to write about Trump’s personality was the New York Times on August 15th.
The 2016 Republican nominee’s incendiary, stream-of-consciousness pronouncements have strained that agreement (Goldwater rule) 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.”
The New York Times article publicized a project begun by psychologist William Doherty, Ph.D called a manifesto, which we recommend you read here. Dr. William J. Doherty, Ph.D., is a professor at the University of Minnesota in the Department of Family Social Science. He is author of a book on family rituals, titled “The Intentional Family”. From what we can tell, he is not an expert on psychopathology, and on the diagnosis and treatment pf psychiatric disorders, as the author of this article are.
The manifesto was signed by over 2,200 therapists. The authors of this articles were both banned from posting our disagreements about diagnosing Trump on the sites private discussion Facebook page. Consider that Doherty says this:
Sign the manifesto and join the Facebook group. Learn from colleagues, share your own passions, and decide what voice, if any, you’d like to have in the public sphere. You may surprise yourself, for example, by wanting to write blog posts that connect this initiative with your clinical passion areas, or share blog posts that your colleagues create.
You can see why it surprised us when we tried to discuss whether we had a case for making a public diagnosis.
When you read the manifesto with it’s long list of personality traits which disqualify him from being president and labeling them adding up to “Trumpism” is the same as diagnosing him, albeit with a diagnosis that is not in the current Diagnostic and Statistic Manual (DSM-5 which thanks to Trump tens of thousands of laymen now are familiar with).
In point of fact, “Trumpism” as defined in this manifesto is a far more dangerous disorder than the one most psychotherapists have agreed he probably suffered from, narcissistic personality disorder.
We don’t by the disclaimer:
Trumpism is an ideology, not an individual, and it may well endure and grow after the Presidential election even if Donald Trump is defeated. (Variants can be seen all over Europe.) Trumpism is a set of ideas about public life and a set of public practices characterized by:
Trumpism is not an ideology, it is a psychopathology notable for beliefs and behaviors which include the following. These are symptoms of a severe psychiatric disorder, what we sometimes refer to as a constellation of disorder which includes symptoms like pathological lying, hedonism, and extreme misogyny which current don’t fit into the diagnostic manual.
Scapegoating and banishing groups of people who are seen as threats, including immigrants and religious minorities.
Degrading, ridiculing, and demeaning rivals and critics.
Fostering a cult of the Strong Man who:
Appeals to fear and anger
Promises to solve our problems if we just trust in him
Reinvents history and has little concern for truth
Never apologizes or admits mistakes of consequence
Sees no need for rational persuasion
Subordinates women while claiming to idealize them
Disdains public institutions like the courts when they are not subservient
Champions national power over international law and respect for other nations
Incites and excuses public violence by supporters
As experienced clinicians we have been able to explain why some of the diagnostic terms being bandied about regarding Trump are wrong, most notably that he’s a sociopath.
We see it as an ethical responsibility to help the public learn to use the tools of the mental health profession responsibly, not to become armchair psychologists, but to understand the basics of gathering evidence to factor into the rather easy to understand lists of criteria in the DSM-5 used to make a diagnosis.
Some psychotherapists seem to want to make psychiatric diagnosis seem far more complex than it really is. We’re not taking about a rare brain disorder or tropical disease. While there are some psychiatric conditions that take numerous sessions to diagnose and sometimes referrals to specialists, most can be diagnosed tentatively in 1-3 sessions.
The authors of this article have 80 years of clinical experience diagnosing and treating thousands of clients. We believe we have at the least as much information about Trump, if not more, than if we saw him face-to-face as a patient to make a diagnosis (always with the caution that meant health diagnoses are always tentative and open to revision based on new information coming from the client or those who observe the client.)
Monday, Sept. 19, 2016 SHIT! Wake up, let dogs out, make coffee, take sip, turn on TV and news is that suspect in NYC bombing is an American of Afghan descent.
We know what tack Trump is going to take now, so I am trying to prepare the best I can for being infuriated and terrified until the election. Preview:
Donald Trump on Monday boasted of having prematurely called the New York City explosion a “bombing,” telling Fox News that he should become a TV news anchor because of his ability to read between the lines during the incident’s immediate aftermath. The Republican presidential nominee was initially criticized for telling a rally crowd that “a bomb went off” mere minutes after news broke of an explosion, which ultimately injured 29 people. “If you saw [Hillary Clinton] in the back of the plane—and she used the word ‘bombs’ also, by the way. I heard—I didn’t see it—but I heard I was criticized for calling it correctly,” Trump lamented to Fox & Friends via telephone. “But what I said was exactly correct. I should be a newscaster because I called it before the news.”Daily Beast
Sunday, Sept. 18, 2016 This is a fantastic Joy Reid interview nailing a hapless and hopeless Trump surrogate’s ass to the wall: Two evening pic-toons:
My point is that there are some people supporting Trump who are also vehemently anti-Hillary for no other reason than she’s a woman who doesn’t know her proper place.
Here’s my version \/
“In many ways the performances of Donald Trump remind me of male chimpanzees and their dominance rituals,” Goodall told The Atlantic. “In order to impress rivals, males seeking to rise in the dominance hierarchy perform spectacular displays: stamping, slapping the ground, dragging branches, throwing rocks.”
Saturday, Sept. 17, 2016 Being president is hard work, 24/7, and you can’t make excuses when things go badly for you. The question I am hearing online more and more is whether Trump is unconsciously sabotaging himself… is this question finally seeping into the conscious orange slug brain…
Trump is giving a speech to the tax exempt non-partisan Remembrance Project to cheering members of the audience (one just said “I love you”). These are family members of those killed by non-documented immigrants/
Here’s the rub.
The Remembrance Project is a non-partisan educational foundation which is barred by Internal Revenue Service rules from endorsing any candidate for political office, or participating in any candidate’s campaign. The appearance of individual Remembrance Project victim’s family members, or group of such members, at any candidate’s political event to educate the public and draw attention to the entirely preventable and heartbreaking loss of their loved ones due to the illegal presence of criminal aliens in our country, DOES NOT constitute an endorsement of that candidate by the Remembrance Project or any of its affiliated organizations.
~ Maria Espinoza, National Director
This speeches being carried, apparently in full, on TV. The only news here is that this group is violating there tax exempt status.
The Newsweek story is now on the back burner, but what has taken it’s place are (at least) two more Trump disasters which may lead to Kellyanne Conway grabbing a life boat and getting far enough away from Trump’s sinking ship that she doesn’t get sucked down when it goes under.
The incredible disaster for Trump ignoring what we can assume has been Conway’s advice to restrain his unhinged egomaniacal impulses has been ignored.
Of course the catastrophe for Trump this week was the birther announcement fiasco and the media finally going bare knuckle against Tump and his hapless surrogates. Now it isn’t only cage fighter Joy Reid, who just bloodied a black Trump surrogate when he tried to blame Hillary for birtherism. I don’t know about Fox but most of the media seem to have taken off the gloves too.
Following this is the comparatively minor matter of Trump suggesting that Hillary’s Secret Service detail going unarmed. This is leading to headlines like this from Huffington Post:
Donald Trump Suggests Hillary Clinton’s Bodyguards Should Stop Protecting Her
“Let’s see what happens to her.”
Add this to the out of control animal killing son:
Donald Trump Jr. on Wednesday suggested the media has helped Hillary Clinton by letting her “slide” on “every lie” and said that if Republicans did the same, the media would be “warming up the gas chamber” for them. www.cbsnews.com/…
and this:
Pepe on the right, next to Trump, is a meme promoted by the alt right often shown in a Nazi uniform.Poll from Aug. 25
I watch a lot of MSNBC. Joy is making the Trump surrogates squirm and look like idiots as I write this. Steve Cortez just said to a round of laughter “Donald Trump is running an incredibly non-racist campaign.”
I haven’t seen Kellyanne at all in about a week. Has anybody spotted her?
Will this perfect storm be the impetus to prompt Kellyanne to lower the life boat and gun the engine and head for the horizon?
Friday, Sept. 16, 2016
Tonight on Rachel Maddow: Discussing the alt-right press conference and how they are counting on Trump to advance their racist agenda, she showed this from Donald J. Trump, Jr.
The green cartoon to the right of Trump is Pepe the frog. The frog has become the meme promoted by the alt-right. Trump Jr., he of the gas chamber remark, said he had no idea who Pepe was.
Why does HuffPo spell bullshit “bulls**t? Overnight Facebook shares of the piece I put on Daily Kos about the Newsweek article and the media picked up 6,000 Facebook shares and more comments, and is now over 32,000
As a matter of pride in authorship I’d rather some of my other diaries — the ones I worked several hours on — got this kind of readership. I’m just glad that there’s a chance I did my bit, however tiny the influence of this diary was, to tweak the mainstream media into paying attention.
The “breaking news” on TV is about Trump, Dr. Oz, and his medical records, and the the Trump Foundation, but this should be the number one Trump news… are they too embarrassed because Newsweek did a deep comprehensive investigation and came up with extraordinary entanglements between Trump and some unsavory, and dare it say, deplorable foreign leaders?
I’ll give Daily Kos a pass because it’s not intended to be a breaking news liberal website. At least Kos had a “front page” story about this early today, but unfortunately it’s moved down the page. I don’t know where it will end up on Huffington Post, but it currently is the main story.
Rachel had it on last night. This should have alerted other media that this was coming.
Daily Beast had it as number five in their sidebar.
Politico, Buzzfeed, and Vox didn’t even have it.
The “breaking news” on TV is about Trump, Dr. Oz, and his medical records, and the the Trump Foundation, but this should be the number one Trump news… are they too embarrassed because Newsweek did a deep comprehensive investigation and came up with extraordinary entanglements between Trump and some unsavory, and dare it say, deplorable foreign leaders?
There’s no way to balance the news coverage of the Trump scandals with the Hillary “scandals.” First the Trump scandals are so egregious they should have ended the media taking him seriously months ago. The hyped up Hillary scandals don’t even deserve the name. See what Colin Powell said about Benghazi.
The media, if they are ever to be taken seriously, will have to admit that the sheer number of legitimate Trump scandals far outweigh the number of specious, made up, Hillary scandals.
A few days ago I posed the poll question as to whether readers thought CIA Director Brennan’s essentially calling Trump a liar would get the media coverage it deserved.
The majority were right. The news flew by like a hummingbird at a feeder and zoomed off just as quickly.
So here’s a far bigger story. Will the media make this an issue. Take the poll.
will the cynics who took the poll finally be wrong?
Throughout this campaign, the Trump Organization, which pumps potentially hundreds of millions of dollars into the Trump family’s bank accounts each year, has been largely ignored. As a private enterprise, its businesses, partners and investors are hidden from public view, even though they are the very people who could be enriched by—or will further enrich—Trump and his family if he wins the presidency.
...the Trump family rakes in untold millions of dollars from the Trump Organization every year. Much of that comes from deals with international financiers and developers, many of whom have been tied to controversial and even illegal activities. None of Trump’s overseas contractual business relationships examined by Newsweek were revealed in his campaign’s financial filings with the Federal Election Commission, nor was the amount paid to him by his foreign partners.
I hope Daily Kos keeps this story on the top of their page all day where it is now…. Huffington Post has it as the lead and calls it rightly a bombshell, Beast no. 5 it’s in the sidebar , Politico doesn’t even have it…
The “breaking news” on TV is about Trump, Dr. Oz, and his medical records, and the the Trump Foundation, but this should be the number one Trump news… are they too embarrassed because Newsweek did a deep comprehensive investigation and came up with extraordinary entanglements between Trump and some unsavory, and dare it say, deplorable foreign leaders?
I’ll give Daily Kos a pass because it’s not intended to be a breaking news liberal website. At least Kos had a “front page” story about this early today, but unfortunately it’s moved down the page. I don’t know where it will end up on Huffington Post, but it currently is the main story.
Daily Beast had it as number five in their sidebar.
Politico, Buzzfeed, and Vox didn’t even have it.
The “breaking news” on TV is about Trump, Dr. Oz, and his medical records, and the the Trump Foundation, but this should be the number one Trump news… are they too embarrassed because Newsweek did a deep comprehensive investigation and came up with extraordinary entanglements between Trump and some unsavory, and dare it say, deplorable foreign leaders?
There’s no way to balance the news coverage of the Trump scandals with the Hillary “scandals.” First the Trump scandals are so egregious they should have ended the media taking him seriously months ago. The hyped up Hillary scandals don’t even deserve the name. See what Colin Powell said about Benghazi.
The media, if they are ever to be taken seriously, will have to admit that the sheer number of legitimate Trump scandals far out way the number of specious, made up, Hillary scandals.
A few days ago I posed the poll question as to whether readers thought CIA Director Brennan’s essentially calling Trump a liar would get the media coverage it deserved.
The majority were right. The news flew by like a hummingbird at a feeder and zoomed off just as quickly.
So here’s a far bigger story. Will the media make this an issue. Take the poll.
My evening Pic-toon on Trump’s charitable contributions -- zero for last eight tax returns:
UPDATE on story below: Lawrence O’Donnell just played the clip of CIA Director Brennan and said "here’s the translation of this, the CIA chief just said Donald Trump is a liar.” When you think it can’t get any more unfuckenbelieveable dept. COMMENTSA sitting CIA director (almost) calls a presidential candidate a liar!’
Hillary didn’t almost collapse. We only saw her stumble and look like she was woozy. We do know she was stepping off a curb at the time and also lost a shoe. Here’s what it means for a person to collapse: to 2 fall downandbecomeunconscious, typically through illness or injury. This is not only untrue, we just don’t know she almost because unconscious, but it is an unfortunate choice of a word when she’s next to the site of the Two Towers which really did collapse. Meanwhile, here’s something Trump doesn’t want reported:
Reports are saying she APPEARED to faint, but that seems impossible for anyone to judge. She may have gotten woozy as many of us have experienced even when not fighting off an infection, but being dehyrated in warm weather - reports also said she seemed to trip stepping of a curb and that she lost a shoe. Tripping and loosing a shoe would account for how unsteady she looked. I still expect a gloating cover on National Enquirer next week "proving" that Hillary suffers from a few more dread illnesses than those they "reported" on this week when they "revealed" how sick she was: 3 strokes, liver damage from booze, Alzheimer's, and violent rages.
Tech Note: I’ve been letting these pages get too long and my guess is that some of you with slower Internet download speeds may find that the page takes awhile to open, especially since I usually have a lot of pictures. I’m going to keep the pages shorter.
For those of you who want to check your Internet speed go to http://speedcheck.xfinity or http://www.speedtest.net . If you are not satisfied with your download speed you may be able to do what I just did. XFinity can upgrade your service for a small fee and also change you cables and connections to maximize speed and put a powered booster where you cable comes into your residence. My downloads are now 3-5 times faster than they were before.
