Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
lokisnow

U.S. Politics: Impoverished In Squalor

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

We now live in the post-Goldwater rule era, and when top psychologists are questioning the President’s mental health, and now the husband of one of his top advisers is doing so too, it’s far game to speculate about anything that’s going on.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

wrt the Conways, I don't care at all for speculation about their marriage, but it's depressingly predictable that Trump decides the biggest public insult he can throw at George Conway is to say that he's overshadowed by his wife. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Democrats Have Long Been Terrified of the White Moderate. Elizabeth Warren Apparently Has No Such Fear.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/03/elizabeth-warren-and-ta-nehisi-coates-case-for-reparations.html

Quote

Warren noted that one way to discuss reparations is within “the frame of an apology, the frame of national recognition.”

 

Edited by Martell Spy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, DMC said:

A political psychology dork also would not speculate on trying to understand their intra-relationship dynamic without better data and/or insight into that relationship, which is not publicly available (nor should it be).  What we do know is Kellyanne began the 2016 campaign running a PAC for Ted Cruz, and routinely attacked Trump in that role.  Which suggests she wouldn't take her husband's criticisms of the president or his administration too personally.

There's also this idea that Kelyanne Conway is the one who actually built Trump's strategy and got him elected. This would mean that she doesn't owe him anything, and that her husband is free to speak his mind -and preserve their reputation in some circles.

Someone posted this here a couple of months ago IIRC:

Quote

 

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/03/kellyanne-conway-trumpism/520095/

Fast-forward to August 2014. Just two months after signing onto the Zuckerberg group’s Republicans-must-reform-or-perish memo, Conway came out with a new poll that seemed to make the opposite argument. There was, she wrote, “strong consensus on many populist immigration policies,” including enforcing current immigration law, limiting illegal immigrants’ access to welfare and work, and reducing legal immigrants’ ability to bring family members to the United States.

The issue, she wrote, should be framed in terms of “America First,” and as a matter of “fairness … to blue-collar workers.” Three-quarters of likely voters, she pointed out, wanted more enforcement of current immigration laws. (Most economists agree that low-skilled immigration displaces some native-born workers while improving the economy and creating more net jobs overall. And while majorities of voters of both parties consistently oppose deporting the undocumented en masse, majorities generally also oppose increasing the number of legal immigrants.)

Conway told me her argument was intended as an explicit rebuttal to the “autopsy” report. “Candidates had been told after 2012, because Mitt Romney only got 27 percent of the Hispanic vote, that they had to support comprehensive immigration reform,” she told me. “We were telling them, ‘That’s not true.’” Non-college-educated white voters, in particular, supported the idea that illegal immigration was hurting their ability to find work, she 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.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Sally Quinn of the WaPo (and speaking of famous spouses, Ben Bradley’s widow) was on CNN the other night. She was one of 3 women at some event when Kellyanne Conway walked up to them and started asking why the press was talking about her husband’s tweets. Duh....because it’s a story? She did not want to talk about stuff Conway told them, but apparently another reporter had no qualms and details showed up in a WaPo story.

Her assessment was something has to go, either Conway has to quit working for Trump or get divorced. It’s that stark, according to Quinn and several others that night. And it is being speculated that Conway will choose Trump over her husband, which why the attacks on her husband have ramped up.

And that kind of story is notable enough to talk about. It’s not private anymore.

I had a lot of sympathy for her husband, described always as an old style, moderate Republican. Then I found out from that interview that he was a driving force behind Clinton’s impeachment and drafted the lawsuit one of the women Clinton had an affair with brought, the lady who won the $800,000 or whatever it was, the case that decided a sitting president could be sued.

Now I think of how ironic the situation is, Republicans devouring each other in the name of the Trump cult. 

Thoughts and prayers, baby.

Edited by Fragile Bird

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

She did not want to talk about stuff Conway told them, but apparently another reporter had no qualms and details showed up in a WaPo story.

Her assessment was something has to go, either she has to quit working for Trump or get divorced. It’s that stark, according to Quinn and several others that night. And it is being speculated that Conway will choose Trump over her husband, which why the attacks on her husband have ramped up.

And that kind of story is notable enough to talk about. It’s not private anymore.

Now I think of how ironic the situation is, Republicans devouring each other in the name of the Trump cult. 

Thoughts and prayers, baby.

This has been my assessment for a good while now, especially lately as Conway's attacks on Trump have escalated and Trump has started unloading on Conway.

Regardless of whether my (currently hypothetical) spouse was out of line calling out my boss publicly, the instant that boss publicly retaliated by calling my spouse a total loser, I'd tell that boss to go pound sand and I'd walk.

That's why I said earlier that I felt like Mr. Conway's increasingly public attacks on Trump may actually be messages aimed at Kellyanne Conway, maybe as a last-ditch effort to save their marriage.

While I mostly believe that KC's initial hiring as part of Trump's campaign team was just a cynical effort on her part to raise her profile, rather than her being a true believer, I think now that she's become a true believer, or has so cynically tied her brand to Trump to the point where it's now just a distinction without a difference (while I'm obviously not in her head, I base this on comparing her initial "alternative facts" interview, where she at least looked visibly uncomfortable deploying such an inane phrase, to her contemporary interviews, where she has no visible compunction about spreading the bullshit wide and deep). And I think it's entirely reasonable to not want to be married to someone who has sacrificed every shred of integrity they may have had, especially when that process may negatively impact their children in the process.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

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.

 

 

Edited by Fez

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice.

You’ll always be my favorite Molotov cocktail.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
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. 

Edited by Ormond

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×