Stop Normalizing Trump

[Gregory Thompson]

Normalcy is not relative. It sits on a wide spectrum that varies across cultures. However there are boundaries that everyone will agree to about abnormality. But that's besides the point.

I would like to know in full context of the statement that note 50% of Americans think Trump's behavior is normal. What are the correlations or understanding should I derive from it? It seems to slant towards the capacity of the 50% to make sound judgement. And I do hope that is not the implications I should be deriving from it.

Normalcy is definitely relative, but since it is the aggregate of multiple people's perception, it changes gradually over time.

50%? just look at the Red and Blue state map during any election.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

You are aware that anarchism and communitarianism aren't necessarily at odds? Anarchism is based on a critique of social and economic hierarchies, and communitarianism is based on a critique of classical liberal individualism. There's alot of potential overlap.

Yes, I'm aware that they're not necessarily at odds, and I had to read a little Peter Kroptokin and Emma Goldman when I was an undergrad. I get what you're saying.

The thing is, whether its from the left or the right, I don't find extremist dog-poop of any kind in the stew of our democratic republic to be either appetizing or palatable.

 

[childeye 2]

And you would have missed my point. I made no claims about the capability of any US politicians. I could care less in fact about any US politicians.

I merely want the poster to elaborate on his views about others. I only wish to probe his own inner thoughts about the group of people who views his unfavored person with normalcy. It fascinates me how people view their fellow citizens.

I definitely didn't get your point. It looked to me like you were drawing a false equivalency between the two candidates, when we've never had a Presidential candidate like Trump before, who tried to corrupt an entire party into rejecting the valid votes of the people, and who has been successful to some extent.

My intention is to drive home the stark difference between a person who defends the vote of the people and a person who tries to undermine the vote of the people.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

I definitely didn't get your point. It looked to me like you were drawing an equivalency between the two candidates, when we've never had a Presidential candidate like Trump, who tried to corrupt a party into rejecting the valid votes of the people, and was successful to some extent.

And used his status to peddle coins, tennis shoes, crypto, etc. He belongs at a carnival.

 

[childeye 2]

And used his status to peddle coins, tennis shoes, crypto, etc. He belongs at a carnival.

Uh oh, you're bashing Trump and by extension the half of the US that he says loves America, and who also want to buy the stars and stripes with Trump's name stamped on it in gold letters.

But seriously, I truly disapprove of the destructive energy in slander and generally the negative prejudice of bigotry. So, it's surreal to me that whoever speaks out against Trump's continuous slander and negative prejudice and bigotry, is accused of slander and negative prejudice and bigotry.

 

[rambot]

Why aren't you talking to them then?

Why should I be?

LOL! You made the statement, so you tell me.

I did. The behaviours dictate it. You seem to believe that you need someone to Translate Trump's behaviour for you.

What poor behaviors???

The poor behaviours that his supporters normalize..... Hence....

I haven't diagnosed anyone.

Sure you did...in a way. I'm not sure why you use the word "diagnose". We are not doctors so we can't do that. BUT, we can read symptoms and have "opinions".
I am just waiting to read about doctors who agree with your opinion.

I didn't know solar eclipse viewing habits were the basis you judge people by.

Actually, I judge people on whether they show better discernment than a 6th grader. The solar eclipse viewing idiocy was the basis for my discernment.

I accept him, and he has my vote.

Trump is not an acceptable expert and as I said, he doesn't demonstrate a quarter of the knowledge that he claims to have.

Those who don't accept him will have their "democracy" tested when they have to hand over power to the Trump administration. Let's see if Biden/harris can do that peacefully after declaring Trump to be the biggest threat to democracy (and others in their group who said he must be eliminated).

I have 0 doubt in my mind that in terms of popular vote, Harris is going to trounce Trump. I think that swing states may be tight and I expect that MAGA operatives on electoral boards are going to try to influence decision making and find ways to have votes struck or disallowed. In comparing PROVEN illegal voting between republicans and democrats, the former are FAR more willing and ready to vote illegally. We are already seeing acts that could, at least appear duplicitous in georgia...

 

[rambot]

I only wish at least 50% of Americans could be just like Trump.

Well "sadly" there were only 1,500 sexual abuse offenders in 2022.
https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/...ublications/quick-facts/Sexual_Abuse_FY22.pdf
BUT that would only include people who were ACTUALLY convicted..
So comfort could be had in the idea that this represents only about .28% (28 out of 1000 who get charged) of the ACTUAL number of sexual assault perpetrators.
(according toe RAINN's data from the justice system). That would bring the number of sexual offenders to 535, 714. But those people were not all convicted and vetted with a punishment....so that isn't really like Trump I guess.

Also, I'm not sure how many men actually BRAG about sexual assaulting a woman...but I'm not convinced that that number, also, would be SUPER closer to 50%


So it looks like America has QUITE a ways to go if you want 50% to be like Trump. I hope you don't wish for this hellscape on any females in your life.

 

[rambot]

Normalcy is not relative. It sits on a wide spectrum that varies across cultures.

These two sentences directly contradict each other.

However there are boundaries that everyone will agree to about abnormality. But that's besides the point.

A few but I'd bet not NEARLY as many as you'd think.

 

[rambot]

Imagine going into a business meeting where you have to present to clients and your fragile ego cannot allow you to be wrong, so instead of being wrong, you take one of graphs of your presentation and you adjust it with a sharpie to reflect what you said...EVEN though what you said was factually inaccurate?

This is not what a normal person would do and deep down, we all know it.
And nobody on here would EVER consider doing something like that for a meeting for which THEY were responsible because everyone on Christian Forums, even the people I disagree with, are principled, honest, forthright people with scruples: Even though I disagree with them often, I grant them that.


He is not normal.

But I'm wondering if people need a refresher on what made him be seen as "not normal"...because an opinion like that doesn't come out of the vacuum...regardless of what his supporters will say.

 

[Aldebaran]

Uh oh, you're bashing Trump and by extension the half of the US that he says loves America, and who also want to buy the stars and stripes with Trump's name stamped on it in gold letters.

But seriously, I truly disapprove of the destructive energy in slander and generally the negative prejudice of bigotry. So, it's surreal to me that whoever speaks out against Trump's continuous slander and negative prejudice and bigotry, is accused of slander and negative prejudice and bigotry.

Because it's true that you're engaging in the very thing you claim to shun.

 

[childeye 2]

Because it's true that you're engaging in the very thing you claim to shun.

If that were true, you could show me and correct me, which as a Christian I would genuinely appreciate, even if you believe I'm lying and don't actually believe I truly would appreciate not being misled by the spirit of the devil. But you don't offer any correction and therefore your sentiment above is just a blank assertion.

Besides, you're already on record claiming that unless I can show I'm a mental health expert, I don't have the expertise to say that Trump displays all the symptoms of a Malignant Narcissist. And from that reasoning alone you applied a non sequitur that I was just using the phrase Malignant Narcissist to say something bad about Trump without proof (asserting I'm a slanderer), even though my original post on the subject was in reference to an article from a mental health expert in the New York Times.

Anyway, be that as it may, I'm still wondering if you're going to answer this question about Trump's behavior ---> When Trump said he could shoot someone on fifth avenue and he wouldn't lose a vote, do you personally think he truly believed that?

 

[Hazelelponi]

They have interviewed several licensed psychiatrists.

Have any of those licence holders explained to you they can't actually diagnose someone they have never sat with?

 

[Aldebaran]

If that were true, you could show me and correct me, which I would genuinely appreciate, even if you believe I'm lying, and don't actually believe that I truly would appreciate not being misled by the spirit of the devil. But you don't offer any correction and therefore your sentiment above is just a blank assertion.

Besides, you're already on record claiming that unless I can show I'm a mental health expert, I don't have the expertise to say that Trump displays all the symptoms of a Malignant Narcissist. And from that reasoning alone you applied a non sequitur that I was just using the phrase Malignant Narcissist to say something bad about Trump without proof, even though my original post on the subject was in reference to an article from a mental health expert in the New York Times.

Anyway, I'm still wondering if you're going to answer this question about Trump's narcissistic behavior: When Trump said he could shoot someone on fifth avenue and he wouldn't lose a vote, do you think he truly believed that?

What I believe is that if someone is a narcissist (malignant or otherwise), he wouldn't take a bullet and keep on campaigning, especially when another guy is waiting with another bullet to try to finish the job. A narcissist in Trump's position would realize he's got a lot of money already, and has already been to the top of the political world, and is now time to just sit back and relax in comfort and focus on himself at this point in his life, and not have a care in the world about where this country is headed since he's already 78 years old and could live out the rest of his days in comfort without traveling around the country campaigning to make this country great again.

But instead, he puts it all on the line, gets sued and prosecuted, loses lots of money, gets shot at, and then has to put up with slander from people who anonymously go online to label him as a "malignant narcissist".

 

[childeye 2]

Have any of those licence holders explained to you they can't actually diagnose someone they have never sat with?

In one video that I've provided, they articulated this sentiment ---> "As licensed professionals we're not in the business of diagnosing people we have not treated".

In other circles, it has also been said that there's an ethical issue at the heart of speaking out about public figures that show unhealthy levels of narcissism. The trade commission of Psychiatry has guidelines which generally frown upon doing this.

But to your point, all psychiatrists I've seen point out that while most people might associate narcissism with a mental disorder, narcissism is not actually a diagnostic medical term. That is to say that there are healthy levels of narcissism. Therefore, a rudimentary diagnosis can be done by anybody through observing whether a person shows narcissistic traits that are above normal or even dangerous, IF you know what the traits are.

 

[childeye 2]

What I believe is that if someone is a narcissist (malignant or otherwise), he wouldn't take a bullet and keep on campaigning, especially when another guy is waiting with another bullet to try to finish the job. A narcissist in Trump's position would realize he's got a lot of money already, and has already been to the top of the political world, and is now time to just sit back and relax in comfort and focus on himself at this point in his life, and not have a care in the world about where this country is headed since he's already 78 years old and could live out the rest of his days in comfort without traveling around the country campaigning to make this country great again.

But instead, he puts it all on the line, gets sued and prosecuted, loses lots of money, gets shot at, and then has to put up with slander from people who anonymously go online to label him as a "malignant narcissist".

Those people that constitute thousands of trained mental health experts willing to go on the record to say Trump is a Malignant Narcissist are not anonymous.

But that's beside the point. Are you going to answer this question or not? ---> When Trump said he could shoot someone on fifth avenue and he wouldn't lose a vote, do you think he truly believed that?

 

[rjs330]

First off, I wouldn't "take off all the transgender stuff", because that is one huge sticking point for people. (to many people, a narcissistic blow-hard like Trump seems less abnormal to them than what they perceive as "men in the womens changing room"). You can't hedge with taking out one of the key things people are divided over.

That'd be like saying "Ignoring all the criminal activity and dog whistles for a moment, what's so bad about Trump?"


Apart from that...

Politicians giving lipservice to the "defund the police" movement and BLM, advocating for late-term elective abortions and drifting away from "safe, legal and rare" to "shout your abortion", student loan forgiveness (in an educational environment that's drifted consistently left for the last 10 years), proposals for unrealized capital gains taxes, "Cancel culture" efforts, expanding multi-culturalism, calling people bigots if they want stronger borders...


There's a key difference between how conservatives and progressives view each others movements.

While conservatives tend to realize that the progressive "movement" doesn't live or die with any one person, progressives tend to not realize that about conservatives. Progressives tend to talk as if "If Trump never existed, none of this would be happening". When, in reality, there would've just been another "Trump'ish" person to fill that void.

His rise to power didn't happen in a vacuum. It's not as if it's a situation where if there was no Trump, conservatives would've been magically laid back abut rapid changes pertaining all of the aforementioned, all within a 4-year time window.


But to circle back around, my response to the other poster was still valid... Protestors barking outside of the HQ's of places like NY Times and WaPo, claiming that those kinds of publications are "sane-washing" and/or normalizing Trump is, like I said, misdirected anger.

You and I can disagree about "Left's policies making Trump seem more normal to the right-wing" vs. "Trump does it so much, people are desensitized"...whether I'm right, or you're right...either way, the protestors in question are wrong. Whatever the cause is of the "perceived Trump normalizing", it's certainly not the publications that have been calling him a unique threat for the last 4 years.

NY Times has ran pieces about him being "thuggish", "autocratic", "having the capacity to upend democratic norms", uniquely racist, "representing all that is wrong with the American right", "Jim Crow 2.0", etc...

What else, exactly, do these protestors want the NY Times and WaPo to say about him? Are they just wanting them to run a hit piece called "Trump: The New Hitler" before they'll be satisfied with NY Times' coverage about him?

Another well thought out and spot on post. Man you are good.

 

[Aldebaran]

Those people that constitute thousands of trained mental health experts willing to go on the record to say Trump is a Malignant Narcissist are not anonymous.

But that's beside the point. Are you going to answer this question or not? ---> When Trump said he could shoot someone on fifth avenue and he wouldn't lose a vote, do you think he truly believed that?

No. I believe he was just making an obviously hyperbolic statement in jest in response to how great he was doing and how much support he was getting.

 

[childeye 2]

No. I believe he was just making an obviously hyperbolic statement in jest in response to how great he was doing and how much support he was getting.

Well yeah, I agree it's definitely hyperbolic on its face, but I don't see it as jesting. I think he really believes it because he's talking about how smart "his" people are.

And here's the rub. Smart people would not be so blind in their loyalty to a single person that they would vote for that person even if that person would shoot someone on fifth avenue. But "HIS" "SMART" people are so blind in loyalty to him, that they would vote for him even if he tried to put himself above the constitution and get his party to reject the valid votes of the people.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

No. I believe he was just making an obviously hyperbolic statement in jest in response to how great he was doing and how much support he was getting.

But with Trump it is not obvious. Anyone else it would be.

 

[Chesterton]

But with Trump it is not obvious. Anyone else it would be.

It is obvious to anyone with an IQ above room temperature.