The Trump Presidency – 2016

[ISiddiqui]

Unless Buttigieg's anti-free college stance included help for those who can't afford college who want to go (increasing need based grants, etc) and, perhaps, at least included Obama's free community college stance, it seems like a massive mistake. Because those two are the center-left positions. Saying lets not do anything at all about higher ed costs seem to be more right wing positions than center ones these days.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Unless Buttigieg's anti-free college stance included help for those who can't afford college who want to go (increasing need based grants, etc) and, perhaps, at least included Obama's free community college stance, it seems like a massive mistake. Because those two are the center-left positions. Saying lets not do anything at all about higher ed costs seem to be more right wing positions than center ones these days.

What Pete Buttigieg Said about Free College in Boston

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

If you want a more scholarly read on this from a centrist perspective, The Atlantic has a cover story on it this month

Good article and appreciate the loads of info. TBH, I didn't read it as centrist, it seemed to be more right leaning than centrist.

Some snippets that caught my eye.

Hundreds of millions of people will want to become Americans. Only a relatively small number realistically can. Who should choose which ones do? According to what rules? How will those rules be enforced? The Trump-era debate about a wall misses the point. The planet of tomorrow will be better educated, more mobile, more networked. Huddling behind a concrete barrier will not hold the world at bay when more and more of that world can afford a plane ticket.
:
The question before the United States and other advanced countries is not: Immigration, yes or no? In a mobile world, there will inevitably be quite a lot of movement of people. Immigration is not all or nothing. The questions to ask are: How much? What kind?

To me, Trump's wall isn't to keep out legal immigration. Its to keep out illegal immigration. It is arguable if Trump wants to keep out the "better educated, more mobile, more networked" but I definitely think we should open the floodgates for the more educated. Only way to keep our population growing (see Japan) and infusing it with talent with the additional bonus of disadvantaging the countries of origin.

Every year some 50,000 people are legally admitted by lottery.

I met an Uber driver that won the lottery. He started a family here, his kids have dual citizenship. He doesn't like it here and wants to return. Told him he was lucky vs me going through the process.

It’s sometimes suggested that the passage of time will salve these anxieties—that elderly Trump voters in America, or elderly Marine Le Pen voters in France, will eventually be replaced by younger voters more amenable to immigration. But young white Americans express nearly as much discomfort with demographic change as their elders do. Almost half of white Millennials say that discrimination against whites has become as big a problem as discrimination against blacks and other minorities. Whites under age 30 voted for Donald Trump in 2016 by a four-point majority, according to CNN exit polls. In European countries too, notably France, the parties of the far right are appealing more and more to the young.

I didn't know this about the younger generation.

And finally, while the impact of immigration on what the typical American earns is quite small, its impact on government finances is big. Estimates from the National Academy of Sciences suggest that on average, each immigrant costs his or her state and local governments $1,600 more a year in expenditures than he or she contributes in revenues. In especially generous states, the cost is much higher still: $2,050 in California; $3,650 in Wisconsin; $5,100 in Minnesota.

Didn't know this either. The paragraph state "immigrant", I wonder what an "illegal" immigrant would cost - higher or lower.

For good or ill, immigration’s most important effects are social and cultural, not economic.

I'm not sure I buy "not economic" but agree with social/cultural.

[JPhillips]

Trump, the master of getting called on bluffs, now says Mexico has a year and then he might close the border.

[stevew]

Didn't realize Tim Ryan was running. Hrm. Guessing he won't be viable in Iowa so what's the point

[ISiddiqui]

Well he just declared he was running, so not realizing he was running until now is good .

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

dola

Trump expected to name Herman Cain to the Fed

lol

Should be fun watching the GOP elevate and defend Cain.

An unthinkably bad idea, both of these two clowns should be laughed out of the room. But Ben Sasse will presumably be "troubled" and then "concerned" and then just curl into his usual position of kneeling and waiting to service his liege.

[Edward64]

I guess Wall St really does like Trump.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/05/70pe...d-in-2020.html

A new poll of Wall Street insiders shows that a vast majority expect President Donald Trump to win reelection in 2020.

While Joe Biden was viewed as the most stock market-friendly possible Democratic candidate for the White House, more than 70% of survey respondents told global investment bank RBC Capital Markets that they expect Trump to be reelected.

“Most expect Trump to win in 2020, but there’s still some nervousness around the event,” Lori Calvasina, RBC’s head of U.S. equity strategy, wrote to clients. Sixty-seven percent “of our March 2019 survey respondents believe that Joe Biden is seen as the most acceptable Democratic candidate by the stock market for the White House. No other candidate got a significant number of votes.”

[thesloppy]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I guess Wall St really does like Trump.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/05/70pe...d-in-2020.html

That article is kind of a mess, as it alternates back and forth between referencing Wall Street's belief in a candidate's chance to be elected versus which candidate is thought to be more 'friendly' to wall street, without making any distinction or clarification, whereas I would consider those to be two entirely different topics.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by thesloppy

That article is kind of a mess, as it alternates back and forth between referencing Wall Street's belief in a candidate's chance to be elected versus which candidate is thought to be more 'friendly' to wall street, without making any distinction or clarification, whereas I would consider those to be two entirely different topics.

Yeah. The 70% is pretty impressive though.

[thesloppy]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Yeah. The 70% is pretty impressive though.

Yeah, I think that if 70% of Wall Street expects Trump to win election than that does seem remarkable (which does seem to be what it's reporting).

However, if 70% of Wall Street think that Trump is the more *Dow friendly* candidate than {random_democrat} that wouldn't surprise me at all, and I'm still not entirely sure the article/poll isn't conflating those two things.

It's also unclear to me whether I'm supposed to think the collective 'Wall Street' has some actual dedicated insight, analysis and/or tracking regarding the issue, or they just asked some folks who are good at predicting one thing to try and predict another? If it's the latter you could just as well ask bookies at the dog track (which I would totally read too).

[PilotMan]

Well I'm sure glad the narrative of this economic boom isn't all about the near trillion dollar per year deficit anymore. The idea that it's ok to run these kinds of deficits in a bull economy is crap. We're running this economy hot right now, and even if inflation doesn't creep because apparently, inflation of the old days is dead now, but when the economy does turn down, the current budgets are going double that deficit maybe more, and there's nothing (or minimal at best) the fed will be able to do help it then.

[whomario]

The double standards are amzing

Trump refers to Netanyahu as “your prime minister� in speech to Republican Jews.

[Edward64]

I fall into the 30% who would choose the economy. I'm not talking about Beijing like pollution but certainly would take fracking (in the short-term) to buy us time to develop Tesla and the like alternatives.

I am surprised its only 30% TBH.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/248243/...gn=syndication

By the widest margin since 2000, more Americans believe environmental protection should take precedence over economic growth when the two goals conflict. Sixty-five percent now choose the environment, up eight percentage points from a year ago, while 30% choose the economy.

Since 1984, Gallup has asked whether "protection of the environment should be given priority, even at the risk of curbing economic growth" or "economic growth should be given priority, even if the environment suffers to some extent." A preference for environmental protection has typically led economic growth on this question by a significant margin. However, between 2009 and 2013 as the economy struggled to emerge from the recession, more Americans prioritized the economy over the environment, with a brief exception in May 2010 after the Gulf of Mexico oil spill.
:
:
There is some variation on this question by age. Adults aged 18 to 34 are more likely than those 35 and older to give precedence to environmental protection over economic growth. However, the sharpest differences are by party. Eight in 10 Democrats (82%) and 71% of independents prioritize environmental protection, versus 35% of Republicans. On the flip side, the majority of Republicans (60%) say economic growth should be considered first, versus 24% of independents and 13% of Democrats.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I fall into the 30% who would choose the economy. I'm not talking about Beijing like pollution but certainly would take fracking (in the short-term) to buy us time to develop Tesla and the like alternatives.

I am surprised its only 30% TBH.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/248243/...gn=syndication

I used to be the same as you, but in recent years my thinking has switched. I think we have reached the point where critical decisions need to be made about the environment. As in, if we don't, there is no turning back, no chance for recovery. Now or never.

The economy, on the other hand, is recoverable and will do so. Any hits economically will eventually adjust and smooth out as revenue streams switch to more environemntally friendly sources.

It appears this puts me in the minority for my party and age group. But that's not a shock as most would probably call me an NPR (non-practicing Republican). I'm strongly averse to both Trumpism and religious social conservatism, which puts me at odds with the primary forces in the GOP these days.

[miked]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I fall into the 30% who would choose the economy. I'm not talking about Beijing like pollution but certainly would take fracking (in the short-term) to buy us time to develop Tesla and the like alternatives.

I am surprised its only 30% TBH.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/248243/...gn=syndication

I personally think folks like you who put small gains in their portfolio and short term solutions that kill our environment like fracking are the most toxic people to our country. We have had so many different booms over the last 200+ years, and our economy has always been great. There are of course, ups and downs, but we always recover when we look to the future. Idiots who think that we need to subsidize dying industries like coal that destroy our environment over training for the future need to go to the wayside.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by miked

I personally think folks like you who put small gains in their portfolio and short term solutions that kill our environment like fracking are the most toxic people to our country. We have had so many different booms over the last 200+ years, and our economy has always been great. There are of course, ups and downs, but we always recover when we look to the future. Idiots who think that we need to subsidize dying industries like coal that destroy our environment over training for the future need to go to the wayside.

Me supporting fracking to allow Tesla and like to grow is not about stock portfolios. Its about getting away from the dependence of ME oil resulting in us supporting countries we should not be supporting and getting involved in things we should not get involved in.

[molson]

Innovation and figuring out clean energy and how to keep the planet habitable will bring about so many economic booms.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by molson

Innovation and figuring out clean energy and how to keep the planet habitable will bring about so many economic booms.

Absolutely agree. I don't know if Tesla is the solution and not sure I see a "direct path" to alternate energy. Also, its valid to ask if US fracking hinder the development of alternate energy.

But IMO extricating ourselves from ME oil dependence is one of the first steps we need to take. I'm tired to helping ME countries build up their "playgrounds" with little reward other than oil.

[thesloppy]

For whatever it's worth to anybody: only 40% of America's consumed oil comes from imports these days, Saudi Arabia is typically our second biggest supplier, at about 10% of our oil imports and Canada is our biggest supplier at 30-40% over recent years.

We're already trending pretty well towards oil independence, and it seems like we could probably cut the middle east, and Saudi Arabia in particular, out of the transaction entirely relatively easily right now and transferring the demand to other suppliers (which I would certainly personally support), but I'd imagine it's political interests that keep that connection going rather than straight economics. It appears that most of our oil comes from fracking.

Where does America’s oil come from? | World Economic Forum

[Vince, Pt. II]

I was going to say - I thought we already covered that we are no longer dependent upon the Middle East for oil.

[Chief Rum]

I believe I read that we recently became the #1 oil producer in the world. Some of it through fracking, but mostly because of new oil discoveries because new scanning and extraction technologies have allowed us to reach new sources (or get more out of old ones).

I would love to get out of the ME. It makes me wonder sometimes what happens to that part of the world if oil dries up or the world moves completely away from carbon based fuels. Are there enough resources from other economies to keep the area going?

I can only imagine what a mass population shift away from the ME to other parts of the world would be like. Witness the Syria refugee crisis times by oh maybe a million.

[thesloppy]

That said, it does seem to be directly related to fracking, and if we weren't blowing up the crust of our own lands we probably would still be firmly on someone's teat.

I'm relatively neutral on fracking, but I think it's worth acknowledging that is probably entirely due to it being out-of-sight-out-of-mind, and if I thought I would have to deal directly with the results I would probably feel a lot differently.

[thesloppy]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

I would love to get out of the ME. It makes me wonder sometimes what happens to that part of the world if oil dries up or the world moves completely away from carbon based fuels. Are there enough resources from other economies to keep the area going?

I can only imagine what a mass population shift away from the ME to other parts of the world would be like. Witness the Syria refugee crisis times by oh maybe a million.

Yeah, I'd imagine the effect of cutting off the middle east's oil income would be pretty far reaching, and basically an entire culture shift to that part of the world.....which might actually do some good?.

My grasp of Middle Eastern history is remedial at best, but it does seem like some Middle Eastern regions ironically went backwards culturally, socially, and even technologically as a result of all that oil money.

[Edward64]

Not quite there yet. Maybe time for new refineries to process our own stuff.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/15/inves...tes/index.html

The problem is that the shale oil coming out of the Permian Basin in Texas and elsewhere is a very light blend that doesn't fit well with America's Gulf Coast refineries.

To quench America's thirst for gasoline and jet fuel, these decades-old refineries require a steady dose of medium and heavy grades of crude. Saudi Arabia's crude is the perfect match. The United States consumed almost 20 million barrels per day of petroleum products last year.

US refineries are already geared as much as they can be to US shale, said Matt Smith, director of commodity research at ClipperData.

"They are maxed out," Smith said.

That's why US oil exports have spiked since Congress lifted an export ban. Gulf Coast refineries simply can't process all that shale oil, so it gets sent to Europe, China and South America.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

I would love to get out of the ME. It makes me wonder sometimes what happens to that part of the world if oil dries up or the world moves completely away from carbon based fuels. Are there enough resources from other economies to keep the area going?

I can only imagine what a mass population shift away from the ME to other parts of the world would be like. Witness the Syria refugee crisis times by oh maybe a million.

I do think the US can achieve oil independence (or greatly reduce our dependence). But if we don't buy it, China will for the next X years is my guess so those ME and other oil countries are probably set for next 20-40 years.

But better China than us IMO.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by thesloppy

Yeah, I'd imagine the effect of cutting off the middle east's oil income would be pretty far reaching, and basically an entire culture shift to that part of the world.....which might actually do some good?.

My grasp of Middle Eastern history is remedial at best, but it does seem like some Middle Eastern regions ironically went backwards culturally, socially, and even technologically as a result of all that oil money.

The decline in science/technology in the Muslim world happened a long time ago and it wasn't about oil.

Below article goes further in discussing differences between Christianity & Islam and the last paragraph I quoted may be controversial so take it for what its worth.

https://www.thenewatlantis.com/publi...y-from-science

The backlash against Mu’tazilism was tremendously successful: by 885, a half century after al-Mamun’s death, it even became a crime to copy books of philosophy. The beginning of the de-Hellenization of Arabic high culture was underway. By the twelfth or thirteenth century, the influence of Mu’tazilism was nearly completely marginalized.

In its place arose the anti-rationalist Ash’ari school whose increasing dominance is linked to the decline of Arabic science. With the rise of the Ash’arites, the ethos in the Islamic world was increasingly opposed to original scholarship and any scientific inquiry that did not directly aid in religious regulation of private and public life. While the Mu’tazilites had contended that the Koran was created and so God’s purpose for man must be interpreted through reason, the Ash’arites believed the Koran to be coeval with God — and therefore unchallengeable.
:
The greatest and most influential voice of the Ash’arites was the medieval theologian Abu Hamid al-Ghazali (also known as Algazel; died 1111). In his book The Incoherence of the Philosophers, al-Ghazali vigorously attacked philosophy and philosophers — both the Greek philosophers themselves and their followers in the Muslim world (such as al-Farabi and Avicenna). Al-Ghazali was worried that when people become favorably influenced by philosophical arguments, they will also come to trust the philosophers on matters of religion, thus making Muslims less pious. Reason, because it teaches us to discover, question, and innovate, was the enemy; al-Ghazali argued that in assuming necessity in nature, philosophy was incompatible with Islamic teaching, which recognizes that nature is entirely subject to God’s will: “Nothing in nature,” he wrote, “can act spontaneously and apart from God.”
:
:
As a way of articulating questions that lie deeper than the Ash’arism-Mu’tazilism debate, it is helpful to briefly compare Islam with Christianity. Christianity acknowledges a private-public distinction and (theoretically, at least) allows adherents the liberty to decide much about their social and political lives. Islam, on the other hand, denies any private-public distinction and includes laws regulating the most minute details of private life. Put another way, Islam does not acknowledge any difference between religious and political ends: it is a religion that specifies political rules for the community.

[cuervo72]

Well sure, that publication probably not going to be kind to Islam.

(this is from a review of another article the journal published, which advocated that no one is "born that way.")

One clue comes from the journal's co-publisher, the Ethics and Public Policy Center (EPPC), “dedicated to applying the Judeo-Christian moral tradition to critical issues of public policy.” Already we're off the science page. EPPC scholars, its Web page continues, “have consistently sought to defend and promote our nation's founding principles—respect for the inherent dignity of the human person, individual freedom and responsibility, justice, the rule of law, and limited government.”

Again, Edward's sources have a distinct tilt to them.

[Thomkal]

Secretary Nielsin is out as Homeland Security Secretary-hope the Dems make her account for every last family member she separated at the border and hope she's never in a position of authority again.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

Well sure, that publication probably not going to be kind to Islam.

(this is from a review of another article the journal published, which advocated that no one is "born that way.")

Again, Edward's sources have a distinct tilt to them.

Found a UAE article that gave kudos to same article I quoted and also Ghazali being the consensus culprit by academia. However, the article did go to say it probably wasn't Al Ghazali but Nizamiyah colleges.

Take it for what its worth. This article is not kind to Islam way back when re: lost of scientific momentum.

How the decline of Muslim scientific thought still haunts - The National

Theologian Abu Hamid Al Ghazali has long been blamed for the decline of Islamic civilisation because of his authoritative critique of science. But, as the role of religion is being pushed to the fore in the Middle East, it is important to know the real cause.

In a recent essay, The New Atlantis, a US-based science and technology journal, drew a grim yet accurate picture of the state of science in the Muslim world. It reported that India and Spain each produces more scientific literature than all of the Muslim countries combined; Muslim world contributions to science amount to no more than 1 per cent and is of lower quality. The spirit of science in the Muslim world, the magazine added, is as dry as the desert.

It is a sad fact that sharply contrasts with the Golden Age of Arabic science (800-1100), when the Muslim world was the beacon of innovation and triggered Europe's Renaissance and Enlightenment periods. What went wrong?

Academics have long maintained that the great Islamic theologian, Abu Hamid Al Ghazali, who lived from 1055 to 1111, single-handedly steered Islamic culture away from independent scientific inquiry towards religious fundamentalism. In a remarkable intellectual shift, he concluded that falsafa (which literally means philosophy but included logic, mathematics and physics) was incompatible with Islam.
:
:
Nizamiyah colleges were established in major cities under the control of the Seljuqs or the Abbasids, including Baghdad and Isfahan (in modern Iran), and cities where Shiites formed majorities at the time such as in Basra and the Syrian region of Al Jazira.

Nizamiyah colleges were the Ivy League colleges of the 12th century. Some scholars at the time noted the tendency of students to leave their traditional schools to study religion at the colleges. Some Sunni clerics also complained that many had adopted Shafii school as their religious affiliation. Scholars graduating from the colleges were armed with argumentative skills to battle the Batiniyya whenever they found them. Graduates were given priority in key government jobs, namely in the judiciary, hisbah (Sharia enforcement or police) and istifta (jurisprudence).

It was Nizamiyah colleges, which operated for over four centuries, together with the financial and political backing of the powerful Seljuq dynasty, that diverted Muslim minds towards religion.

[JPhillips]

We shouldn't forget how out of line and dangerous this stuff is.

Trump: Russia investigators guilty of "treason". pic.twitter.com/sFEAzUQalB

— Josh Marshall (@joshtpm) April 10, 2019

[Flasch186]

if the leader of any other country said this stuff in a slightly authoritative state we'd be saying, "can you believe that shit happens there."

[Atocep]

Trump reminds me of Slobodan Milosevic in some ways. There's no doubt he would have fit in perfectly in the Balkans during the 90s as an authoritarian.

[Edward64]

Don't think I would vote for Bernie but glad Healthcare reform will become a major issue in 2020.

Sanders vows to blow up Senate rules to pass Medicare for All - POLITICO

A President Bernie Sanders isn’t going to let something as trivial as the Senate rules thwart his drive to pass Medicare for All.

The Vermont independent, one of the top-tier contenders for the Democratic presidential nomination, has been skeptical of getting rid of the legislative filibuster to pass a sweeping legislative agenda. Instead, Sanders is taking a page from Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), who wanted to shred Senate rules in order to pass ambitious GOP health care legislation in 2017.
:
“It is the vice president who determines what is and is not permissible under budget reconciliation. I can tell you that a vice president in a Bernie Sanders administration will determine that Medicare for All can pass through the Senate under reconciliation and is not in violation of the rules,” Sanders said in a statement after introducing the bill on Wednesday.

The move smacks of Cruz’s request from two years ago, when he argued the Senate GOP should disregard parliamentary guidance and jam through a full repeal-and-replacement of Obamacare in reconciliation. Cruz argued that Vice President Mike Pence should have ruled that the full gutting of Obamacare could pass via Senate rules, a move that GOP leaders rejected.

[PilotMan]

Just like Cruz, he's wrong.

[JPhillips]

Just eliminate the filibuster and make the Senate a majority rule institution. That's a much better plan than exploiting loopholes to do whatever you wish.

[albionmoonlight]

Yup. Just kill it. It causes more harm than good.

[albionmoonlight]

And I say this as a Democrat knowing that 2016-2018 would had a lot more GOP legislation pass without the filibuster. And I wouldn't have liked that. But in the long run, we are still better off without it.

[Radii]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

And I say this as a Democrat knowing that 2016-2018 would had a lot more GOP legislation pass without the filibuster. And I wouldn't have liked that. But in the long run, we are still better off without it.

+1

[Thomkal]

Assange arrested in London, awaiting extradition to the US


Assange accused of conspiring with Chelsea Manning in 2010 WikiLeaks release, says unsealed U.S. indictment

[QuikSand]

He sees every matter as a purely one-dimensional, zero-sum "deal" rather than nuances in any way.

He sees every person through a lens of loyalty, rather than right or wrong.

The way he talks makes it evident that his mindset is that of a slumlord or crime kingpin, rather than political leader.

[PilotMan]

He sees every matter as a reflection of himself.

He needs people who will constantly praise and admire him.

He believes that he is the reason for all success and everyone else for is for his failures.

Oh what the hell, just copy the damn list. Are there any of these that you can't equate with him?

• Have an exaggerated sense of self-importance
• Have a sense of entitlement and require constant, excessive admiration
• Expect to be recognized as superior even without achievements that warrant it
• Exaggerate achievements and talents
• Be preoccupied with fantasies about success, power, brilliance, beauty or the perfect mate
• Believe they are superior and can only associate with equally special people
• Monopolize conversations and belittle or look down on people they perceive as inferior
• Expect special favors and unquestioning compliance with their expectations
• Take advantage of others to get what they want
• Have an inability or unwillingness to recognize the needs and feelings of others
• Be envious of others and believe others envy them
• Behave in an arrogant or haughty manner, coming across as conceited, boastful and pretentious
• Insist on having the best of everything — for instance, the best car or office

AND

Have trouble handling anything they perceive as criticism.

and when they do they respond with-

• Become impatient or angry when they don't receive special treatment
• Have significant interpersonal problems and easily feel slighted
• React with rage or contempt and try to belittle the other person to make themselves appear superior
• Have difficulty regulating emotions and behavior
• Experience major problems dealing with stress and adapting to change
• Feel depressed and moody because they fall short of perfection
• Have secret feelings of insecurity, shame, vulnerability and humiliation

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

He sees every matter as a reflection of himself.

He needs people who will constantly praise and admire him.

He believes that he is the reason for all success and everyone else for is for his failures.

Oh what the hell, just copy the damn list. Are there any of these that you can't equate with him?

• Have an exaggerated sense of self-importance
• Have a sense of entitlement and require constant, excessive admiration
• Expect to be recognized as superior even without achievements that warrant it
• Exaggerate achievements and talents
• Be preoccupied with fantasies about success, power, brilliance, beauty or the perfect mate
• Believe they are superior and can only associate with equally special people
• Monopolize conversations and belittle or look down on people they perceive as inferior
• Expect special favors and unquestioning compliance with their expectations
• Take advantage of others to get what they want
• Have an inability or unwillingness to recognize the needs and feelings of others
• Be envious of others and believe others envy them
• Behave in an arrogant or haughty manner, coming across as conceited, boastful and pretentious
• Insist on having the best of everything — for instance, the best car or office

AND

Have trouble handling anything they perceive as criticism.

and when they do they respond with-

• Become impatient or angry when they don't receive special treatment
• Have significant interpersonal problems and easily feel slighted
• React with rage or contempt and try to belittle the other person to make themselves appear superior
• Have difficulty regulating emotions and behavior
• Experience major problems dealing with stress and adapting to change
• Feel depressed and moody because they fall short of perfection
• Have secret feelings of insecurity, shame, vulnerability and humiliation

Sounds spot on. Where is this list from? American Psychiatric Association listing of the overt symptoms for sociopathic narcissism?

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

Sounds spot on. Where is this list from? American Psychiatric Association listing of the overt symptoms for sociopathic narcissism?

https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-...s/syc-20366662

[thesloppy]

My mom has NPD, and I recognize so many traits she shares with Trump.

I find that one of the easiest ways to spot a narcissist in American culture is what I've termed 'Shitty Customer Disease'. If you know someone who always has an issue with their order at a restaurant, always asks for more work from anyone a service role, or is just far too familiar with the phrase 'let me speak to your manager', that person is very likely a narcissist.

[PilotMan]

Today's dumbass news is all about how the party of law and order really doesn't care about the law part, and the unethical lengths the dumbass in charge will go to support his narcissism.

[Edward64]

Very petty of Trump.

Kinda ironic if it happens (but it won't).

Trump threatens to send undocumented immigrants to sanctuary cities - POLITICO

President Donald Trump on Friday said that his administration is "strongly looking at" releasing detained undocumented immigrants into so-called sanctuary cities — contradicting a previous statement from the White House that the policy was no longer being considered.

"Due to the fact that Democrats are unwilling to change our very dangerous immigration laws, we are indeed, as reported, giving strong considerations to placing Illegal Immigrants in Sanctuary Cities only," Trump wrote in a series of tweets. "The Radical Left always seems to have an Open Borders, Open Arms policy – so this should make them very happy!"
:
But Trump revived the idea later Friday, blaming a court settlement known as the Flores agreement that bars the U.S. for detaining migrant children for more than 20 days. Framing his proposal as calling the bluff of leaders in sanctuary cities, he posed the idea as a potential motivating factor to get Democrats to strike a deal on immigration reform.

“We might as well do what they always say they want,” he said at the White House. “We will bring the illegal — I call them the illegals, they came across the border illegally — we will bring them to sanctuary city areas and let that particular area take care of it, whether it is a state or whatever it might be.”

He continued: “California certainly is always saying, we want more people, and they want more people in their sanctuary cities, we will give them more people. We can give them an unlimited supply. And let's see if they are so happy. They always say they have open arms. Let's see if they have open arms.”

Pelosi criticized the proposal, saying it demonizes migrants.
:
The new proposal comes during a widespread DHS shakeup by Trump and White House senior aide Stephen Miller to help enact controversial new steps to curb illegal immigration.

Miller reportedly wants to create tent cities along the border to house migrants and has pushed for an updated version of the family separation policy.

[thesloppy]

That is some twisted shit. If I can't get my wall to keep these people out I am literally going to have them trucked into the middle of the country and dumped there.

It also seems worth noting that all of the cities Trump lives and works in (DC, NY and Palm Beach) are all sanctuary cities, which seems like it might open the door for unintentional hilarity.

[illinifan999]

Originally Posted by thesloppy

That is some twisted shit. If I can't get my wall to keep these people out I am literally going to have them trucked into the middle of the country and dumped there.

It also seems worth noting that all of the cities Trump lives and works in (DC, NY and Palm Beach) are all sanctuary cities, which seems like it might open the door for unintentional hilarity.

Why is it twisted? It would seem safe to say that sanctuary cities would be better equipped to provide support to illegal immigrants as well as be more welcoming, accepting, and safe from deportation than non-sanctuary cities.

[PilotMan]

How is it not completely unethical and in direct opposition to the constitutional duties of the president?