Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
It’s the Character
I first became aware of Donald Trump when he chose to make cheating on his first wife front-page news. It was the early ’90s. Donald and Ivana Trump broke up over the course of months. Not that divorce is shocking, mind you. Among the glitterati marriage seems more unusual. Nor is infidelity exactly novel. But it requires a particular breed of lowlife to advertise the sexual superiority of one’s mistress over the mother of one’s children. That was Trump’s style. He leaked stories to the New York tabloids about Ivana’s breast implants — they didn’t feel right. Marla Maples, by contrast, suited him better. She, proving her suitability for the man she was eager to steal from his family, told the papers that her encounters with the mogul were “the best sex I’ve ever had.” It wasn’t just Donald Trump’s betrayal that caught my eye, nor just the tawdriness – it was the cruelty.
That’s the part of the Trump rise that is quite shocking. Most politicians, for as long as I can remember, have been at considerable pains to present themselves as nicer, nobler, and more empathetic than they really are. Since many of them (not all) are selfish egotists, this requires some skill. Now comes Trump unblushingly parading his viciousness – by, for example, mocking a handicapped man, toying with white supremacism, or encouraging political violence — and still gaining the loyalty of a plurality of Republicans.
One can imagine why voters might tolerate a little nastiness in certain situations. It’s possible that the threat of ISIS-style war crimes makes a would-be leader who vows to commit war crimes of his own seem palatable, or even “strong.” It’s not a total surprise that a regime of stifling political correctness would evoke a reaction.
But voters are venturing way out on a plank with Trump – and I’m not speaking here of the fact that he is overwhelmingly likely to lose to Hillary Clinton if he’s the Republican nominee. No, I’m referring to the copious evidence that if he won, he could cause catastrophic damage to the country.
Donald Trump is not emotionally healthy. No normal man sits up late at night tweeting dozens of insults about Megyn Kelly, or skips a key debate because he’s nursing a grudge against her for asking perfectly ordinary questions, or continues to obsess about her weeks and months after the fact.
A normal, well-adjusted man does not go to great lengths to prove to a random journalist that he has normal sized fingers. Some may think it was Rubio who introduced the “small hands” business, but it actually dates back to an encounter Trump had 25 years ago with journalist Graydon Carter. Carter had referred to Trump as a “stubby fingered vulgarian” in Spy magazine. Trump could not let it go. Carter told Vanity Fair in 2015:
To this day, I receive the occasional envelope from Trump. There is always a photo of him — generally a tear sheet from a magazine. On all of them he has circled his hand in gold Sharpie in a valiant effort to highlight the length of his fingers . . . The most recent offering arrived earlier this year, before his decision to go after the Republican presidential nomination. Like the other packages, this one included a circled hand and the words, also written in gold Sharpie: “See, not so short!”
Notice he didn’t contest the “vulgarian” part of the insult. And remember that at a presidential debate, for God’s sake, Trump brought it up himself and assured the world that “there is no problem, believe me.” I don’t believe him, and I’m not talking about his genitals.
There is an enormous problem. Trump seems to suffer from narcissistic personality disorder, an insecurity so consuming and crippling that he has devoted his life to self-aggrandizement. This is far beyond the puffery that most salesmen indulge to some degree. It strays well into the bizarre. Asked whom he consults on foreign policy Trump said “I’m speaking with myself, number one, because I have a very good brain and I’ve said a lot of things.” What grown man says things like that and continues to be taken seriously? How can he be leading the race for the Republican nomination?
People with severe ego weakness are to be pitied – but also feared. Everything Trump says and does is a form of self-medication for a damaged soul. His need to disparage others, to glorify himself, and to be the “strong man” could lead to disastrous judgments by the man in charge of the nuclear codes.
Published in General
you’re joking, right?
If you’re at the point of taking any criticism of Trump as personal attacks (which, by the way, would be perfectly legitimate when a person is running for president), I think we are long past the point where you have anything substantive to say in support of the man.
Or perhaps you’d like to answer the questions I asked of Guru? Let’s hear some effective counter-argument, and here’s a hint: “TDS” isn’t too effective.
To be fair he also cites TPP, I assume he means the Trans-Pacific Partnership. So in addition to immigration he also backs Trump’s protectionism on trade.
I don’t think that allowing legal immigration for highly skilled workers (PhD’s) is the same as “open borders.” If we disagree on that, then that’s ok.
“Mr. Trump is not a member of Ricochet….”
If you created the “Donald J Trump Tier” and restricted membership to him alone, he might join.
Here is a serious question for the Trump supporters who believe that this post was an inappropriate, unhelpful, personal attack.
If Trump is nominated, will you think it is prudent for him to attack Hillary’s character? Her behavior with Benghazi? The personal server? Her behavior during Bill’s administration and the sexual allegations regarding him?
If so, is Trump’s character still off-limits?
Comment #42 escaped our notice, in no small part because it was not flagged. It has since been redacted in part.
Comment #43 from the same author had already been redacted.
You redacted it in #42, but not as quoted in #44. And I believe comment #43 is yours.
I’ve been around here for five years and have never flagged another member’s comment. What’s happened to Ricochet is sad.
Perhaps Trumpian divisiveness has infected us too.
What is the point of this comment? If Mona’s piece is unreadable, don’t read it. If you find it offensive, explain why. I’ve seen you use gracious behavior before, but for some reason, you seem to prefer obnoxious and unpleasant.
Yep, at this point, especially with Rubio gone, how could anybody not vote for Cruz? The amount of delegates Trump has should harden the remaining states (including my own, CA) to vote for Cruz. There is no other choice.
Here’s an item. I preferred Jamie’s honest jab to Ryan’s backhanded insult and remonstration to be remediated. I haven’t flagged anything on this whole thread, and was surprised to see two of the early ones. I missed a bunch of the intervening stuff.
Thank you Tom for running plane guard, but I agree with Basil that there is a lot of subjectivity built in to an admittedly human process. So I’m not complaining per se (glad it’s not my job to shovel around here), but at the same time, I think it worthwhile to consider that for a lot of people, mere diction does not transform nastiness into good manners.
“open borders” doesn’t often seem well-defined, but she certainly comes off that way, only giving lip service to not supporting illegality, but never offers any policy suggestions. Jay often gives a sort of lip service in the other direction, but never says much about same. I respect their intellect and enjoy their conversations otherwise.
Apologies, my confusion: #36 was redacted.
Good grief. I’ve seen all kinds of self-examination from conservative thinkers. Most, including Mona, concede that there is legitimate anger. But unending mea culpas will do no good if we don’t act decisively to stop the impending suicide of the conservative movement.
Liz, there’s much right with what you say here, but short answer; she started it — do you find the article agreeable or pleasant? Heck no, she’s on the warpath. I’m “thinking with my viscera”, she’s in the ever-so ivory tower. Besides, I’ve been gracious here before, and I’ve been heated, and she’s not reading this anyway — she just skims to award points for sycophantic mots bon.
This is a microcosm of the same problem, It’s entertainingly (horrifyingly) recursive, the disconnect. We don’t care about the things she is hollering about, because when we forwarded principled, ideologically consistent conservatives, we got hollered at for not knowing how things work in DC. Stupid Tea Party rubes, the same people whom Mona and Jay have derided as crazy wingnuts since Trump was a mere millionaire. So this is not new.
Now, we decide to go bare-knuckled, and knock down the GOP’s ability to defend the left by attacking the right, and we get hollered at again. Is it any wonder we’re not listening? The pity is that still the establishment is certainly not listening, which is the original problem. They are cutting their own throats.
/popcorn
Is there currently a movement of millions of Americans to ban people with PhDs coming to the US? Is that all Mona wants, even though we already have it? If not, this is a straw-man.
How many PhDs are held by Guatamalan peasants and Syrian refugees?
You may be surprised to learn that that is what we see ourselves as doing with Trump. The solutions which you (I presume) would support are not allowed to work, therefore we will do this instead. The establishment has indeed “established” itself and that is its prime motivator. That will change shortly.
The Tea party brought ammo, rifles, and troops to the GOP, and was bombarded by our own side ever since. You’re darned right we’re firing at HQ.
I am with you, Mona. I do not think that your message can be stated too frequently. You may not have converted a man because you have silenced him, but a silenced man (or woman) may be seen as a convert by those not yet fully informed.
As a member of Ricochet, I am very sad to see the acrimony that this issue has caused between members. This is, perhaps, the last place on the web where civil conversation can take place, even when there is deep disagreement. I suspect that this is a symptom of what has brought Donald Trump to the forefront, rather than a reflection of his style, even though the two seem to overlap. Let us all keep in mind that when the campaign for nomination ends, and the party has selected its nominee, that we need to be together and of one mind to defeat the party of Clinton, Obama, Reid, and Pelosi. Those are our enemies, not member of Ricochet or those running for the nomination.
H1-B visas are typically for people “who earn PHDs or bring other skills” and these have become a hot-button topic, with some (presumably including Mona) wanting to expand the program while others would eliminate it altogether.
Speaking about not letting things go with reporters: This really does seem to be a pattern. I was reading this story–who knows how much truth there is in it since it is a campaign year!–in the Washington Post, Michael E. Miller’s “Fifty Years Later, Disagreement over Young Trump’s Military Academy Record” (January 9, 2016), this part of it really jumped out at me:
It is strange behavior for a CEO. Most people who deal with reporters come away from the experience not ever wanting to go back and dodging phone calls and cameras the rest of their lives. When they want to communicate with the press, they do so in carefully edited writing.
Mona finding comments she agrees with does not make those commenters “sycophants”. I’ve never heard any hollering, or deriding Tea Party “rubes” as crazy wingnuts on Mona or Jay’s part.
Ball, what you’re describing simply doesn’t apply to what Mona has written. Her piece is well thought and perfectly reasonable. When you go “on the warpath,” your excuse is “she started it.” That is absolute nonsense, and far from justifying your nonsensical response, it merely emphasizes the ridiculousness of it… especially since that was her point to begin with. You are only proving her to be absolutely correct.
“Good grief. I’ve seen all kinds of self-examination from conservative thinkers.”
Links or it didn’t happen.
I don’t know. I’m just saying that it’s different from “open borders.”
Okay. I believe you think you’re doing the right thing. I don’t understand how you got there, and I think you’ve chosen exactly the wrong path. I can’t go down it with you. I’m afraid there will be a lot more anger before this mess is cleared away.
BD, you need to understand, if you disagree with John Wilson, you must be a Donald Trump supporter.
Good call on John and Rick Wilson being related. That makes a lot of sense (regarding temperament.)
Bingo.
I hope Ms. Charen’s household and lawncare help are among the first sent packing.
haha – everyone thinking that a Trump presidency would result in mass deportation is going to be extremely disappointed if hell freezes over and he wins in a general election, assuming he is nominated.
The obsession is borne of electoral necessity because voters keep supporting a candidate opposed to the bill of rights and with no discernable principles. Is that not plain?
Then there’s the fact that Rubio supports Obama’s immigration agenda (his objection was procedural – he didn’t like the fact that it was done by executive order; the content he liked) and Charen supported Rubio. Rubio had promised to enact Obama’s agenda by piecemeal legislation (piecemeal to keep critics from noticing that real nature of the scheme) if elected.