U.S. Politics: Impoverished In Squalor

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

57 minutes ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

Not sure what you are referring to.  Capital gains tax didn't really change at all.  

Apologies for not responding to the entirety of your post. It was quite informative though and I appreciate the depth of it. Perhaps it was what you addressed in the fifth point that I may have confused. My cousin is a partner at a very high end firm in San Fran, and he was explaining to me that while his total tax rate went up, his effective rated drooped significantly, especially over a large time window and that it had something to do with his capital gains.

Quote

(I think this rule is dumb, but I'm not in charge of the universe).

Not yet anyways. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, DMC said:

Well, I don't really care if it's "fair game" or not, I'm not really sure what that means.  But very few psychologists would feel comfortable making an armchair diagnosis on Trump's mental health/personality disorders.  As for political psychologists, the behavior they would be researching is his statements and actions, of which there's a plethora of data.  There's essentially no data on the Conways' behavior within their marriage, which is why it is definitely not "fair game" in any era.

I don’t think the bolded section is true anymore. In the past psychologists would next to never attempt to diagnose an individual who was not their patient, but things have changed with Trump. Prominent psychologists are now very publicly and loudly saying that Trump suffers from a number of cognitive maladies.

As to the rest of your post, I’ll just cite Birdie’s post.

[Jace, Extat]

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

Before we lived in the reality T.V. presidency era? Sure. But that’s not where we are anymore. We now live in the post-Goldwater rule era,

Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice.

[Fez]

Buttigieg is too smart to run for President. I'm starting to think I'd vote for him in the primary though, if he's still campaigning; unless there's a frontrunner I want to oppose through tactical voting.

Quote

 

You're a big James Joyce buff. Is running for president more like Ulysses or Finnegans Wake?

Definitely more like Ulysses than it is like Portrait. Finnegans Wake is dream speak. Ulysses is consciousness meeting reality. But here's why I think Ulysses is extremely relevant. People believe Ulysses is this complex, difficult, inscrutable text full of references. And it is a difficult text, but its subject matter couldn't be more democratic. It's about a guy going about his day for one day. That's the plot of Ulysses. And, to me, that's what makes it very touching. You're in this guy's head, and you're kind of seeing life through his eyes, and at the end through his wife's eyes.

That's how politics ought to be, too. The reason any of this stuff matters is that it affects us in the everyday. And I think the greatest literature, whether it's Ulysses or Mahfouz, when it touches politics, it's about how politics can make our everyday better or worse. And I think that same understanding of the imperative and the primacy of lived experience ought to be how our politics works.

 

 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

20 minutes ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice.

You’ll always be my favorite Molotov cocktail.

[Guest]

29 minutes ago, Fez said:

Buttigieg is too smart to run for President. I'm starting to think I'd vote for him in the primary though, if he's still campaigning; unless there's a frontrunner I want to oppose through tactical voting.

 

I've been more and more impressed by Buttigieg as he gains more exposure. I donated to his campaign hoping that he would meet the 65,000 individual donor threshold to qualify for the Democratic debates (which he did). 

I still think he has little to no shot of winning the primary, but hopefully he can parlay his increased profile into a serious run against Todd Young in the 2022 Senate race.

[Ormond]

2 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

I don’t think the bolded section is true anymore. In the past psychologists would next to never attempt to diagnose an individual who was not their patient, but things have changed with Trump. Prominent psychologists are now very publicly and loudly saying that Trump suffers from a number of cognitive maladies.

As to the rest of your post, I’ll just cite Birdie’s post.

The "Goldwater Rule" has never been official policy for any organization of psychologists -- it was a rule promulgated by the American Psychiatric  Association, and psychiatrists and psychologists do not always agree, to put it mildly.

That said, I also agree with DMC's last sentence is his above post:

Quote

There's essentially no data on the Conways' behavior within their marriage, which is why it is definitely not "fair game" in any era.

It is in my opinion more ethically questionable for any mental health professional or behavioral scientist to comment on the Conway's marriage than it would be to comment on Trump's narcissism, because there is vastly more public data out there about Trump's personality and character than there is on the Conway relationship. 

[Maithanet]

2 minutes ago, Ormond said:

It is in my opinion more ethically questionable for any mental health professional or behavioral scientist to comment on the Conway's marriage than it would be to comment on Trump's narcissism, because there is vastly more public data out there about Trump's personality and character than there is on the Conway relationship. 

Whenever you're talking about any public figures, you're balancing their privacy with the public's right to know and discuss.  The Conway's marriage is not important, it is little different than celebrity gossip about JLo and ARod.  In contrast, Trump's mental state is in fact really important.  If the President of the United States is experiencing mental deterioration, that could have very significant consequences. 

[DMC]

5 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

In the past psychologists would next to never attempt to diagnose an individual who was not their patient, but things have changed with Trump. Prominent psychologists are now very publicly and loudly saying that Trump suffers from a number of cognitive maladies.

My point is I don't think that change should be encouraged.  At all.  There's a huge distinction between political psychology and actual psychology.  In the former, have at it with Trump.  In the latter, I don't think diagnosing Trump based on public actions and comments lends oneself credibility in the discipline.  In fact quite the opposite.  Great way to get an op-ed published though.

[DMC]

5 hours ago, Rippounet said:

If Conway is the real architect of "America First" then I think her husband can say whatever the fuck he wants. More importantly, if Kelyanne does believe she is the one to thank for Trump's election, it's more than likely she agrees with her husband that Trump is as dumb as a rock anyway. She might even be the one feeding him info in the first place. One could even imagine that she was hoping for a higher position in the administration.

First, no, Kellyanne is not the architect of MAGA or America First, that's clearly anachronistic.  Second, it should be noted she did play hard to get when Trump was staffing during transition.  She only agreed when he offered her Counselor, which isn't "official" or anything, but generally thought of as the next highest position after CoS.  And considering how Trump has treated his chiefs of staff, one could argue it's the number one position.  Third, she wasn't angling for any higher position than what she got - counselor is absolutely as high as she could hope for, she doesn't want to be appointed to a policy/administrative position.

[Fragile Bird]

Meh, maybe we're talking too much about the Conways, but this has been lurking at the back of my mind all day.

George Conway wrote the the claim against Bill Clinton for, I think, Paula Jones. Clinton's infidelity and HRC's defense of her husband have been used against both both Clintons pretty well every day of every week of every year ever since.

Hilary in particular was attacked by Republicans as an 'enabler' of sexual harassment, and castigated for not leaving Bill for his infidelity. My God I remember the endless stories along the lines of "why doesn't she leave him". Republicans wanted to absolutely destroy them both.

Now that I know Conway was involved in the lawsuit, I wonder if he also guided the stories that followed thereafter.

And while I know Trump can be a vicious and ugly attack dog, I wonder who came up with the idea of bringing Paula Jones and the other women who accused Bill Clinton out to sit in the HRC/Trump debate. Did Trump come up with that idea, or Kellyanne? Did George suggest it, or was it just her closeness to the lawsuit that suggested that idea? 

The Republicans have been relentless in their attacks on the Clinton marriage. If the Conways break up over her working for Trump I'd say karma struck back with a vengeance. I see that just a while ago Kellyanne came out in defense of Trump's attacks on her husband.

[Martell Spy]

4 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

Meh, maybe we're talking too much about the Conways, but this has been lurking at the back of my mind all day.

George Conway wrote the the claim against Bill Clinton for, I think, Paula Jones. Clinton's infidelity and HRC's defense of her husband have been used against both both Clintons pretty well every day of every week of every year ever since.

Hilary in particular was attacked by Republicans as an 'enabler' of sexual harassment, and castigated for not leaving Bill for his infidelity. My God I remember the endless stories along the lines of "why doesn't she leave him". Republicans wanted to absolutely destroy them both.

Now that I know Conway was involved in the lawsuit, I wonder if he also guided the stories that followed thereafter.

And while I know Trump can be a vicious and ugly attack dog, I wonder who came up with the idea of bringing Paula Jones and the other women who accused Bill Clinton out to sit in the HRC/Trump debate. Did Trump come up with that idea, or Kellyanne? Did George suggest it, or was it just her closeness to the lawsuit that suggested that idea? 

The Republicans have been relentless in their attacks on the Clinton marriage. If the Conways break up over her working for Trump I'd say karma struck back with a vengeance. I see that just a while ago Kellyanne came out in defense of Trump's attacks on her husband.

Bannon thought of bringing the women to the debate.

Wow, it is lucky that this corrupt shill is not running the FAA. He would be telling us that people dying in airplanes is not the big problem, but we need to instead  focus on drinking water.

EPA argues for shifting focus from climate change to water

https://www.apnews.com/0eb999946510430195dc3f9e8061744e

Quote

 

Wheeler, a former coal lobbyist who has moved to roll back environmental regulations on coal since coming to EPA, said in his speech later in the day that water problems claim lives daily around the world.

They “are the largest and most immediate environmental and public health issues affecting the world right now,” he said.

 

 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

4 hours ago, Ormond said:

The "Goldwater Rule" has never been official policy for any organization of psychologists -- it was a rule promulgated by the American Psychiatric  Association, and psychiatrists and psychologists do not always agree, to put it mildly.

I know that it’s more of a hand shake agreement rather than a binding contract. But the point is the psychological community overwhelmingly abided by it.

Quote

It is in my opinion more ethically questionable for any mental health professional or behavioral scientist to comment on the Conway's marriage than it would be to comment on Trump's narcissism, because there is vastly more public data out there about Trump's personality and character than there is on the Conway relationship. 

And likewise there has been far more discussion about Trump’s mental state than there has been about the Conways. They just happen to be the story of the day and that’s reflected by their interactions leading many A blocks on cable news.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, DMC said:

My point is I don't think that change should be encouraged.  At all.  There's a huge distinction between political psychology and actual psychology.  In the former, have at it with Trump.  In the latter, I don't think diagnosing Trump based on public actions and comments lends oneself credibility in the discipline.  In fact quite the opposite.  Great way to get an op-ed published though.

We don't know if it's going to be encouraged long term, and I suspect it won't be. Yet it is tell that many in the psychological community feel this is necessary.

And besides, it's good to inform the public about the differences between narcissism and NPD. Understanding the latter helps with understanding Trump's likely reactions to negative stimuli.  

[Gertrude]

I finally saw Buttegieg speak and I get it. Count me on the fan wagon. I would love for him to get the exposure to rise in the ranks.

[Martell Spy]

Quote

 

Andrew Gillum is launching a massive voter registration effort aimed at ensuring that President Trump doesn’t win Florida again in 2020 and to give Democrats a decisive edge in a state where elections are often 50-50 splits.

The 39-year-old Democrat and former Tallahassee mayor plans to use the list of supporters and volunteers he amassed in his razor-thin gubernatorial defeat in 2018 to register 1 million new voters before next year’s presidential election.

“We’re going to be a major player and deliver Florida to whoever the Democratic nominee is,” he told The Daily Beast before his announcement in Miami Gardens on Wednesday evening. “I firmly believe that Florida is not a red state, it’s not a purple state. It’s an unorganized state.”

His supporters registered a new group in advance of his announcement called Bring It Home Florida, named after a commonly used phrase from his campaign. While Gillum did not say exactly how much they intend to spend on the effort, he characterized it as one of the largest voter registration investments in history. His political action committee, Forward Florida, has nearly $3.9 million at its disposal. This is in addition to a plan from the state party to spend $2 million on voter registration.

 

Andrew Gillum Plans to Sign Up 1 Million New Florida Voters
The state is notoriously 50-50, with Republicans often eking out a win over Democrats. Now the man who narrowly lost the closest governor’s race ever has a plan to change things.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/andrew-gillum-announces-2020-plans-sign-up-1-million-new-florida-voters?ref=home

[DMC]

6 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Yet it is tell that many in the psychological community feel this is necessary.

It's telling that many outlets are willing to publish such shit and pose it as academic work because there's a phud after the author's name, yeah.  Again, I don't think that's a good thing.

7 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

And besides, it's good to inform the public about the differences between narcissism and NPD. Understanding the latter helps with understanding Trump's likely reactions to negative stimuli.  

Is it?  My prior would be the vast majority of people on either side don't give a shit about the distinction.  They either believe he's unfit for office, or they don't.  Psychologists aren't going to significantly change that estimation, one way or the other.  Which means a lot of such op-eds are inherently circle jerks.

[ThinkerX]

a first for me tonight - yet another political pollster, but unlike previous members of his ilk, he called on my rarely used cell phone and not the landline.  This one was from Pew, or said was, at any rate.  Unusually for these polls, there were a *lot* of 'politics and religion' questions, though a few questions dealt with immigration and taxes.  No obvious steering.  

[Ormond]

6 hours ago, ThinkerX said:

a first for me tonight - yet another political pollster, but unlike previous members of his ilk, he called on my rarely used cell phone and not the landline.  This one was from Pew, or said was, at any rate.  Unusually for these polls, there were a *lot* of 'politics and religion' questions, though a few questions dealt with immigration and taxes.  No obvious steering.  

The religion questions might be unusual for pollsters in general, but would be common for Pew, which traditionally has done a lot of polling about religion and religious beliefs, including their relationship with politics.

[Fragile Bird]

This morning’s laugh.

The governor of Kentucky heard about a neighbour’s kids having chicken pox and brought over his nine (!!!!) kids and exposed them all.

He doesn’t believe in vaccines. It’s un-American to make people have vaccines.