Prev-IndexNL-Next

Nederlog

Oct 13, 2016

Crisis: Trump: At War, Sexually Assaulting, Imprison Clinton, Pro-Rich Tax Plans
Sections                                                                                     crisis index
Introduction

1.
Trump at War
2. Multiple Accounts Emerge of Women Saying Trump
     Sexually Assaulted Them

3. Trump Says He'll Imprison Clinton's Lawyers, Too
4. Surprise: Trump's Latest Tax Plan Would Benefit the
     1%, Burden the Poor

5. ACLU: Better Than Trump, But Clinton's Rights Record
     Still Cause for Concern
Introduction: 

This is a Nederlog of Thursday, October 13, 2016.

A. This is a crisis log with 5 items and 5 dotted links and this time they are all (or nearly all) about Donald Trump: Item 1 is about a TNYRB review of Trump; item 2 is about multiple accounts of women who have been sexually assaulted by Donald Trump; item 3 is about the fact that Trump threatened to jail both Hillary Clinton and her lawyers; item 4 is about Trump's tax plans: All for the very few rich; nothing to the many poor; and item 5 is about a comparison by the ACLU of Trump's and Clinton's policies and proposals (Trump only helps the rich, but he pretends that he helps the poor).

In case you were to say "I've had enough of Donald Trump": I entirely agree, but since he still may become president of the USA, which would be a disaster (in my opinion), I do pay some more attention to him, simply because nearly half of the American population likes his madness and his neofascism. And in case you disagree with my judgements (by a psychologist), read on....


-- Constant part, for the moment --

B. In case you visit my Dutch site: I do not know, but it may be you need to click/reload twice or more to see any changes I have made. This certainly held for me, but it is possible this was caused by the fact that I am also writing it from my computer.

In any case, I am now (again) updating the opening of my site with the last day it was updated. (And I am very sorry if you have to click/reload several times to see the last update: It is not what I wish, nor how it was. [1]

C. In case you visit my Danish site: It now works again (!), but I do not know how long it will keep working. The Dutch site still is a mess.

I am very sorry, and none of it is due to me. I am simply doing the same things as I did for 20 or for 12 years, that also went well for 20 or for 12 years.

I will keep this introduction until I get three successive days (!!!) in which both providers work correctly. I have not seen that for many months now.

---


1. Trump at War

The first item today is by Elizabeth Drew on The New York Review of Books:

This starts as follows:

Hands down, the nearly two-week span between the first two presidential debates culminated in probably the most disturbing and extraordinary weekend in all of presidential campaign history. What set it all off was the release Friday afternoon, October 7, via The Washington Post, of a tape, mainly audio, of the Republican candidate for the presidency of the United States bragging about how he sexually assaulted women. “You grab ’em by the pussy,” he said in the 2005 recording (...)

Yes, indeed. And because I have the picture, and because I have been thinking and saying (as a psychologist, also) for seven months now that Trump is insane and a neofascist, here is the illustration:


Note that one of my points is that this is not just 'locker room talk': This seems common behavior in Trump (and see item 2).

Here is more on Trump's hardly sane sexuality:

One can safely say that never before had the kind of talk on the Trump tape been heard in a national political setting. As he rode along on the bus chatting with Billy Bush, then the co-host of Access Hollywood, Trump was oddly obsessed with talking of his exploits—even if the story he told was of having failed to make it with a married woman (“I did try and fuck her”); to talk about any failure is unusual for him. Trump portrayed himself as the animal that numerous women had described, a man who attempted to have sex with, it seemed, practically every attractive woman who crossed his path.

The reason I say this is hardly sane is that he is "a man who attempted to have sex with, it seemed, practically every attractive woman who crossed his path" - and who seems to try to do this as he himself has described: He immediately starts kissing them and grabbing them, also when he doesn't know them at all, which he thinks he is entitled to because he "is famous" (and see item 2).

Then there is this on Trump's "apology" and "denial" that he is himself as he described himself:

In the debate on Sunday, Trump showed that he’s willing to destroy the Republican Party if it gets in his way. If any of the party leadership thought that they’d see a contrite Trump on the stage in St. Louis they didn’t understand him. Trump doesn’t do contrite. His so-called apology, in a ninety-second videotape just after midnight on Friday night, was as far as he would go. It was almost furtive—“I said it, I was wrong, and I apologize,” he said, adding, “Anyone who knows me knows these words don’t reflect who I am.”

But then these were lies: He does start by immediately kissing and groping women he considers attractive, whether he knows them or not, which he thinks he is entitled to because he "is famous" (and see item 2).

Here is a last question I'll quote from this fairly long and detailed article. This is not about "locker room talk", but about sexual assault:

Undoubtedly the most bizarre and also degrading question ever asked in a presidential debate came early on when Anderson Cooper, doing his job, asked Trump, “Mr. Trump, about the tape that was released on Friday….You called what you said locker room banter. You described kissing women without consent, grabbing their genitals. That is sexual assault. You bragged that you have sexually assaulted women. Do you understand that?”

Incidentally, I think in legal terms rape (involving penetration) is more serious than sexual assault (which need not involve it). Trump has accused "Mexicans" of being "rapists".

As to the sexual assault Anderson Cooper said he "bragged" about: According to Donald Trump it did not take place:

Cooper pursued the question, asking Trump if he was saying he didn’t engage in unwanted kissing and groping. This produced one of Trump’s more ludicrous lines: “Nobody has more respect for women than I do.” Cooper persisted: “Have you ever done those things?” Trump replied, amazingly, “No, I have not."

But then there are quite a few women who now have claimed that Trump has sexually assaulted them, kissed them and groped them, all as he described to Bill Bush:

2. Multiple Accounts Emerge of Women Saying Trump Sexually Assaulted Them

The second item is by Kanyakrit Vongkiatkajorn on Mother Jones:

This is from near the beginning:

But on Wednesday night, several news outlets posted stories with accounts from women who insisted that Trump had touched or kissed them inappropriately. The New York Times published the tale of two women who allege that Trump accosted them in precisely the way he described to Billy Bush in the 2005 video. The women decided to go public with their stories following Sunday night's debate, the Times reported, each saying they were infuriated by his denial.

I note that there were two stories (meanwhile more) of (bolding added) "two women who allege that Trump accosted them in precisely the way he described to Billy Bush in the 2005 video". That is:


Here is some more on Trump's sexual assaults on women he considers attractive, never met before, and thinks he is entitled to kiss, fondle and "grab them by the pussy" because he "is famous":

One of the pair, Jessica Leeds, described Trump groping her on a plane:

More than three decades ago, when she was a traveling businesswoman at a paper company, Ms. Leeds said, she sat beside Mr. Trump in the first-class cabin of a flight to New York. They had never met before.

About 45 minutes after takeoff, she recalled, Mr. Trump lifted the armrest and began to touch her.

According to Ms. Leeds, Mr. Trump grabbed her breasts and tried to put his hand up her skirt.

"He was like an octopus," she said. "His hands were everywhere."

She fled to the back of the plane. "It was an assault," she said.

Note that there are more than two women who have said they were "groped" by Donald Trump. In fact, there seems to be "a litany of reports" that assert the same:
The Times story adds to a litany of reports that have recently emerged alleging Trump sexually assaulted women and acted inappropriately. A Florida woman says that Trump groped her without consent in 2004, according to the Palm Beach Post. Cassandra Searles, who was Miss Washington 2013, has also claimed that Trump groped her. Four women who competed in a 1997 Teen USA beauty pageant told Buzzfeed News that Trump walked in on them while they were changing. And during a Miss USA beauty pageant in 2001, Trump entered a dressing room while the contestants were changing into bikinis.
So he is a sexual voyeur as well as a groper. As I have been saying for seven months now, as a psychologist also, I think Trump is obviously insane, while I also should add that few psychologists and fewer psychiatrists say so, not because it isn't evidently so, but because - you know... - Trump may win the elections.

And I grant that the American
psychologists and psychiatrists who fear for their incomes if Trump becomes president have a point. They may even end up in jail:

3. Trump Says He'll Imprison Clinton's Lawyers, Too

The third item is by Tim Murphy on Mother Jones:

This starts as follows (and is the only bit I'll quote from this article):

After Donald Trump called for Hillary Clinton to be jailed during Sunday's presidential debate, some Trump surrogates suggested he was simply joking, and his running mate Mike Pence said his remarks had been taken out of context. But at a Wednesday rally in Lakeland, Florida, Trump promised that no, he really did intend to throw Hillary Clinton in prison if elected—and to prosecute her lawyers for good measure.

In his afternoon speech outside an airplane hangar off I-4 in the center of the swing state, Trump offered his toughest words yet for the former secretary of state. "Hillary Clinton bleached and deleted 33,000 emails after a congressional subpoena," he told the crowd. "So she gets the subpoena, she gets the subpoena, and after—not before, that would be bad—but after getting the subpoena to give over your emails and lots of other things, she deleted the emails. She. Has. To. Go. To. Jail."

Trump didn't stop there. He also wanted the people who advised her to delete the emails to be charged, arrested, and jailed. "And her law firm, which is a very big and powerful law firm, which is the one that said, 'Oh, they'll determine what they're giving,' those representatives within that law firm that did that, have to go to jail," Trump said.

That is, the Republican presidential candidate says that if he becomes president of the USA, then

  • he will jail the defeated Democratic presidential candidate (" She. Has. To. Go. To. Jail.") and also:
  • he will jail the lawyers who adviced her: They too "have to go to jail".
As I said seven months ago, I think the best diagnosis of Trump's insanity is that he is a grandiose narcissist (and I am sorry for the terminology).
In fact, here is a quotation from what I wrote seven months ago:

---

My point is mainly that on a personal level - and now I am speaking as a psychologist - Trump also doesn't seem kosher, so to speak, because he is far too much concerned with and interested in insisting on his personal greatness, his personal excellence, his personal superiority, his personal riches, etc. etc. indeed ad nauseam.

And in fact there is a psychological term for it, and that is in the Wikipedia: Megalomania (<- Wikipedia). It gets defined there as follows:

Megalomania is a psychopathological condition characterized by fantasies of power, relevance, omnipotence, and by inflated self-esteem. Historically it was used as a name for narcissistic personality disorder prior to the latter's first use by Heinz Kohut in 1968, and is used today as a non-clinical equivalent.

Next, if you go to narcissistic personality disorder you find this definition in Wikipedia:

Narcissistic personality disorder (NPD) is a personality disorder in which a person is excessively preoccupied with personal adequacy, power, prestige and vanity, mentally unable to see the destructive damage they are causing to themselves and often others.

Finally, when you check out the references given there, you'll find a link to this Wikipedia item:

Grandiosity refers to an unrealistic sense of superiority—a sustained view of oneself as better than others that causes the narcissist to view others with disdain or as inferior—as well as to a sense of uniqueness: the belief that few others have anything in common with oneself and that one can only be understood by a few or very special people.

I think this is the best description, and I refer you to a list of points in this item:

Pathological grandiosity has been associated with one of the two subtypes of Narcissistic Personality Disorder. (Gabbard, 1989) Characteristics of the narcissist-grandiose subtype (as opposed to the narcissist-vulnerable subtype) include:

  • Being labeled the “oblivious narcissists”
  • Observed lack of insight into the impact they have on others
  • More likely to regulate self-esteem through overt self-enhancement
  • Denial of weaknesses
  • Intimidating demands of entitlement
  • Consistent anger in unmet expectations
  • Devaluation of people that threaten self-esteem
  • Diminished awareness of the dissonance between their expectations and reality, along with the impact this has on relationships
  • Overt presentation of grandiose fantasies
  • Conflict within the environment is generally experienced as external to these individuals and not a measure of their own unrealistic expectations
I think each of these points - apart from the first - corresponds to sayings by Trump that I have seen.
---

That is: Trump is a megalomaniac; he is a narcissist; he has a - completely insane - sense of superiority over anyone else (it seems), and he suffers from a "pathological grandiosity".

Each of these is a psychological disorder [2], but they do also form a pattern, which is summed up by saying that Trump eminently fits the pattern of being a grandiose narcissist (and see the above list of points).

And for such a one it seems self-evident that anyone who opposes him is bad, and (in Trump's case) "should go to jail".

In case you may not have understood me properly: Only for such a one, for clearly mentally healthy politicians do not insist that their competitors and their lawyers "Should.
Go. To. Jail."

Sofar, in these first three reviews, I have only considered Trump's mentality. Here is some more about Trump's latest tax plans:

4. Surprise: Trump's Latest Tax Plan Would Benefit the 1%, Burden the Poor

The fourth item today is by Nadia Prupis on Common Dreams:

This starts as follows:

Donald Trump's latest tax proposals would give the biggest windfalls to the richest households in the U.S. and raise the debt by $20.9 trillion by 2036, according to a new analysis by the nonpartisan Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center (TPC).

The Republican presidential nominee would cut taxes by $6.2 trillion over the next decade, with 47 percent of all cuts next year going to the top 1 percent, the analysis found. By contrast, TPC found, Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton's plan would increase revenue by a net $1.4 trillion over the next decade, and nearly all tax hikes would go to the richest 1 percent, with low- and middle-income families seeing "small increases" in after-tax income.

That is: Trump's tax plans would cut the taxes (the government's income) by $6 trillion, and give half of that to the top 1 percent; Clinton's tax plans would increase the taxes by $1.5 trillion and take these increases nearly all from "the richest 1 percent", and a little bit increase the incomes of the poor and the middle-income families (of which there may be up to 90 times more than there are in the 1% to 10% of the richest).

So yes, the tax plans are total opposites. Here is some more on the Trump's tax plans:

Citizens for Tax Justice (CTJ) also recently released its analyses of Clinton's and Trump's tax plans, coming to similar conclusions. CTJ director Bob McIntyre said of the Republican nominee's proposal at the time, "To be sure, Trump's latest tax plan costs less than the initial deficit-inflating tax proposal that he laid out earlier this year. But this new tax plan is in the same spirit as Trump's initial proposal. He would cut taxes for the rich, cut taxes for businesses, provide miniscule tax cuts for lower-income groups, and then claim it's a populist plan that helps working families."

That is: Trump totally lies about his tax plans.

And here is a comparison between Trump's political record and policy proposals, compared with Clinton's dittos. The comparison is by the ACLU:

5. ACLU: Better Than Trump, But Clinton's Rights Record Still Cause for Concern

The fifth and last item today is by Deirdre Fulton on Common Dreams:

This starts as follows:

The ACLU's constitutional analysis of Hillary Clinton's political record and policy proposals came out Wednesday, and it looks a lot different from the one the civil liberties group issued in July for Clinton's rival, GOP nominee Donald Trump.

Indeed, the summer's report found that Trump, if elected, would be a "one-man constitutional crisis," as Common Dreams reported.

Democratic nominee Clinton, on the other hand, "has become a strong defender of Americans' civil rights and liberties in most respects," the ACLU says (pdf) of her nearly four-decade political career. Specifically, the organization points to her stated support for reproductive rights, ending mass incarceration, voting rights, and the LGBTQ community. 

However, the ACLU also highlights "two areas for improvement: immigration and national security." And those are big areas, covering everything from immigrant detention to drone killings to unwarranted surveillance of the American people.

I agree with the ACLU on Trump, and he would not only be a "one-man constitutional crisis" but also, given his enormous temperament and his great ignorance, a probable disaster in my opinion (for he also gets the keys to the atomic weapons of the USA, for one thing, if he gets to be president).

As to Clinton, I suppose I agree with the ACLU that she is more or less OK on "reproductive rights, ending mass incarceration, voting rights, and the LGBTQ community", but I also definitely agree with the ACLU that these good points
are far inferior to her support for
immigrant detention, drone killings and (especially) unwarranted surveillance.

Here is, as a last point, the ACLU's view on Cinton's tendencies:

Meanwhile, the report zooms in on Clinton's hawkish tendencies, noting that she "has defended the Obama administration's expansive targeted killing program as lawful and effective."

In fact, the ACLU warns: "Unless...Clinton changes course, her presidency will further entrench the dangerous 'global war' paradigm initiated under President [George W.] Bush and expanded under President [Barack] Obama through the continued use of lethal force outside the limits posed by international law and the Constitution."

I agree. I think she will continue "the dangerous 'global war' paradigm" started  by Bush Jr. and continued by Obama, and she probably will also continue the illegal "use of lethal force outside the limits posed by international law and the Constitution".

And I never thought Hillary Clinton will be (as Robert Reich insisted she will be, but he knows her nearly fifty years) "a good president".

But she is not insane, as Trump is.
And because he is, it is very much better that Clinton gets to be president, not because her policies will be good, but because her policies will not be insane.

Finally, this is a recommended article, with considerably more.
---------------
Notes
[1]  Alas, this is precisely as I said it does, and it goes on for months now. I do not know who does it, and I refuse to call the liars of "xs4all" destroy (really: the KPN), simply because these have been lying to me from 2002-2009, and I do not trust anything they say I cannot control myself: They have treated me for seven years as a liar because "you complain about things other people do not complain about" (which is the perfect excuse never to do anything whatsoever for anyone).

[2] The reason that "psychological disorders" are called
"psychological disorders" is because they are not (I repeat: not) "medical disorders".

For a "medical disorder" aka a disease does involve some kind of experimental proof that the patient does have some physical malfunctioning or a pathology (of which there are very many), while a
"psychological disorder" does not.

This is a considerable problem (and rightly so) for both psychiatry and clinical psychology, and it exists because (in actual fact) no one (including all psychiatrists and all clinical psychologists) at present knows sufficiently well how the brain works and is supposed to work:

There simply is at present no known physical explanation (apart from Alzheimer's disease and accidents that harm the brain) of any known malfunctioning or pathology that may be at the basis of supposed madness, insanity, neuroticism etc.

This does not mean that people do not get mad, for there have been mad people for thousands of years; it does mean that judgements that so-and-so is (not) mad are - at this point in time - considerably more difficult to make than for known medical diseases.

There is much more on this (in case you are interested) in my
discussion of "
DSM-5: Question 1 of "The six most essential questions in psychiatric diagnosis"" which I still think is quite good; was never contradicted; and was downloaded a lot. (It is over 370 Kb.)

       home - index - summaries - mail