Trump Blindness Syndrome (TBS)

[Harel13]

So nice of you to play along do exactly what this thread is singling out.

I merely asked if the two psychological phenomena go together. You know, to understand them better.

 

[Stevicus]

Doesn't answer my question:

Exactly what "middle ground" are you envisioning that you think people on both sides should support?

Well, maybe a good start would be to take a detailed, objective, and circumspect look at the situation and come up with reasonable answers as to we got here. I'm tired of hearing about how evil and horrible Trump is (even if he is), and people constantly saying "it's all the Russians fault" is a cop out.

Unless you're willing to take an honest and hard look at the state of affairs in the country in the decades leading up to Trump, pointing out the mistakes and the ideological flaws which led to them, then you're not really going to learn anything.

 

[Stevicus]

That attitude leaves no room for those who see
both merit & faults in the policies of both sides.
Discussions tend to devolve into picking one
side, & attacking the other.

What I've noticed is that there's a profound lack of empathy. I never suggested that we have to meet the "unreasonable man" in the middle, but there could be more care and compassion for the American people and what they've been going through.

 

[Erebus]

True, although I don't see the current dissension as something that "just happened" out of the blue. It's been bubbling under the surface for a very long time now, and instead of nipping it in the bud when we had the chance, it was allowed to fester. Instead of examining the causes of problems in a logical and analytical manner, people seem more inclined to attack symptoms.

There's no reason to meet the unreasonable man in the middle under these circumstances. The only reason why this is even a problem today is because the so-called "reasonable" moderates have been asleep at the switch and largely apathetic and out of touch with what's going on. Long before Trump, they've had plenty of time to deal with the underlying issues which have come to a head recently. All of these issues which are brought up - poverty, economic malaise, racism, healthcare, immigration, war/militarism, you name it - they were all issues facing this country long before Trump came on the scene. Where was the "reasonable man" to deal with these issues all these decades?

Trump is a symptom of this country's failure to address these issues in earnest. I would never suggest that people meet the "unreasonable man" in the middle, but there are still issues that will need to be addressed.

I guess it depends on what compromises one is willing to make and whether it's based on a consistent set of principles.

The part I highlighted here is well worth keeping in mind. You're quite right, people like Trump don't appear out of nowhere and the issues that allow them to rise need to be dealt with.

I would argue that opposition to Trump is a vital step in this process. He's a symptom of deeper issues as you say, though if we're going with that metaphor it's worth remembering that symptoms also need to be addressed. However, simply getting him out of office isn't nearly enough.

 

[Revoltingest]

I digress that the left still can't meme...

Trump is a person with faults as every single one of us equally has in spades, and the only difference is his are on blast and everyone else's are largely ignored. That doesn't make them a bigger deal than anyone else's unless through his action they are proven to be detrimental to the function of the job. I haven't seen it, so I don't think any of these things matter.

Next, up... On the job related front no President was likely as committed to peace as Trump is and I'm down with that. _REALLY_ down with that... You pick it... Attempting to deescalate the Middle-East situation is a power-move for world peace. Attempt to ease tensions with North Korea is a big deal. He's also the only one that has worked toward downsizing government a move which I also 100% support.

So, can I get past his personal flaws and be cool with what he does ON THE JOB? Yes. Do I like him personally? Absolutely not. But, that's not what I vote for. His ego is amazing, but my ego isn't getting in my way of seeing the value/net positive.

All of the things you have mentioned are his own personal personality flaws and whatnot and have nothing to do with me or anyone else. That's your problem, not his, essentially... Anyone who wasn't stuck on their own ego-delusions of the situation would just look at metrics related to his work, and then make their decision based on whether he's doing the thing.

I mean do you have to know the personal views or be adoring of someone who serves you a cheeseburger at a fast food joint? That's exactly how I look at it. As long as he is doing the job, I absolutely don't care about what goes on in his personal space even if it's on blast.

You illuminated what makes discussing politicians so difficult.
Tis especially so in the age of Trump, who is perhaps the least
politic politician ever.

There are 2 voting tendencies in people....
1) Based upon what the leader effects in office.
2) Based upon feelings for the person in office.

These 2 groups will evaluate the leader using entirely
different criteria.
You & I see a Prez who pursues certain public policies.
(I favor some. I oppose others.)
Others see a person they either love or hate for who he is.
He's a "racist anti-semite!" or "he loves this country!".
These different perspectives, policies-vs-person are irreconcilable.

 

[Revoltingest]

What I've noticed is that there's a profound lack of empathy. I never suggested that we have to meet the "unreasonable man" in the middle, but there could be more care and compassion for the American people and what they've been going through.

This "unreasonable man in the middle" discussion is unclear.
What I sense (right or wrong) is that some people...the "other"...are
wrong & shouldn't be offered civil discussion. Because that would
be to "enable" them. It's to write them off....an excuse for incivility.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I merely asked if the two psychological phenomena go together. You know, to understand them better.

Well, I think it is possible that there has been selective outrage on the part of Democrats regarding allegations of sexual misconduct by Biden.

Personally I find those allegations troubling, but also, not entirely clear cut. You may notice, I tend not to spend a lot of time criticizing Trump for allegations of sexual assault, either and none of that appeared in the examples of TBS I gave thus far.

Other than that, no, I don’t think there are two comparable phenomena because there are not two comparable candidates. Donald Trump is a loose cannon in a way that is very different from any previous candidate - Republican or Democrat. He thus requires a particular form of intellectual acrobatics to provide air cover for his antics. I have listed those forms and provided examples - and will provide more.

 

[Harel13]

Well, I think it is possible that there has been selective outrage on the part of Democrats regarding allegations of sexual misconduct by Biden.

Huh. I wasn't even thinking about those when I wrote my posts...

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I digress that the left still can't meme...

Trump is a person with faults as every single one of us equally has in spades, and the only difference is his are on blast and everyone else's are largely ignored. That doesn't make them a bigger deal than anyone else's unless through his action they are proven to be detrimental to the function of the job. I haven't seen it, so I don't think any of these things matter.

Next, up... On the job related front no President was likely as committed to peace as Trump is and I'm down with that. _REALLY_ down with that... You pick it... Attempting to deescalate the Middle-East situation is a power-move for world peace. Attempt to ease tensions with North Korea is a big deal. He's also the only one that has worked toward downsizing government a move which I also 100% support.

So, can I get past his personal flaws and be cool with what he does ON THE JOB? Yes. Do I like him personally? Absolutely not. But, that's not what I vote for. His ego is amazing, but my ego isn't getting in my way of seeing the value/net positive.

All of the things you have mentioned are his own personal personality flaws and whatnot and have nothing to do with me or anyone else. That's your problem, not his, essentially... Anyone who wasn't stuck on their own ego-delusions of the situation would just look at metrics related to his work, and then make their decision based on whether he's doing the thing.

I mean do you have to know the personal views or be adoring of someone who serves you a cheeseburger at a fast food joint? That's exactly how I look at it. As long as he is doing the job, I absolutely don't care about what goes on in his personal space even if it's on blast.

Thanks for your considered response.

I agree with setting aside personality and focusing on job performance.

But let’s be clear: he is at the helm of an enormous administration and military. That enormous bureaucracy will inevitably succeed on some things, and fail on other things; make progress in some areas, and stall on others; with or without Donald Trump.

The question is what is Donald Trump’s unique impact on all this, a man whose knowledge of most subjects is zero and willingness to listen to advisors and absorb information is a negative number?

Let’s take North Korea as an example. I applaud Donald Trump’s efforts to make nice with them, actually going and meeting with Kim. I similarly am horrified when he Tweeted childish insults and threatened nuclear hellfire. I also note that North Korea approached us about suspending their nuclear program, not the other way around. Also note, while Kim got what he wanted (a meeting with Trump), to this day North Korea is not denuclearized and there is no agreement to do so (correct me if I’m wrong). I also was disappointed that Trump, as per his usual custom of extreme malpractice and dysfunction, did not even appoint an ambassador to South Korea for over a year. We literally had no ambassador when South Korea mediated Kim’s reach out to Trump.

Why am I saying all this? Because Trump is a loose cannon. He may occasionally fire off in a direction that you (or I) agree with. Or, the adults in the room around him may be able to scramble, and redirect his fire in a less damaging direction. Sometimes he provokes a nuclear power; sometimes he makes nice. Never is it well thought out.

Pulling US troops out of Syria is another great example. I’m glad we pulled troops out of Syria. I applaud him for doing that. But Donald Trump’s unique contribution was to do it suddenly, chaotically, without warning our allies and with little military preparation. We didn’t need Donald Trump to get out of Syria. We did need Donald Trump to make it as poorly executed as possible.

This guy swerves across several lanes of highway between making peace and fomenting violence. Remember when Trump wanted to assassinate Assad? Trump does - he lied about it before, but now he admits it - but General Mattis slow-played the order, saying “I’ll get right on that”. It is thanks to adults in the room, like General Mattis, that Trump’s erratic instincts have been contained when they go in the violent direction. Rex Tillerson and General Kelly have made similar grumblings.

Having said all this, I would admit, we are very very lucky that Trump is not a war monger. I agree with pulling troops out of Syria, Afghanistan, making peace, etc. as Trump has tried to do. My problem with Trump is less about political differences, and more about him being unfit and unqualified for the job. I have long said, if he was a Democrat and supported the things I care about (like universal healthcare, etc) I would oppose him for the same reasons.

Now let’s talk about “violence”. COVID-19 has killed more Americans than every war since Korea combined. Think about that. ONLY Donald Trump, no other candidate I can imagine (including Romney, McCain, Obama, Bush, Clinton) could downplay and lie about it, and worsen it, the way Trump has. You don’t need Donald Trump for there to be peace between Israel and the UAE, which may have happened regardless. But the response to COVID? You need a Trump to exacerbate the situation as he has, so unnecessarily.

More examples of “violence”. Trump ordered federal forces to violently suppress BLM protestors at Lafayette Square, for his lame photo op with a Bible, instead of addressing and empathizing with legitimate concerns of police brutality. He unnecessarily separated and imprisoned thousands of children at the border, before the entire country forced him to stop. It was essentially the entire US vs. Trump on both these issues. He bears unique responsibility for these types of incidents - you need a Trump to see this happen.

So this is not a champion of protecting innocent lives we have here. When you disentangle the unique contribution Donald Trump has made, apart from the military apparatus and adults-in-the-room he commands, even his military withdrawals and peace overtures to North Korea, stem from his own selfishness and narcissism. And, sooner or later, in loose cannon fashion, those instincts get pointed in destructive as often as constructive directions. When confronted with a perceived enemy that is helpless, his instinct is to ruthlessly crush them.

So this brings me back to “personality”. And forgive me for the long post.

When a waiter serves you at a restaurant, you don’t have to like them personally. I agree with you there. But you do have to trust them. Do they wash hands? Did they spit in your food? If they dropped the food on the ground, would they just put it back on the plate and serve it to you? Do they serve minors alcohol or abuse their employees and if so, is that a business you want to support, even if the food is good for YOU? If he serves an expensive wine, can you trust it was not a cheap substitute? Etc, etc.

That is the problem with Trump’s “personality”. We are talking about personality traits that are dangerous, and have terrible consequences. We are not talking about the way he purses his lips or wears long ties, or other inconsequential aspects of “personality”.

Chalking it up to “personality” is IMO downplaying and normalizing his behavior.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

... and the things that Trump is getting done advance American fascism.

The issue with the Trump did the opposite of what any sort of dictator would do during a pandemic. Instead using emergency of a disaster to seize power, he shrugged his shoulders, said he takes no responsibility, and created a free-for-all of 50 states managing this and competing against eachother for resources.
It won't ever be any easier for him to seize power.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Having said all this, I would admit, we are very very lucky that Trump is not a war monger.

Is that we wasted a MOAB and while he was being briefed about Covid he had Soleimani killed and provoked Iran to retaliate? He left US Kurdish to die amd attempted to bait Iran into war. He won't stand up for US allies and he has done far too much saber rattling. He lost that "no new wars" card because he nearly did.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Not his personal feelings, or yours... Just job. Can't? You're obvious not seeing clearly through your own feelings. It's that simple. I find it endlessly amusing to watch people here constantly bash him for his cruelty to others while simultaneously demonstrating that cruelty themselves.

You know what they say about assumptions. It does, and has, made an *** of you.

 

[Mindmaster]

There are 2 voting tendencies in people....
1) Based upon what the leader effects in office.
2) Based upon feelings for the person in office.

These 2 groups will evaluate the leader using entirely
different criteria.
You & I see a Prez who pursues certain public policies.
(I favor some. I oppose others.)
Others see a person they either love or hate for who he is.
He's a "racist anti-semite!" or "he loves this country!".
These different perspectives, policies-vs-person are irreconcilable.

I get that as well, but also I'd mention I am not a robot. I have feelings as well, but those feelings aren't stuck in my evaluation of someone's work. First, all the negativity is just not good for your health. The Trump haters think they got it bad now, but what about the fact there is a 92% chance he gets re-elected? The incumbent has an exceedingly good chance with only Carter and Bush not getting re-elected in the last 40 or so years. If this is where you wish to direct your personal energy in a negative way... I assure you it's a bad investment.

And, you point about it being it being absolutely irreconcilable. It's not though, it's people's own malfunctions that keep them in the hater camp. Even if you don't like what he's doing and you're disliking him excessively on that note it's your malfunction, not his. No elected official is going to do everything the way want... NONE.

 

[Mindmaster]

You know what they say about assumptions. It does, and has, made an *** of you.

No assumptions need to be made about what is openly displayed. Most of the people here are prattling on negatively about Trump like a bunch of gossipy teen-aged schoolgirls. It's 'in' to pick on someone's personal faults here I guess, but we're not in high-school so I guess that just says more about the intents of the people making the comments and their own lack of maturity than anything.

As far as making it about me... You don't bother me, just proved the point. Just like any other group of bullies you're just dog-piling on someone because they've become a proxy for your ire. Guess what, my feelings aren't hurt and don't care about your Internet-based sewing circle... Move along, lol. My only 'malfunction' is I'm not an emotional adult-aged child like everyone else around here seems to be. If that's my fault in this, I'll accept it. I mean, I left that state of my existence at about age 12 or so, but I'll forgive anyone for not catching on quickly.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Well, maybe a good start would be to take a detailed, objective, and circumspect look at the situation and come up with reasonable answers as to we got here. I'm tired of hearing about how evil and horrible Trump is (even if he is), and people constantly saying "it's all the Russians fault" is a cop out.

Unless you're willing to take an honest and hard look at the state of affairs in the country in the decades leading up to Trump, pointing out the mistakes and the ideological flaws which led to them, then you're not really going to learn anything.

I think we're talking past each other.

When you say "middle ground," this suggests to me that you're talking about both sides compromising on some issue or issues, but when I ask you to say what you mean, your replies seemed to be focused on something else.

Short version: I really don't know what you're trying to tell me, or how you would want the Democrats and Republicans to compromise to reach some middle ground (if that's even what you're talking about).

 

[Mindmaster]

That is the problem with Trump’s “personality”. We are talking about personality traits that are dangerous, and have terrible consequences. We are not talking about the way he purses his lips or wears long ties, or other inconsequential aspects of “personality”.

Chalking it up to “personality” is IMO downplaying and normalizing his behavior.

Again, I just go to the record for most of that. There hasn't been a history of him provoking anyone that isn't directly his political opponent. He is a firebrand in that way, and I'm not a big fan, but at the same time I realize why he is. The opposition is non-stop and if he were soft it would be negatively viewed by his base. He doesn't have to appease his haters only his fans and the undecided. He's really doing the best he can do with it. The opposition plays a huge part in the response, but pretends they don't contribute to the problem. It literally becomes a Mexican stand-off... If the Dems back down they look weak because they all-in on the narrative, and if Trump backs down he looks like he's the one that is weak.

As far as trust, we can trust him to not go postal. He hasn't. He's made some comments to people who were aggroing him and not letting them believe for one minute he was soft. That's leadership - you don't make people happy all day when you're leading, and it's not why you're there. You're there to do what you promised and some people are invariably not down with policy X or whatever... You can't do what's right for everyone, but you can do what's right for the people that elected you.

I'm not downplaying it at all.. His emotional issues are completely inconsequential to me so long as he's still doing all of the work or is able to move past it as necessary. It seems he is never the one being difficult to communicate with whereas the Dems frequently refuse to engage or put him on ignore. Personally, I rather support someone who is difficult to deal with who is able to work past it than someone who is injecting their feelings into the situation so bad that they can't work. If you ask me, that's the biggest difference between the elected Dems and the Republicans. (Though I don't consider Trump a Republican at all really, just an old-school Democrat.)

As far as who is more qualified... At this point, that's Trump. No job prepares you for President, and despite the COVID-related setbacks which are completely nothing anyone has control over Trump has proven his overall good to the country. (Maybe not emotionally, but all other metrics.) Being a VP doesn't qualify you for President at all, imho, either. The job is so unique and complicated that other than sitting in the chair and gaining experience nothing truly will make you fit. So, we have a guy with 4 years in the hot-seat running against a guy with no years in the hot-seat. It's really not an argument.

 

[Revoltingest]

I get that as well, but also I'd mention I am not a robot. I have feelings as well, but those feelings aren't stuck in my evaluation of someone's work. First, all the negativity is just not good for your health. The Trump haters think they got it bad now, but what about the fact there is a 92% chance he gets re-elected? The incumbent has an exceedingly good chance with only Carter and Bush not getting re-elected in the last 40 or so years. If this is where you wish to direct your personal energy in a negative way... I assure you it's a bad investment.

And, you point about it being it being absolutely irreconcilable. It's not though, it's people's own malfunctions that keep them in the hater camp. Even if you don't like what he's doing and you're disliking him excessively on that note it's your malfunction, not his. No elected official is going to do everything the way want... NONE.

I try to avoid feelings for politicians.
They're the mind killer.

Edit.....
To be clear, feelings are the mind killer.
Oh, heck...politicians are too.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I'll raise you one:

Name one thing Trump did right... Just one.

Thanks for the question. I know it was directed at Shadow Wolf, but can I answer?

I like that the prison reform bill was passed. And that UAE and Kosovo are on more peaceful paths with other countries. And that there hasn’t been a war with Syria, Iran or North Korea. I am also glad his administration banned bump stocks when Congress was unable to do so.

I frankly ascribe little credit to the person of Donald Trump in being necessary or sufficient for these positive outcomes to occur. But I acknowledge them as positive. The crime bill was bipartisan for example. But, he is President so he gets due credit.

There are also many profound negative outcomes that have occurred, and many more that were dangerously close to occurring, from the person of Donald Trump ... and we have been lucky that those have been mitigated thus far. He has said in private meetings with military advisors that he wants more nuclear weapons - “previous Presidents had a lot more, why can’t I have more?” He has bragged to Woodward in private about new, heretofore unimagined superweapons that he possesses. He has threatened to commit war crimes - torture of suspected terrorists, devastating Iranian cultural sites, subjecting various small countries to hellfire.

I would prefer to get rid of Trump before my worst fears are realized. I don’t know what terrible calamity will have to occur for the remaining 40% of his hardcore supporters have to admit “you were right” ... but I hope I don’t live to see that.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Again, I just go to the record for most of that. There hasn't been a history of him provoking anyone that isn't directly his political opponent. He is a firebrand in that way, and I'm not a big fan, but at the same time I realize why he is. The opposition is non-stop and if he were soft it would be negatively viewed by his base. He doesn't have to appease his haters only his fans and the undecided. He's really doing the best he can do with it. The opposition plays a huge part in the response, but pretends they don't contribute to the problem. It literally becomes a Mexican stand-off... If the Dems back down they look weak because they all-in on the narrative, and if Trump backs down he looks like he's the one that is weak.

As far as trust, we can trust him to not go postal. He hasn't. He's made some comments to people who were aggroing him and not letting them believe for one minute he was soft. That's leadership - you don't make people happy all day when you're leading, and it's not why you're there. You're there to do what you promised and some people are invariably not down with policy X or whatever... You can't do what's right for everyone, but you can do what's right for the people that elected you.

I'm not downplaying it at all.. His emotional issues are completely inconsequential to me so long as he's still doing all of the work or is able to move past it as necessary. It seems he is never the one being difficult to communicate with whereas the Dems frequently refuse to engage or put him on ignore. Personally, I rather support someone who is difficult to deal with who is able to work past it than someone who is injecting their feelings into the situation so bad that they can't work. If you ask me, that's the biggest difference between the elected Dems and the Republicans. (Though I don't consider Trump a Republican at all really, just an old-school Democrat.)

As far as who is more qualified... At this point, that's Trump. No job prepares you for President, and despite the COVID-related setbacks which are completely nothing anyone has control over Trump has proven his overall good to the country. (Maybe not emotionally, but all other metrics.) Being a VP doesn't qualify you for President at all, imho, either. The job is so unique and complicated that other than sitting in the chair and gaining experience nothing truly will make you fit. So, we have a guy with 4 years in the hot-seat running against a guy with no years in the hot-seat. It's really not an argument.

Thanks. You have done an admirable job of putting forward the best possible case, in spite of the fact that your position is indefensible (IMO). I admire the way you have tried to spin gold from straw here.

We’ve laid out our views. We can talk ourselves in circles when we speak about generalities. Your argument makes a ton of sense, in my opinion, if we ignore the actual fact pattern.

For example: you say Trump hasn’t gone postal. But he did abruptly change a child immigration policy resulting in thousands of innocent children being cruelly, and unnecessarily, imprisoned and separated from their parents. Essentially the entire country - I think including his own daughter - begged him to end that policy, which he did.

This policy didn’t affect you, I assume. And it was quickly reversed - thanks to the entire country checking Trump’s powers.

But is it not an example of Trump “going postal”? To me, it is - even though it didn’t affect me personally (call me a bleeding heart) and even though it was quickly reversed (in spite of, not because of Trump). And that is where our views diverge. I see terrible consequences and further danger, where you see a conservative bulldog pushing through your agenda - and when he bites, it’s not your hand that was bitten. There are other examples.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I think what makes this thread different from the threads I've seen on so-called, "Trump Derangement Syndrome" is that @Mr Spinkles is providing examples in support of his points, while I don't recall that being done in any threads on the latter subject.

Thanks, Sunstone. I do try.

I have more examples I plan to share on this thread when I have time.

There are some Peggy Noonan articles from the WSJ Op-Ed pages that I wish to assess. As I recall, in one article she basically admitted that “he did it” regarding the Ukraine scandal. She spent one third of the article conceding this ... as gently as one can concede such a thing ... then spent two-thirds of the article attacking Lt. Col. Vindman for wearing his uniform and “smugness” and other tangents.

I’ll try to find the article to see if my memory serves, and submit it as another example so we can collectively discuss which tools of TBS Ms. Noonan employed.