[barmar]

kenberg, on 2016-June-08, 06:14, said:

I see that DT now claims that his remarks about the "Mexican" judge were misconstrued.

The media seems to "misconstrue" lots of things he says. I wonder whose fault that is.

[kenberg]

I was musing about the following:

I occasionally find myself having to apologize because i inadvertently say "he" when of course, when the person is unknown, I know I should have said "she or he". Some people accept it as me being careless, sort of a what else is new, but others don't. Perhaps there are a fair number of people out there who distinguish between my verbal carelessness, however regrettable, and an 11 minute rant about Mexican judges,be they born in Indiana or in Mexico. Some will think that Donald and I are equally bigoted, but others may see a distinction. I hope so. I try not to take offense when none was intended. In the case of the DT rant, it seems clear offense was intended.

No doubt this will die down, nothing seems to stick to the Donald, but if people start to think cumulatively this may have an effect. I think it should.

Added this morning: No doubt many think the above remarks to be silly, but given Trump's success It is worth thinking about. I will try to illustrate. Much has been made in print of Trump mocking a disabled reporter. Not so long ago, it was a social error to say 'disabled". We were told the proper phrase is "otherwise-abled". Apparently "disabled" has been restored to acceptability because it appears in say, the Washington Post. Here is my point. Trump keeps jabbering about the awfulness of "socially correct", a phrase I would like to see take early retirement from our language. But paeople do tire of being criticized for not being up to date on whether someone is disabled or otherwise-abled. We try, but we forget. There is a difference between being careless about speech, or just not knowing, and, on the other side, mocking people with physical problems. I think people intuitively understand this difference, and if we can gt to see that some criticism of careless speech can be over the top but there should be respect for others, we might get somewhere.

[PassedOut]

The NY Times has a detailed piece about Trump's business dealings in Atlantic City: How Donald Trump Bankrupted His Atlantic City Casinos, but Still Earned Millions

In his speeches, Trump has emphasized his view that only fools have "skin in the game," contrary to the belief of Mike777. By his own standards, Trump was no fool:

Quote

But even as his companies did poorly, Mr. Trump did well. He put up little of his own money, shifted personal debts to the casinos and collected millions of dollars in salary, bonuses and other payments. The burden of his failures fell on investors and others who had bet on his business acumen.

In three interviews with The Times since late April, Mr. Trump acknowledged in general terms that high debt and lagging revenues had plagued his casinos. He did not recall details about some issues, but did not question The Times’s findings. He repeatedly emphasized that what really mattered about his time in Atlantic City was that he had made a lot of money there.

Trump's manner of dealing with people who wouldn't kiss his rear was the same then as it is now.

Quote

Less than two weeks before the casino opened, Marvin B. Roffman, a casino analyst at Janney Montgomery Scott, an investment firm based in Philadelphia, told The Wall Street Journal that the Taj would need to reap $1.3 million a day just to make its interest payments, a sum no casino had ever achieved.

“The market just isn’t there,” Mr. Roffman told The Journal.

Mr. Trump retaliated, demanding that Janney Montgomery Scott fire Mr. Roffman. It did.

“It was doomed way before the start,” said W. Bucky Howard, who was promoted by Mr. Trump to president of the Taj five days after it opened, in a recent interview. “I told him it was going to fail. The Taj was underfunded.”

Romney and the Bushes won't kiss Trump's rear, but they don't hold office now. Ryan and most of the republicans in congress have already done so--something never to be forgotten.

[Winstonm]

I believe a lot of us (Barrack Obama, included, during his first term) have made the mistake of trying to understand this group of people by normal historical standards when the problem is one of psychology. It is not that Donald Trump is a liar and con man that makes him too dangerous to elect; it is that he appears to be, IMO, a classic expression of narcissistic personality disorder.

[kenberg]

Winstonm, on 2016-June-11, 08:58, said:

I believe a lot of us (Barrack Obama, included, during his first term) have made the mistake of trying to understand this group of people by normal historical standards when the problem is one of psychology. It is not that Donald Trump is a liar and con man that makes him too dangerous to elect; it is that he is a classic expression of narcissistic personality disorder.

I believe that this approach is fundamentally flawed. It invites diversion. I am not a psychologist and as far as I know you aren't either. The diversion becomes whether or not we are qualified to diagnose psychological disorders, and whether, even if we are, anyone else would accept our diagnosis. Quite possibly the diagnosis is correct, that's not what i am taking issue with. Rather I hope the campaign does not boil down to having psychology experts on panel shows debating who has what personality disorder.

I started, early on, with the view that if DT were to agree with my political views on every issue I could think of, I still would not vote for him. I cannot stand listening to the guy. Every instinct I have tells me he cannot be trusted. I don't need to present my earned qualifications to say whether I can or cannot stand the guy, or whether I trust him. I can't and I don't. Now no one is going to vote on my gut feelings, so looking back at what he has done is essential.

As I understand it, there are Trump supporters, and not just those like Ryan who are going with misguided party loyalty or misguided personal interest or misguided something, but rather are real supporters and who have some financial means. I want to ask them if they would go into a business partnership with Trump. No!. Not just No! Not on your life! I may be dumb but I am not stupid, as the old saying goes.

We need to keep it simple. And I think we need to make some distinctions about motivations. "Trump supporters are racists". Some are. But we need to make distinctions. There is a difference between thinking that people who come to this country should accept the obligation to learn English, that's one view, and being fine with a rant about Mexican judges, that's another view. Not everyone who supports the first is ok with the second. Take me: I think that our elected representatives are supposed to watch out for US interests. That doesn't mean that I think we should close the borders and start a trade war with China. Globalization is an issue, and an issue that leads to severe economic dis-locations, so this must be dealt with. But the oceans are not as wide as they used to be, so withdrawal from the world is not a viable option.

Most people can understand such thoughts and discuss them rationally. Few of us are prepared to offer, defend or accept a psychological diagnosis. The guy is a ****head. That's a diagnosis people can understand. And I expect many would be very comfortable agreeing with it.

[Winstonm]

From my perspective, i.e., having been in the medical profession, to say someone has narcissistic personality disorder is the same as saying he is a s#@%head.

[blackshoe]

barmar, on 2016-June-09, 10:16, said:

The media seems to "misconstrue" lots of things he says. I wonder whose fault that is.

Hilary's, of course.

[Al_U_Card]

While getting the nomination is a piece of cake, right? In shark-infested waters, do you really want chum(p)? Hil is a savvy (crooked?) connected (influenced?) insider (elite?) with no conscience whatsoever. Morals and ethics are for the faint of heart in the cauldron that is the witch's brew of politics. Both are rather distasteful but at least DT is open about his foibles.

[onoway]

right, so someone who emphatically screams that he's proud of being a sexist bigot, a racist who promotes violence, a fraud and a liar who swindles people out of their money somehow deserves more credit/trust than someone who at least appears to understand that some behaviours are not acceptable. I'd hate to live in your world.

[Al_U_Card]

onoway, on 2016-June-11, 17:35, said:

right, so someone who emphatically screams that he's proud of being a sexist bigot, a racist who promotes violence, a fraud and a liar who swindles people out of their money somehow deserves more credit/trust than someone who at least appears to understand that some behaviours are not acceptable. I'd hate to live in your world.

Most decidedly NO. Telling it like it is, is just that. Living in a dream-world of make nice is the pitiable situation. Did BO bring change? That,at least, was the hope...played the rubes like a violin virtuoso. From the git go with Paulsen's warning still fresh...bow to the new masters of the universe. DT and Hil are opposite sides of the same coin. Mr. Deeds goes to Washington, indeed.

[kenberg]

Winstonm, on 2016-June-11, 12:18, said:

From my perspective, i.e., having been in the medical profession, to say someone has narcissistic personality disorder is the same as saying he is a s#@%head.

Yes, I think I agree with this. But I go by the direct flight. Never mind the change of planes at narcissistic disorder. Sometimes, as in a recent flight, the simple stop over does not go as planned. The more directly people look at Trump, the fewer votes he gets. So I hope.

[cherdano]

Somehow, I have a hunch that Ken won't be voting for Trump, no matter whether he can be convinced that Trump has a narcissistic personality disorder...

Side Note 1: psychologists are not supposed to publicly offer a diagnosis of personality disorder about someone they haven't examined, by their own ethical guidelines.

Side Note 2: I am not a psychologist. So if they won't offer a diagnosis, why should I?

[kenberg]

cherdano, on 2016-June-12, 03:47, said:

Somehow, I have a hunch that Ken won't be voting for Trump, no matter whether he can be convinced that Trump has a narcissistic personality disorder...

Side Note 1: psychologists are not supposed to publicly offer a diagnosis of personality disorder about someone they haven't examined, by their own ethical guidelines.

Side Note 2: I am not a psychologist. So if they won't offer a diagnosis, why should I?

Exactly. And the flip side of that is that someone who thinks that Trump will save the country is not going to change his or her mind if some bearded academic goes on the tv and drones on about Freud, Jung or whomever.

There was some stuff in the Post this morning (not deep, I won't bother to link it) about how some Republicans are having some second thoughts. Maybe a
"What have we done" moment. Think Alec Guinness at the end of "The Bridge on the River Kwai".

My view of people: There are a lot of people out there who have never given three seconds of though to whether they like Brazilians or don't like Brazilians. They don't know any Brazilians and so have never seen any reason to think about it. But if someone goes on a rant about how the judge is biased because the judge's parents were from Brazil, they intuitively know that this is crap, especially when the guy doing the complaining is a litigant in the case before the judge. I say Brazil rather than Mexico to give it generality. Mexican, Brazilian, Canadian, Italian, it doesn't matter.


I really do believe that the vast majority of people reject this level of bigotry. And it is whiny. And I think they can see that it is not what they hope for in a legal case. In short, not what they are looking for in a candidate.

We can hope.

[Zelandakh]

kenberg, on 2016-June-12, 09:23, said:

I really do believe that the vast majority of people reject this level of bigotry. And it is whiny. And I think they can see that it is not what they hope for in a legal case. In short, not what they are looking for in a candidate.

We can hope.

Perhaps that hope is misfounded however, Ken. Replace Brazilian in your example with Jew, for example, and you have something that has resonated with people of many different nationalities over a very long period of time. You can, as Trump has done, also use Muslim there in recent times. The truth is that human nature is generally pretty fearful of cultures that are not understood. Yes people understand that racism and bigotry is wrong but are nonetheless very good at rationalising their behaviour - "genuine concerns", "worries over safety", "making the country great again", and so on.

Go back 80 years and you would no doubt have heard very similar things in some places. And those that do not buy into it will often prefer to keep quiet rather than put themselves in the firing line should the bigots come into power. And history shows that they often do when times become economically difficult. It would be fairly remarkable if it did not happen in at least one Western country in the next years; let us hope that America is not amongst them.

[PassedOut]

Journalists are finally getting to work on this, and I hope it does some good: As its stock collapsed, Trump’s firm gave him huge bonuses and paid for his jet

Quote

It was promoted as the chance of a lifetime: Mom-and-pop investors could buy shares in celebrity businessman Donald Trump’s first public company, Trump Hotels and Casino Resorts.

Their investments were quickly depleted. The company known by Trump’s initials, DJT, crumbled into a penny stock and filed for bankruptcy after less than a decade, costing shareholders millions of dollars, even as other casino companies soared.

In its short life, Trump the company greatly enriched Trump the businessman, paying to have his personal jet piloted and buying heaps of Trump-brand merchandise. Despite losing money every year under Trump’s leadership, the company paid Trump handsomely, including a $5 million bonus in the year the company’s stock plummeted 70 percent.

Many of those who lost money were Main Street shareholders who believed in the Trump brand, such as Sebastian Pignatello, a retired private investor in Queens. By the time of the 2004 bankruptcy, Pignatello’s 150,000 shares were worth pennies on the dollar.

As I've said before, I've been in business all my life, and I can say that trust is a part of every deal made. For that reason -- and this is true of every business person I know -- one shady deal or one material lie permanently disqualifies a person from making another deal in the eyes of everyone who knows about it. And the word passes quickly.

It's disturbing to me that the media has helped Trump to portray his actions as good business, and that some folks get the idea that he is worthy of respect. In my opinion, he's a lot worse than many of the petty criminals sitting in prison right now.

[kenberg]

PassedOut, on 2016-June-13, 09:25, said:

Journalists are finally getting to work on this, and I hope it does some good: As its stock collapsed, Trump's firm gave him huge bonuses and paid for his jet


As I've said before, I've been in business all my life, and I can say that trust is a part of every deal made. For that reason -- and this is true of every business person I know -- one shady deal or one material lie permanently disqualifies a person from making another deal in the eyes of everyone who knows about it. And the word passes quickly.

It's disturbing to me that the media has helped Trump to portray his actions as good business, and that some folks get the idea that he is worthy of respect. In my opinion, he's a lot worse than many of the petty criminals sitting in prison right now.

Your link is exactly the sort of thing that needs to be laid out again and again. An old story: There was a WaPo story about a guy arrested on fraud charges. His pitch was that he knew how to move assets overseas where the IRS could not tax them. So people gave him their money and, true to his word, he moved their assets overseas. Problems arose when the investors tried to get their money back into their own pockets.

This example is how I see Trump. Perhaps a bit more sophisticated, but the same general idea. He has probably not made as much as he claims, but he has made a lot, mostly at the expense of others. How anyone can think he has the back of the ordinary Joe or Josephine is beyond me. Trump watches out for Trump. First, only and always. That's the full story.

[barmar]

The problem seems to be that using Other People's Money (OPM) is viewed as shrewd business accumen. This site lists Trump along with J. Paul Getty and Aristotle Onassis.

But a big difference is that successful businessmen use leverage to create additional wealth for their investors. Trump just loses it. Reason.com quotes his biographer:

Quote

[Trump] doesn't do a deal unless other people are putting up the money. He's very good at losing other people's money and preserving his own

Marketwatch.com has a story about it, too. Why Donald Trump is rich and you’re not

Quote

The secret? Other people's money.
...
Trump borrowed billions from bankers and used the money to put up buildings like Trump Tower and open casinos like the Taj Mahal. In his books, Trump says that by the early 1990s he owed more than $9 billion.

When things turned sour his companies filed for bankruptcy. Twice. The lenders had to eat the losses.

Too bad. What a bunch of losers!

[barmar]

That second article then goes on to satirically castigate all the ordinary folks who don't follow Trump's lead. Want to go to college for free? Don't take out a student loan, pay with your credit card, then file for bankruptcy so your credit card debt is wiped out. Want to own a home but can't afford it? Take out a mortgage; if the value goes up, sell and reap the gains, but if it goes under water, let the bank foreclose. Get multiple credit cards and use each one to pay for others.

But the problem may be that some people will read a piece like this and see it as an instruction manual, not a cautionary warning. They won't notice that the words "winners" and "losers" are in scare quotes throughout.

[kenberg]

barmar, on 2016-June-13, 11:24, said:

That second article then goes on to satirically castigate all the ordinary folks who don't follow Trump's lead. Want to go to college for free? Don't take out a student loan, pay with your credit card, then file for bankruptcy so your credit card debt is wiped out. Want to own a home but can't afford it? Take out a mortgage; if the value goes up, sell and reap the gains, but if it goes under water, let the bank foreclose. Get multiple credit cards and use each one to pay for others.

But the problem may be that some people will read a piece like this and see it as an instruction manual, not a cautionary warning. They won't notice that the words "winners" and "losers" are in scare quotes throughout.

As leery as I am about surveys and comparisons, it would be interesting to know if attitudes about such things have changed over the years. I briefly came out of retirement last fall to teach an honors calc 2 course for freshmen (A colleague was ill). I was struck by how much these youngsters reminded me of myself and my friends of sixty years ago. I don't think this is the usual view.

Anyway, young people, and older people, need to learn that is is not always clever to be too lever.

[y66]

Quote

With the recent passing of Muhammad Ali, boxing is on my mind,” Barry Blitt says about his cover for the June 20, 2016, issue. His next thought was Hillary Clinton: “You’ve got to respect or at least be impressed by someone who has been counted out many times but repeatedly gets up from the mat, ready for the next round.”