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: 2) by edIII on Tuesday November 15 2016, @12:54AM
That sounds bad till you realize that 1% of our population is over 1 million people and the count stands around 600,000 with a few million votes left uncounted. It matters. Even at 1%. Is your position that a million people don't count?
Whatever anyone says now, he objectively lost the popular vote. Obviously that means the Electoral College is a piece of shit and badly in need of calibration. The fact the Trump won means it's also broken when he lost the popular vote. I would see the popular vote win every time regardless as it disallows a serious element of dissent added to our politics when we damn well somebody should have won (Gore), but we had to accept the unacceptable (Trump).
If Trump won the popular vote, that would actually be a very compelling reason for reasonable people to give him a chance. It would give me pause realizing that truly the majority decided this. As it stands, we need to just accept a vote for Armageddon, even though we all know it really wasn't. It's just an obedience towards a stupid voting platform with known flaws, as if that is truly more important than the core values of America now relegated to the trash bin.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 2) by Zz9zZ on Tuesday November 15 2016, @02:26AM
DAMNIT IT GERRY! Stop mandering with my business yo!!
~Tilting at windmills~
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 15 2016, @02:55AM
> Obviously that means the Electoral College is a piece of shit and badly in need of calibration.
So, remember that 3/5ths things in the US constitution? Where slaves counted as 3/5ths of a person? What the hell was that about?
Turns out it was about the electoral college. Even though slaves could not vote, they still counted towards the calculation of electoral votes. Is that shit messed up or what?
The line they teach us in high school civics class about the electoral college being a way to make sure everybody is represented is just one of those lies of convenience we tell ourselves to avoid acknowledging yet another way racism defined our country.
In reality the electoral college is the antithesis of the one-man one-vote principle that we also tell ourselves is a fundamental principle of american democracy. The very fact that it is possible to lose the popular vote and still win the election is empirical proof that this country is not operating on the basis of one-man, one-vote.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 15 2016, @04:36AM
But we have to account for the minority vote!! Oh wait, that only seems to matter when the minority is white...
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday November 15 2016, @06:21PM
So, remember that 3/5ths things in the US constitution?
Nope, it's no longer in the Constitution due to the 13th Amendment.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 15 2016, @05:30AM
He doesn't need to win the popular vote. He won the election !!
Neither of them got more than 50% of people who voted, voting for them.
And if you look at all the people too lazy/stupid to vote, you realise it isn't a big difference anyway.
45% didn't care enough to vote for anyone.
26% Hillary
26% Trump.
Seems most people got what they wanted