If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for?

[dwy000]

"As an entertainment journalist, I’ve had the opportunity to cover Trump for over a decade, and in all my years covering him I’ve never heard anything negative about the man until he announced he was running for president."

 

http://townhall.com/columnists/lizcrokin/2016/07/10/trump-does-the-unthinkable-n2190160

 

That's because he wasn't running for President.  Everything he did before was just entertainment and you could laugh off the ego trip.  Now he wants to represent America and it's not funny anymore.

[DTEJD1997]

Packer, I am a Canadian conservative who grew up idolizing Reagan and Thatcher. I am shocked that a level-headed person like you would draw parallels between Trump and Reagan. I think you are blinded by partisanship. Trump is insane. He should be facing a therapist, not the electorate.

 

Narcissistic personality disorder - Mayo Clinic

 

Definition:

 

Narcissistic personality disorder is a mental disorder in which people have an inflated sense of their own importance, a deep need for admiration and a lack of empathy for others. But behind this mask of ultraconfidence lies a fragile self-esteem that's vulnerable to the slightest criticism.

 

Symptoms:

 

Many experts use the criteria in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5), published by the American Psychiatric Association, to diagnose mental conditions. This manual is also used by insurance companies to reimburse for treatment.

 

DSM-5 criteria for narcissistic personality disorder include these features:

 

* Having an exaggerated sense of self-importance

* Expecting to be recognized as superior even without achievements that warrant it

* Exaggerating your achievements and talents

* Being preoccupied with fantasies about success, power, brilliance, beauty or the perfect mate

* Believing that you are superior and can only be understood by or associate with equally special people

* Requiring constant admiration

* Having a sense of entitlement

* Expecting special favors and unquestioning compliance with your expectations

* Taking advantage of others to get what you want

* Having an inability or unwillingness to recognize the needs and feelings of others

* Being envious of others and believing others envy you

* Behaving in an arrogant or haughty manner

 

The above characteristics fit Obama & Hillary to a "T"!!!!

 

Obama referenced himself 119 times in the nomination speech for Hillary.

 

Or, going back in time, who can forget the classic "My election is when the planet began to heal and the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow."

 

Trump has his problems, no doubt....but don't for a minute think that Obama, Bill & Hillary don't match or exceed his.

 

 

 

 

[RichardGibbons]

The thing that I'm wondering about this conversation is how I should allow it to affect my perspective on people's judgement.  For instance, it's very clear that neither Clinton nor Obama is a narcissist--anyone who spends any time at all listening to what either one says should realize this.

 

So, when someone says, "Obama is a narcissist", how do you let that affect your evaluation of their judgement?  Do you just say that "politics makes people think strange things", and not really judge their capacity for reasoning on it?  Or do you basically say, "This person can't do even basic evaluations accurately when it comes to politics, therefore I shouldn't take much of what they say in other domains seriously either?"  (And similarly, those people, if they are using the same criteria, shouldn't take anything I say seriously.)

 

I've been thinking about this a bunch since this campaign started, just because usually there's a wide margin of reasonable opinions.  But in this case, there isn't--the two candidates aren't even on the same page when it comes to reasonableness to be president.

 

So I'm curious. To what extent to people think that we should discount the ability of others to reason when they clearly aren't doing so in such a major, high-profile instance?

[LC]

Politicians are politicians are politicians. We have absolutely no idea about these people's true personalities, and it's useless trying to draw conclusions based on the illusion presented on stages and interviews.

 

Also I love the armchair psychology from you guys.

[rb]

The thing that I'm wondering about this conversation is how I should allow it to affect my perspective on people's judgement.  For instance, it's very clear that neither Clinton nor Obama is a narcissist--anyone who spends any time at all listening to what either one says should realize this.

 

So, when someone says, "Obama is a narcissist", how do you let that affect your evaluation of their judgement?  Do you just say that "politics makes people think strange things", and not really judge their capacity for reasoning on it?  Or do you basically say, "This person can't do even basic evaluations accurately when it comes to politics, therefore I shouldn't take much of what they say in other domains seriously either?"  (And similarly, those people, if they are using the same criteria, shouldn't take anything I say seriously.)

 

I've been thinking about this a bunch since this campaign started, just because usually there's a wide margin of reasonable opinions.  But in this case, there isn't--the two candidates aren't even on the same page when it comes to reasonableness to be president.

 

So I'm curious. To what extent to people think that we should discount the ability of others to reason when they clearly aren't doing so in such a major, high-profile instance?

I don't know if this helps your thinking at all but i think it's related.

 

Basically I have mostly given up trying to reason with people that support Trump. If they still support him after all he's done and said and promised I don't think there's anything that he can do or anything I or anyone can say that'll change their minds. Let alone facts and figures.

 

Sadly, Trump is right. He really can go and shoot people on 5th avenue.

[bearprowler6]

The thing that I'm wondering about this conversation is how I should allow it to affect my perspective on people's judgement.  For instance, it's very clear that neither Clinton nor Obama is a narcissist--anyone who spends any time at all listening to what either one says should realize this.

 

So, when someone says, "Obama is a narcissist", how do you let that affect your evaluation of their judgement?  Do you just say that "politics makes people think strange things", and not really judge their capacity for reasoning on it?  Or do you basically say, "This person can't do even basic evaluations accurately when it comes to politics, therefore I shouldn't take much of what they say in other domains seriously either?"  (And similarly, those people, if they are using the same criteria, shouldn't take anything I say seriously.)

 

I've been thinking about this a bunch since this campaign started, just because usually there's a wide margin of reasonable opinions.  But in this case, there isn't--the two candidates aren't even on the same page when it comes to reasonableness to be president.

 

So I'm curious. To what extent to people think that we should discount the ability of others to reason when they clearly aren't doing so in such a major, high-profile instance?

I don't know if this helps your thinking at all but i think it's related.

 

Basically I have mostly given up trying to reason with people that support Trump. If they still support him after all he's done and said and promised I don't think there's anything that he can do or anything I or anyone can say that'll change their minds. Let alone facts and figures.

 

Sadly, Trump is right. He really can go and shoot people on 5th avenue.

 

+1

 

Like Trump himself---Trump supporters are so easy to bate into showing themselves for who they really are and what they truly stand for. But they do serve a purpose---once they explain why they are supporting Trump it becomes so very clear to the rest of us why we cannot.

[ERICOPOLY]

I've listened to people explain their religion and why they believe in it...

 

I don't write off everything else they say simply because I don't find their religious beliefs to be grounded in reason and logic.

 

I approach political beliefs the same way.  I wonder if the brain rewards people to belong to political social groups the same way it rewards people to belong to religious social groups, and if the group aspect of the activity alters their course of thought.  I might be tempted to explore "social proof" as one of those potential influences.

 

Dunno.  But I think, like religion, I'll still give Trump supporters the time of day on other topics.

[Packer16]

I have a contrarian streak so I try perform second level thinking in my decision making and look for third-party evidence versus what I am spoon fed by each of the campaigns.  Also, BTW other good second level thinkers like Wilbur Ross and Carl Icahn also have the same opinion.  Not that they are the reason I would vote for Trump but just like any good value investor cloner, when one of these guys expresses an opinion it is worth listening to.

 

I would ask the question in reverse, what makes you think you know what Clinton would do versus Trump?  With Trump you know the where he stands.  You also know he is doing this as a part of a negotiating position (again similar to Reagan with the USSR).  With Clinton you have no idea and you know that her and Obama's record on negotiation on anything is really poor.  Look at the TPP, S.Korean trade deal and Iran.  We lost in all those deals.  IMO their whole perception of the GOP being a larger enemy than Iran and other foreign hostile countries baffles me. 

 

I pretty sure most politicians are narcissists.  The question is to what degree.  One of the key signs I look for is how personal does someone take an insult.  Obama had was pretty hurt and lashed out quite bit early on.  Remember the quote "we won the election and elections have consequences" that he retorted to Paul Ryan.  Shortly thereafter there was an election and he did not want to live with the consequences so he tried to go around Congress with executive actions.  Also if you remember early in his Presidency he surrounded himself with historians to see if he could make himself a great President.  That is the evidence I have about Obama.  I also watch their actions versus their words, as words are cheap but actions tell you where their hearts are.  Mrs. Clinton was paid pretty well for her "public service".

 

The choice we have before us is not optimal and there is alot of first level thinking going on in the press.  An example is the whole Russian breaking into the DNC and the reaction by Trump.  Who thinks because Trump said what he said the probability of a break-in is higher.  The Russians are going to this independent of what Trump says.

 

I think there is logic to both sides of the support for Trump so each person has to examine the independent data and make their decision as we do for each of the stocks we own.

 

Packer

 

[Guest cherzeca]

nice thread, for a provocative topic.

 

i find this election to be all about voting for your second best, so as not to have your first worst become president.

 

very sad state of affairs.  as a politically incorrect kind of guy, my first worst happens to be HRC, not DJT

[shalab]

Well said...

 

Trump has raised some good points and has upended the traditional "pubs" and "dems". Apparently most of the stuff in "Art of the deal" is fiction according to this. The author claims he should be president if a person wants the guy who wrote that book to be president.

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/07/25/donald-trumps-ghostwriter-tells-all

 

Also Michael Bloomberg has a different take than Icahn/Ross on this matter. Ross raises some good points but it was the "conventional wisdom" at the time and promoted by both the "pubs" and "dems".

 

 

I have a contrarian streak so I try perform second level thinking in my decision making and look for third-party evidence versus what I am spoon fed by each of the campaigns. 

 

...

 

I think there is logic to both sides of the support for Trump so each person has to examine the independent data and make their decision as we do for each of the stocks we own.

 

Packer

[onyx1]

So I'm curious. To what extent do people think that we should discount the ability of others to reason when they clearly aren't doing so in such a major, high-profile instance?

 

The first step to clarity here is to understand that reasoning plays no part in making a personal political choice.  Political choices are made early in life.  Emotions and the way we individually view the world play a large part.  With a pre-determined political choice in hand, we all seek out facts to confirm the decision that we have already made.  When we run into contrary facts we ignored them, or reason them away. 

 

That is why trying to change someone's political views with logic is impossible, and message forums like this one are so ineffective.

 

However, moving someone's political views to the left or right is possible.  But it can only work with appeals to emotion.  One of the two current candidates is a master at this, the other is awful.

[JBird]

Sam Harris on Donald Trump:

 

 

[sys]

One of the key signs I look for is how personal does someone take an insult. 

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/07/29/donald-trump-now-hates-michael-bloomberg-because-bloomberg-was-mean-to-him/

[EliG]

One of the key signs I look for is how personal does someone take an insult.

 

http://www.vox.com/2016/7/30/12332922/donald-trump-khan-muslim

[Packer16]

I do agree that Trump is probably one of the most narcissistic candidates we have but the question what is worse a narcissist or some one whose words or actions cannot be trusted?  It is truly a choice between the two worse candidates from either party. 

 

Packer

[vinod1]

What I find difficult to understand is it looks like Trump seems to have utterly low opinion of his own supporters. He must be assuming they are some of the dumbest idiots in the world.

 

I tried to honestly see if I can vote for him, given my preference for someone other than Mrs. Clinton as I do not like the dynastic aspect of it. Even if he has extreme views that conflict my own, if he behaved/talked in a manner that makes sense I would have supported him.

 

Take for example his comments on meeting with Koch Brothers:

 

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2016/07/30/koch-brothers-network-of-donors-meets-without-donald-trump/

 

Mr. Trump tweeted on Saturday “I turned down a meeting with Charles and David Koch. Much better for them to meet with the puppets of politics, they will do much better!”

 

It seems more likely that they have not invited him but he outright lies about it. Now I am not sure about this particular one, but if you have looked at his comments over the last few months, there are so many instances where they are unbelievable and objectionable.

 

So why does he do that? Why does those who support him dont seem to care? If a person can lie so easily and repeatedly, how can one believe that he is even remotely telling the truth on the positions that are popular with his supporters (trade, immigration, etc)?

 

Vinod

 

 

 

 

[sys]

the question what is worse a narcissist or some one whose words or actions cannot be trusted?

 

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/hillary-clinton/

[Packer16]

What I find difficult to understand is it looks like Trump seems to have utterly low opinion of his own supporters. He must be assuming they are some of the dumbest idiots in the world.

 

I tried to honestly see if I can vote for him, given my preference for someone other than Mrs. Clinton as I do not like the dynastic aspect of it. Even if he has extreme views that conflict my own, if he behaved/talked in a manner that makes sense I would have supported him.

 

Take for example his comments on meeting with Koch Brothers:

 

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2016/07/30/koch-brothers-network-of-donors-meets-without-donald-trump/

 

Mr. Trump tweeted on Saturday “I turned down a meeting with Charles and David Koch. Much better for them to meet with the puppets of politics, they will do much better!”

 

It seems more likely that they have not invited him but he outright lies about it. Now I am not sure about this particular one, but if you have looked at his comments over the last few months, there are so many instances where they are unbelievable and objectionable.

 

So why does he do that? Why does those who support him dont seem to care? If a person can lie so easily and repeatedly, how can one believe that he is even remotely telling the truth on the positions that are popular with his supporters (trade, immigration, etc)?

 

Vinod

 

This is why I am skeptical of the press reporting anything.  If you read the article is says it appears that the group did not provide an invitation but later said the group would not respond to the direct question of whether an invitation was given.  No direct facts but speculation.  Call me from Missouri but I see there is as much possibility of Trump being right versus what the article appears to imply.

 

Packer

[EliG]

It seems more likely that they have not invited him but he outright lies about it. Now I am not sure about this particular one, but if you have looked at his comments over the last few months, there are so many instances where they are unbelievable and objectionable.

 

So why does he do that?

 

Because lying is second nature to him. Read this epic piece in The New Yorker.

 

Donald Trump’s Ghostwriter Tells All

[EliG]

This is why I am skeptical of the press reporting anything.  If you read the article is says it appears that the group did not provide an invitation but later said the group would not respond to the direct question of whether an invitation was given.  No direct facts but speculation.  Call me from Missouri but I see there is as much possibility of Trump being right versus what the article appears to imply.

 

Packer

 

Well, here's another example from today.

 

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-debate-schedule-226464

 

In an interview to be aired Sunday on ABC News' "This Week," Trump said: "Well, I'll tell you what I don't like. It's against two NFL games. I got a letter from the NFL saying, "This is ridiculous. Why are the debates against--" 'cause the NFL doesn't wanna go against the debates. 'Cause the debates are gonna be pretty massive, from what I understand, okay? And I don't think we should be against the NFL. I don't know how the dates were picked."

 

An NFL spokesman confirmed the NFL did not send a letter to Trump, but added "obviously we wish they were not scheduled at the same time as two of our games."

 

[rb]

 

This is why I am skeptical of the press reporting anything.  If you read the article is says it appears that the group did not provide an invitation but later said the group would not respond to the direct question of whether an invitation was given.  No direct facts but speculation.  Call me from Missouri but I see there is as much possibility of Trump being right versus what the article appears to imply.

 

Packer

So when you have no evidence either way you choose to believe Donald Trump vs the press, now even WSJ, a Murdoch publication is not good enough. That's telling in itself. So maybe this one is a coin toss because you weren't in the room. What about the thousands of other times Trump did exactly the same thing and was proven?

[Packer16]

Once again there are other possibilities that folks are not thinking through.  You need to know the context.  Could not Trump have a letter stating what he said that was not sent to him?  So again there is speculation.  I know Trump has POd the press so maybe they are giving him a hard time and the Clinton campaign is stirring the pot with allegations that Trump is supported by Putin with no facts.  Lets see where the facts go versus speculating about the story the press is feeding us.  My major point is if you look at some of the press allegations about Trump they are based upon speculation and a narrative they are trying to weave not facts.  I am pointing out cases where it is based upon speculation. 

 

As to taking Trump's side versus the press, I am taking no one's side just not rushing to judgement without the facts and context.  If the group said they did not send Trump an invitation you would be correct but there is no data stating that is the case so why even say that it appears that no invitation was sent if you are an objective facts only reporter?

 

Packer 

[vinod1]

What I find difficult to understand is it looks like Trump seems to have utterly low opinion of his own supporters. He must be assuming they are some of the dumbest idiots in the world.

 

I tried to honestly see if I can vote for him, given my preference for someone other than Mrs. Clinton as I do not like the dynastic aspect of it. Even if he has extreme views that conflict my own, if he behaved/talked in a manner that makes sense I would have supported him.

 

Take for example his comments on meeting with Koch Brothers:

 

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2016/07/30/koch-brothers-network-of-donors-meets-without-donald-trump/

 

Mr. Trump tweeted on Saturday “I turned down a meeting with Charles and David Koch. Much better for them to meet with the puppets of politics, they will do much better!”

 

It seems more likely that they have not invited him but he outright lies about it. Now I am not sure about this particular one, but if you have looked at his comments over the last few months, there are so many instances where they are unbelievable and objectionable.

 

So why does he do that? Why does those who support him dont seem to care? If a person can lie so easily and repeatedly, how can one believe that he is even remotely telling the truth on the positions that are popular with his supporters (trade, immigration, etc)?

 

Vinod

 

This is why I am skeptical of the press reporting anything.  If you read the article is says it appears that the group did not provide an invitation but later said the group would not respond to the direct question of whether an invitation was given.  No direct facts but speculation.  Call me from Missouri but I see there is as much possibility of Trump being right versus what the article appears to imply.

 

Packer

 

I don't know. There might be a lot of cases where it is speculation. But, if you spend an hour critically looking at Trump, it seems obvious that he lies pretty often. I can only assume that his supporters ignore that part as they care more about some of the stands he has taken.

 

So how can you trust a person who lies so easily and so often? I would rather not vote for Mrs. Clinton, but Trump seems to be worse than her in nearly every respect - including trustworthiness.

 

Vinod

[vinod1]

I spent 45 minutes taking Trump's side in a debate with my wife. After that I tried to find out a little bit more that would support him. What I found repulsed me away from him. So I can honestly say I was pretty open minded going in, but even the most basic research suggests that Trump is not a person fit for any public office, must less POTUS.

 

Vinod

[sys]

trump has a history of falsely claiming invitations.

 

http://variety.com/2015/tv/news/last-week-tonight-donald-trump-john-oliver-1201631194/