1. Trump at War
Accounts Emerge of Women Saying Trump
Sexually Assaulted Them
3. Trump Says He'll Imprison Clinton's
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
This is a Nederlog of Thursday, October 13, 2016.
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
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....
part, for the moment --
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
possible this was caused by the fact that I am also writing it from my
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
last update: It is not what I wish, nor how it was. 
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.
The first item today is by Elizabeth Drew on The New York Review of
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
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
But then these were lies: He does
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
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
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
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:
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:
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.
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":
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:
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.
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:
He'll Imprison Clinton's Lawyers, Too
The third item is by Tim Murphy on Mother Jones:
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
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).
- 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
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:
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:
I think each of these points - apart
from the first - corresponds to sayings by Trump that I have seen.
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
- 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
- Diminished awareness of the
dissonance between their expectations and reality, along with the
impact this has on relationships
- Overt presentation of grandiose
- Conflict within the environment is
generally experienced as external to these individuals and not a
measure of their own unrealistic expectations
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
Each of these is a psychological disorder ,
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
This starts as follows:
The fourth item today is by Nadia Prupis on Common Dreams:
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
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:
That is: Trump totally lies about his tax
Citizens for Tax Justice (CTJ) also
recently released its analyses of Clinton'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."
And here is a comparison between Trump's political record and
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
Indeed, the summer's report found that
Trump, if elected, would be a "one-man constitutional crisis," as Common
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
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
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
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,
killings and (especially) unwarranted
Here is, as a last point, the ACLU's view
on Cinton's tendencies:
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".
Meanwhile, the report zooms in on
tendencies, noting that she "has defended the Obama
administration's expansive targeted killing program as lawful and
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."
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.
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
(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
 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.)