The man who showed Donald Trump how to exploit power and instill fear

darth frosty

Dark Lord of the Sith
BGOL Investor
Interesting insight into a major influence on the dons psychological makeup

https://www.washingtonpost.com/inve...5c_story.html?utm_term=.2fb8f3900acd#comments

Investigations

The man who showed Donald Trump how to exploit power and instill fear

By Robert O'Harrow Jr. and Shawn BoburgJune 17, 2016

GettyImages-483907978a.jpg

Donald Trump, left, Mayor Ed Koch, center, and Roy Cohn in 1983 at the Trump Tower opening in New York. (Sonia Moskowitz/Getty Images)

Donald Trump was a brash scion of a real estate empire, a young developer anxious to leave his mark on New York. Roy Cohn was a legendary New York fixer, a ruthless lawyer in the hunt for new clients.

They came together by chance one night at Le Club, a hangout for Manhattan’s rich and famous. Trumpintroduced himself to Cohn, who was sitting at a nearby table, and sought advice: How should he and his father respond to Justice Department allegationsthat their company had systematically discriminated against black people seeking housing?

“My view is tell them to go to hell,” Cohn said, “and fight the thing in court.”

It was October 1973 and the start of one of the most influential relationships of Trump’s career. Cohn soon represented Trump in legal battles, counseled him about his marriage and introduced Trump to New York power brokers, money men and socialites.

Cohn also showed Trump how to exploit power and instill fear through a simple formula: attack, counterattack and never apologize.

Since he announced his run for the White House a year ago, Trump has used such tactics more aggressively than any other candidate in recent memory, demeaning opponents, insulting minorities and women, and whipping up anger among his supporters.

Cohn gained notoriety in the 1950s as Sen. Joseph McCarthy’s chief counsel and the brains behind his hunt for communist infiltrators. By the 1970s, Cohn maintained a powerful network in New York City, using his connections in the courts and City Hall to reward friends and punish those who crossed him.

He routinely pulled strings in government for clients, funneled cash to politicians and cultivated relationships with influential figures, including FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover, mafia boss Anthony “Fat Tony” Salerno and a succession of city leaders.

In the 1990s, a tragic character based on Cohn had a central place in Tony Kushner’s Pulitzer prize-winning play, “Angels in America: A Gay Fantasia on National Themes.”

Trump prized Cohn’s reputation for aggression. According to a New York Times profile a quarter-century ago, when frustrated by an adversary, Trump would pull out a photograph of Cohn and ask, “Would you rather deal with him?” Trump remained friends with him even after the lawyer was disbarred in New York for ethical lapses. Cohn died in 1986.

download



Rest below condensed due to Colin powell nature


This story is based on reporting for “Trump Revealed,” a broad, comprehensive examination of the life of the presumptive Republican nominee for president. The biography, written by Post reporters Michael Kranish and Marc Fisher in a collaboration with more than two dozen Post reporters, researchers and editors, is scheduled to be published by Scribner on Aug. 23.

“Roy had a whole crazy deal going, but Roy was a really smart guy who liked me and did a great job for me on different things,” Trump recently told The Washington Post. “And he was a tough lawyer, and that’s what I wanted. Roy was a very tough guy.”

[Inside the government’s racial-bias case against Donald Trump’s company]

To examine the relationship between Trump and Cohn, The Post reviewed court records, books about the men and newspaper and magazine stories from the era, along with documents about Cohn obtained from the FBI through a Freedom of Information Act request. The Post interviewed Trump and others who knew both men.

When they met, Trump, 27, tall and handsome, was at the start of his career and living off money he was earning in the family business. Cohn, 46, short and off-putting, was near the peak of his power and considered by some to be among the most reviled Americans in the 20th century.

Cohn could be charismatic and witty, and he hosted lavish parties that included politicians, celebrities and journalists. A wall at the Upper East Side townhouse where he lived and worked was filled with signed photographs of luminaries such as Hoover and Richard Nixon.

Alan Dershowitz, a professor emeritus at Harvard Law School and a renowned constitutional scholar, said he was surprised when he finally got to know Cohn. “I expected to hate him, but I did not,” Dershowitz told The Post. “I found him charming.”

There were legions of Cohn detractors. “He was a source of great evil in this society,” Victor A. Kovner, a Democratic activist in New York City and First Amendment lawyer, told The Post. “He was a vicious, Red-baiting source of sweeping wrongdoing.”

In interviews with The Post, Trump maintained that Cohn was merely his attorney, stressing that he was only one of many of Cohn’s clients in New York. Trump also played down the influence of Cohn on his aggressive tactics and rhetoric, saying: “I don’t think I got that from Roy at all. I think I’ve had a natural instinct for that.”

Trump said he goes on the offensive only to defend himself.

“I don’t feel I insult people. I don’t feel I insult people. I try and get to the facts and I don’t feel I insult people,” he said. “Now, if I’m insulted I will counterattack, or if something is unfair I will counterattack, but I don’t feel like I insult people. I don’t want to do that. But if I’m attacked, I will counterattack.”

Journalists and contemporaries of both men, including a close political ally of Trump, said there was more to the relationship than Trump now acknowledges. Cohn himself once said he was “not only Donald’s lawyer but also one of his close friends.” Roger Stone, a political operative who met Trump through Cohn, said their association was grounded in business, but he also described the lawyer as “like a cultural guide to Manhattan” for Trump into the worlds of celebrity and power. “Roy was more than his personal lawyer,” Stone told The Post. “And, of course, Trump was a trophy client for Roy.”

Investigative reporter Wayne Barrett, who spent dozens of hours interviewing Cohn and Trump beginning in the 1970s, once wrote in “Trump: The Deals and the Downfall” that Cohn began to “assume a role in Donald’s life far transcending that of a lawyer. He became Donald’s mentor, his constant adviser.”

Barrett now says Cohn’s stamp on Trump is obvious. “I just look at him and see Roy,” Barrett said in an interview. “Both of them are attack dogs.”

download
Sen. Joseph McCarthy (R-Wis.), left, is confronted by Sen. Ralph Flanders (R-Vt.), right, during hearings in 1954. Roy Cohn, chief counsel to McCarthy's investigative subcommittee, is at center. (AP)

Cohn and McCarthy

Roy Cohn was born in New York City in 1927, into an affluent Jewish family. His father, Albert C. Cohn, was a longtime member of New York’s Democratic machine and a State Supreme Court and appellate division judge. Roy Cohn attended elite prep schools and graduated from Columbia Law School at age 20.

Through his father’s connections, Cohn landed a job with the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Manhattan. In the spring of 1949, Cohn was asked to write a memo about a man named Alger Hiss, a State Department official suspected of spying for the Soviet Union. Cohn soon came to believe that the Soviets had many spies inside the U.S. government.

In 1950, Cohn at age 23 was the lead prosecutor in what became known as the Atom Spy Case. A Jewish couple named Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were accused of conspiracy to commit espionage for the Soviet Union. After the two were convicted of passing atomic secrets to the Soviets, the judge left the courtroom and called Cohn from a phone booth on Park Avenue. As Cohn later wrote, the judge wanted “to ask my advice on whether he ought to give the death penalty to Ethel Rosenberg.”

“The way I see it is that she’s worse than Julius,” Cohn told the judge, according to his autobiography. Both Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were executed in an electric chair.

In 1953, Cohn joined Sen. Joseph McCarthy (R-Wis.) as chief counsel to the Senate’s Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations. McCarthy had exploded into public view three years earlier when he claimed that he had a list of 205 State Department employees who were members of the Communist Party.

McCarthy launched a series of sensational hearings about the communist threat in the United States, calling on scores of professors, Hollywood writers, government employees and others to answer questions about their alleged ties to the party. Blacklists were created and careers ruined.

Cohn and McCarthy soon faced a backlash.

In early 1954, the permanent subcommittee held the Army-McCarthy hearings, in part to determine whether Cohn sought special treatment for an enlisted friend. McCarthy objected to tough questioning of Cohn and attacked the reputation of a young associate in the firm of the Army’s lawyer. That spurred the lawyer to ask the now-famous question that underscored growing doubts about McCarthy’s ethics: “Have you no sense of decency, sir?”

McCarthy discusses communism in 1952


Play Video1:28

Sen. Joseph McCarthy (R-Wis.) discusses his campaign with William Bradford Huie and Henry Hazlitt on Sept. 29, 1952. (National Archives and Records Administration)

Cohn left Washington in 1954 as McCarthy’s efforts lost momentum. He professed admiration for McCarthy to the end of his life. “I never worked for a better man or a greater cause,” he wrote in his autobiography.

Settling back in New York, Cohn tapped his connections as he began building a private legal practice, documents show. Cohn often operated in the gray areas of the law. In the 1960s and early 1970s, he fought off four federal or state indictments for alleged extortion, bribery, conspiracy, perjury and banking violations. At the same time, he avoided paying state and federal income taxes and engaged in a variety of schemes to take advantage of wealthy clients, court records show.

Cohn’s brazenness seemed limitless. In 1969, while facing his third federal indictment, he wrote a confidential letter to Hoover, the FBI director. Cohn included affidavits, legal motions, news articles and other material outlining his defense.

“When I started fighting Communism as a young voice in the wilderness of the Justice Department, I suppose I realized that those who did not like what I was doing would be after me for a long time,” Cohn wrote on Sept. 8, 1969, according to documents obtained by The Post. “You are such a great institution up and down this nation, that I hate to see you diverted or annoyed for even a minute — thus my sense of deep regret.”

Hoover wrote back eight days later: “Your generous comments regarding me are indeed gratifying.”

In October 1973, when Trump and Cohn first met at Le Club, the lawyer was instantly recognizable, with piercing blue eyes, heavy eyelids and a perpetual tan. James D. Zirin, a New York lawyer who later wrote about Cohn, recalled him as “the strangest-looking man I ever met,” with a face “contorted in a perpetual ugly sneer that seemed to project an air of unbridled malevolence.” Trump, not yet a household name, knew about Cohn’s reputation as a legal knife fighter.

At the time, Trump and his father, Fred, were facing Justice Department allegations that they had systematically discriminated against black people at their family-owned or -managed apartment complexes across New York City. Cohn agreed to represent the Trumps — his way. That meant hitting back hard while shaping public opinion. On Dec. 12, 1973, Donald Trump, his father and Cohn called a news conference at the New York Hilton hotel. They said they were suing the government for $100 million in damages relating to the Justice Department’s “irresponsible and baseless” allegations.

Cohn went further in an affidavit, saying the government was really trying to force “subservience to the Welfare Department,” according to court records.

A federal judge dismissed the countersuit. And two years later, after a string of theatrics and unfounded allegations by Cohn — including the claim that a Jewish prosecutor had used Nazi Gestapo tactics — Donald and Fred Trump settled the case without admitting guilt.

They signed a consent decree prohibiting them from “discriminating against any person in the terms, conditions, or privileges of sale or rental of a dwelling.”

Following Cohn’s lead, Donald Trump declared victory.

Trump’s counsel

Cohn began advising Trump on major real estate deals and other matters. Trump once said that Cohn represented him in two libel cases against journalists. Although Trump said the legal work cost $100,000, he said it was worth the money because “I’ve broken one writer,” according to a statement he once gave to Barrett, who was a veteran investigative reporter for the Village Voice. Trump did not name the writer.

Trump told The Post he did not recall making the statement. Though he said he has not read it, he described Barrett’s book as “total fiction.”

Cohn often provided counsel for free, collecting money when he needed it. That included help on Trump’s personal matters, such as his marriage to Ivana Zelnickova in 1977. She was a model in Canada who claimed to be a former member of the Czech national ski team. After they had dated for months, Trump rented a two-bedroom apartment on Fifth Avenue and began making arrangements for their wedding. Cohn urged Trump to create a prenuptial agreement.

Ivana balked when she learned what Cohn included in the document. His proposal called on her to return any gifts from Trump in the event of a divorce. In response to her fury, Cohn added language that allowed her to keep her own clothing and any gifts. With Trump’s consent, he also included a “rainy day” certificate of deposit worth $100,000. She would be allowed to begin tapping that fund one month after the wedding, according to Barrett’s book. During one of the negotiating sessions, held at Cohn’s townhouse office, the lawyer wore a bathrobe.

The townhouse, in a tony neighborhood on East 68th Street, was central to Cohn’s operations. It was his in every way except on paper. It was held in the name of his law firm, Saxe Bacon & Bolan. He maintained an office and personal quarters and routinely hosted caviar-and-champagne parties there.

Even though he lived a lavish life, Cohn claimed he had little taxable income or assets. Over the years, he routinely vacationed with clients on the Greek island of Mykonos or in the south of France on the yacht of a British investor. He said his extravagant expenses were work-related. That included A-list parties he threw at his home.

Cohn was open about his loathing of the Internal Revenue Service. “The firm pays the expenses I incur in developing and seeing through law business. My arrangement leaves enough income for me to take care of personal living expenses and current taxes,” he wrote in 1981 in “How to Stand Up for Your Rights and Win!,” adding that he bought a house in Connecticut because “I got tired of supporting our welfare and food stamp programs” in New York.

As Cohn helped arrange Trump’s marital circumstances, he also helped the 30-year-old would-be tycoon gain access to Manhattan’s drug-fueled disco scene. Trump maintained a reputation as a strait-laced teetotaler, but he loved to be in the mix late at night, especially among beautiful women, according to his own accounts.

In April 1977, Trump and Ivana went to the opening night of a club called Studio 54. The owners were impresarios named Steve Rubell and Ian Schrager, and their lawyer was Roy Cohn.

The city had never seen anything quite like Studio 54, a freewheeling club that offered up celebrity, glitter and debauchery. It attracted city leaders, Hollywood stars and a technicolor cross section of other straight, gay and bisexual partyers.

Trump was a regular at the club. “I’d go there a lot with dates and with friends, and with lots of people,” Trump said in an interview. “Roy would always make it very comfortable.”

Cohn was not only the club’s lawyer but also the gatekeeper for rich and famous out-of-towners who wanted in. Sometimes he simply partied, surrounded by groups of young men.

Cohn maintained a public veneer that he was heterosexual. His friends knew better. Sidney Zion, a journalist who helped Cohn write his autobiography, described him as “the Babe Ruth of the Gay World.” But when gay rights activists once asked him to represent a teacher fired for being homosexual, Cohn refused. He told the activists: “I believe homosexual teachers are a grave threat to our children, they have no business polluting the schools of America,” Cohn and Zion wrote in “The Autobiography of Roy Cohn.”

Cohn also lobbied against gay rights legislation in New York City. He once called a law’s sponsor on the City Council and offered a profane warning: “You’ve got to get off this fag stuff, it’s very harmful to the city and it’s going to hurt you,” Cohn said in a phone call that Zion overheard. “These f----ing fags are no good, forget about them.”

Studio 54 changed hands in 1980 after Rubell and Schrager pleaded guilty to tax evasion. They each spent 13 months in prison. Rubell died in 1989, and Schrager became a well-known entrepreneur and hotelier in New York, Miami Beach, London and elsewhere.

“What went on in Studio 54 will never, ever happen again,” Trump told writer Timothy O’Brien. “First of all, you didn’t have AIDS. You didn’t have the problems you do have now. I saw things happening there that to this day I have never seen again. I would watch supermodels getting screwed, well-known supermodels getting screwed on a bench in the middle of the room. There were seven of them and each one was getting screwed by a different guy. This was in the middle of the room. Stuff that couldn’t happen today because of problems of death.”

download
Studio 54 owners Ian Schrager, left, and Steve Rubell, right, with their attorney, Roy Cohn, at a "going away" party at the disco in 1980. The next day Schrager and Rubell would begin serving prison sentences for tax evasion. (Bettmann Archive)

Connections

Cohn kept company with a remarkable array of people. Stone, the political adviser for Trump and others, tells vivid stories, sometimes with varying details, about the first time he met Cohn. It was 1979, and Stone was calling on Cohn for political support and contributions on behalf of Ronald Reagan, then ramping up a presidential campaign.

Stone stood for some time in the townhouse’s waiting room. When Stone was finally admitted, Cohn was sitting at a dining-room table, in a silk bathrobe, Stone told The Post. On the table were three strips of bacon and a square of cream cheese. Cohn ate the food with his fingers.

Sitting at the table was a heavyset man.

“Mr. Stone, I want you to meet Tony Salerno,” Cohn said.

There Stone was, standing before the future boss of the Genovese crime family.

“So Roy says we’re going with Reagan this time,” Salerno said.

Cohn and Salerno listened to Stone’s pitch. Then Cohn recommended that Stone reach out to Trump.

“You need to meet Donald and his father,” Cohn said, as Stone recalls it now. “They’d be perfect for this. Let me set you up a meeting.”

After his election, Reagan wrote Cohn, a registered Democrat, a warm note of thanks for his support. The two men became close, Trump said.

Cohn tapped into the Reagan administration network on Trump’s behalf a short time later, according to a New York Times account. At Trump’s request, Cohn lobbied Edwin Meese III, a senior White House aide, to secure an appointment for Trump’s sister Maryanne Barry, an experienced federal prosecutor in New Jersey, to the U.S. District Court.

Trump declined to discuss the matter.

“I’m proud of my sister. She’s done a great job,” Trump said in an interview. “I just don’t comment on that.”

Trump marveled at Cohn’s connections and the parties he hosted, including a birthday party for himself each year. “Now Roy would have parties and, I’ll tell you what, some of the most important people in New York would go to those parties,” Trump told The Post.

Over the years, the list of his friends and guests included Norman Mailer, Bianca Jagger, Barbara Walters, William F. Buckley Jr., George Steinbrenner, former New York mayor Abraham D. Beame and many others, some of them Cohn clients.

“Every famous client made him famous and none more so than Donald Trump,” wrote Nicholas von Hoffman in “Citizen Cohn: The Life and Times of Roy Cohn.” “The Trump-Roy relationship was that mixture of business and social which Roy sought.”

Cohn and some of his party guests always seemed to be under indictment at the time of the parties, according to Edward Kosner, former editor and publisher of New York magazine. Kosner told The Post that Borscht Belt comedian Joey Adams once elicited laughter with the quip, “If you’re indicted, you’re invited.”

Dershowitz, of Harvard Law School, said Cohn was an unavoidable force. “When Roy Cohn was at the height of his power,” Dershowitz said, “nobody did anything in New York politics, in New York real estate, without going through Roy Cohn.”

Trump: The Art of the Deal.” “He once told me that he’d spent more than two thirds of his adult life under indictment for one charge or another. That amazed me. I said to him, ‘Roy, just tell me one thing. Did you really do all that stuff?’ He looked at me and smiled. ‘What the hell do you think?’ he said. I never really knew.”

In the fall of 1984, Cohn became ill. A year later, he started treatment at the Clinical Center at the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Md. He maintained that he had liver cancer. But he was suffering from the effects of the HIV virus. As he struggled to stay alive, Trump pulled back from his friend for a spell. Cohn was thrown off balance by this apparent betrayal. “I can’t believe he’s doing this to me,” Cohn said, according to Barrett’s account. “Donald pisses ice water.”

Cohn’s behavior as a lawyer caught up to him now. The appellate division of New York’s Supreme Court moved on long-standing charges of misconduct. “Simply stated the four charges involved alleged dishonesty, fraud, deceit and misrepresentation,” the court said.

Those allegations involved a series of incidents that began years before Cohn met Trump and continued throughout the time of their relationship. In one case, a client of Cohn’s was in the hospital after suffering a debilitating stroke. Cohn visited the man, who was barely conscious. Cohn later claimed his client, during that visit, made him a trustee to his will. The man could not move. A nurse witnessed Cohn guiding his hand to complete the man’s signature on a legal document. A judge later refused to honor the document.

Before the appellate division made its ruling in 1986, a host of prominent people testified to Cohn’s good character. Among them was Trump, who had resumed his visits to Cohn and that spring had invited him to his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida.

Cohn questioned the fairness and competence of those who accused him of misconduct, telling reporters the bar’s disciplinary panel was “a bunch of yo-yos ... just out to smear me up.”

On June 23, 1986, Cohn was disbarred. “For an attorney practicing for nearly 40 years in this State, such misconduct is inexcusable, notwithstanding an impressive array of character witnesses who testified in mitigation,” the court said.

Trump told The Post that if Cohn had not been so weakened, he “would have been able to fight that off.”

Cohn died six weeks later, on Aug. 2, 1986. He was 59.

His friends held a memorial service for him. Trump stood silently in the back.

Zion, the journalist, wrote that Cohn was misunderstood by his critics: “What curdled their blood with Cohn was his headline-hunting, his gunslinger style, his contempt for the niceties, his contempt for them.”

Today's Headlines newsletter

The day's most important stories.

Sign up

One year after his death, Trump professed admiration for Cohn.

“Tough as he was, Roy had a lot of friends,” Trump wrote in “The Art of the Deal,” “and I’m not embarrassed to say I was one.”

Trump remains fond of Cohn today.

“I actually got a kick out of him,” Trump recalled in his recent interview with The Post. “Some people didn’t like him, and some people were offended by him. I mean, they would literally leave a dinner. I had one evening where three or four people got up from a table and left the table because they couldn’t stand the mention of his name.”

“But with all of that being said, he did a very good job for me as a lawyer,” Trump said. “I get a kick out of winning, and Roy would win.”

About this story

This article is based on reporting for “Trump Revealed,” a broad, comprehensive examination of the life of the presumptive Republican nominee for president. The biography, written by Washington Post reporters Michael Kranish and Marc Fisher in collaboration with more than two dozen Post writers, researchers and editors, is scheduled to be published by Scribner on Aug. 23.
 
^^ That was my typical response

What we should say to One Another is
"Look beyond. It's men like Cohn that get into the pockets of people like Koch. In detail, what we learn is that
you can become more powerful than a measly Mayor when you can pull strings the way Cohn showed Trump"
 
Ed Koch was a faggit

So was trumps main mentor in this article Roy cohn...literally... He died from complications from HIV

He was a completely ruthless demon with no morals and always had the philosophy of "attack and counterattack...Never admit any wrong, never apologize"

Trump and his whole team and sphere of influence have lived by those words for their whole life..everybody witnessed that philosophy on clear display in his campaign
 
Interesting insight into a major influence on the dons psychological makeup


Cohn gained notoriety in the 1950s as Sen. Joseph McCarthy’s chief counsel and the brains behind his hunt for communist infiltrators. By the 1970s, Cohn maintained a powerful network in New York City, using his connections in the courts and City Hall to reward friends and punish those who crossed him.[/spoiler]

I knew there were elements of McCarthism in Trumps campaign.... Learn your history people.... It's becoming more clear by the day....
 
They all study the master...

ct-hitler-in-prison-20151222

He learned all that stuff from here . . .

map_sm_us.gif


I'm just got access to an advance copy of this.

k10925.gif


"As Whitman shows, the Nuremberg Laws were crafted in an atmosphere of considerable attention to the precedents American race laws had to offer. German praise for American practices, already found in Hitler's Mein Kampf, was continuous throughout the early 1930s, and the most radical Nazi lawyers were eager advocates of the use of American models. But while Jim Crow segregation was one aspect of American law that appealed to Nazi radicals, it was not the most consequential one. Rather, both American citizenship and antimiscegenation laws proved directly relevant to the two principal Nuremberg Laws—the Citizenship Law and the Blood Law. Whitman looks at the ultimate, ugly irony that when Nazis rejected American practices, it was sometimes not because they found them too enlightened, but too harsh."

=====

Great article you can read about it.
 
Colin... this aint for you my man :colin:

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/06/the-mind-of-donald-trump/480771/?utm_source=twb



THE MIND OF DONALD TRUMP
Narcissism, disagreeableness, grandiosity—a psychologist investigates how Trump’s extraordinary personality might shape his possible presidency.

By Dan P. McAdams


In 2006, Donald Trump made plans to purchase the Menie Estate, near Aberdeen, Scotland, aiming to convert the dunes and grassland into a luxury golf resort. He and the estate’s owner, Tom Griffin, sat down to discuss the transaction at the Cock & Bull restaurant. Griffin recalls that Trump was a hard-nosed negotiator, reluctant to give in on even the tiniest details. But, as Michael D’Antonio writes in his recent biography of Trump, Never Enough, Griffin’s most vivid recollection of the evening pertains to the theatrics. It was as if the golden-haired guest sitting across the table were an actor playing a part on the London stage.

“It was Donald Trump playing Donald Trump,” Griffin observed. There was something unreal about it.


The same feeling perplexed Mark Singer in the late 1990s when he was working on a profile of Trump for The New Yorker. Singer wondered what went through his mind when he was not playing the public role of Donald Trump. What are you thinking about, Singer asked him, when you are shaving in front of the mirror in the morning? Trump, Singer writes, appeared baffled. Hoping to uncover the man behind the actor’s mask, Singer tried a different tack:

“O.K., I guess I’m asking, do you consider yourself ideal company?”

“You really want to know what I consider ideal company?,” Trump replied. “A total piece of ass.”

I might have phrased Singer’s question this way: Who are you, Mr. Trump, when you are alone? Singer never got an answer, leaving him to conclude that the real-estate mogul who would become a reality-TV star and, after that, a leading candidate for president of the United States had managed to achieve something remarkable: “an existence unmolested by the rumbling of a soul.”

Is Singer’s assessment too harsh? Perhaps it is, in at least one sense. As brainy social animals, human beings evolved to be consummate actors whose survival and ability to reproduce depend on the quality of our performances. We enter the world prepared to perform roles and manage the impressions of others, with the ultimate evolutionary aim of getting along and getting ahead in the social groups that define who we are.


More than even Ronald Reagan, Trump seems supremely cognizant of the fact that he is always acting. He moves through life like a man who knows he is always being observed. If all human beings are, by their very nature, social actors, then Donald Trump seems to be more so—superhuman, in this one primal sense.

Many questions have arisen about Trump during this campaign season—about his platform, his knowledge of issues, his inflammatory language, his level of comfort with political violence. This article touches on some of that. But its central aim is to create a psychological portrait of the man. Who is he, really? How does his mind work? How might he go about making decisions in office, were he to become president? And what does all that suggest about the sort of president he’d be?

Mark Peterson / Redux
In creating this portrait, I will draw from well-validated concepts in the fields of personality, developmental, and social psychology. Ever since Sigmund Freud analyzed the life and art of Leonardo da Vinci, in 1910, scholars have applied psychological lenses to the lives of famous people. Many early efforts relied upon untested, nonscientific ideas. In recent years, however, psychologists have increasingly used the tools and concepts of psychological science to shed light on notable lives, as I did in a 2011 book on George W. Bush. A large and rapidly growing body of research shows that people’s temperament, their characteristic motivations and goals, and their internal conceptions of themselves are powerful predictors of what they will feel, think, and do in the future, and powerful aids in explaining why. In the realm of politics, psychologists have recently demonstrated how fundamental features of human personality—such as extroversion and narcissism—shaped the distinctive leadership styles of past U. S. presidents, and the decisions they made. While a range of factors, such as world events and political realities, determine what political leaders can and will do in office, foundational tendencies in human personality, which differ dramatically from one leader to the next, are among them.


Trump’s personality is certainly extreme by any standard, and particularly rare for a presidential candidate; many people who encounter the man—in negotiations or in interviews or on a debate stage or watching that debate on television—seem to find him flummoxing. In this essay, I will seek to uncover the key dispositions, cognitive styles, motivations, and self-conceptions that together comprise his unique psychological makeup. Trump declined to be interviewed for this story, but his life history has been well documented in his own books and speeches, in biographical sources, and in the press. My aim is to develop a dispassionate and analytical perspective on Trump, drawing upon some of the most important ideas and research findings in psychological science today.

I. HIS DISPOSITION
Fifty years of empirical research in personality psychology have resulted in a scientific consensus regarding the most basic dimensions of human variability. There are countless ways to differentiate one person from the next, but psychological scientists have settled on a relatively simple taxonomy, known widely as the Big Five:

Extroversion: gregariousness, social dominance, enthusiasm, reward-seeking behavior

Neuroticism: anxiety, emotional instability, depressive tendencies, negative emotions

Conscientiousness: industriousness, discipline, rule abidance, organization

Agreeableness: warmth, care for others, altruism, compassion, modesty

Openness: curiosity, unconventionality, imagination, receptivity to new ideas

Most people score near the middle on any given dimension, but some score toward one pole or the other. Research decisively shows that higher scores on extroversion are associated with greater happiness and broader social connections, higher scores on conscientiousness predict greater success in school and at work, and higher scores on agreeableness are associated with deeper relationships. By contrast, higher scores on neuroticism are always bad, having proved to be a risk factor for unhappiness, dysfunctional relationships, and mental-health problems. From adolescence through midlife, many people tend to become more conscientious and agreeable, and less neurotic, but these changes are typically slight: The Big Five personality traits are pretty stable across a person’s lifetime.


The psychologists Steven J. Rubenzer and Thomas R. Faschingbauer, in conjunction with about 120 historians and other experts, have rated all the former U.S. presidents, going back to George Washington, on all five of the trait dimensions. George W. Bush comes out as especially high on extroversion and low on openness to experience—a highly enthusiastic and outgoing social actor who tends to be incurious and intellectually rigid. Barack Obama is relatively introverted, at least for a politician, and almost preternaturally low on neuroticism—emotionally calm and dispassionate, perhaps to a fault.

Across his lifetime, Donald Trump has exhibited a trait profile that you would not expect of a U.S. president: sky-high extroversion combined with off-the-chart low agreeableness. This is my own judgment, of course, but I believe that a great majority of people who observe Trump would agree. There is nothing especially subtle about trait attributions. We are not talking here about deep, unconscious processes or clinical diagnoses. As social actors, our performances are out there for everyone to see.


Like George W. Bush and Bill Clinton (and Teddy Roosevelt, who tops the presidential extroversion list), Trump plays his role in an outgoing, exuberant, and socially dominant manner. He is a dynamo—driven, restless, unable to keep still. He gets by with very little sleep. In his 1987 book, The Art of the Deal, Trump described his days as stuffed with meetings and phone calls. Some 30 years later, he is still constantly interacting with other people—at rallies, in interviews, on social media. Presidential candidates on the campaign trail are studies in perpetual motion. But nobody else seems to embrace the campaign with the gusto of Trump. And no other candidate seems to have so much fun. A sampling of his tweets at the time of this writing:

3:13 a.m., April 12: “WOW, great new poll—New York! Thank you for your support!”

4:22 a.m., April 9: “Bernie Sanders says that Hillary Clinton is unqualified to be president. Based on her decision making ability, I can go along with that!”

5:03 a.m., April 8: “So great to be in New York. Catching up on many things (remember, I am still running a major business while I campaign), and loving it!”

12:25 p.m., April 5: “Wow, @Politico is in total disarray with almost everyone quitting. Good news—bad, dishonest journalists!”

A cardinal feature of high extroversion is relentless reward-seeking. Prompted by the activity of dopamine circuits in the brain, highly extroverted actors are driven to pursue positive emotional experiences, whether they come in the form of social approval, fame, or wealth. Indeed, it is the pursuit itself, more so even than the actual attainment of the goal, that extroverts find so gratifying. When Barbara Walters asked Trump in 1987 whether he would like to be appointed president of the United States, rather than having to run for the job, Trump said no: “It’s the hunt that I believe I love.”


Trump’s agreeableness seems even more extreme than his extroversion, but in the opposite direction. Arguably the most highly valued human trait the world over, agreeableness pertains to the extent to which a person appears to be caring, loving, affectionate, polite, and kind. Trump loves his family, for sure. He is reported to be a generous and fair-minded boss. There is even a famous story about his meeting with a boy who was dying of cancer. A fan of The Apprentice, the young boy simply wanted Trump to tell him, “You’re fired!” Trump could not bring himself to do it, but instead wrote the boy a check for several thousand dollars and told him, “Go and have the time of your life.” But like extroversion and the other Big Five traits, agreeableness is about an overall style of relating to others and to the world, and these noteworthy exceptions run against the broad social reputation Trump has garnered as a remarkably disagreeable person, based upon a lifetime of widely observed interactions. People low in agreeableness are described as callous, rude, arrogant, and lacking in empathy. If Donald Trump does not score low on this personality dimension, then probably nobody does.


Try 2 FREE issues of The Atlantic

SUBSCRIBE
Researchers rank Richard Nixon as the nation’s most disagreeable president. But he was sweetness and light compared with the man who once sent The New York Times’ Gail Collins a copy of her own column with her photo circled and the words “The Face of a Dog!” scrawled on it. Complaining in Never Enough about “some nasty shit” that Cher, the singer and actress, once said about him, Trump bragged: “I knocked the shit out of her” on Twitter, “and she never said a thing about me after that.” At campaign rallies, Trump has encouraged his supporters to rough up protesters. “Get ’em out of here!” he yells. “I’d like to punch him in the face.” From unsympathetic journalists to political rivals, Trump calls his opponents “disgusting” and writes them off as “losers.” By the standards of reality TV, Trump’s disagreeableness may not be so shocking. But political candidates who want people to vote for them rarely behave like this.

Trump’s tendencies toward social ambition and aggressiveness were evident very early in his life, as we will see later. (By his own account, he once punched his second-grade music teacher, giving him a black eye.) According to Barbara Res, who in the early 1980s served as vice president in charge of construction of Trump Tower in Manhattan, the emotional core around which Donald Trump’s personality constellates is anger: “As far as the anger is concerned, that’s real for sure. He’s not faking it,” she told The Daily Beast in February. “The fact that he gets mad, that’s his personality.” Indeed, anger may be the operative emotion behind Trump’s high extroversion as well as his low agreeableness. Anger can fuel malice, but it can also motivate social dominance, stoking a desire to win the adoration of others. Combined with a considerable gift for humor (which may also be aggressive), anger lies at the heart of Trump’s charisma. And anger permeates his political rhetoric.

Imagine Donald Trump in the White House. What kind of decision maker might he be?

It is very difficult to predict the actions a president will take. When the dust settled after the 2000 election, did anybody foresee that George W. Bush would someday launch a preemptive invasion of Iraq? If so, I haven’t read about it. Bush probably would never have gone after Saddam Hussein if 9/11 had not happened. But world events invariably hijack a presidency. Obama inherited a devastating recession, and after the 2010 midterm elections, he struggled with a recalcitrant Republican Congress. What kinds of decisions might he have made had these events not occurred? We will never know.

Mark Peterson / Redux
Still, dispositional personality traits may provide clues to a president’s decision-making style. Research suggests that extroverts tend to take high-stakes risks and that people with low levels of openness rarely question their deepest convictions. Entering office with high levels of extroversion and very low openness, Bush was predisposed to make bold decisions aimed at achieving big rewards, and to make them with the assurance that he could not be wrong. As I argued in my psychological biography of Bush, the game-changing decision to invade Iraq was the kind of decision he was likely to make. As world events transpired to open up an opportunity for the invasion, Bush found additional psychological affirmation both in his lifelong desire—pursued again and again before he ever became president—to defend his beloved father from enemies (think: Saddam Hussein) and in his own life story, wherein the hero liberates himself from oppressive forces (think: sin, alcohol) to restore peace and freedom.


Like Bush, a President Trump might try to swing for the fences in an effort to deliver big payoffs—to make America great again, as his campaign slogan says. As a real-estate developer, he has certainly taken big risks, although he has become a more conservative businessman following setbacks in the 1990s. As a result of the risks he has taken, Trump can (and does) point to luxurious urban towers, lavish golf courses, and a personal fortune that is, by some estimates, in the billions, all of which clearly bring him big psychic rewards. Risky decisions have also resulted in four Chapter 11 business bankruptcies involving some of his casinos and resorts. Because he is not burdened with Bush’s low level of openness (psychologists have rated Bush at the bottom of the list on this trait), Trump may be a more flexible and pragmatic decision maker, more like Bill Clinton than Bush: He may look longer and harder than Bush did before he leaps. And because he is viewed as markedly less ideological than most presidential candidates (political observers note that on some issues he seems conservative, on others liberal, and on still others nonclassifiable), Trump may be able to switch positions easily, leaving room to maneuver in negotiations with Congress and foreign leaders. But on balance, he’s unlikely to shy away from risky decisions that, should they work out, could burnish his legacy and provide him an emotional payoff.

The real psychological wild card, however, is Trump’s agreeableness—or lack thereof. There has probably never been a U.S. president as consistently and overtly disagreeable on the public stage as Donald Trump is. If Nixon comes closest, we might predict that Trump’s style of decision making would look like the hard-nosed realpolitik that Nixon and his secretary of state, Henry Kissinger, displayed in international affairs during the early 1970s, along with its bare-knuckled domestic analog. That may not be all bad, depending on one’s perspective. Not readily swayed by warm sentiments or humanitarian impulses, decision makers who, like Nixon, are dispositionally low on agreeableness might hold certain advantages when it comes to balancing competing interests or bargaining with adversaries, such as China in Nixon’s time. In international affairs, Nixon was tough, pragmatic, and coolly rational. Trump seems capable of a similar toughness and strategic pragmatism, although the cool rationality does not always seem to fit, probably because Trump’s disagreeableness appears so strongly motivated by anger.


In domestic politics, Nixon was widely recognized to be cunning, callous, cynical, and Machiavellian, even by the standards of American politicians. Empathy was not his strong suit. This sounds a lot like Donald Trump, too—except you have to add the ebullient extroversion, the relentless showmanship, and the larger-than-life celebrity. Nixon could never fill a room the way Trump can.

Research shows that people low in agreeableness are typically viewed as untrustworthy. Dishonesty and deceit brought down Nixon and damaged the institution of the presidency. It is generally believed today that all politicians lie, or at least dissemble, but Trump appears extreme in this regard. Assessing the truthfulness of the 2016 candidates’ campaign statements, PolitiFact recently calculated that only 2 percent of the claims made by Trump are true, 7 percent are mostly true, 15 percent are half true, 15 percent are mostly false, 42 percent are false, and 18 percent are “pants on fire.” Adding up the last three numbers (from mostly false to flagrantly so), Trump scores 75 percent. The corresponding figures for Ted Cruz, John Kasich, Bernie Sanders, and Hillary Clinton, respectively, are 66, 32, 31, and 29 percent.

In sum, Donald Trump’s basic personality traits suggest a presidency that could be highly combustible. One possible yield is an energetic, activist president who has a less than cordial relationship with the truth. He could be a daring and ruthlessly aggressive decision maker who desperately desires to create the strongest, tallest, shiniest, and most awesome result—and who never thinks twice about the collateral damage he will leave behind. Tough. Bellicose. Threatening. Explosive.
 
Last edited:
https://newrepublic.com/article/140040/donald-trump-becoming-authoritarian-leader-eyes



MAGAZINESUBSCRIBE
16eeca84386756e15ca710bdd7a6f462392b1fca.jpeg

Pool/Getty Images

Donald Trump Is Becoming an Authoritarian Leader Before Our Very Eyes

The administration's many lies this weekend should frighten all Americans.
BY JEET HEER
January 23, 2017

The Central Intelligence Agency is expert at estimating crowd sizes. When trying to figure out whether a protest in some foreign hotspot could turn into a revolution, the CIA uses satellite imagery to get a sense of how many people are protesting.

So it was particularly brazen of Donald Trump, while addressing the agency for the first time as president, to lie about the size of Friday’s inauguration crowd.


“We had a massive field of people,” Trump told a crowdof about 400 CIA employees at the agency’s headquarters in Langley, Virginia, on Saturday. “You saw them. Packed. I get up this morning, I turn on one of the networks, and they show an empty field. I say, wait a minute, I made a speech. I looked out, the field was—it looked like a million, million and a half people. They showed a field where there were practically nobody standing there. And they said, Donald Trump did not draw well.” Crowd scientists estimate that there were around 160,000 people at Trump’s inauguration in the hour before his speech.

In a bizarre press briefing later on Saturday, Trump Press Secretary Sean Spicer ranted against the media and claimed, not just falsely but nonsensically, that Trump enjoyed “the largest audience to ever witness an inauguration, period—both in person and around the globe.

These attempts to lessen the enthusiasm of the inauguration are shameful and wrong.” In fact, the record is still held by Barack Obama for his 2008 inauguration, which drew an estimated 1.8 million.

And on Sunday’s Meet the Press, when asked to explain why Spicer “uttered a falsehood,” senior adviser Kellyanne Conway told Chuck Todd, “Don’t be so overly dramatic about it, Chuck. You’re saying it’s a falsehood...Sean Spicer, our press secretary, gave alternative facts to that.”

Some observers have warned journalists against an “alarmist” response to Trump’s early actions, lest the media too quickly exhaust our capacity for outrage and cause readers, especially those inclined to give the new president a chance, to tune out. “The danger for the established press,” New York Times columnist Ross Douthat wrote in a column over the weekend, “is the same danger facing other institutions in our republic: That while believing themselves to be nobly resisting Trump, they end up imitating him.

Such imitation will inspire reader loyalty and passion—up to a point. But beyond that point, it’s more likely to polarize than to persuade, which means it often does a demagogue’s work for him. Fellow journalists, don’t do it.”

That column appears to have been completed before the weekend’s events, though; it makes no mention of Trump’s speech or Spicer’s briefing, which ought to change the calculus on the merits of press alarmism.

The new administration’s bewildering boasts and outright lies are what make it so frightening, as they’re early signs of what many of us in the media have warned about for months: authoritarianism.

The purpose of the Trump administration’s lies is not necessarily to deceive, but to separate the believers from the disbelievers—for the purpose of rewarding the former and punishing the latter.

As chess champion Garry Kasparov, an expert in authoritarianism as an outspoken opponent of Russian President Vladimir Putin, tweeted on Saturday:

In an already hyper-partisan political landscape, the Trump administration can blatantly lie, knowing that his base trusts him more than the “dishonest media.”

And that’s exactly what Trump did in his CIA speech, which was rife with deceptions and examples of a narcissistic will to reshape the truth. While telling a story about a Time magazine reporter who wrongly reported that Trump removed the Martin Luther King, Jr. bust from the Oval Office (a mistake that was quickly corrected, but which the Trump staff continues to harp on), the president went on a tangent about Time.

“I have been on their cover, like, 14 or 15 times,” he said. “I think we have the all-time record in the history of Time magazine. Like, if Tom Brady is on the cover, it’s one time, because he won the Super Bowl or something, right? I’ve been on it for 15 times this year. I don’t think that’s a record...that can ever be broken. Do you agree with that? What do you think?” (The all-time record is held by Richard Nixon, who appeared on 55 Time covers.)

Aside from these lies and factual mistakes, Trump’s speech was genuinely weird on a number of a counts. His intended purpose was to mend fences with the agency, with which he’s feuded over their conclusion that Russia interfered in the election to help him defeat Hillary Clinton.

Yet he did very little to reassure CIA staff, only briefly acknowledging their sacrifice and service by alluding to a wall commemorating agents who died in line of duty.

Rather, Trump was in full campaign mode, attacking the media (“among the most dishonest human beings on Earth”) and praising himself (“they say, ‘is Donald Trump an intellectual?’ Trust me, I’m like a smart person”). He also indicated the U.S. might reinvade Iraq for imperial plunder. “The old expression, ‘to the victor belong the spoils’—you remember,” he said. “I always used to say, keep the oil...So we should have kept the oil. But okay. Maybe you’ll have another chance.”

The entire event was orchestrated like a campaign stop, so much so that Trump even brought along around 40 supporters, who could be heard cheering and clapping during his applause lines.

Turning a speech at an intelligence agency into a political rally is a deep betrayal of political norms. But it is very much in keeping with Trump’s disturbing habit of claiming the armed wing of the state, including the military and law enforcement, as his political allies.

He said early in the CIA speech that “the military gave us tremendous percentages of votes. We were unbelievably successful in the election with getting the vote of the military. And probably almost everybody in this room voted for me, but I will not ask you to raise your hands if you did.” At the end of his speech, Trump sounded like a pathetic suitor making his final pitch: “I just wanted to really say that I love you, I respect you. There’s nobody I respect more.”

While Trump’s antics might have impressed his fans watching from home, they seem to have done little to assuage worries in the agency. The New Yorker interviewed a variety of intelligence experts, including John MacGaffin, a high-ranking veteran of the agency. “What self-centered, irrational decision process got him to this travesty?” MacGaffin told the magazine. “Most importantly, how will that process serve us when the issues he must address are dangerous and incredibly complex? This is scary stuff!”

Trump’s self-centered decision process is authoritarianism, and it’s anything but irrational. He campaigned in an authoritarian style, with rallies where he riled up large crowds to jeer at the press and protesters. One of the defining tactics of his campaign was disinformation, coupled with accusations of the same against the media.

That hasn’t changed now that Trump is president. The administration’s unified anti-press and anti-fact message over the weekend is part of a deliberate, long-term strategy that was hatched many months ago, and is only likely to intensify.

The president will wage a rhetorical war against the media, with the intent of delegitimizing one of the few institutions that can hold him accountable, and he will wage it with his most effective weapon: Lies, damned lies, and false statistics
 
Last edited:
They all study the master...

ct-hitler-in-prison-20151222

No the real master is George Washington Thomas Jefferson, King Leopold, Cortes ,Columbus, the Catholic church for doing far worse to African and Native people in so called democracies...Yet we always throw out hitler that killed white folks at a far lower rate than any any of these so called forefathers of the Americas,

Hitler, Trump ain't the worst terror ever...Especially with the regards to African people.

We backhand respect the pain of Jews, more than we do the death of 20-30 million Africans, let alone the millions that have been mentally destroyed in life post the slave trade across the globe.

The insistence on Hitler this, Hitler that is fuckibg a joke.

Trump ain't nothing but the new remix of white supremacy terror.
 
Saw this on quora thought I'd share
Good read


Why do you think Trump always sends disturbing or controversial tweets in the middle of the night?



Bradley Eversley, studied at Hawaii Pacific University

Written 18h ago

Forget everything you read, just look here:



The number 1 reason why Donald Trump tweets extremely controversial things, especially mostly early in the morning is to get the media to jump on it right away.

Doing so pushes bad press out of the front page and into limbo, quickly to be diluted by the massive amounts of coverage on his often unfounded claims. And he does so super early in the morning so the news can spread from the West Coast to the East as people start to wake up.

This is not some master plan here, it's basic media manipulation. Being in high value business for decades, and having been the topic of countless New York Times articles since before I was ever even born, Trump knows how to work the media, and they will fall for it every time, no exceptions.

When a journalist comes in the office in the morning ready to write his piece on Trump’s possible Russia ties, an article that is likely to bring in tens of thousands of reads, his supervisor tells him to hold off on that story and cover Trump’s dumb tweet, we have to jump on that NOW, people need to know this claim has no evidence and that he can't be trusted.



Think about it logically here, you are given two options, have a progressively increasing number of Americans following your possible conflicts of interest, that could lead to a huge investigation if enough people are backing it, or be called a liar? Trump is simply choosing the lesser of two evils. Everything is so wishy washy, he knows he won’t ever be objectively be labeled as a liar because he will always have his supporters to defend him.



So what's a good rule of thumb? Anytime Trump tweets a huge, obviously false claim, take a look at what the news has been saying about him and his circle for the past few days before that. This happens every single time and it suprises me how people gobble it up. 3 million voters, Chinese hoaxes, and now Obama wiretapping, etc. The media can defeat this if they either ignore his false claims, or explicitly call out his claims as distractions to his recent coverage.

I mean if ABC, CNN, NYT, Washington Post, etc all had headlines that stated, “Trump attempts to distract media from Russian investigation by making false claims about….” Only if it’s proven to be false. Otherwise let’s just leave it as alittle side story we cover for 20 seconds then on to other news. Trumps controversial tweets should only be heavily covered if irrefutable evidence is provided alongside them.



I think the biggest mistake people make is thinking that Donald Trump is stupid. So naturally, they attribute any and all of his actions and words to just being an idiot and relegate it down lack of thought. You can be intelligent, yet still be dumb. He knows exactly what he’s doing. He has roughly average intelligence, but he has extreme beliefs which cloud his moral standing deeply.



I encourage everyone reading this to watch this video by Nerdwriter (one of the most analytical minds on Youtube in my opinion) explaining the above about how well Trump knows how to use slight of hand with your attention. “Magician-in-Chief”.





 
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/head-in-the-cloud/201701/the-dunning-kruger-president


The Dunning-Kruger President"
How did a psychology term become a partisan trending topic?



Poste



Oath.jpg

Source: White House Facebook page

Try Googling "The Dunning-Kruger President." New York magazine, Salon, and Politico have recently published articles on that theme. They're referring to Donald Trump and to the Dunning-Kruger effect, a psychological principle that is becoming a lot better known than it once was.

Named for Cornell psychologist David Dunning and his then-grad student Justin Kruger, this is the observation that people who are ignorant or unskilled in a given domain tend to believe they are much more competent than they are. Thus bad drivers believe they're good drivers, the humorless think they know what's funny, and people who've never held public office think they're make a terrific president. How hard can it be?

Dunning and Kruger documented this effect in a number of quantitative contexts. Its first publication, in 1999, bore the memorable title, "Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments." The authors observed that you need skill and knowledge to judge how skilled and knowledgeable you are. A tone-deaf singer may be unable to distinguish her talent from that of the greatest stars. Why then shouldn't she believe she's their equal?

Dunning and Kruger are responsible for one of my favorite charts. They chart competence versus confidence. When you have no expertise whatsoever (far lower left), all rational souls recognize that. As Dunning and Kruger put it, "most people have no trouble identifying their inability to translate Slovenian proverbs, reconstruct a V-8 engine, or diagnose acute disseminated encephalomyelitis."


Dunning%20Kruger%20Chart.jpg

Source: William Poundstone


A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Those who have the slightest bit of experience think they know it all. That's the peak at upper left. Then, with increasing experience, people realize how little they do know, how modest their skills are. Perceptions reach a minimum (center of chart), then slant upward again. Those at the level of genius recognize their talent, though tend to lack the supreme confidence of the ignoramus.


The chart is almost a emoticon: a smile turned smirk.

The Dunning-Kruger effect is not a pathological condition. It is the human condition. You may not harbor illusions about your ability to be Commander in Chief or devise a brilliant health-care plan. Yet in dozens of quieter ways, we all suffer from an incurable delusion of competence.
 
https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2017/05/11/trump-and-art-lie/YHclJB4tnsa8WLK8tluMlO/story.html

37d7828dd4244322b2a614aa910ac33c-37d7828dd4244322b2a614aa910ac33c-0.jpg


EVAN VUCCI/AP/FILE

President Donald Trump

By Zephyr Teachout MAY 11, 2017




AS A PRESIDENTIAL candidate last year, Donald Trump said, “I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose voters.” He didn’t shoot anyone, but proved that he could say whatever he wanted and still become president, without apology or explanation.

This week, when he suddenly fired FBI Director James Comey, Trump made a version of the same boast. The administration said publicly that Trump fired him for his handling of Clinton’s e-mails. But everybody understood that what he was really saying was, “I can fire the head of the FBI, give a ludicrous reason, and nothing will happen.” The ludicrousness of the reason was not a mistake on his part — it is an essential part of the power play.

Trump doesn’t lie the way that other American politicians lie. This is the insight of Masha Gessen, a Russian and American journalist who is bringing her decades of studying the Kremlin to bear on modern American politics.

Normally, politicians lie because they want to persuade us of the truth of what they are saying. A candidate for Congress will claim that he earned a medal of honor when he did not, so that we will love and revere him. A mayor will claim crime is down, hiding the numbers that show the opposite, so that we will believe he is protecting us and reelect him. When we catch them in a lie, they lose credibility, and we vote them out of office.

But Trump — like President Vladimir Putin of Russia — doesn’t use words to persuade us of their truth. As Gessen says, “They don’t lie to hide the truth but to assert their power over reality.” Trump doesn’t start with facts and then veer from them — he operates outside of truth, attacking the possibility of truth, and doesn’t care if he is fact-checked; he succeeds the more that we all accept that words are tools, not referents for reality.

He uses words to express power, and to undermine the legitimacy of the state.

When Trump explained firing Comey because of Hillary Clinton’s e-mails, of course he was lying. But he wasn’t lying because he thought we would believe him. If he wanted to persuade us, why not come up with a better reason?

Instead, because Trump lies to assert power, using the flimsy Clinton excuse is essentially saying, “I can do whatever I want for whatever reason I want.” Being obliged to give a reasonable reason would actually be bowing to a kind of constrained power — the presidency limited by reason, by logic, by reason-giving. He wants us to know he is unconstrained. He wants us to know he can exercise power arbitrarily.

Firing Comey may be the most Trump-like thing Trump has done: His campaign, his rhetoric, it is all about destroying the legitimacy of government institutions. He rails against courts, but he cannot fire judges; he rails against senators, but he cannot fire them, either. Most of the time, he uses words; this week, he used action. He fired the most powerful fireable man in the country, without good reason. He struck with one blow to turn the FBI into an political institution. As we’ve seen with the Supreme Court, once an institution becomes fundamentally political it is hard to turn back.

Republicans in Congress have been anxiously sitting on the fence for four months, trying to decide whether Trump has gone too far, and they should flee from him. But running away from him — as with all leaders with dictatorial tendencies — is dangerous; he will not hesitate to use whatever tools he has to punish those who are disloyal. So instead of leaving him, they use complex sentences that call out, “Not yet, not yet!” His firing “raises questions,” and we “might” need an independent investigation. These are the cowards with enormous power over the future of our country.

This may be bigger than Russia, bigger than the health care repeal, bigger than tax laws, because it attacks the heart of the promise of America: a nation ruled by laws and reason, a thoughtful, human nation. We fought a revolution to free ourselves from arbitrary power and the whims of a monarch. We now must fight a new revolution to protect it.



Zephyr Teachout is an associate professor at the Fordham School of Law and the author of “Corruption in America.”
 
http://www.businessinsider.com/is-donald-trump-a-stupid-president-2017-6


Donald Trump is proving too stupid to be president

gettyimages-695957166.jpg

OPINION
Max Boot, Foreign Policy

I’m starting to suspect that Donald Trump may not have been right when he said, "You know, I’m like a smart person."

The evidence continues to mount that he is far from smart — so far, in fact, that he may not be capable of carrying out his duties as president.

There is, for example, the story of how Trump met with the pastors of two major Presbyterian churches in New York.

"I did very, very well with evangelicals in the polls," he bragged.

When the pastors told Trump they weren’t evangelicals, he demanded to know, "What are you then?"

They told him they were mainline Presbyterians. "But you’re all Christians?" he asked. Yes, they had to assure him, Presbyterians are Christians. The kicker: Trump himself is Presbyterian.

Or the story of how Trump asked the editors of the Economist whether they had ever heard of the phrase "priming the pump." Yes, they assured him, they had. "I haven’t heard it," Trump continued. "I mean, I just … I came up with it a couple of days ago, and I thought it was good." The phrase has been in widespread use since at least the 1930s.

Or the story of how, after arriving in Israel from Saudi Arabia, Trump told his hosts, "We just got back from the Middle East."

These aren’t examples of stupidity, you may object, but of ignorance.

These aren’t examples of stupidity, you may object, but of ignorance.
This has become a favorite talking point of Trump’s enablers.

House Speaker Paul Ryan, for example, excusedTrump’s attempts to pressure FBI Director James Comey into dropping a criminal investigation of former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn on the grounds that "the president’s new at this" and supposedly didn’t realize that he was doing anything wrong.

But Trump has been president for nearly five months now, and he has shown no capacity to learn on the job.

More broadly, Trump has had a lifetime — 71 years — and access to America’s finest educational institutions (he’s a graduate of the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School, he never tires of reminding us) to learn things.

ap_831216035.jpg

Trump in the 80's. AP

And yet he doesn’t seem to have acquired even the most basic information that a high school student should possess. Recall that Trump said that Frederick Douglass, who died in 1895, was "an example of somebody who’s done an amazing job and is being recognized more and more."

He also claimed that Andrew Jackson, who died 16 years before the Civil War, "was really angry that he saw what was happening in regard to the Civil War."

Why does he know so little? Because he doesn’t read books or even long articles.

"I never have," he proudly told a reporter last year. "I’m always busy doing a lot."

As president, Trump’s intelligence briefings have been dumbed down, denuded of nuance, and larded with maps and pictures because he can’t be bothered to read a lot of words. He’d rather play golf.

As president, Trump’s intelligence briefings have been dumbed down.
The surest indication of how not smart Trump is that he thinks his inability or lack of interest in acquiring knowledge doesn’t matter.

He said last year that he reaches the right decisions "with very little knowledge other than the knowledge I [already] had, plus the words ‘common sense,’ because I have a lot of common sense and I have a lot of business ability."

How’s that working out? There’s a reason why surveys show more support for Trump’s impeachment than for his presidency.

From his catastrophically ill-conceived executive order on immigration to his catastrophically ill-conceived firing of Comey, his administration has been one disaster after another. And those fiascos can be ascribed directly to the president’s lack of intellectual horsepower.

gettyimages-632412514.jpg

President Donald Trump shakes hands with then-FBI director James Comey. Andrew Harrer/Pool,Getty Images

How could Trump fire Comey knowing that the FBI director could then testify about the improper requests Trump had made to exonerate himself and drop the investigation of Flynn? And in case there was any doubt about Trump’s intent, he dispelled it by acknowledging on TV that he had the "Russia thing" in mind when firing the FBI director.

That’s tantamount to admitting obstruction of justice. Is this how a smart person behaves?

Is this how a smart person behaves?
If Trump decides to fire the widely respected special counsel Robert Mueller, he will only be compounding this stupidity.

Or what about Trump’s response to the June 3 terrorist attack in London?

He reacted by tweeting his support for the "original Travel Ban," rather than the "watered down, politically correct version" under review by the Supreme Court. Legal observers — including Kellyanne Conway’s husband — instantly saw that Trump was undermining his own case, because the travel ban had been revised precisely in order to pass judicial scrutiny.

Indeed, the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals, in refusing to reinstate the travel ban on June 12, cited Trump’s tweets against him. Is this how a smart person behaves?

You could argue that Trump’s lack of acumen is actually his saving grace, because he would be much more dangerous if he were cleverer in implementing his radical agenda. But you can also make the case that his vacuity is imperiling American security.

You could argue that Trump’s lack of acumen is actually his saving grace. But you can also make the case that his vacuity is imperiling American security.
Trump shared "code-word information" with Russia’s foreign minister, apparently without realizing what he was doing.

In the process, he may have blown America’s best source of intelligence on Islamic State plots — a top-secret Israeli penetration of the militant group’s computers.

Trump picked a fight on Twitter with Qatar, apparently not knowing that this small, oil-rich emirate is host to a major US air base that is of vital importance in the air war against the Islamic State.

Trump criticized London’s mayor, Sadiq Khan, based on a blatant misreading of what Khan said in the aftermath of the June 3 attack: The mayor had said there was "no reason to be alarmed" about a heightened police presence on the streets — not, as Trump claimed, about the threat of terrorism.

In the process, Trump has alienated British public opinion and may have helped the anti-American Labour Party leader, Jeremy Corbyn, win votes in Britain’s general election.

gettyimages-688721836.jpg

President Donald Trump and other world leaders at the G7 summit on May 26, 2017 in Taormina, Italy.Guido Bergmann/Bundesregierung via Getty Images

Trump pulled out of the Paris climate accord apparently because he thinks that global warming — a scientifically proven fact — is a hoax. His speech announcing the pullout demonstrated that he has no understanding of what the Paris accord actually is — a nonbinding compact that does not impose any costs on the United States.

Trump failed to affirm Article V, a bedrock of NATO, during his visit to Brussels, apparently because he labors under the misapprehension that European allies owe the United States and NATO "vast sums of money."

In fact, NATO members are now increasing their defense spending, but the money will not go to the United States or to the alliance; it will go to their own armed forces. Trump has since said he supports Article V, but his initial hesitation undermines American credibility and may embolden Russia.

Trump supporters used to claim that sage advisors could make up for his shortcomings. But he is proving too willful and erratic to be steered by those around him who know better. As Maggie Haberman of the New York Timesnotes: "Trump doesn’t want to be controlled. In [the] campaign, [he] would often do [the] opposite of what he was advised to do, simply because it was opposite."

The 25th Amendment to the US Constitution provides that if the vice president and a majority of the cabinet certify that the president is "unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office," he can be removed with the concurrence of two-thirds of both houses.

That won’t happen, because Republicans are too craven to stand up to Trump. But on the merits perhaps it should.

After nearly five months in office, Trump has given no indication that he possesses the mental capacity to be president.

This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of Business Insider.

Read the original article on Foreign Policy. "Real World. Real Time." Follow Foreign Policy on Facebook. Subscribe to Foreign Policy here. Copyright 2017. Follow Foreign Policy on Twitter.
 
The President said...."I've had a lot of great lawyer, like ROY COHN... He did not take notes.. page 329



------- So what happened to OLD Roy Cohn..

Well before he died....

he was a Big time Lawyer...

He Was a mentor to Trump and Roger Stone...

He was an Attorney for Murdoch...

He Joined up with McCarthy to attack Government Officials for being a Commie and Also GAY...

He directly lead to Scores of Gay men loosing their jobs and benefits...

He got Disbarred .... because of witness tampering..

https://www.nytimes.com/1986/06/24/...roy-cohn-on-charges-of-unethical-conduct.html

Oh and at Ripe young Age of 59...


On August 1986..... Ol' Roy Died of AIDS...


WHy..

Cause Ol'Roy..... Turned out to Be Kind of well... GAAAAAAAAAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY

giphy.gif
 
Back
Top