Assholes: A Theory of Donald Trump

[MajGenl.Meade]

From back in 2016 when it didn't seem all THAT important. Or did we do this back then already?

Assholes: A Theory of Donald Trump
Almost everyone now knows that Donald Trump is an asshole. Much to his credit, Aaron James pointed this out in Assholes: A Theory (Anchor Books 2012) well before Trump took center stage in American politics. In his new book, James sets out to develop this idea in greater detail . . . in Assholes: A Theory of Donald Trump

. . . James begins the work by recapping the definition of the asshole he developed in his first book. On this view, the asshole has three essential features: First, he – James notes that assholes are mostly men – “allows himself special advantages in social relationships in a systematic way”; second, he is “motivated by an entrenched (and mistaken) sense of entitlement”; and third, he is “immunized against the complaints of other people”.

James claims that Trump is – like Ted Cruz – an asshole in this sense, but “being an ass-clown is Trump’s distinctive style of assholery”. According to James, the ass-clown “is someone who seeks an audience’s attention and enjoyment while being slow to understand how it views him”. Much like a man who chases women to flatter his own ego, Trump chases the electorate “to affirm his worth by being seen as powerful, the center of attention”. To win the affections of this lover, Trump must become a showman. Like a clown, he seeks to entertain, but like an ass, Trump fails to understand that he is the clown. For these reasons, James classifies Trump as an ass-clown.

https://philosophersmag.com/assholes-a- ... -a-review/

[BoSoxGal]

Or let's be clinical and trust the medical professionals who know:

More than 200 health professionals say Trump has ‘malignant narcissism’ in open letter

[Burning Petard]

Please, Please, P L E A S E ! Think carefully. No poison ring for a hand shake, no botulism or anthrax in the take-out hamburgers, and specially do not pick up the gun. No 25th amendment stuff.

Do you really think we would all be better with JD Vance in the oval office?

Work now to get the GOP out of the House in the next election. The Supremes DO follow the elections.

snailgate.

[Crackpot]

I don’t think JD Vance will be able to muster the blind obedience Trump does. Unlike his memes he’s not the least bit cute but is very off-putting.

[Joe Guy]

I agree.

Vance doesn't have the same stage presence....

[Big RR]

I agree to a point, but I do think that Vance is a lot smarter than Trump, and i think he might be smart enough to do a lot of damage without shooting himself in the foot like Trump does. Sure, he won't have the masses chanting his name, but I think he might be better poised to create a lot of mischief--and, unlike Trump, I don't think he needs the worship, or even the respect of the crowds--he'll just do what he wants. Congress might take him on, but I doubt they will until it's too late and the damge is done. Indeed, I think it's more likely that he will cause some sort of big split, maybe a new civil war.

[Crackpot]

You underestimate how much trumps buffoonery covers for him. The very fact that Vance comes off as competent removes the plausible deniability that Trump thrives on.

[liberty]

I agree to a point, but I do think that Vance is a lot smarter than Trump, and i think he might be smart enough to do a lot of damage without shooting himself in the foot like Trump does. Sure, he won't have the masses chanting his name, but I think he might be better poised to create a lot of mischief--and, unlike Trump, I don't think he needs the worship, or even the respect of the crowds--he'll just do what he wants. Congress might take him on, but I doubt they will until it's too late and the damge is done. Indeed, I think it's more likely that he will cause some sort of big split, maybe a new civil war.

What damage could Vance, or Trump, do that couldn’t be fixed by the next president and Congress? Do you really think Vance or Trump want to risk a civil war? What could possibly be gained from that, when it could destroy everything we have?

[Joe Guy]

What damage could Vance, or Trump, do that couldn’t be fixed by the next president and Congress? .....

A new president or congress will not easily undo all of the divisiveness that Trump has created. He has managed to convince his magaphants that democrats are the enemy within and responsible for all the problems we face. He has persuaded his partisans into believing that all immigrants are criminals and that minorities are all on government assistance of some type. He has managed to make revenge against democratic party opponents appealing to his supporters, especially if he can embarrass them. Under maga rule, it's okay for a president to belittle women, grab them, molest and slander them. And as of a couple days ago, it's okay for a president to go online to post a video of himself flying a plane and dropping shit on people who are protesting against him.

How does a new president or congress make that mindset go away?

[Scooter]

The demolition of the East Wing is certainly a metaphor for the sort of damage Trump can do that can't be fixed by the next president or the next five presidents.

[Big RR]

I agree to a point, but I do think that Vance is a lot smarter than Trump, and i think he might be smart enough to do a lot of damage without shooting himself in the foot like Trump does. Sure, he won't have the masses chanting his name, but I think he might be better poised to create a lot of mischief--and, unlike Trump, I don't think he needs the worship, or even the respect of the crowds--he'll just do what he wants. Congress might take him on, but I doubt they will until it's too late and the damge is done. Indeed, I think it's more likely that he will cause some sort of big split, maybe a new civil war.

What damage could Vance, or Trump, do that couldn’t be fixed by the next president and Congress? Do you really think Vance or Trump want to risk a civil war? What could possibly be gained from that, when it could destroy everything we have?

FWIW, I don't think either thinks that far ahead. However, to the extent that they do think, my guess is that they would prefer whatever survives the civil war to what exists now. Unlike real states rights conservatives, they would want the war to spawn a strong central government where the president (strong man, jefe, generalissimo...) rules by decree without having to worry about the niceties of a legislature or the courts daring to challenge them. My guess is that this is precisely what those pulling their strings want, and they realize a a violent conflict would send many enthusiastically running to the safety of such a government.

ETA: I don't think things will progress this far, but I think the danger is greater than it has ever been in my lifetime (and that includes the 60s) because there are a lot of people who are willing to accept anything blindly because they are pissed off. Sure, there were always some revolutionaries on the left and right, but they were a small fringe; I don't think the MAGA types are revolutionaries (they're far too lily-livered for that), but they like to imagine themselves to be so; and they're playing right into the hands of those who don't want to worry about the niceties of a democracy--and following the path to that cheering wildly.