Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)

[unclevlad]

On a side note, the man who set himself on fire died from his injuries.  

[Iuz the Evil]

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/20/us/politics/house-vote-aid-ukraine-israel.html
 

Thank goodness. Aid to Israel and Ukraine (and Taiwan) passes the House.

[unclevlad]

It also includes a condition that TikTok be sold.  That's something I'm a lot less sanguine about, unless they can prove the personal/national security threats exist.  No doubt this will go to court, tho, and here, the high First Amendment bar is front and center.  The story points out that TikTok's already won in court on a few occasions.  

 

And now we'll see if the hard right faction tries to force Johnson out.  I didn't look at all the votes, but it looked like the usual group consistently voted against all the bills.  

[Lord Liaden]

I think if it comes to a vote, there may be quite a few Republican legislators voting to keep Johnson in his chair. Many in the House are now publicly expressing frustration with the "Twitter faction" of the party. I'm pretty sure that group doesn't have the votes to force him out.

 

OTOH the Democrats are likely still in a position to get the votes to turf Johnson and replace him with Jeffries. There are plusses and minuses to them pulling the trigger, so we'll have to wait and see what they choose.

[Ranxerox]

6 hours ago, Lord Liaden said:

I think if it comes to a vote, there may be quite a few Republican legislators voting to keep Johnson in his chair. Many in the House are now publicly expressing frustration with the "Twitter faction" of the party. I'm pretty sure that group doesn't have the votes to force him out.

 

OTOH the Democrats are likely still in a position to get the votes to turf Johnson and replace him with Jeffries. There are plusses and minuses to them pulling the trigger, so we'll have to wait and see what they choose.

 

I apologize it I misunderstand what you are saying, but of course most of the Republicans will vote to keep Johnson.  The vast majority of Republicans voted to keep Kevin McCarthy.  The only reason that McCarthy got ousted was because the Democrats voted as block to remove him and the Twitter faction crossed party lines and joined them.  

 

Also, rumors notwithstanding, if Johnson gets ousted Jeffries won't become Speaker.  The job will wind up going another Republican, and they will know that if they do bipartisan legislation with the Democrats, they will be repaid by those same Democrats stabbing them in the back when the most extreme members of the own party come after them.

 

Edit:  I saw footage of Hakeem Jeffries commending Mike Johnson by name, so I don't think Johnson has to worry about being ousted.

Edited April 21 by Ranxerox

[wcw43921]

This is an article by Kevin D. Williamson of The Dispatch.   It was behind a paywall so I'm reposting it without permission.  Makes an excellent point, I think.

 

Spoiler

Marjorie Taylor Greene Is No Neville Chamberlain

 

Irritated by Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene’s tireless dedication to serving Moscow’s interests, Democratic Rep. Jared Moskowitz offered an amendment to the Ukraine aid bill that would have renamed her office the “Neville Chamberlain Room.” It was an ugly, stupid, juvenile insult. 

 

Say what you will about Marjorie Taylor Greene, she is no Neville Chamberlain.

 

Neville Chamberlain was an honorable and decent man, a patriot and a statesman who led the United Kingdom during the first months of World War II before serving honorably in Winston Churchill’s war cabinet for the few months he had left to live before dying of cancer. He retired, as it were, at the end of September 1940, and he was dead by November 9, having labored through the excruciating pain of intestinal cancer as the Blitz raged overhead. When Churchill, acting on behalf of the king, offered the dying Chamberlain the Order of the Garter, Chamberlain declined. “I prefer to die plain ‘Mr. Chamberlain,’ like my father before me, unadorned by any title,” he said.

Marjorie Taylor Greene is no Neville Chamberlain. 

 

Chamberlain came late to national politics. He was about to turn 50 when he was elected to the House of Commons. (No British prime minister ever has been first elected to Parliament later in life.) He had failed at one business and prospered at another, and much of his political career had been spent in unglamorous municipal government, first as a city councilman and planning commissioner and then as mayor of Birmingham during the austerity of the Great War. He cut spending, reduced the scope of his own office, and cut his own expense account by half as a seemly wartime measure. His performance in office was enough to get him appointed director of national service. In the position, he oversaw Britain’s military conscription while securing an adequate workforce for war-production industries. He disagreed with the prime minister, David Lloyd George, and resigned from the prestigious and influential post. 

 

Marjorie Taylor Greene is no Neville Chamberlain. 

 

After the war, Chamberlain decided to run for the House of Commons and won a seat with a 70 percent majority. He was a legislative workhorse but declined a ministerial appointment under Lloyd George. He worked his way up to the position of chancellor of the exchequer—secretary of the treasury, approximately—and narrowly turned back an electoral challenge from Labour candidate Oswald Mosley, the future leader of British fascism. By the early 1930s, Chamberlain had helped to lead the United Kingdom from a position of debt-ridden near-ruination to a budget surplus. He quipped that the country had turned the last page of Bleak House and opened the first chapter of Great Expectations.

 

Marjorie Taylor Greene is no Neville Chamberlain. 

 

As prime minister, Chamberlain miscalculated in what turned out to be the most consequential decision of his political career. He believed, wrongly, that he could buy off Adolf Hitler and thereby avoid an unprofitable war with a continental tyrant. Avoiding unprofitable wars with continental tyrants has historically been a considerable part of British foreign policy, and it has often been the right policy. It wasn’t the right policy vis-à-vis Nazi Germany. It fell to Chamberlain to admit his error and to announce the declaration of war. He forthrightly addressed his fellow countrymen on the radio:

This country is at war with Germany. You can imagine what a bitter blow it is to me that all my long struggle to win peace has failed. … We and France are today, in fulfillment of our obligations, going to the aid of Poland, who is so bravely resisting this wicked and unprovoked attack upon her people. We have a clear conscience. We have done all that any country could do to establish peace. … Now may God bless you all and may He defend the right. For it is evil things that we shall be fighting against, brute force, bad faith, injustice, oppression and persecution. And against them I am certain that the right will prevail.

Honor even in disappointment. Standing by his pledge to help an occupied people resist a “wicked and unprovoked attack” from a tyrant. Telling the truth about it. 

No, Marjorie Taylor Greene is no Neville Chamberlain. 

What was Winston Churchill’s judgment? He eulogized his former rival in Parliament: 

It fell to Neville Chamberlain in one of the supreme crises of the world to be contradicted by events, to be disappointed in his hopes, and to be deceived and cheated by a wicked man. But what were these hopes in which he was disappointed? What were these wishes in which he was frustrated? What was that faith that was abused? They were surely among the most noble and benevolent instincts of the human heart—the love of peace, the toil for peace, the strife for peace, the pursuit of peace, even at great peril, and certainly to the utter disdain of popularity or clamour.

Neville Chamberlain made the wrong decision at the most important juncture of his public life. But he was an authentic statesman who put service over self, even at the cost of his reputation, personal fortune, and health. For most of the world—and particularly for Americans, who care so little for history—all that remains of Neville Chamberlain is his worst mistake. But he did what he thought was right, received very little thanks for it in the end, and never stopped working for his country until the last few weeks of his life, when he was physically unable to continue. He died, as he wished, plain Mr. Chamberlain.

 

Marjorie Taylor Greene is no Neville Chamberlain. Not on her best day.

 

[Hermit]

18 hours ago, unclevlad said:

It also includes a condition that TikTok be sold.  That's something I'm a lot less sanguine about, unless they can prove the personal/national security threats exist.  No doubt this will go to court, tho, and here, the high First Amendment bar is front and center.  The story points out that TikTok's already won in court on a few occasions.  

 

And now we'll see if the hard right faction tries to force Johnson out.  I didn't look at all the votes, but it looked like the usual group consistently voted against all the bills.  

 

I am relieved that it looks like we're finally getting aid to Ukraine again. I'm also annoyed that most Tennessee Congressmen seem to be on the Pro - Putin bandwagon. I called mine's office weeks ago, and clearly it did no good.

[Cancer]

Quote

Besides raw materials and political thuggery, the only things Russia exports are talented people.

 

[Old Man]

You could add cruelty and suffering to that list.

[Clonus]

LA lawmakers vote to remove lunch breaks for child workers | Louisiana Politics | nola.com

 

Now, too be fair this was just a committee vote and it's not become law just yet.  But it's still kinda evil. 

[DShomshak]

13 hours ago, wcw43921 said:

This is an article by Kevin D. Williamson of The Dispatch.   It was behind a paywall so I'm reposting it without permission.  Makes an excellent point, I think.

 

  Reveal hidden contents

Marjorie Taylor Greene Is No Neville Chamberlain

 

Irritated by Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene’s tireless dedication to serving Moscow’s interests, Democratic Rep. Jared Moskowitz offered an amendment to the Ukraine aid bill that would have renamed her office the “Neville Chamberlain Room.” It was an ugly, stupid, juvenile insult. 

 

Say what you will about Marjorie Taylor Greene, she is no Neville Chamberlain.

 

Neville Chamberlain was an honorable and decent man, a patriot and a statesman who led the United Kingdom during the first months of World War II before serving honorably in Winston Churchill’s war cabinet for the few months he had left to live before dying of cancer. He retired, as it were, at the end of September 1940, and he was dead by November 9, having labored through the excruciating pain of intestinal cancer as the Blitz raged overhead. When Churchill, acting on behalf of the king, offered the dying Chamberlain the Order of the Garter, Chamberlain declined. “I prefer to die plain ‘Mr. Chamberlain,’ like my father before me, unadorned by any title,” he said.

Marjorie Taylor Greene is no Neville Chamberlain. 

 

Chamberlain came late to national politics. He was about to turn 50 when he was elected to the House of Commons. (No British prime minister ever has been first elected to Parliament later in life.) He had failed at one business and prospered at another, and much of his political career had been spent in unglamorous municipal government, first as a city councilman and planning commissioner and then as mayor of Birmingham during the austerity of the Great War. He cut spending, reduced the scope of his own office, and cut his own expense account by half as a seemly wartime measure. His performance in office was enough to get him appointed director of national service. In the position, he oversaw Britain’s military conscription while securing an adequate workforce for war-production industries. He disagreed with the prime minister, David Lloyd George, and resigned from the prestigious and influential post. 

 

Marjorie Taylor Greene is no Neville Chamberlain. 

 

After the war, Chamberlain decided to run for the House of Commons and won a seat with a 70 percent majority. He was a legislative workhorse but declined a ministerial appointment under Lloyd George. He worked his way up to the position of chancellor of the exchequer—secretary of the treasury, approximately—and narrowly turned back an electoral challenge from Labour candidate Oswald Mosley, the future leader of British fascism. By the early 1930s, Chamberlain had helped to lead the United Kingdom from a position of debt-ridden near-ruination to a budget surplus. He quipped that the country had turned the last page of Bleak House and opened the first chapter of Great Expectations.

 

Marjorie Taylor Greene is no Neville Chamberlain. 

 

As prime minister, Chamberlain miscalculated in what turned out to be the most consequential decision of his political career. He believed, wrongly, that he could buy off Adolf Hitler and thereby avoid an unprofitable war with a continental tyrant. Avoiding unprofitable wars with continental tyrants has historically been a considerable part of British foreign policy, and it has often been the right policy. It wasn’t the right policy vis-à-vis Nazi Germany. It fell to Chamberlain to admit his error and to announce the declaration of war. He forthrightly addressed his fellow countrymen on the radio:

This country is at war with Germany. You can imagine what a bitter blow it is to me that all my long struggle to win peace has failed. … We and France are today, in fulfillment of our obligations, going to the aid of Poland, who is so bravely resisting this wicked and unprovoked attack upon her people. We have a clear conscience. We have done all that any country could do to establish peace. … Now may God bless you all and may He defend the right. For it is evil things that we shall be fighting against, brute force, bad faith, injustice, oppression and persecution. And against them I am certain that the right will prevail.

Honor even in disappointment. Standing by his pledge to help an occupied people resist a “wicked and unprovoked attack” from a tyrant. Telling the truth about it. 

No, Marjorie Taylor Greene is no Neville Chamberlain. 

What was Winston Churchill’s judgment? He eulogized his former rival in Parliament: 

It fell to Neville Chamberlain in one of the supreme crises of the world to be contradicted by events, to be disappointed in his hopes, and to be deceived and cheated by a wicked man. But what were these hopes in which he was disappointed? What were these wishes in which he was frustrated? What was that faith that was abused? They were surely among the most noble and benevolent instincts of the human heart—the love of peace, the toil for peace, the strife for peace, the pursuit of peace, even at great peril, and certainly to the utter disdain of popularity or clamour.

Neville Chamberlain made the wrong decision at the most important juncture of his public life. But he was an authentic statesman who put service over self, even at the cost of his reputation, personal fortune, and health. For most of the world—and particularly for Americans, who care so little for history—all that remains of Neville Chamberlain is his worst mistake. But he did what he thought was right, received very little thanks for it in the end, and never stopped working for his country until the last few weeks of his life, when he was physically unable to continue. He died, as he wished, plain Mr. Chamberlain.

 

Marjorie Taylor Greene is no Neville Chamberlain. Not on her best day.

 

An excellent case for the honor of Neville Chamberlain. Perhaps MTG's office space would better be named for Lord Haw-Haw. Though I am told the Congress of that time held several members who used their free franking privilege to mass-mail Nazi propaganda to Americans. AFAIK Greene has not yet reached that level of open advocacy for a hostile power. But I do not trust her loyalty to the United States of America that actually exists, as distinct from the fantasy America of far-right imagination.

 

Dean Shomshak

[Ranxerox]

14 hours ago, wcw43921 said:

This is an article by Kevin D. Williamson of The Dispatch.   It was behind a paywall so I'm reposting it without permission.  Makes an excellent point, I think.

 

  Reveal hidden contents

Marjorie Taylor Greene Is No Neville Chamberlain

 

Irritated by Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene’s tireless dedication to serving Moscow’s interests, Democratic Rep. Jared Moskowitz offered an amendment to the Ukraine aid bill that would have renamed her office the “Neville Chamberlain Room.” It was an ugly, stupid, juvenile insult. 

 

Say what you will about Marjorie Taylor Greene, she is no Neville Chamberlain.

 

Neville Chamberlain was an honorable and decent man, a patriot and a statesman who led the United Kingdom during the first months of World War II before serving honorably in Winston Churchill’s war cabinet for the few months he had left to live before dying of cancer. He retired, as it were, at the end of September 1940, and he was dead by November 9, having labored through the excruciating pain of intestinal cancer as the Blitz raged overhead. When Churchill, acting on behalf of the king, offered the dying Chamberlain the Order of the Garter, Chamberlain declined. “I prefer to die plain ‘Mr. Chamberlain,’ like my father before me, unadorned by any title,” he said.

Marjorie Taylor Greene is no Neville Chamberlain. 

 

Chamberlain came late to national politics. He was about to turn 50 when he was elected to the House of Commons. (No British prime minister ever has been first elected to Parliament later in life.) He had failed at one business and prospered at another, and much of his political career had been spent in unglamorous municipal government, first as a city councilman and planning commissioner and then as mayor of Birmingham during the austerity of the Great War. He cut spending, reduced the scope of his own office, and cut his own expense account by half as a seemly wartime measure. His performance in office was enough to get him appointed director of national service. In the position, he oversaw Britain’s military conscription while securing an adequate workforce for war-production industries. He disagreed with the prime minister, David Lloyd George, and resigned from the prestigious and influential post. 

 

Marjorie Taylor Greene is no Neville Chamberlain. 

 

After the war, Chamberlain decided to run for the House of Commons and won a seat with a 70 percent majority. He was a legislative workhorse but declined a ministerial appointment under Lloyd George. He worked his way up to the position of chancellor of the exchequer—secretary of the treasury, approximately—and narrowly turned back an electoral challenge from Labour candidate Oswald Mosley, the future leader of British fascism. By the early 1930s, Chamberlain had helped to lead the United Kingdom from a position of debt-ridden near-ruination to a budget surplus. He quipped that the country had turned the last page of Bleak House and opened the first chapter of Great Expectations.

 

Marjorie Taylor Greene is no Neville Chamberlain. 

 

As prime minister, Chamberlain miscalculated in what turned out to be the most consequential decision of his political career. He believed, wrongly, that he could buy off Adolf Hitler and thereby avoid an unprofitable war with a continental tyrant. Avoiding unprofitable wars with continental tyrants has historically been a considerable part of British foreign policy, and it has often been the right policy. It wasn’t the right policy vis-à-vis Nazi Germany. It fell to Chamberlain to admit his error and to announce the declaration of war. He forthrightly addressed his fellow countrymen on the radio:

This country is at war with Germany. You can imagine what a bitter blow it is to me that all my long struggle to win peace has failed. … We and France are today, in fulfillment of our obligations, going to the aid of Poland, who is so bravely resisting this wicked and unprovoked attack upon her people. We have a clear conscience. We have done all that any country could do to establish peace. … Now may God bless you all and may He defend the right. For it is evil things that we shall be fighting against, brute force, bad faith, injustice, oppression and persecution. And against them I am certain that the right will prevail.

Honor even in disappointment. Standing by his pledge to help an occupied people resist a “wicked and unprovoked attack” from a tyrant. Telling the truth about it. 

No, Marjorie Taylor Greene is no Neville Chamberlain. 

What was Winston Churchill’s judgment? He eulogized his former rival in Parliament: 

It fell to Neville Chamberlain in one of the supreme crises of the world to be contradicted by events, to be disappointed in his hopes, and to be deceived and cheated by a wicked man. But what were these hopes in which he was disappointed? What were these wishes in which he was frustrated? What was that faith that was abused? They were surely among the most noble and benevolent instincts of the human heart—the love of peace, the toil for peace, the strife for peace, the pursuit of peace, even at great peril, and certainly to the utter disdain of popularity or clamour.

Neville Chamberlain made the wrong decision at the most important juncture of his public life. But he was an authentic statesman who put service over self, even at the cost of his reputation, personal fortune, and health. For most of the world—and particularly for Americans, who care so little for history—all that remains of Neville Chamberlain is his worst mistake. But he did what he thought was right, received very little thanks for it in the end, and never stopped working for his country until the last few weeks of his life, when he was physically unable to continue. He died, as he wished, plain Mr. Chamberlain.

 

Marjorie Taylor Greene is no Neville Chamberlain. Not on her best day.

 

 

Not mentioned by the article, starting in 1935 Neville Chamberlain began rearming the UK in preparation for a possible coming war.  Consequently, when England finally did fight that were much better prepared to do so than they were at the beginning of Chamberlain's term as PM.

[unclevlad]

4 hours ago, Clonus said:

LA lawmakers vote to remove lunch breaks for child workers | Louisiana Politics | nola.com

 

Now, too be fair this was just a committee vote and it's not become law just yet.  But it's still kinda evil. 

 

It's also pretty common.  Republicans want to minimize employee benefits as much as they possibly can.

 

 

[Lord Liaden]

After they first turn children into employees.

[Doc Democracy]

6 hours ago, Ranxerox said:

 

Not mentioned by the article, starting in 1935 Neville Chamberlain began rearming the UK in preparation for a possible coming war.  Consequently, when England finally did fight that were much better prepared to do so than they were at the beginning of Chamberlain's term as PM.

 

And he did this re-arming in the face of serious opposition from people who did not want to consider going to war again and when there were very serious demands on the nation's finances to recover from the Great War. 

 

In my Golden Age campaign, he is a Professor X type character, building up the UK's superhero programme as a hedge against not having enough mundane war materials and aggresively delaying the onset of war by forcing Hitler to engage with appeasement overtures, wasting the nazi's time by giving them easy wins that appear to humiliate the British while furiously working behind the scenes to deliver a core resilience.

[Cygnia]

Republicans Are Suing for the Right To Harass Election Workers

 

Quote

You might think that even in today’s highly polarized election environment there would be a bipartisan consensus to protect election workers from intimidation and harassment. If you thought so, you would be wrong. In recent weeks, there have been a series of lawsuits aimed at undoing protections for election workers.

Nevada recently enacted a new Election Worker Protection Law to combat the increasing threats faced by election workers. The law, which passed the Legislature unanimously and was signed by the Republican governor, makes it a crime “to use or threaten or attempt to use any force, intimidation, coercion, violence, restraint or undue influence with the intent to interfere with the performance of the duties of any elections official relating to an election; or retaliate against any elections official for performing duties relating to an election.”

Shortly after the law was enacted, the Republican Party’s failed 2022 attorney general candidate — who is currently a Republican National Committeewoman — filed a lawsuit to block the law. Her argument is that the law violates her First Amendment rights and is too vague to understand.

Meanwhile in Arizona, right wing organizations, including America First Policy Institute founded by former Trump aides, are suing to block the anti-harassment provisions of the state’s Election Procedures Manual from going into effect. Among the provisions they find objectionable are those that prohibit:

• Any activity by a person with the intent or effect of threatening, harassing, intimidating, or coercing voters (or conspiring with others to do so),
• Aggressive behavior, such as raising one’s voice or taunting a voter or poll worker,
• Using threatening, insulting or offensive language to a voter or poll worker,
• Following voters or poll workers coming to or leaving a voting location, including to or from their vehicles,
• Questioning, photographing or videotaping voters or poll workers in a harassing or intimidating manner, including when the voter or poll worker is entering or leaving the polling location.

It is not only election officials that right-wing groups want to be able to harass — it is also voters. In Minnesota, an anti-voting outfit ironically called the Minnesota Voters Alliance is challenging a law that prohibits making statements that intend “to impede or prevent another person from exercising the right to vote”’ within 60 days of an election.

 

[Ternaugh]

The Nevada case's second try was dismissed with prejudice on April 8.

 

I can't express my feelings about the Nevada Republican Party without several colorful metaphors that would be against the rules on this board.

[unclevlad]

6 hours ago, Ternaugh said:

The Nevada case's second try was dismissed with prejudice on April 8.

 

I can't express my feelings about the Nevada Republican Party without several colorful metaphors that would be against the rules on this board.

 

With prejudice, no less.  That bars refiling, at least on materially similar grounds, IIRC.  They'd need to come up with something quite different, and "with prejudice" is a major warning that it'd darn well be BETTER grounds.  None of this lame, bitter, Starbucks-like grounds....

 

Meanwhile back in New York...from NYT:

 

Quote

We learned that if Trump testifies in his own defense, he will be chewed up on cross-examination. Justice Juan Merchan ruled that Trump can be questioned about lies he told in four of six prior judicial proceedings, including the E. Jean Carroll case and the ruling that the Trump Foundation was a fraud. Only a foolish megalomaniac would take the stand under such circumstances — so perhaps he will.

 

[Lord Liaden]

I don't think Trump will choose to testify. He's been ducking debates with all his political rivals for nearly two years. I believe he realizes, even if he won't admit it, that he isn't as sharp as he used to be.

 

I remember that during the investigation of potential ties between his election campaign and Russia, Trump wanted to testify. According to his former aids, White House lawyers set up a mock cross-examination of him, in which his compulsive lying became so contradictory and self-incriminating that he finally agreed it would probably be better if he didn't testify.

 

And that was when he still had all his faculties.

Edited April 23 by Lord Liaden

[unclevlad]

I don't buy that his sharpness, or lack thereof, is a factor.  In particular, I absolutely don't believe that he realizes he's not as sharp as he was...at ANY level, even subconsciously.  His narcissism won't allow critical self-analysis. You're basically postulating that Trump is rational.  I don't.  When I say "narcissistic"...I mean the clinical interpretation.  From Wikipedia:

 

Quote

Narcissistic personality disorder (NPD) is a personality disorder characterized by a life-long pattern of exaggerated feelings of self-importance, an excessive need for admiration, and a diminished ability to empathize with other people's feelings. Narcissistic personality disorder is one of the sub-types of the broader category known as personality disorders. It is often comorbid with other mental disorders and associated with significant functional impairment and psychosocial disability.

 

And IIRC, it's right up there in seriousness with psychopathy and sociopathy.

 

I do buy that his lawyers would grill him with questions and force him to see that he won't be able to hold up, and thus get him to (reluctantly) agree.

[Lord Liaden]

Except that Donald Trump is also a coward. And being publicly humiliated is his greatest fear. His image is everything to him. Also notice that your description of NPD does not preclude all self-awareness. Trump would never acknowledge or accept a criticism of diminished capacity, but that doesn't mean he can't recognize it.

 

Trump didn't shrink from debating Hillary Clinton in 2016, or Joe Biden in 2020. But before these recent primaries he wouldn't face Ron DeSantis, or Nikki Haley. Trump claims he wanted to debate them but they wouldn't, but that's not what their camps said. He says he wants to debate Joe Biden, but that the Republican National Congress has issues with the Federal Elections Commission and won't let him debate under their auspices... after he installed his own daughter-in-law to run the RNC.

 

The likeliest explanation is that Donald Trump is afraid of losing face in debates, which he never was before.

[Cygnia]

Trump and his cult reminds me more and more of what A.E. van Vogt called "The Right Man"

 

Quote

"...This also explained another characteristic of such men: that they could not bear to be contradicted or shown to be in the wrong: this also threatened their image of themselves as a kind of god or superman. If confronted with proof of their own fallibility, they would explode into violence rather than acknowledge that they had made a mistake. For this reson, Van Vogt labelled this type 'the Right Man' or 'the Violent Man.' To his colleagues at work he might appear perfectly normal and balanced; but his family knew him as a kind of paranoid dictator.

"Only one thing could undermine this structure of self-delusion. If his wife walked out on him, she had demonstrated beyond all doubt that she rejected him; his tower of self-delusion was undermined, and often the result was mental breakdown, or even suicide.

"Expressed in this way, it seems clear that the Right Man syndrome is a form of mild insanity. Yet it is alarmingly common; most of us know a Right Man, and some have the misfortune to have a Right Man for a husband or father. The syndrome obviously arises from the sheer competitiveness of the world we are born into. Every normal male has an urge to be a 'winner,' yet he finds himself surrounded by people who seem better qualified for success. One common response is boasting to those who look as if they can be taken in - particularly women. Another is what the late Stephen Potter called 'One-upmanship,' the attempt to make the other person feel inferior by a kind of cheating - or example, by pretending to know far more than you actually know. Another is to bully people over whom one happens to have authority. Many 'Right Men' are so successful in all these departments that they achieve a remarkably high level of self-esteem on remarkably slender talents. Once achieved, this self-esteem is like an addictive drug, and any threat of withdrawl seems terrifying. Hence the violence with which he reacts to anything that challenges it.

"It is obvious that the Right Man syndrome is a compensatory mechanism for profound self-doubt, and that its essence lies in confincing others of something he feels to be untrue; in other words, it is a form of confidence-trickery. It is, that is to say, a typically criminal form of 'shortcut,' like cheating in an exam, or stealing something instead of saving up to buy it.

 

[Lord Liaden]

A very good description of Donald Trump. Also fits well within the symptoms of narcissistic personality disorder. At the time Van Vogt came up with his "Right Man" definition, NPD was probably not widely known outside the medical community, if it had even been diagnosed yet.

 

Per that Mayo Clinic description of NPD symptoms, note, "Have secret feelings of insecurity, shame, humiliation and fear of being exposed as a failure," and, "Withdraw from or avoid situations in which they might fail." Donald Trump's massive ego is also an overcompensation for massive insecurity.

Edited April 23 by Lord Liaden

[Asperion]

Speculation: What will those who are being supported by Trump do on the extremely high possibility that he fails the upcoming election and is found guilty in this current criminal trial?

[BoloOfEarth]

1 hour ago, Asperion said:

Speculation: What will those who are being supported by Trump do on the extremely high possibility that he fails the upcoming election and is found guilty in this current criminal trial?

 

Whine.  A lot.  And claim conspiracy.  A lot.  Basically, live in complete denial and refuse to take responsibility for their own decisions and actions.

 

And I truly wish it was an "extremely high possibility" as you state, but have my serious doubts.