Trumperies

For serious discussion of politics, political news, policy, political theory and economics and events happening round the world
Koyaanisqatsi
Posts: 8403
Joined: Fri Feb 19, 2010 5:23 pm

Post by Koyaanisqatsi » Sun Oct 15, 2017 2:04 pm

What’s so frustrating about pieces like the Vox article you sourced LP is that the assumed concern the authors always focus on is vote tally manipulation. While that’s obviously A concern, we already know from more mundane election fraud tactics that Republicans routinely manipulate those tallies indirectly (e.g., through such things as gerrymandering or voter ID laws or changes to vote schedules, etc).

Iow, while it’s possible, of course, and we should always have impenetrable vote tallying technology in place in all States (and we do not), focusing on that as the smoking gun is a red herring. The real trove of information the Russians were after was in fact the voter registration information, because through that information they could effect their social media propaganda war and target the people they know are actually going to vote before they get anywhere near the voting booth.

Why is that any different than the same things the GOP/Trump camp (or the DNC/Hillary camp) were doing? Simple. As a third party intent on destroying one side while boosting another, Putin had a distinct advantage in that he could play both sides against each other from the outside looking in, but more importantly, he could divide the Dems while unifying the Repugs because he didn’t have to bother with the “one side vs. another” traditional approach. Social media is unique (and he knew it) in that it is only effective when pitting like-minded people against each other. It does not good at all when pitting diametrically opposed people against each other. They just butt heads and nothing is ever resolved.

And, yes, thanks to Sanders not leaving the primaries when he should have (in May, if not March), Putin had an additional six months or so of prime division to further push the wedges that in turn Sanders’ camp would provide and/or react to and promote while at the same time Trump campaigned unopposed, allowing Putin to do nothing but strengthen and unify the right (or, at least Trump’s “base&#8221 ;) .

Which makes one wonder whether or not Putin was behind the onslaught to keep Sanders in the race in some fashion. It certainly would have been to his advantage to do so and there were many ways he could attempt such influence, but the real point is that his own experiences with weaponizing social media in Russia (and the many studies that have been done in this country proving how Facebook alone can push a significant needle—along the lines of twenty to thirty percent), there was no need to physically alter the vote tallies when a country has such an assinine, castrated and outdated system as the Electoral College. As we saw, all that was required to change the outcome was a minuscule change in percentages and that only in certain counties within just three states.

Again, the effect of Facebook being able to move a 20% needle was way beyond what was required. Just moving it 2% (or much less in most areas) did the trick.

The first step in trying to secure our voting is to either eliminate the EC altogether, or to reinstate its original mandate. That’s the horrible irony of all of this; the popular vote is the only vote there is. Since Congress did not just remove the EC, 48 of the States instead castrated it by establishing their own internal rules for their electors, such that they are not allowed to go faithless as was the original mandate. Every State but two affirms the notion of the popular vote determining the winner, the only problem being that due to the EC rules, certain State electors count more than others.

So while the popular vote is actually the only vote, the Country is effectively gerrymandered too and that’s the real problem. Take that away and a foreign country would need to eliminate millions of votes to even come close to changing the outcome, instead of just 55,000.
Stupidity is not intellen

User avatar
Copernicus
Posts: 7510
Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 7:34 pm
Location: Bellevue, WA
Contact:

Post by Copernicus » Sun Oct 15, 2017 10:06 pm

Koy, I think you are right about Putin's military intelligence analysts having as an objective the prolonged presence of Sanders in the Democratic primary race. They would certainly have had a psychological profile of the man worked up to assess his strengths and weaknesses. Sanders started out his campaign with the very reasonable objective of moving Hillary to the left on some policy issues while keeping his interaction with her civil. As it became clear that he was not going to win the nomination, he grew angrier and less amenable to a graceful withdrawal. However, while I suspect that the Russians influenced his behavior and Clinton's, they were also behaving in the same way that Democrats had in the past. Recall the friction between Obama and Clinton, when she lost the nomination to him. She waited a long time to get out, just not as long or as bitterly as Sanders' withdrawal. And the Russians continued to exploit the animosity towards Clinton that Sanders had helped to drum up.

Koyaanisqatsi
Posts: 8403
Joined: Fri Feb 19, 2010 5:23 pm

Post by Koyaanisqatsi » Mon Oct 16, 2017 1:04 pm

[quote=""Copernicus""]Koy, I think you are right about Putin's military intelligence analysts having as an objective the prolonged presence of Sanders in the Democratic primary race. They would certainly have had a psychological profile of the man worked up to assess his strengths and weaknesses.[/quote]

As well as some form of internal help, apparently.
Sanders started out his campaign with the very reasonable objective of moving Hillary to the left on some policy issues while keeping his interaction with her civil. As it became clear that he was not going to win the nomination, he grew angrier and less amenable to a graceful withdrawal.
Which is what makes the least sense. As that previous piece details, the main issue evidently at play (and played up by Russian bots as well as the Trump campaign and the Sanders campaign) was the lie of everything being “rigged” in favor of Clinton. There are still Sanders supporters who will argue this was the case as did Sanders in spite of his too-little-too-late announcement that there had been no rigging.

Likewise, there was no reason for Wasserman-Schultz to resign. She had done nothing wrong and wasn’t in any kind of power-position to affect anything regardless. And while the Sanders supporters did not necessarily know this or understand what was actually going on, Sanders certainly did. He knew his campaign was over in March.

The only excuse given is the one you noted, the idea that he could push Clinton further left but not only had that already happened it’s not something that needed a continuing primary challenge to accomplish and certainly not one that would constitute little more than attacks on her character. Sanders does not exactly take the high road from March forward; quite the opposite. The campaign becomes more and more bitter and divisive and desperate, in spite of the fact that everyone within the campaign are seasoned wonks who absolutely know that they have no real chance at beating Clinton at any step (or at least cetainly not after March).

So the notion that he stayed in just to effect policy doesn’t hold up to the subsequent actions taken by either Sanders or his team with or without the addition of Russian influence.

And while there are conspiracy theories out there that point out the Russian connections within Sanders’ camp as well, I agree that it was not something more nefarious than influence. But then, that’s the point; influence in the age of a weaponized new form of mainstream media is evidently far more powerful than anything that has come before it. And what came before it was already powerful to begin with.
However, while I suspect that the Russians influenced his behavior and Clinton's, they were also behaving in the same way that Democrats had in the past. Recall the friction between Obama and Clinton, when she lost the nomination to him. She waited a long time to get out, just not as long or as bitterly as Sanders' withdrawal.
The differences, however, were that Clinton and Obama were neck and neck in both delegates (including superdelegates) and popular votes. Almost literally in regard to the popular vote; depending on which side you look at, she was actually beating Obama. At no point was Sanders beating Clinton in either popular vote or delegates (in particular supers). No professional advisor—or Sanders himself—would have believed they had any chance at all after March at the latest (in spite of the rhetoric they spewed).

And as you noted, not only did the Russians exploit the animosity towards Clinton that the Sanders camp regurgitated, Sanders knew that the Russians were doing so, but did nothing to stop their influence among his followers. So do we just chalk all of that up to gross incompetence among all of the heavy hitters behind Sanders’ campaign, or something else?

It would be easy to argue factions against the Clinton-dominated party; trust me, that’s exactly how I got into politics professionally in the first place. Not only did the New York chapter of the DNC deliberately stage a primary challenge to HRC’s original Senate run just to show her who was still boss, they colluded with the Republican chapter to do so. We literally had people with ridiculous code names (like “Mr. Green&#8221 ;) that would just show up periodically to “discuss” strategy, usually with a union leader (known Republican) or prominent individual within the Jewish community in tow. There were also several times we met with the opposition’s people as well, typically under the guise of mutual campaigning opportunities (i.e., local debates or mutually attended forums) that almost always included closed door sessions that we were clearly not invited to (and by “we” I also mean both our candidate and his campaign manager).

But that alone does not explain the fact that everyone in the Sanders camp knew they had no chance yet still kept going to the bitter end (and beyond). Unless we’re just straight up talking about a decision by Sanders to destroy the Dem party to the best of his ability, as that actually has additional evidence to support.

Perhaps these posts belong in the “wither Dem party” thread?
Last edited by Koyaanisqatsi on Mon Oct 16, 2017 1:43 pm, edited 3 times in total.
Stupidity is not intellen

User avatar
MattShizzle
Posts: 18963
Joined: Sun Aug 22, 2010 6:22 pm
Location: Bernville, PA

Post by MattShizzle » Tue Nov 21, 2017 10:55 pm

Heard and liked this song today. For those of us who remember that 867-5309 song, it's a parody of that.

User avatar
lpetrich
Posts: 14453
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 6:53 pm
Location: Lebanon, OR, USA

Post by lpetrich » Thu Nov 23, 2017 8:11 am

Trump touts busy day of meetings – then appears to play golf | US news | The Guardian At Mar-A-Lago, of course.
Donald Trump appears to have headed straight to the golf course on the first day of his Thanksgiving trip to Mar-a-Lago in Florida – despite his staff insisting only an hour and a half earlier that he had “a full schedule of meetings and phone calls” all day.
Doesn't he have a clue about what it makes him seem like?
Before taking office, Trump frequently criticised Barack Obama for his golfing habit, tweeting three years ago: “Can you believe that, with all of the problems and difficulties facing the US, President Obama spent the day playing golf. Worse than Carter.”

But according to analysis by Politifact, Trump’s time on the green has far outstripped that of his predecessor. The fact-checking website estimates that Obama played 24 times from his inauguration to 13 November 2009, while Trump has chalked up 35 outings.

Data specialist Sophie Germain, creator of trumpgolfcount.com counts a total of 73 visits to golf clubs, but is in line with Politifact in her tally of confirmed rounds. Sometimes the weather intervenes, but there is always lunch.
Articles and References | TrumpGolfCount now has 74 golf-club trips. Omitting the first 7 as before his inauguration, that gives 67 trips.

Modified Julian Dates from Modified Julian Day Converter -- a quick way to compare calendar dates
  • Inauguration: 2017 Jan 20: 57773
  • Today, as I write this: 2017 Nov 23: 58080
That's 307 days. With the above number of golfing trips, that means that he has golfed once every 4.58 days on average.

Trump Golf Count notes:
Cost to Taxpayer: At least $81,107,849

User avatar
lpetrich
Posts: 14453
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 6:53 pm
Location: Lebanon, OR, USA

Post by lpetrich » Fri Nov 24, 2017 10:10 pm

The Nationalist's Delusion - The Atlantic -- nice article about how Donald Trump rode to power on many white Americans' racial resentments. This has caused a *lot* of trouble. For instance, "For centuries, capital’s most potent wedge against labor in America has been the belief that it is better to be poor than to be equal to niggers."

About DT himself:
One measure of the allure of Trump’s white identity politics is the extent to which it has overridden other concerns as his administration has faltered.The president’s supporters have stood by him even as he has evinced every quality they described as a deal breaker under Obama. Conservatives attacked Obama’s lack of faith; Trump is a thrice-married libertine who has never asked God for forgiveness. They accused Obama of being under malign foreign influence; Trump eagerly accepted the aid of a foreign adversary during the election. They accused Obama of genuflecting before Russian President Vladimir Putin; Trump has refused to even criticize Putin publicly. They attacked Obama for his ties to Tony Rezko, the crooked real-estate agent; Trump’s ties to organized crime are too numerous to name. Conservatives said Obama was lazy; Trump “gets bored and likes to watch TV.” They said Obama’s golfing was excessive; as of August Trump had spent nearly a fifth of his presidency golfing. They attributed Obama’s intellectual prowess to his teleprompter; Trump seems unable to describe the basics of any of his own policies. They said Obama was a self-obsessed egomaniac; Trump is unable to broach topics of public concern without boasting. Conservatives said Obama quietly used the power of the state to attack his enemies; Trump has publicly attempted to use the power of the state to attack his enemies. Republicans said Obama was racially divisive; Trump has called Nazis “very fine people.” Conservatives portrayed Obama as a vapid celebrity; Trump is a vapid celebrity.

There is virtually no personality defect that conservatives accused Obama of possessing that Trump himself does not actually possess. This, not some uncanny oracular talent, is the reason Trump’s years-old tweets channeling conservative anger at Obama apply so perfectly to his own present conduct.

User avatar
lpetrich
Posts: 14453
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 6:53 pm
Location: Lebanon, OR, USA

Post by lpetrich » Fri Dec 01, 2017 6:58 am

How December Could Make or Break the Trump Presidency | The New Yorker
Donald Trump is unique among modern Presidents in that he has no significant legislative accomplishments to show for ten months after taking office. Year one is when Presidents usually make their mark, especially if they came into office with unified control of the government, as Trump and his party did. Presidents in the first year of their first term are often at the peak of their popularity, have the biggest margins in Congress, and are free from the scandals and intense partisanship that start to gather around them later and make governing ever more difficult. By the second year, a President’s legislative agenda becomes complicated by the hesitancy of members of Congress to take risky votes as midterm elections approach, particularly if a President is unpopular. The math is stark: on average, modern Presidents have historically lost thirty House seats and four Senate seats in their first midterm elections.
After noting the first-year successes of Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, George Bush II, and Bill Clinton,
Trump’s first year has been different. He has a record-low approval rating. He is mired in scandal. And he so far has no major legislative accomplishments. He looks like a President in his eighth year rather than one in his first. All of this makes December crucial for the White House.
The Republicans want their tax bill, despite it being very unpopular. They want it to show that they have achieved something.

Then continuing to fund the Federal Government. Politicians from both parties are continuing to work out a deal with President Trump.


So it looks like President Trump's first year will be a failure. Has there ever been a president who has recovered from such massive failure?

User avatar
lpetrich
Posts: 14453
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 6:53 pm
Location: Lebanon, OR, USA

Post by lpetrich » Tue Dec 05, 2017 7:59 pm

'Where did you go, Ivanka?' How the first daughter's family leave plan fizzled | US news | The Guardian
At the Republican national convention, Ivanka Trump pledged to fight for mothers. But her proposal was rebuffed amid the Republican tax overhaul

...
But nearly one year into the Trump administration, Ivanka’s portfolio on a host of women’s economic issues – from paid family leave to equal pay and affordable child care – remains largely devoid of policy victories. Her efforts have mainly amounted to public advocacy, seemingly far remote from her father’s agenda.
Shows how little she has accomplished.

That article links to another one about her, Ivanka Trump says liberals have 'unrealistic expectations' of her | US news | The Guardian

So it's worse that I thought. She seems to have gotten to where she is because her father loves sycophancy, and she has been willing to play adoring sycophantic daughter.

User avatar
Jackrabbit
Posts: 1312
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 9:30 am
Location: City Dump

Post by Jackrabbit » Tue Dec 05, 2017 10:18 pm

"unrealistic expectations" = "I am useless for anything real, but at least I'm still rich and pretty"
Moe: "Why don't you get a toupee with some brains in it?" <whack!>

User avatar
lpetrich
Posts: 14453
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 6:53 pm
Location: Lebanon, OR, USA

Post by lpetrich » Sat Dec 30, 2017 1:54 am

[quote=""Jackrabbit""]"unrealistic expectations" = "I am useless for anything real, but at least I'm still rich and pretty"[/quote]
And, it must be noted, more articulate than her father.

Donald Trump's New York Times Interview With Michael Schmidt Is the Sign of a Bigger Problem
Trump’s New York Times Interview Is a Portrait of a Man in Cognitive Decline

I don’t care whether Michael Schmidt was tough enough. We’ve got bigger problems.
Then about that interview,
What Schmidt actually got out of this interview is a far more serious problem for the country. In my view, the interview is a clinical study of a man in severe cognitive decline, if not the early stages of outright dementia.
He likely has Alzheimer's disease, much like Ronald Reagan.
In this interview, the president* is only intermittently coherent. He talks in semi-sentences and is always groping for something that sounds familiar, even if it makes no sense whatsoever and even if it blatantly contradicts something he said two minutes earlier.
The author noted that that is a common coping strategy for people with Alzheimer's disease.
In addition, the president* exhibits the kind of stubbornness you see in patients when you try to relieve them of their car keys–or, as one social worker in rural North Carolina told me, their shotguns.
Saying things like
But Michael, I know the details of taxes better than anybody. Better than the greatest C.P.A. I know the details of health care better than most, better than most. And if I didn’t, I couldn’t have talked all these people into doing ultimately only to be rejected.
and
We’re going to win another four years for a lot of reasons, most importantly because our country is starting to do well again and we’re being respected again. But another reason that I’m going to win another four years is because newspapers, television, all forms of media will tank if I’m not there because without me, their ratings are going down the tubes. Without me, The New York Times will indeed be not the failing New York Times, but the failed New York Times. So they basically have to let me win. And eventually, probably six months before the election, they’ll be loving me because they’re saying, “Please, please, don’t lose Donald Trump.” O.K.
A president in mental decline can be convenient for some people, as we saw in the Reagan years, and as we are seeing now with Congressional Republicans. Such a president can be easy to manipulate.

DT in that interview again:
I’m always moving. I’m moving in both directions. We have to get rid of chainlike immigration, we have to get rid of the chain. The chain is the last guy that killed. … [Talking with guests.] … The last guy that killed the eight people. … [Inaudible.] … So badly wounded people. … Twenty-two people came in through chain migration. Chain migration and the lottery system. They have a lottery in these countries. They take the worst people in the country, they put ‘em into the lottery, then they have a handful of bad, worse ones, and they put them out. ‘Oh, these are the people the United States. …” … We’re gonna get rid of the lottery, and by the way, the Democrats agree with me on that. On chain migration, they pretty much agree with me.

User avatar
lpetrich
Posts: 14453
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 6:53 pm
Location: Lebanon, OR, USA

Post by lpetrich » Sat Dec 30, 2017 9:01 am

Alzheimer's disease has 3 or 7 stages, depending on how one divides up the appearance of its symptoms, and it takes some 10 - 20 years to run its course, with symptoms appearing at different times for different patients.

Three Stages of Alzheimer's Disease - Barton House
For 3 stages:
  1. Mild: 2 - 4 years
  2. Moderate: 2 - 10 years
  3. Severe: 1 -3 years
An interesting symptom of the third stage: "Looks in mirror and talks to own image."
Is talking to mirrors a behavior of moderate Alzheimer's?
Dad thinks the mirror is another person. - AgingCare.com
It looks like Alzheimer's patients lose the ability to recognize themselves in mirrors. In our species, that appears at roughly 18 - 24 months of age, but only a few other species have it.

The Progression of Alzheimer's Disease: What Are the Stages? lists 7 stages.
  1. Preclinical Alzheimer’s or no impairment
  2. Very mild impairment or normal forgetfulness -- faster than is typical
  3. Mild impairment or decline -- about 7 years, with symptoms getting clearer in 2 to 4 years -- more forgetfulness, like of places and recently learned things, including what one has just read
  4. Mild Alzheimer’s or moderate decline -- 2 years, beginning of diagnosable AD -- still more forgetfulness, and difficulty in doing calculations and the like
  5. Moderate dementia or moderately severe decline -- 1 1/2 years -- mainly remembers names of self and close associates
  6. Moderately severe Alzheimer’s -- 1 1/2 years -- clothes and toileting problems
  7. Severe Alzheimer’s -- 1 1/2 years -- from knowing around 6 words to losing of speech, and movement becoming difficult
A total of 13 1/2 years.

Donald Trump 'Forgets' Melania Is Standing Right Next To Him During Hurricane Irma Speech
Mr President? Donald Trump nearly forgets to sign bill – video | US news | The Guardian
Trump Claims “One of the Greatest Memories,” Forgets Meeting Jeff Flake | Vanity Fair
Perhaps anticipating that his impromptu remarks would, as always, be mocked by the media, Trump attempted to head off criticism by boasting about his I.Q. “You know, people don’t understand. I went to an Ivy League college,” Trump insisted. “I was a nice student. I did very well. I’m a very intelligent person. You know, the fact is, I think, I really believe, I think the press creates a different image of Donald Trump than the real person.”
If he becomes more forgetful, then he might start bragging about what a super memory he has.
Last edited by lpetrich on Sat Dec 30, 2017 9:43 am, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Fixed links about talking to one's image in a mirror

User avatar
lpetrich
Posts: 14453
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 6:53 pm
Location: Lebanon, OR, USA

Post by lpetrich » Sat Dec 30, 2017 9:25 am

In his most recent interview with the “failing” newspaper, the president offers a dubiously rosy review of his performance to date.
In his most recent interview with the “failing” newspaper, the president offers a dubiously rosy review of his performance to date.

...
Other journalists criticized Schmidt’s interview, on Twitter and elsewhere, arguing that he should have done more to interrogate or push back on the president in what ultimately reads as one long Trump rant. But as Maggie Haberman countered, Trump’s “unfiltered” rants can reveal more about his mindset than a more confrontational interview, even if they can be less satisfying. Indeed, Trump stumbles into several revelations about himself, and his presidency, in the course of his diatribe with Schmidt.
Like
Trump is insistent that there was “no collusion.” [with Russia]

Trump still seems confident that special counsel Robert Mueller will exonerate him.

His confidence seems bolstered by the fact that his allies in Congress are working to delegitimize Mueller’s inquiry, potentially undermining whatever conclusions he ultimately reaches: ...

Trump seems to think that the Justice Department should be his own personal lawyer goon squad.

Trump is trying to have it both ways on Roy Moore.

Trump acted offended that China might not keep its word—and suggested he is getting his news from television, rather than directly from his own intelligence agencies.

Trump believes the media will want him re-elected and so will cover him more favorably.

Siempre
Posts: 2737
Joined: Wed Aug 28, 2013 9:45 pm

Post by Siempre » Wed Jan 10, 2018 3:11 pm

[quote=""MattShizzle""]Heard and liked this song today. For those of us who remember that 867-5309 song, it's a parody of that.[/quote]

I doubt Trump will ever do any time... as highlighted in the song. That said, I also doubt that he will finish his first term. In fact, I think they are already looking for an out. That could very well be the whole purpose behind the book "Fire and Fury".

I haven't read it but it sounds like you come away with two general messages. The first being that he didn't actually want to be president and the second being that he is mentally incompetent.

Both of these benefit Trump. After all, if he never wanted to be president then why would he do anything even close to treason, collusion, etc, in order to win?

The investigation isn't going to stop though just because many might start to believe this. That is where part two comes in. This is bait that is being dangled out there for republican leaders. A way they can get rid of Trump without actually impeaching him because of the collusion investigation.

If republican leaders bite and boot him out via the 25th Amendment then Trump gets everything he originally wanted. If you assume his main goal for running (and possibly winning) was to build his brand name.

I can see Trump's tweets already... "The republicans and democrats conspired against me because I was making too much progress toward draining the swamp and making America great again. #Sad"

Most of us will laugh at him. However, he will become a martyr of sorts to about 30%. That is a lot of people. He can make a LOT of money off 30%. Yes, they are mostly going to be idiots with very little money. However, if he can milk just $100 out of each of them then that is at least $9 billion. And can you imagine the kind of business and other financial favors he would get from political and other endorsements? His 30% may be stupid but they are loyal. At least 10% of them would probably blindly vote for even a democrat if Trump asked them too.

Yeah, it's nothing but a conspiracy theory. And the biggest hole in it is that it just doesn't seem in Trump's nature to endorse the creation of a book that criticizes him to this extent. Not even if he knows that he will later offset anything said in it. That said, I could easily see his kids and/or other "supporters"/entourage members doing it. It gets them out of hot water as well after all. Plus, the more money Trump makes, the more they do as well.

User avatar
lpetrich
Posts: 14453
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 6:53 pm
Location: Lebanon, OR, USA

Post by lpetrich » Mon Jan 15, 2018 4:59 am

Tracking Discourse Complexity Preceding Alzheimer's Disease Diagnosis: A Case Study Comparing the Press Conferences of Presidents Ronald Reagan and George Herbert Walker Bush - IOS Press
Changes in some lexical features of language have been associated with the onset and progression of Alzheimer's disease. Here we describe a method to extract key features from discourse transcripts, which we evaluated on non-scripted news conferences from President Ronald Reagan, who was diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease in 1994, and President George Herbert Walker Bush, who has no known diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease. Key word counts previously associated with cognitive decline in Alzheimer's disease were extracted and regression analyses were conducted. President Reagan showed a significant reduction in the number of unique words over time and a significant increase in conversational fillers and non-specific nouns over time. There was no significant trend in these features for President Bush.
“Stable Genius” – Let’s Go to the Data – Factbl.og
By any metric to measure vocabulary, using more than a half dozen tests with different methodologies, Donald Trump has the most basic, most simplistically constructed, least diverse vocabulary of any President in the last 90 years. This is by a statistically significant margin in each case.

User avatar
lpetrich
Posts: 14453
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 6:53 pm
Location: Lebanon, OR, USA

Post by lpetrich » Mon Jan 15, 2018 5:06 am

Donald Trump In 'Excellent Health,' Doctor Says After Checkup | HuffPost
However, "The White House said Trump would not undergo a psychiatric exam."

Washington's growing obsession: The 25th Amendment - POLITICO
"Lawmakers concerned about Trump's mental health invited a Yale psychiatry professor to brief them in December." -- Dr. Bandy X. Lee.
In an interview, she pointed to Trump “going back to conspiracy theories, denying things he has admitted before, his being drawn to violent videos.” Lee also warned, “We feel that the rush of tweeting is an indication of his falling apart under stress. Trump is going to get worse and will become uncontainable with the pressures of the presidency.”

Lee, editor of “The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump,” which includes testimonials from 27 psychiatrists and mental health experts assessing the president’s level of “dangerousness,” said that she was surprised by the interest in her findings during her two days in Washington. “One senator said that it was the meeting he most looked forward to in 11 years,” Lee recalled. “Their level of concern about the president’s dangerousness was surprisingly high.”

User avatar
Jackrabbit
Posts: 1312
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 9:30 am
Location: City Dump

Post by Jackrabbit » Tue Jan 16, 2018 3:35 pm

Saw this in a comment on Daily Kos:
The Donald J. Trump Presidential Library burned to the ground yesterday. All three books were completely destroyed, and two of them hadn’t even been colored in yet. Sad!
Moe: "Why don't you get a toupee with some brains in it?" <whack!>

User avatar
MattShizzle
Posts: 18963
Joined: Sun Aug 22, 2010 6:22 pm
Location: Bernville, PA

Post by MattShizzle » Sat Jan 20, 2018 7:28 pm

Leaked mental acuity test.

Image

User avatar
lpetrich
Posts: 14453
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 6:53 pm
Location: Lebanon, OR, USA

Post by lpetrich » Fri Feb 16, 2018 4:18 pm

Trump's Instability Creates a Tasmanian Devil-like Revolving Door noting A Whirlwind Envelops the White House, and the Revolving Door Spins - The New York Times

Over his first year, he has had a 34% turnover, twice the previous record, for Ronald Reagan, and three times Barack Obama's fraction.

From the NYT article,
He has struggled to fill openings, unwilling to hire Republicans he considers disloyal and unable to entice Republicans who consider him unstable. Those who do come to work for him often do not last long, burning out from a volatile, sometimes cutthroat environment exacerbated by tweets and subpoenas.

...
Mr. Trump is on his second press secretary, his second national security adviser and his third deputy national security adviser. Five different people have been named communications director or served in the job in an acting capacity. The president has parted ways with his chief strategist, health secretary, several deputy chiefs of staff and his original private legal team. He is on his second chief of staff — and some wonder whether a third may be in the offing soon.

User avatar
lpetrich
Posts: 14453
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 6:53 pm
Location: Lebanon, OR, USA

Post by lpetrich » Fri Feb 16, 2018 6:26 pm

Priebus: It's Way Worse Than You Think noting “Who Needs a Controversy Over the Inauguration?”: Reince Priebus Opens Up About His Six Months of Magical Thinking | Vanity Fair
From VF:
Just after six a.m. on January 21, 2017, at his home in Alexandria, Virginia, Reince Priebus was watching the cable morning news shows, getting ready to leave for the White House. Suddenly his cell phone went off. It was Donald Trump. The new president, sworn in less than 24 hours earlier, had just seen The Washington Post, with photos showing Trump’s inaugural crowd dwarfed by that of his predecessor, Barack Obama.

The president was livid, screaming at his chief of staff. “He said, ‘This story is bullshit,’ ” recalled Priebus. “He said, ‘There’s more people there. There are people who couldn’t get in the gates. . . . There’s all kind of things that were going on that made it impossible for these people to get there.’ . . . The president said, ‘Call [Interior Secretary] Ryan Zinke. Find out from the Park Service. Tell him to get a picture and do some research right away.’ ” The president wanted his chief of staff to fix this story. Immediately.

Priebus tried to talk Trump off the ledge. “It doesn’t matter,” Priebus argued. “It’s Washington, D.C. We’re in an 85 percent Democrat area. Northern Virginia’s 60 percent. Maryland’s 65 percent. . . . This is a Democrat haven, and nobody cares.” But Trump was having none of it.
Blogger Ed Brayton:
Trump, of course, threw a fit about this on Twitter and then ordered Sean Spicer to defend his lie to the death. It was the very first day in office and he managed to destroy any credibility he or his spokesman might otherwise have had.
What a big baby Donald Trump is.

User avatar
lpetrich
Posts: 14453
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 6:53 pm
Location: Lebanon, OR, USA

Post by lpetrich » Fri Feb 23, 2018 4:23 am

FACT CHECK: Did Trump Use 'Crib Notes' During Listening Session with Parkland Survivors? -- "A photograph showing President Trump holding notes during the listening session with survivors of the Parkland, Florida, school shooting is genuine."

This text was reconstructed from multiple pictures of those crib notes:
1.) “What would you most want me to know about your experience.”
2.) “What can we do to make you feel safe?”
3.) “Do you see [hidden] something effective?”
4.) Resources? Ideas?
5.) I hear you.
President Trump was also caught reading from them.

User avatar
lpetrich
Posts: 14453
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 6:53 pm
Location: Lebanon, OR, USA

Post by lpetrich » Fri Feb 23, 2018 4:38 am

Donald Trump: Obnoxious Bragging Compilation - YouTube

After watching a similar video which I neglected to note, I concluded that he would likely brag about how humble he is. Sure enough, someone found a video of him doing exactly that.

Donald Trump Claims He's Humble 7/17 - YouTube

User avatar
lpetrich
Posts: 14453
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 6:53 pm
Location: Lebanon, OR, USA

Post by lpetrich » Fri Feb 23, 2018 5:46 am

Opinion | How Does Trump Stack Up Against the Best — and Worst — Presidents? - The New York Times

Some 170 experts on Presidential politics were polled about how they rated the presidents, and many of them ranked him the worst. The Republicans among them ranked him fifth worst.

This is only his first year, and President Trump might improve. But he seems too narcissistic to do the self-criticism necessary for that. Or else some staff members could treat him as a figurehead leader, cutting him out of all decision-making and keeping him only for document signings and public appearances.

This is a president with:
  • The stupidity of George Bush II
  • The racism of Andrew Jackson
  • The administrative incompetence of Ulysses S. Grant
  • The disloyalty of James Buchanan
  • The corruption of Warren Harding
  • The paranoia of Richard Nixon
(Wikipedia)Historical rankings of presidents of the United States has some more ratings.

User avatar
lpetrich
Posts: 14453
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 6:53 pm
Location: Lebanon, OR, USA

Post by lpetrich » Fri Feb 23, 2018 5:07 pm

Someone elsewhere has pointed out more:
  • The egotism of Lyndon Baines Johnson
  • The lechery of Bill Clinton
  • The weakness and indecisiveness of Franklin Pierce
Any very lazy presidents?

User avatar
lpetrich
Posts: 14453
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 6:53 pm
Location: Lebanon, OR, USA

Post by lpetrich » Sun Mar 04, 2018 5:38 am

Trump praises Chinese president extending tenure 'for life'
“He’s now president for life, president for life. And he’s great,” Trump said, according to audio of excerpts of Trump’s remarks at a closed-door fundraiser in Florida aired by CNN.“And look, he was able to do that. I think it’s great. Maybe we’ll have to give that a shot someday,” Trump said to cheers and applause from supporters.
So he likes the idea of being President for Life?

The US is supposed to be a republic, not a monarchy. :p

Koyaanisqatsi
Posts: 8403
Joined: Fri Feb 19, 2010 5:23 pm

Post by Koyaanisqatsi » Sun Mar 04, 2018 8:34 pm

[quote=""lpetrich""] Or else some staff members could treat him as a figurehead leader, cutting him out of all decision-making and keeping him only for document signings and public appearances.[/quote]

Hopefully that’s alreaady in play.
Stupidity is not intellen

Post Reply