Interpretation of Trump's personality & behavior

[knapplc]

Reddit user "Deggit" provides a view of Trump's personality and behavior that makes a lot of sense.

Note that all bold/italics are original. None of that is mine.

 

[Trump's] view of others is utterly, utterly, utterly self-contingent.

If someone praises him or works with him, they are a winner. If they criticize him or give him even the slightest of ego wounds, then they are failing disgraceful losers.

 

Everyone has a little bit of this in them. I mean we all think better of people who compliment us, and perhaps if someone criticizes us we start to think of reasons why "that loser has no right to say ____ about me...."

 

But Trump displays this behavior to a compulsive, uncontrollable degree.

• He is unable to accept a criticism, any criticism, however valid or mild, of anyone on his "winner list."

• He incontinently accepts and amplifies every criticism, however poorly founded or unsubstantiated, of anyone on his "loser" list.

• He seeks revenge, domination and humiliation of those who defy him.

I don't get how some people have not spotted this pattern yet.

 

It is how we get Trump repeating the idea that Ted Cruz's dad shot JFK. There was no mastermind plan behind this smear. Ted Cruz opposed and defied Trump therefore everything bad anyone has ever alleged about Ted Cruz, even if the claim came from some egg on Twitter, must be true.

 

it is how he was continually caught retweeting White nationalists. It's way too complimentary to say that "Trump is indifferent to the source of a claim." It would be more accurate to say that "The nature of a claim, in Trump's mind, vindicates or discredits the source." That is how a poll was "respected" one day and "failing and dishonest" the next purely based on its results - the claim vindicates or discredits the source. It's exactly backwards which is why it's so hard for ordinary people, I reckon, to get to grips with the way Trump thinks.

 

Let's take the opposite case - Trump being given a criticism about someone who is on his "winner list." How does he react? Right now a story that's developing is Bill O'Reilly asked Trump whether he was concerned/critical about the fact that Trump was praised by Putin, a man who has journalists and political opponents murdered. And Trump replied "We've got a lot of killers too." This is actually the second time Trump has made this claim. People are outraged because Trump made a baseless claim that the USA kills journalists.

 

But interpreting Trump's words as factual claims is simply missing the point.

 

The right way is: 1) You made a criticism of someone who has praised Trump. 2) Beep boop, Trump's psyche interprets this as an attempt to inflict ego injury. 3) Trump's mouth leaps to his psyche's defense with a blurted, usually incoherent attempt to minimize, dismiss or delegitimize the criticism.

 

It's like people don't get the idea that showing Trump a photo, a representation of the real world, will do nothing. Because his statements aren't really claims about an external, real and objective world around us. They're more like value-creating statements that impose on reality a super-reality in which he is continually vindicated.

 

People have noticed that Trump lacks shame. He lies shamelessly, he insults shamelessly, he is shameless in never admitting error, he doubles down. I mean: It would have been the easiest thing in the world, in the inauguration crowd nonsense, to have Sean Spicer come out on Day 2 and say "Yes Obama got a larger crowd because his inauguration was a historic event, and in any case DC is a heavily Democratic city where half the population is Black and naturally wanted to cheer on the first Black President, but Trump's supporters are certainly excited for his Presidency and now the President is focused on his mission of making America great again, &c." All this would have been so easy. But instead the President sends out his Press Sec to tell a shameless bold face lie that the media almost has no choice but to turn into the day's leading story, to ruinous effects. It's because even in situations where it would be easy to make a bad situation go away by losing a small amount of face, his psyche will not allow him. His ghostwriters have turned this into a macho businessman personality where his philosophy is "Never show weakness to the dogs of war" or some bullsh#t - but the reality is that his uncontrollable horror of losing face is because of deep personal insecurities.

 

We can tell this is objectively the case because his behavior is compulsive and reckless. It's not geared to advancing his own interests. It's self destructive. Always remember Trump is not some genius like, for instance, Dilbert Man makes him out to be. Consider Trump's lies. All politicians lie. But most politicians don't tell lies that they will obviously be caught on in 15 minutes, like Trump's lie about receiving a letter from the NFL. Trump tells these lies because he can't help himself. Most politicians lie needfully - that is, they lie when the Truth threatens to bring about embarrassment or accountability. Trump lies compulsively because even the mildest "reality checks" are for him ego-shattering events.

 

I want to point out that I, nor anyone reading this comment, is qualified to actually diagnose Trump with anything. Diagnosis has to happen in a therapeutic environment with the participation of the patient.

 

You can't diagnose someone with a mental illness via TV.

 

But what you can do is spot a consistent pattern of behaviors.

 

We already see states and leaders formulating their actions in light of modeling Trump's behavioral patterns. For example Theresa May's visit was a big cuddlefest, not because May actually likes Trump, but because the apolitical apparatus of the British state behind May has made the calculation that deliberate flattery of USA's leader is now a necessity in US-UK relations and may position UK advantageously vs the other European states. This is disgusting and concerning. And this extends beyond our allies, obviously. Other state actors, like our adversaries Russia and China, are also surely operating with a consciousness of the President's mental weakness and the idea that Trump's psyche is a mechanism or opportunity to "short circuit" the American state acting in its own actual national interest. Bottom line, this is bigly dangerous for our country and if I may say so, SAD.

 

[NM11046]

Yes.

[Making Chimichangas]

Take the collective egos of Jim Rose (yes the former Husker play by play guy), Steve Jobs, Axl Rose, Jermey Pivin,

 

With the diva attitude of Arianna Grande, Mariah Carey, and Justin Bieber,

 

Then throw in the hatred that Adolf Hitler, Emperor Palpatine, and the Westboro Baptists have for anyone who disagrees with them,

 

And the mentality of a 3 year old...

 

Then, you'll get something close to Donald Trump.

[TGHusker]

All of this will be a detriment to good govt. Each new administration has to potential to accomplish new and great things. No exceptions to this admin. However, the trick is to avoid self inflected wounds that derail that potential. In the case of this admin, the greatest chance of self inflection resides within the leader. Only time will tell, if the emotionally whole people in the admin can gain the upper hand. If not, we may have to revisit the 'when will Trump be impeached' thread - something I sure don't want to see happen to any President unless they literally broke the law.

[AR Husker Fan]

 

 

 

This so-called president is easily the whiniest snowflake in history. Not to mention the lies. Doesn't know Putin? That's a lie - he's admitted it in interviews and statements in 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016. No deals in Russia? Not for lack of trying - and he has surrounded himself with those that do.

[NM11046]

This whole situation kind of reminds me of a young music teacher that started at my school when I was in 7th or 8th grade. It was her first job and she was in way over her head. We smelled blood and within 6 months she was gone (it was horribly mean now looking back, but she showed weakness and adolescents couldn't be stopped). All the #PresidentBannon, Russia, Ratings, SNL, protests etc. - we as a nation are wearing him down.

[knapplc]

This whole situation kind of reminds me of a young music teacher that started at my school when I was in 7th or 8th grade. It was her first job and she was in way over her head. We smelled blood and within 6 months she was gone (it was horribly mean now looking back, but she showed weakness and adolescents couldn't be stopped). All the #PresidentBannon, Russia, Ratings, SNL, protests etc. - we as a nation are wearing him down.

Many people have said from Day One that Trump didn't want to be president. He wanted to win the presidency because that would fuel his ego, but he never wanted do the actual work of being the president. I maintain that to this day. Here's an excerpt from a pretty weird account of the inner workings of the Trump White House that talks about the reality he's facing now that he holds the office.

 

 

Trump and Staff Rethink Tactics After Stumbles

 

All this is happening as Mr. Trump, a man of flexible ideology but fixed habits, adjusts to a new job, life and city.

 

Cloistered in the White House, he now has little access to his fans and supporters — an important source of feedback and validation — and feels increasingly pinched by the pressures of the job and the constant presence of protests, one of the reasons he was forced to scrap a planned trip to Milwaukee last week. For a sense of what is happening outside, he watches cable, both at night and during the day — too much in the eyes of some aides — often offering a bitter play-by-play of critics like CNN’s Don Lemon.

 

Until the past few days, Mr. Trump was telling his friends and advisers that he believed the opening stages of his presidency were going well. “Did you hear that, this guy thinks it’s been terrible!” Mr. Trump said mockingly to other aides when one dissenting view was voiced last week during a West Wing meeting.

 

But his opinion has begun to change with a relentless parade of bad headlines.

 

 

The whole article is definitely worth a read. It contains some very bizarre accusations of the Trump staff's inability to navigate in a political world they're not ready for - to the point where they work in the dark because they can't figure out the lights in the White House. That sounds crazy to the point of being preposterous.

[Bigred_inSD]

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/828939235499638784

 

 

 

This so-called president is easily the whiniest snowflake in history. Not to mention the lies. Doesn't know Putin? That's a lie - he's admitted it in interviews and statements in 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016. No deals in Russia? Not for lack of trying - and he has surrounded himself with those that do.

No way Iran is #1 in terror, the civilians of Iran are the most "westernized" of any middle east country.

[TGHusker]

 

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/828939235499638784

 

 

 

This so-called president is easily the whiniest snowflake in history. Not to mention the lies. Doesn't know Putin? That's a lie - he's admitted it in interviews and statements in 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016. No deals in Russia? Not for lack of trying - and he has surrounded himself with those that do.

No way Iran is #1 in terror, the civilians of Iran are the most "westernized" of any middle east country.

 

yes, I would agree the civilians are the most western but the leadership has been a sponsor of terror for decades. The civilian revolt in 2009 should have been supported more by the previous administration. It was the Green Movement . And no, I don't want to hijack this thread to talk about Obama's admin's response to the green movement.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/akbar-ganji/iran-green-movement-five-years_b_5470078.html

[knapplc]

The civilian revolt in 2009 should have been supported more by the previous administration.

 

 

 

There was no "civilian revolt" in 2009. There were protests of the election, but those were no different than the Women's March after the inauguration.

 

Do you know any Iranians/Persians?

[TGHusker]

 

The civilian revolt in 2009 should have been supported more by the previous administration.

 

 

 

There was no "civilian revolt" in 2009. There were protests of the election, but those were no different than the Women's March after the inauguration.

 

Do you know any Iranians/Persians?

 

Yes, I work with an individual from Iran currently. His family is still in Iran. He is around 40 yrs old. He doesn't like the politics of his country but has nothing but good to say about the general population. His wife is American. Real nice couple. He went to a Taco Bell for the 1st time the other day - said it was "OK". Like him, I'd prefer his ethnic food to Taco Bell. He still likes to refer to his company as Persia.

I also, had a very good friend who passed away a few years ago who was native born Iranian. Lived through the 'Revolution'. He too was married to an American gal (it was salt and pepper - she was/is blonde as can be and fair skinned and he was darker skin and really dark hair. ) Again, a very nice guy who had relatives back in Iran. I have met others in the past. I actually knew a guy in Tulsa via work who got in trouble for his company which he owned, sending sanctioned goods back to Iran (oil field related as you would expect coming from Okla). He went on the run and I believe ended up in Iran before the feds could catch him. His company owed our company money - that ended up being written off.

[knapplc]

Did they tell you there was a revolt in 2009? Or have you discussed it with them? It seems weird that you would call it a revolt when it was just a few demonstrations.

 

I'm also curious what America could have done to better support the Iranian Green Movement.

[TGHusker]

Knapp, I got up out of my office and went to talk to my friend. He left Iran in 2010. His wife, who is half Persian, half American (her mom is American) and he were married in Iran in 2009. He said 80% of the people were oppose to the election and felt the results were bogus. He said it could not be compared to the recent women's march in the USA. He said many people were killed. His wife went out into the streets to check status on their wedding cake and she went missing for hours. They feared she had been taken by the 'police'. Fortunately she made it back. He said the people and the govt are totally opposite. Maybe only 10% of the people (or less) truly support the govt - they are the ones who get paid by the govt he says. He said the vast majority are opposed but the military/police have such control it is impossible to gain an upper hand. His gut feeling is that the Iran leaders are really puppets of Russia who want/need a proxy in the Middle East. I wish we could phone conference together - he is very passionate about his views and his experience. He noted that most educated Iranians who to come to the USA want to stay here because of the freedom. He felt 2009 was a lost opportunity. He said, culturally and in attitude there is a huge gap between the leaders and the common person in Iran. He does go back to Iran from time to time to visit family and went back recently - sometime in 2016.

 

Here are 4 links from 4 vastly different sources discussing the issue. And who said I just post from conservative sources

 

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-08-24/why-obama-let-iran-s-green-revolution-fail

 

http://iranprimer.usip.org/resource/green-movemen

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/akbar-ganji/iran-green-movement-five-years_b_5470078.html

 

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2013/05/201351661225981675.html

[knapplc]

That first article is comical. James Baker didn't convince Shevardnadze to step down peacefully, Shevardnadze was ousted from office on corruption charges. That article makes it sound like Baker went to Georgia and convinced Shevardnadze to resign.

 

Shevardnadze was already a reformer before he ever was president of Georgia. He was part of the Gorbachev regime in Soviet Russia and helped bring about the end of the Eastern Bloc. Eduard Shevardnadze is not in any way comparable to the hard-liners who rule Iran.

 

I mean, it's nice to think that if we had just sent an envoy to Iran, the Ayatollah and the ruling class would have just stepped down, but that's not remotely reality.

 

But let's say Obama did send Hillary to Iran. Does your friend think it would have made a difference?

 

I've texted a friend to ask what she thinks about the Green Movement. I'll let you know what she says.

[AR Husker Fan]

 

 

Is there ANYTHING this so-called president DOESN'T lie about? Anything at all?