4 ms·

I'm no fan of Trump and I think its thankfully unlikely he'll be the US President. But if he is President there is this quote from Trump that suggests he has mo

by rrggrr 10y ago

I'm no fan of Trump and I think its thankfully unlikely he'll be the US President. But if he is President there is this quote from Trump that suggests he has more self-awareness and emotional intelligence than his carefully crafted persona suggests. "When I'm wounded, I go after people hard and I try to unwound myself." If failed Presidents have had one thing in common its a failure to recognize their own limitations and failings before or after-the-fact. Again, no fan of the guy, but I think the scare-mongering is overblown.

HillRat 10y ago
I think you're being too charitable in your reading of that statement; that wasn't Trump acknowledging that he overreacts in an attempt to heal self-traumatization, but (in context) him justifying his behavior by saying that his actions are always in response to others' (unprovoked) attacks. If you like, it seems a classic example of narcissistic rage: Trump invests so much psychological effort in maintaining his self-image, in the face of what appears to have been a childhood lacking normal parental social support, that any attempt to undermine that image is to him an existential threat that demands immediate and overwhelming aggression in response, until the targeted individual responds by agreeing to accept and thus reinforce what is a grandiose illusion. Really, we haven't seen someone like this anywhere near the White House since late-stage Nixon (when Kissinger had firm control of the reins -- and, allegedly, had standing orders for military, DoD and State to ignore any orders from the President himself, particularly those regarding the nuclear codes). It's virtually impossible to predict his actions, because he's driven by an immediate need to assuage his sense of victimization.
StillBored 10y ago
I don't think the issue is whether Trump/Clinton will initiate a nuclear confrontation directly. The question is whether either of them have the qualities it takes to stand down if/when the US is attacked by an insignificant foe, rather than retaliating against someone with nukes. Frankly, I don't think they are any different in that regard. Neither would be willing to accept the responsibility of being impeached/etc in order to avoid a larger confrontation. Second term Obama on the other hand probably would, I think he has changed in that regard. I say that because he seems to be doing a fine job of realizing that we can't solve the Syrian problem with more guns/bombs. See Libya, etc...
mikeash 10y ago
Does the fact that Trump knows he's an insecure, vengeful dickhead really improve things that much?

by rrggrr 10y ago

HillRat 10y ago

I think you're being too charitable in your reading of that statement; that wasn't Trump acknowledging that he overreacts in an attempt to heal self-traumatization, but (in context) him justifying his behavior by saying that his actions are always in response to others' (unprovoked) attacks. If you like, it seems a classic example of narcissistic rage: Trump invests so much psychological effort in maintaining his self-image, in the face of what appears to have been a childhood lacking normal parental social support, that any attempt to undermine that image is to him an existential threat that demands immediate and overwhelming aggression in response, until the targeted individual responds by agreeing to accept and thus reinforce what is a grandiose illusion. Really, we haven't seen someone like this anywhere near the White House since late-stage Nixon (when Kissinger had firm control of the reins -- and, allegedly, had standing orders for military, DoD and State to ignore any orders from the President himself, particularly those regarding the nuclear codes). It's virtually impossible to predict his actions, because he's driven by an immediate need to assuage his sense of victimization.

StillBored 10y ago

I don't think the issue is whether Trump/Clinton will initiate a nuclear confrontation directly. The question is whether either of them have the qualities it takes to stand down if/when the US is attacked by an insignificant foe, rather than retaliating against someone with nukes. Frankly, I don't think they are any different in that regard. Neither would be willing to accept the responsibility of being impeached/etc in order to avoid a larger confrontation. Second term Obama on the other hand probably would, I think he has changed in that regard. I say that because he seems to be doing a fine job of realizing that we can't solve the Syrian problem with more guns/bombs. See Libya, etc...

mikeash 10y ago

Does the fact that Trump knows he's an insecure, vengeful dickhead really improve things that much?