SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday November 15 2016, @12:05AM
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
> 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
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
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
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.