Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Monday November 14 2016, @09:17PM   Printer-friendly
from the not-a-different-president dept.

I've come across an article on The Atlantic that analyses Trump's personality:

Many questions have arisen about Trump during this campaign season—about his platform, his knowledge of issues, his inflammatory language, his level of comfort with political violence. This article touches on some of that. But its central aim is to create a psychological portrait of the man. Who is he, really? How does his mind work? How might he go about making decisions in office, were he to become president? And what does all that suggest about the sort of president he'd be?

It's a long, but very interesting read.

Here's a list of sentences the article itself highlights:

Combined with a gift for humor, anger lies at the heart of Trump's charisma.

Trump appeals to an ancient fear of contagion, which analogizes out-groups to parasites and poisons.

Narcissism in presidents is a double-edged sword. It is associated with historians' ratings of "greatness"—but also with impeachment resolutions.

Andrew Jackson displayed many of the same psychological qualities that we see in Trump.

Trump has never forgotten the lesson from his father: The world is a dangerous place. You have to be ready to fight.

And the final paragraph summarizes:

Who, really, is Donald Trump? What's behind the actor's mask? I can discern little more than narcissistic motivations and a complementary personal narrative about winning at any cost. It is as if Trump has invested so much of himself in developing and refining his socially dominant role that he has nothing left over to create a meaningful story for his life, or for the nation. It is always Donald Trump playing Donald Trump, fighting to win, but never knowing why.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Informative) by julian on Monday November 14 2016, @09:55PM

    by julian (6003) Subscriber Badge on Monday November 14 2016, @09:55PM (#426686)

    Better hope he chooses well.

    > Steve Bannon

    Well, that didn't take long! At least now we know; there is no deeper, more thoughtful, Trump underneath. There's just a petty, hateful, conspiracy theorist peddling, narcissist and a clown car full of even more dangerous ideologues.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +3  
       Flamebait=1, Informative=4, Total=5
    Extra 'Informative' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by VLM on Monday November 14 2016, @10:21PM

    by VLM (445) Subscriber Badge on Monday November 14 2016, @10:21PM (#426693)

    See, that's why he's going to be great! I've seen the news reports trashing him, they hate him almost as much as they hate Trump himself. That means he's gonna be awesome.

    • (Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 14 2016, @10:32PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 14 2016, @10:32PM (#426697)

      It is sad that I think you actually mean that.

      Qualifications and experience don't matter, all that matters is that they piss off somebody you don't like.

      You've become unmoored.

      • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Username on Monday November 14 2016, @11:15PM

        by Username (4557) on Monday November 14 2016, @11:15PM (#426720)

        Almost all the major media outlets told people how to vote. Not slanted or hinted, directly said elect Hillary Clinton. Elect Hillary Clinton or the world would end. That is some 1984 level shit. One should have taken that into consideration when voting.

        • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 14 2016, @11:23PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 14 2016, @11:23PM (#426731)

          What's missing from your analysis is the most important part: the why.

          First of all, many outlets refused to endorse Clinton. They were denouncing Trump. USA Today being an example that has never endorsed a candidate, not even once.

          The fact that they all agreed that Trump is deeply and unprecedentedly flawed does not make his flaws into positives. They were trying to tell you something. You chose not to hear it because of the messenger.

          • (Score: 2, Flamebait) by VLM on Tuesday November 15 2016, @01:35PM

            by VLM (445) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday November 15 2016, @01:35PM (#426943)

            OK for the sake of an inductive proof / thought experiment we'll accept your theory as true and search for some paradoxes.

            Every Republican candidate for my entire long life has been "literally Hitler". Trump is merely the latest. This is certainly unarguable.

            So if your theory is correct that means generations of candidates have ALL been unfit. ALL of them. Yet the same class of people propose D candidates and none of them are ever, ever unfit no matter what.

            Eeeh... occams razor and all that, it is statistically possible just as in theory statistical thermodynamics says all the air molecules could randomly cluster in one half of the room for five minutes leading to my suffocation. Its just a little bit unlikely, just a bit.

            So I can't prove you wrong, I can merely prove the odds are less than 1 in a billion that you're correct. I'm chill with that.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 15 2016, @01:58PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 15 2016, @01:58PM (#426949)

              > Every Republican candidate for my entire long life has been "literally Hitler"

              That's the sophistry of begging the question. Never before in your life has every single editorial staff refused to endorse the republican candidate. Never before in your life has the KKK's official newspaper endorsed the republican candidate.

              Some rando saying a candidate is "literally hitler" is not the same as what happened with Trump. For you to think otherwise is a head-in-the-sand attempt to normalize the abnormal.

        • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 15 2016, @12:37AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 15 2016, @12:37AM (#426761)

          > That is some 1984 level shit.

          Meanwhile Trump straight-up hired the CEO of breitbart, the single biggest media cheerleader of Trump, to work on his campaign and has now given him a top job in his administration.

          That is some 1984 level shit that you and all the other people so horrified by clinton's suppossedly cozy relationship with the media seem to be perfectly fine with.
          W.T.F?!

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 15 2016, @02:08AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 15 2016, @02:08AM (#426811)

            Don't point out their crazy, it only makes them angrier and louder!

        • (Score: 2) by butthurt on Tuesday November 15 2016, @10:55PM

          by butthurt (6141) on Tuesday November 15 2016, @10:55PM (#427252) Journal
      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday November 15 2016, @12:05AM

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday November 15 2016, @12:05AM (#426749) Journal

        Qualifications and experience don't matter

        Hasn't mattered in the past for these positions. Let us keep in mind that Clinton was appointed Secretary of State, despite her lack of qualifications and experience by the previous administration.

        Further, Steve Bannon, the subject of this particular thread has an internal position of "Chief Strategist" which is merely the continuation of his campaign job. Not seeing the reason to care about his alleged "qualifications and experience". Apparently, he did an adequate job on the campaign trail to help Trump get elected and he has considerable media experience which looks good enough, should we ever start to care about the "qualifications and experience" for people in that position.

        • (Score: 4, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 15 2016, @12:19AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 15 2016, @12:19AM (#426754)

          > Let us keep in mind that Clinton was appointed Secretary of State, despite her lack of qualifications and experience by the previous administration.

          Yes, lets keep in mind that she had 8 years as the senator from the most cosmopolitan state of the union. In the senate she spent 6 years on the Armed Services Committee and was a Commissioner of the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe [wikipedia.org] for 8 years.

          That's the problem with the internet. Zero-information people like you just say outright stupid shit like its a given and expect everyone to nod along as if you actually have a clue what you are talking about. There is this thing called google, try using it before posting.

          • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday November 15 2016, @02:17PM

            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday November 15 2016, @02:17PM (#426958) Journal

            Yes, lets keep in mind that she had 8 years as the senator from the most cosmopolitan state of the union.

            Yes, pretty damn light. And keep in mind that she got that position solely because she was the wife of a ex-president. Such a blatant nepotism is a terrible job qualification and you do care about qualifications, right?

            Zero-information people like you just say outright stupid shit like its a given and expect everyone to nod along as if you actually have a clue what you are talking about.

            Let us keep in mind that some previous AC also did just that? If that AC happened to be you, then it sounds like a rather big case of projection to me.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 15 2016, @06:35PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 15 2016, @06:35PM (#427100)

          Let us keep in mind that Clinton was appointed Secretary of State, despite her lack of qualifications and experience by the previous administration.

          C'mon khallow, I expect better of you than this. You usually stick to the facts pretty well, don't ruin that. Maybe in her first appointment more than a decade ago, she was unqualified and only got it due to nepotism, but since then she's been pretty active and has acquired a lot of experience and qualifications. Unless you're really arguing that, because the first appointment was due to nepotism that its impossible for her to have learned anything at all in the subsequent years, that every single appointment afterwards was solely due to nepotism and that she will forever be unqualified no matter how much she gets on her resume?

          • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday November 15 2016, @06:42PM

            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday November 15 2016, @06:42PM (#427102) Journal
            I'm not speaking of Clinton now, but Clinton then. Sure, if I got thrown into the position of Secretary of State and lasted a few years, then I too would have the necessary experience and qualifications.

            Unless you're really arguing that, because the first appointment was due to nepotism that its impossible for her to have learned anything at all in the subsequent years, that every single appointment afterwards was solely due to nepotism and that she will forever be unqualified no matter how much she gets on her resume?

            How many appointments is that again? I count two since her Senate run: her appointment as Secretary of State and her nomination as the presidential candidate for the Democrat party. I believe the charge of nepotism applies to those.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 15 2016, @12:15AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 15 2016, @12:15AM (#426750)

        Qualifications and experience don't matter, all that matters is that they piss off somebody you don't like.

        Bannon's qualifications are from Harvard and Georgetown. That used to mean CIA, although it increasingly means loyalty to Saudi intelligence thanks to Hillary Clinton's friends selling off influence.

        I think he's going to be okay.

      • (Score: 2) by SanityCheck on Tuesday November 15 2016, @01:18AM

        by SanityCheck (5190) on Tuesday November 15 2016, @01:18AM (#426780)

        Just log-in you salty bastards already and be counted.

        I may have been big-hearted liberal at times, but I cannot stand corruption nor law breaking, nor selling out this country's middle-class in droves, that's why I was relieved when Trump got elected.

        Sure continue with your BS doom hypothesis, but the country is on the right track. And if Trump fails to deliver his promises, there will be others that we can vote in, and after this election they won't be as crooked.

        • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Zz9zZ on Tuesday November 15 2016, @02:22AM

          by Zz9zZ (1348) on Tuesday November 15 2016, @02:22AM (#426815)

          I wasn't in this thread, but feel the need to support the opposite side to your theory.

          Trump had a lot of rhetoric about changing things up, but you shouldn't fault critics for saying he's full of shit. He is a verified liar who reverses his stances when convenient. I would love to believe that he will help stop the corruption and get us moving back in the right direction.

          However, given his cabinet choices so far it looks like we're getting the same sort of cronyism and lack of scientific knowledge per usual. He is going to roll back environmental protections and reduce taxes on the very wealthy. Both are terrible for our future, no guessing needed. This isn't DOOM, but it certainly isn't GOOD.

          You're banking on the longest shot ever, and hoping for honesty and integrity from a reality TV star who's swindled lots of people and is a pathological liar. Right now you and your fellow Trump supporters are like all the Obama supporters after his victory, and look how that panned out! Trump is just the loudmouthed braggart people like to have around but keep at arm's length. My prediction is he will be a puppet, an obnoxious puppet that makes life difficult for his handlers, but a puppet nonetheless.

          OH! I got it!!! He's the US version Kim Jong!!! Has someone already made that comparison? Cause it fits so well!

          --
          ~Tilting at windmills~
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 15 2016, @02:39AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 15 2016, @02:39AM (#426825)

            > OH! I got it!!! He's the US version Kim Jong!!! Has someone already made that comparison? Cause it fits so well!

            Kim Jong-Un?
            You think he's a puppet of some cabal in North Korea?
            That's a new one for me.

            Hhhm, google suggests that might actually be the case, a tool of the elite families that had been subservient to his father. They may have made him their mouthpiece. That might bode well for N Korea. They may have motivation to open up the country for their own benefit and he can be the fall guy. Or not.

            You may have made the most interesting post on this thread.

            • (Score: 2) by Zz9zZ on Tuesday November 15 2016, @05:00AM

              by Zz9zZ (1348) on Tuesday November 15 2016, @05:00AM (#426871)

              It was a good attempt at trolling, but my point still stands regardless of whether you try and play it off or not. All the Trump supporters on here are so angry that a psychologist is pointing out the most obvious truth, I think you may all share similar traits of narcissism and denial.

              --
              ~Tilting at windmills~
          • (Score: 2) by SanityCheck on Tuesday November 15 2016, @05:48PM

            by SanityCheck (5190) on Tuesday November 15 2016, @05:48PM (#427066)

            Your whole comment just reeks of the same doom and gloom predictions I have been seeing in mainstream media for 18 months. And just like them you are whipping out your magical crystal ball to show how big and shiny it is. It got old 12 months ago. They were full of shit, and you are full of shit. Whatever happens is not the end of the world, and it can be remedied by next election if it is not what the voters voted for. And if Democrooks put up another crooked puppet to run against him at that time, there will be serious independent alternatives like Bloomberg, who probably should have jumped into the fray this time but didn't. So please take your chicken little nonsense and shove it.

            • (Score: 2) by http on Wednesday November 16 2016, @12:17AM

              by http (1920) on Wednesday November 16 2016, @12:17AM (#427290)

              When you say

              Whatever happens is not the end of the world"

              ..it's like you haven't realized that Trump is going to have the nuclear launch codes.

              --
              I browse at -1 when I have mod points. It's unsettling.
            • (Score: 2) by Zz9zZ on Wednesday November 16 2016, @06:30PM

              by Zz9zZ (1348) on Wednesday November 16 2016, @06:30PM (#427665)

              I specifically said it is not "doom". You just don't like any criticism of your chosen knight in shining armor. Sanity check yourself, I voted third party since both D and R were so full of shit.

              Did you miss this?

              I would love to believe that he will help stop the corruption and get us moving back in the right direction.

              I'm serious, if Trump is truly the independent tough guy who can shake things up (or at least give it an honest try) then I will view him in a much more favorable light. If HRC had won I'd be saying things along the lines of "welp, we're in for more war and probably WW3" and just hoping that she would at least promote environmental protections. Its funny that the "winners" of the election seem to be way more pissed off than the losers, I guess it illustrates quite well the anger wave that pushed Trump to victory, can't let go of that righteous indignation even if its unwarranted.

              --
              ~Tilting at windmills~
      • (Score: 2) by VLM on Tuesday November 15 2016, @01:43PM

        by VLM (445) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday November 15 2016, @01:43PM (#426947)

        Qualifications and experience don't matter

        Agreed, because he vastly exceeds the qualifications and experience required. That means its time to have fun picking the individual from the set of qualified applicants with the best political message. And the dude Trump picked is awesome.

        So those qualifications and experience... the criteria are what exactly? And who decides those criteria? Oh yeah, President Trump. Not two dudes on the internet or a poll of liberal journalists in legacy dying media. Just say it with me a couple times, you'll feel much better President Trump President Trump. See? Feel much better now.

  • (Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Tuesday November 15 2016, @01:13AM

    by Phoenix666 (552) on Tuesday November 15 2016, @01:13AM (#426777) Journal

    Who really knows what it means, or what will ensue? But as long as we're reading tea leaves, I'd say that what you're asserting would have been better supported by Trump making him Chief of Staff. He didn't. He chose Priebus. That right there pretty much guarantees the people who supported Trump as anti-Establishment are going to be entirely disappointed.

    Then again, Trump does like to say, "You're fired!" So if Priebus steps wrong I don't think Trump will have any problem cutting him loose.

    I wonder if Trump has any intention of following through on anything, or if he's thinking he wants to run everything like one big reality show. I have thought from the beginning it would be the latter, but it would be excellent to be surprised and have the former happen.

    --
    Washington DC delenda est.
    • (Score: 2) by Zz9zZ on Tuesday November 15 2016, @02:24AM

      by Zz9zZ (1348) on Tuesday November 15 2016, @02:24AM (#426817)

      I hope some of this type of discussion filters through to him so he sees that even some of his biggest detractors hope he'll pull off his more honorable schemes.

      --
      ~Tilting at windmills~
    • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 15 2016, @04:53AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 15 2016, @04:53AM (#426869)

      > if he's thinking he wants to run everything like one big reality show.

      Look at who he surrounds himself with.

      Priebus may be establishment, but he's got no relevant experience for the job. He's never held office, he's never worked in the whitehouse. Chief of staff is the gatekeeper to the president. Its requires a depth of knowledge and experience to triage events on the fly and determine which ones to bump up to the pres, which ones to delegate within the administration and which ones to kick over to other agencies. There has never been a successful chief of staff without either previous whitehouse or congressional experience. Priebus would be great at managing relations with congress because of the RNC. But that's the limit of his credentials.

      Bannon may have been given a made-up position in order to throw a bone to the alt-white. Or maybe it is legit. Whatever it is we have no idea what the job actually requires so who knows if he's qualified for it or not. But even before breitbart the guy was in entertainment out in hollywood, so he's no policy guy.

      Beyond that, the transition team has got 3 of his kids on it. They absolutely have zero experience, didn't two of them fail to register in time for the primaries? But all the lobbyists in the other slots ought to make up for that. I took a look at Obama's 2008 transition team, its on wikipedia, they were all deeply experienced and most were not lobbyists, the first guy on the list (chu? I think) was even sort of anti-lobbyist with a previous job doing accountability stuff.

      Even with the lobbyists, the WSJ is reporting [wsj.com] that Trump and his transition team had no idea they would have to fully staff the west wing by inauguration day. How could they be so uninformed? That's one of those stories that almost can't be believed, except its Trump...

      He also burned some major bridges by dicking over his in-house policy think-tank [washingtonpost.com] during the campaign. He refused to pay them after stringing them along for months so they walked out. Obviously he didn't really need them then, but what happened is no secret, the wonks all know each other. That's going to make recruitment difficult.

      Also, he seems to think he's going to be able to fly home for the weekends, to NYC or Miami. [nytimes.com] Which is exactly in line with an absurdist reality show perspective.

      I don't think he's making a conscious choice to run it like a reality show. It just sounds like he doesn't know any other way and so far none of the people around him seem to be of the calibre required to rise to the task. Its a big handicap.

      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday November 15 2016, @06:16PM

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday November 15 2016, @06:16PM (#427083) Journal

        Priebus may be establishment, but he's got no relevant experience for the job. He's never held office, he's never worked in the whitehouse. Chief of staff is the gatekeeper to the president. Its requires a depth of knowledge and experience to triage events on the fly and determine which ones to bump up to the pres, which ones to delegate within the administration and which ones to kick over to other agencies. There has never been a successful chief of staff without either previous whitehouse or congressional experience. Priebus would be great at managing relations with congress because of the RNC. But that's the limit of his credentials.

        There's his earlier work with the Wisconsin state legislature and his work in a law firm. Not seeing it.

        Bannon may have been given a made-up position in order to throw a bone to the alt-white. Or maybe it is legit. Whatever it is we have no idea what the job actually requires so who knows if he's qualified for it or not. But even before breitbart the guy was in entertainment out in hollywood, so he's no policy guy.

        Remarkably weak rationalization. Bannon did similar work for Trump prior to the election and that apparently worked out.

        Even with the lobbyists, the WSJ is reporting that Trump and his transition team had no idea they would have to fully staff the west wing by inauguration day. How could they be so uninformed? That's one of those stories that almost can't be believed, except its Trump...

        And you knew that how? They have two months to go, it's not the end of the world that they're slightly behind.

        Also, he seems to think he's going to be able to fly home for the weekends, to NYC or Miami. Which is exactly in line with an absurdist reality show perspective.

        So? The point of this transition is in large part to learn these things. Why shouldn't he have that expectation, especially prior to having any need to consider it for real? One doesn't expect people who have lived their entire lives in a city to understand how to approach (answer: you don't) a wild American bison, for example. It's when they have appropriate learning opportunities (such as seeing numerous warning signs to not approach wildlife and bison in particular), that expectations are appropriate.

        Sure, there's going to be exciting times for the relatively inexperienced crew that Trump will have access to. But your arguments are ridiculous even given that legitimate concern.