Trump NOT Mentally Ill - Just Unpleasant

[jardiniere]

Compromise only works for one side if it's the other side that's forced to compromise. If I come to you and say, "Give me all your money which is $100, and you give me $50 as a compromise, I got half of what I wanted. Then I come back 5 minutes later and demand the other $50 and you give me $25 of it as a compromise, I got only half of what I wanted again. Then another 5 minutes later I demand $25 and you give me $12.50, well I think you understand. Eventually, you have nothing and I end up with it all. That's why compromise doesn't work if it's only one side doing all the compromising.

You don't know what compromise means. This may throw a damper on your comprehension of other, more complex negotiations.

 

[Aldebaran]

You don't know what compromise means. This may throw a damper on your comprehension of other, more complex negotiations.

"an agreement or a settlement of a dispute that is reached by each side making concessions."

Still fits in with what I was saying.

 

[jardiniere]

"an agreement or a settlement of a dispute that is reached by each side making concessions."

Still fits in with what I was saying.

No. It doesn't. There was no concession on your part of the compromise example. Thus, not a compromise.

Serious reading comprehension issue? I don't know, just know that there were no concessions on your part of the compromise. Thus, not a compromise. Just prolonged theft. If you think compromise is theft, then at least even it out so both parties are being stolen from-that's the concession part, and that's what makes a compromise.

 

[Aldebaran]

No. It doesn't. There was no concession on your part of the compromise example. Thus, not a compromise.

Serious reading comprehension issue? I don't know, just know that there were no concessions on your part of the compromise. Thus, not a compromise. Just prolonged theft. If you think compromise is theft, then at least even it out so both parties are being stolen from-that's the concession part, and that's what makes a compromise.

Compromise in the example I was showing you is a concession. Republicans had to do this on issues plenty of times when Democrats were in control. An example of that is when the Democrats wanted excessive gun control measures. They wanted at one time to ban all guns, but decided to take the "compromise" route and try doing it little at a time.

Here's an article from a source you'll probably like that illustrates the issue quite well from a liberal perspective: How to Ban Guns: A step by step, long term process

 

[crjmurray]

Compromise in the example I was showing you is a concession. Republicans had to do this on issues plenty of times when Democrats were in control. An example of that is when the Democrats wanted excessive gun control measures. They wanted at one time to ban all guns, but decided to take the "compromise" route and try doing it little at a time.

Here's an article from a source you'll probably like that illustrates the issue quite well from a liberal perspective: How to Ban Guns: A step by step, long term process

The best part about that article is the OUTRAGEOUSLY OPTIMISTIC estimate that it would take six months to put all the firearms currently in the country on a registry.

 

[Aldebaran]

The best part about that article is the OUTRAGEOUSLY OPTIMISTIC estimate that it would take six months to put all the firearms currently in the country on a registry.

The very small lines of people who showed up to register their AR rifles in places that mandated it is an example of how outrageously optimistic it is. Those in New York are not bothering to register as mandated. NY SAFE Act weapons registry numbers released

 

[FireDragon76]

For people with principles and a realistic ethic, compromise is always possible. For people just obsessed with power or unrealistic ethics, then compromise is never possible.

 

[The Barbarian]

I greatly fear that this will not end well either for the American people or for Donald Trump himself.

I suspect you're right.

 

[jayem]

"an agreement or a settlement of a dispute that is reached by each side making concessions."

Still fits in with what I was saying.

Pres. Trump will have to concede something if he wants an immigration directive that meets Constitutional standards. He's said he'll modify his original executive order. So hopefully, he's learning to compromise.

 

[The Barbarian]

Trump has a history. If you show any weakness or interest in appeasing him, he'll continue to be aggressive. If you confront him, he'll try to slide away from it, and look for an easier mark.

Look what happened to his birther games when he was repeatedly confronted and laughed at:
Trump finally admits Obama was born in US - CNN Video

 

[jardiniere]

In a compromise, one party can not dictate the terms of concession, it's not possible to call it a compromise at that point. Both parties must not get all of what they originally wanted, AND both parties must get something of what they originally wanted. Your original example had one party dictating terms to another party without that party gaining anything in return. Not a compromise, simple as that.

Words matter.

 

[jgarden]

That was said by a top psychiatrist - how is this unjust or make this thread a farce? This thread disputes that Donald is mentally ill - I would expect you to embrace that.

18 0000:1

The opinion of one psychiatrist, no matter how qualified, does not negate the opinions of 18 000 medical professionals to the contrary!

It should also be noted that this 18 000 figure was reached before some of Trump's more recent bizarre performances - his attacks on the judiciary ("so called judges"), labeling the press as "enemies of the American people" and his infamous Thursday 75 minute press conference "meltdown."

The real question Americans should all be asking ourselves is whether Trump would voluntarily leave if he were to be voted out of office or impeached?

 

[bhsmte]

Says the guy who wrote the book. And it doesn't qualify for a personality disorder, either.



The professor emeritus of psychiatry at Duke University Medical College goes on to state:

Mr. Trump causes severe distress rather than experiencing it and has been richly rewarded, rather than punished, for his grandiosity, self-absorption and lack of empathy. It is a stigmatizing insult to the mentally ill (who are mostly well behaved and well meaning) to be lumped with Mr. Trump (who is neither).

Bad behavior is rarely a sign of mental illness, and the mentally ill behave badly only rarely. Psychiatric name-calling is a misguided way of countering Mr. Trump’s attack on democracy. He can, and should, be appropriately denounced for his ignorance, incompetence, impulsivity and pursuit of dictatorial powers.

His psychological motivations are too obvious to be interesting, and analyzing them will not halt his headlong power grab. The antidote to a dystopic Trumpean dark age is political, not psychological.​

.

So stop insulting the mentally ill with these comparisons!

I dont know if trump meets the criteria for npd or not, but there are likely experts who feel he does. Mental halth professionals, commonly disagree. With that said, trump clearly exhibits a high degree of narcissist behavior and it is nothing new, he has for decades.

 

[DaisyDay]

I dont know if trump meets the criteria for npd or not, but there are likely experts who feel he does. Mental halth professionals, commonly disagree. With that said, trump clearly exhibits a high degree of narcissist behavior and it is nothing new, he has for decades.

I think this guy is basing his opinion on the fact that none of this causes Donald any distress or problems in his social life or work life - on the contrary, he seems to benefit from his behavior. Since he is thriving being this way, it isn't pathological. He agrees that Donald is narcissistic, just not sick.

 

[bhsmte]

I think this guy is basing his opinion on the fact that none of this causes Donald any distress or problems in his social life or work life - on the contrary, he seems to benefit from his behavior. Since he is thriving being this way, it isn't pathological. He agrees that Donald is narcissistic, just not sick.

Folks with personality disorders (and i have been close to this) come in all shapes and sizes. Some are what is called; high functioning. They meet criteria for the disorder, but are still able to function in society. One thing learned from being around someone with a confirmed personality disorder (borderline), is they absolutely loath any critisicm, no matter how slight and they will demonize anyone who goes down that road. Furthermore, they also struggle with reality if it doesnt align with their personal needs and they will then manufacture their own reality, that suits them.

 

[DaisyDay]

Folks with personality disorders (and i have been close to this) come in all shapes and sizes. Some are what is called; high functioning. They meet criteria for the disorder, but are still able to function in society. One thing learned from being around someone with a confirmed personality disorder (borderline), is they absolutely loath any critisicm, no matter how slight and they will demonize anyone who goes down that road. Furthermore, they also struggle with reality if it doesnt align with their personal needs and they will then manufacture their own reality, that suits them.

Yeah, I do know, but this guy thinks that Donald doesn't meet the criteria which he helped set.

 

[Aldebaran]

In a compromise, one party can not dictate the terms of concession, it's not possible to call it a compromise at that point. Both parties must not get all of what they originally wanted, AND both parties must get something of what they originally wanted. Your original example had one party dictating terms to another party without that party gaining anything in return. Not a compromise, simple as that.

Words matter.

I was trying to show you the effect of the same subject being brought up repeatedly. When one side gets more than the other, or maybe even one side gets something (maybe not as much as they had hoped for) and the other side gets nothing--and then comes back again to get more of what they wanted in the first place, then only one side wins. If the subject is brought up enough times, one side eventually get everything they wanted.

 

[cow451]

One can be cra-cra and unpleasant at the same time.

 

[jardiniere]

I was trying to show you the effect of the same subject being brought up repeatedly. When one side gets more than the other, or maybe even one side gets something (maybe not as much as they had hoped for) and the other side gets nothing--and then comes back again to get more of what they wanted in the first place, then only one side wins. If the subject is brought up enough times, one side eventually get everything they wanted.

I understood what you said. That's not compromise. Seriously. And if you could find a real life example of such a series of negotiations - where one side gets nothing from the event, and the other side doesn't get all they want all at once, but does get all they want within a longer frame of time while the other side gets nothing - that would be very gratifying. If the two of them call this a compromise, I will go and castigate those Humpty Dumptys - because that wasn't a compromise.

Call it a series of negotiations. Call it strong-arm tactics. Call it anything but what it isn't. This way people will understand you when you speak.

 

[rambot]

I think this guy is basing his opinion on the fact that none of this causes Donald any distress or problems in his social life or work life - on the contrary, he seems to benefit from his behavior. Since he is thriving being this way, it isn't pathological. He agrees that Donald is narcissistic, just not sick.

There are plenty of sociopaths who thrive; that doesnt mean they arent sociopaths.
What an odd thing for him to say