Instances where Trump got blamed unfairly

[hollodero]

(07-13-2020, 05:38 PM)Dill Wrote: Hollo, don't let your desire to be fair cloud judgment and start you reaching, and overreaching, for "balance" or whatever.

I don't think "overreach" is a relevant category. I put up points for debate. It also is not about "balance".

What it maybe is about a little is the following: Suppose one does not hate Trump, for whatever reason. If such a person does watch the so-called MSM reporting, then they are not wrong to assess that most anchors there hate Trump. Openly and with a passion.

And this expands to the guests, that are not bound by too many restrictions and imho often are selected under that aspect. As the ones who say what the anchor can't quite say. And yes I heard plenty that Trump is in Putin's pocket and that it probably is the peepee tape (that sure was more wide spread in earlier Trump years). And I heard a psychiatrist not just calling Trump a clinical narcissist, but claiming that he has an ultra-rare mental condition that only people like Hitler and Stalin have. That btw. was recently on the O'Donnell show, which really turned into Hannity light. And that is an instance of taking it too far.

And the same is not only happening in the media, but in conversations too. The villification of Trump often is really justified and fact-based and I am the last person to deny that. But often there is one step too far, one step that makes it easy to dismiss it - given someone does not hate Trump. I do feel the anti-Trump faction often lacks the sensitivity to see this.

(07-13-2020, 05:38 PM)Dill Wrote: I don't think this "pee pee" tape counts as an "unfair accusation."  Because the golden shower story was part of the Steele Dossier, it was reported as such. I am not aware of any news agency or reporter who then began treating the story as verified.

As I said, they did invite guests that willingly do just that. That this story is so well known is not just Hannity's merit.

(07-13-2020, 05:38 PM)Dill Wrote: It is not that unfair accusations against Trump are deemed non-existent; it's that there is push back against the claim that, sure, SOME of the accusations against Trump are true, but lots of them aren't. Trump supporters/defenders respond as if there is just so much noise out there it is hard to tell what is really true or not, as if false accusations came a dozen a day and explain the high volume of negative press.

It's not a dozen a day. But you, back in old P&R, claimed that you did not see any ungrounded efforts to find fault with Trump. And I sure do.
I'm with you on the bolded sentence for sure.

(07-13-2020, 05:38 PM)Dill Wrote: 1. You may be referring to the "Goldwater rule" which mental health professionals have adopted--don't diagnose politicians who are not your patient.

It's a good rule.
I suppose you should be aware that as soon as Biden is president, experts will appear on FOX to prove that he suffers from Alzheimer's. This is a given at this point. And it will be hard to push back on that, given that similar tactics were used against Trump.

And this has nothing to with discussing authoritarian behaviour and listing dozens of examples. This of course is totally fair game. It is not fair game to put out an expert diagnosis though, as compelling as it might seem.

(07-13-2020, 05:38 PM)Dill Wrote: Not sure anyone argues that Trump STARTED it, as a claim there was no division before him.

He is blamed for self-consciously adopting division as a tactic.

I blame him for that as well. This point maybe mainly was aimed at the naivite of some that it will end when Trump is gone.
And sure, I feel many (not you) believe he gave birth to the division. Imho he is merely a product and the division is not caused by Trump at all. He played a role in the division, sure, but so did many. On both sides. Of course one side is way worse and I do not compare MSNBC hosts to Hannity or Limbaugh.
But the system of division was created way before Trump and that this system results in a Trump is not a surprise and not so much Trump's own merit.

[Dill]

(07-14-2020, 12:17 PM)hollodero Wrote: Dill Wrote: 1. You may be referring to the "Goldwater rule" which mental health professionals have adopted--don't diagnose politicians who are not your patient.

It's a good rule.
I suppose you should be aware that as soon as Biden is president, experts will appear on FOX to prove that he suffers from Alzheimer's. This is a given at this point. And it will be hard to push back on that, given that similar tactics were used against Trump.

And this has nothing to with discussing authoritarian behaviour and listing dozens of examples. This of course is totally fair game. It is not fair game to put out an expert diagnosis though, as compelling as it might seem.

The Fox "experts" will appear whether Biden actually suffers from dementia/Alzheimers or not.  And that will not be because "similar tactics were used against Trump," but because that's what they do on Fox.

If it is "hard to push back on that" because Biden is actually exhibiting symptoms of dementia then I am fine with that.

By the way, regarding the "good rule"--it is symptomatic of the Trump case that he has so problematized the professional boundary expressed in the rule. Even Goldwater could not do that. The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump doesn't just include assessments of Trump, but treats the ethics of psychiatry/psychology in terms of professional responsibilities/duties. It raises the question of what mental health professionals should do in the face of what they see. They understand how doubtful it is that Trump on the couch will be essentially different from public Trump. And they see the consequences of continuing someone like that in power.

Trump and his administration have produced a record number of whistleblowers--people who have recognized a duty to "go public" with observations that normally should remain confidential but should not in Trump's case because they are abuses of power. These are people who had to weigh "the rules" and their personal well being against some larger sense of responsibility to the public/nation. The mental health professionals sharing their observations on Trump are motivated by a similar sense duty, and have decided to set aside, not a law, but a professional rule of their own formulation, which worked well--until Trump.  

[Dill]

(07-14-2020, 12:17 PM)hollodero Wrote: Dill Wrote: It is not that unfair accusations against Trump are deemed non-existent; it's that there is push back against the claim that, sure, SOME of the accusations against Trump are true, but lots of them aren't. Trump supporters/defenders respond as if there is just so much noise out there it is hard to tell what is really true or not, as if false accusations came a dozen a day and explain the high volume of negative press.
It's not a dozen a day. But you, back in old P&R, claimed that you did not see any ungrounded efforts to find fault with Trump. And I sure do.
I'm with you on the bolded sentence for sure.

What I wrote back in the old P&R was:

With regard to your list and accompanying questions, what we really need to see now is not how some items you listed are false or unfair, but examples of ungrounded "Leftist" efforts to blame Trump for the Pandemic, the kind of thing clearly caused by "hate" and not by what Trump actually does. (Coronavirus #2, 419)

I am still not seeing actual examples of that. You are sure you have heard them.

(07-14-2020, 12:17 PM)hollodero Wrote: What it maybe is about a little is the following: Suppose one does not hate Trump, for whatever reason. If such a person does watch the so-called MSM reporting, then they are not wrong to assess that most anchors there hate Trump. Openly and with a passion.

And this expands to the guests, that are not bound by too many restrictions and imho often are selected under that aspect. As the ones who say what the anchor can't quite say. And yes I heard plenty that Trump is in Putin's pocket and that it probably is the peepee tape (that sure was more wide spread in earlier Trump years). And I heard a psychiatrist not just calling Trump a clinical narcissist, but claiming that he has an ultra-rare mental condition that only people like Hitler and Stalin have. That btw. was recently on the O'Donnell show, which really turned into Hannity light. And that is an instance of taking it too far.

And the same is not only happening in the media, but in conversations too. The villification of Trump often is really justified and fact-based and I am the last person to deny that. But often there is one step too far, one step that makes it easy to dismiss it - given someone does not hate Trump. I do feel the anti-Trump faction often lacks the sensitivity to see this.

Probably most anchors "hate" Trump. But that is an effect, a response any decent person would have to his speech and actions over the years. It does not drive the negative reporting about Trump. It has long been in the interest of Trump defenders to treat this effect as a cause, thereby absolving Trump of responsibility for his behavior. A more complete and accurate statement would be--"Most anchors hate what Trump says and does, and their consequences for nation." Your "person-who-does-not-hate-Trump" should be able to assess that too. Once your observer sees what Trump tweeted about Joe Scarborough's wife, he will understand why Joe "hates" Trump.

"Trump is in Putin's pocket" does not seem to me to be "taking it too far." There are good reasons to suspect that Putin has some hold over Trump, even if it is only psychological (not compromat), and all on Trump's side, as someone who badly wants a dictator to be his best friend. I have not heard anyone go beyond a "maybe" Putin has compromat on Trump. But that is a perfectly reasonable thing to wonder, and would not be "over the top" unless someone were claiming the mere inclusion of the Pee Pee story in the dossier validated it. It is hardly in the same category as wondering whether Hillary really operate a child sex trafficking ring out of a pizza parlor.

I'd have to hear what your psychiatrist said about Trump on the O'Donnel show to judge whether he went to far.

Finally, I agree that "liberals" ought not to take claims beyond evidence. But everyone ought to hold to that rule, whether Trump is president or not.  And consider--if Trump supporters/defenders can treat Trump hate as a cause rather than an effect, then they can do pretty much whatever they want with any Trump criticism, accurate/correct/true or not.  They are indeed looking for that one instance of a plainly false claim about Trump as fulcrum from which to lever doubt about all the rest outside any stabilizing analytic framework. And an overzealous "liberal" might give them one on occasion. But how would your efforts to sort a little chaff from the entire bushel of valid Trump criticism stabilize these public debates over Trump in any way?  Do they in any way maintain the kind of analytic frame we need for comparing and assessing Trump's behavior to predecessors and a likely successor? A frame which recognizes difference in scale and kind, and honors logical consistency comparisons?  Maybe they do, but the effort needs some more tweeking before I see it.

[masterpanthera_t]

(07-15-2020, 01:48 PM)Dill Wrote: What I wrote back in the old P&R was:

With regard to your list and accompanying questions, what we really need to see now is not how some items you listed are false or unfair, but examples of ungrounded "Leftist" efforts to blame Trump for the Pandemic, the kind of thing clearly caused by "hate" and not by what Trump actually does. (Coronavirus #2, 419)

I am still not seeing actual examples of that. You are sure you have heard them.


Probably most anchors "hate" Trump. But that is an effect, a response any decent person would have to his speech and actions over the years. It does not drive the negative reporting about Trump. It has long been in the interest of Trump defenders to treat this effect as a cause, thereby absolving Trump of responsibility for his behavior. A more complete and accurate statement would be--"Most anchors hate what Trump says and does, and their consequences for nation." Your "person-who-does-not-hate-Trump" should be able to assess that too. Once your observer sees what Trump tweeted about Joe Scarborough's wife, he will understand why Joe "hates" Trump.

"Trump is in Putin's pocket" does not seem to me to be "taking it too far." There are good reasons to suspect that Putin has some hold over Trump, even if it is only psychological (not compromat), and all on Trump's side, as someone who badly wants a dictator to be his best friend. I have not heard anyone go beyond a "maybe" Putin has compromat on Trump. But that is a perfectly reasonable thing to wonder, and would not be "over the top" unless someone were claiming the mere inclusion of the Pee Pee story in the dossier validated it. It is hardly in the same category as wondering whether Hillary really operate a child sex trafficking ring out of a pizza parlor.

I'd have to hear what your psychiatrist said about Trump on the O'Donnel show to judge whether he went to far.

Finally, I agree that "liberals" ought not to take claims beyond evidence. But everyone ought to hold to that rule, whether Trump is president or not.  And consider--if Trump supporters/defenders can treat Trump hate as a cause rather than an effect, then they can do pretty much whatever they want with any Trump criticism, accurate/correct/true or not.  They are indeed looking for that one instance of a plainly false claim about Trump as fulcrum from which to lever doubt about all the rest outside any stabilizing analytic framework. And an overzealous "liberal" might give them one on occasion. But how would your efforts to sort a little chaff from the entire bushel of valid Trump criticism stabilize these public debates over Trump in any way?  Do they in any way maintain the kind of analytic frame we need for comparing and assessing Trump's behavior to predecessors and a likely successor? A frame which recognizes difference in scale and kind, and honors logical consistency comparisons?  Maybe they do, but the effort needs some more tweeking before I see it.

Very well stated regarding the objective basis needed to analyze actions. Essentially why I found some examples as "contrived", in the noble interest of being balanced, but over eagerly applied in places by Hollo. 

I've disqualified voting for Hillary in the last election simply based on the judgment and optics involved in the personal server fiasco even though there was prior ambivalence on my part, but Trump's underlings ( his daughter, IIRC) crossing that line specifically alone would be enough to invalidate his candidacy imo on those particular grounds for me, let alone the myriad instances personifying abject incompetence along with ignorance (real or feigned) of the letter, if not the spirit of the law, combined with a near daily display of lack of leadership is astounding. Among the mountain of such examples, it's natural to observe other smaller beaches don't even register anymore, relative to how they would have under other presidencies. In that context, while Hollo's intent is commendable, I find his application slightly reaching at best. But nonetheless, his step by step laying out of his case is an absolutely worthwhile read. 

[hollodero]

(07-15-2020, 01:45 PM)Dill Wrote: The Fox "experts" will appear whether Biden actually suffers from dementia/Alzheimers or not.  And that will not be because "similar tactics were used against Trump," but because that's what they do on Fox.

I know.

(07-15-2020, 01:45 PM)Dill Wrote: By the way, regarding the "good rule"--it is symptomatic of the Trump case that he has so problematized the professional boundary expressed in the rule. Even Goldwater could not do that. The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump doesn't just include assessments of Trump, but treats the ethics of psychiatry/psychology in terms of professional responsibilities/duties. It raises the question of what mental health professionals should do in the face of what they see. They understand how doubtful it is that Trump on the couch will be essentially different from public Trump. And they see the consequences of continuing someone like that in power.

I don't disagree. Besides it being unethical to diagnose someone against his wishes though, it is also not quite professional. You just can not reach a conclusive verdict by watching someone on TV. You can say some diagnosis is "likely" or that there are signs of this and that, but being all conclusive, that imho takes it a step too far. At least I can not quite counter those that say that it does.
If someone does this whole diagnosing with much care, I'd be less inclined to call it unfair. But I've seen a couple that were not careful at all and threw out their diagnosis as fact. And someone really took it as far as to invent the clinical condition of a a "Hitler mind". That particular instance imho does not belong in the news.

(07-15-2020, 01:45 PM)Dill Wrote: Trump and his administration have produced a record number of whistleblowers--people who have recognized a duty to "go public" with observations that normally should remain confidential but should not in Trump's case because they are abuses of power. These are people who had to weigh "the rules" and their personal well being against some larger sense of responsibility to the public/nation. The mental health professionals sharing their observations on Trump are motivated by a similar sense duty, and have decided to set aside, not a law, but a professional rule of their own formulation, which worked well--until Trump.  

I think there is quite a difference still. Between saying I saw this and that and found it troubling and saying I am an expert that watched Trump from afar and as an expert, I state that Trump has this and that diagnosis.
Whistleblowers usually share their observation, not their interpretation... and it's the observed stuff that gets followed.

--- I sure get that it's tricky and I put these things out to share views, not to defend everything I said and insist that I'm right.

[hollodero]

(07-15-2020, 01:48 PM)Dill Wrote: What I wrote back in the old P&R was:

With regard to your list and accompanying questions, what we really need to see now is not how some items you listed are false or unfair, but examples of ungrounded "Leftist" efforts to blame Trump for the Pandemic, the kind of thing clearly caused by "hate" and not by what Trump actually does. (Coronavirus #2, 419)

I am still not seeing actual examples of that. You are sure you have heard them.

I think calling the travel bans in light of corona xenophobic was a bit unfair.

(07-15-2020, 01:48 PM)Dill Wrote: Probably most anchors "hate" Trump. But that is an effect, a response any decent person would have to his speech and actions over the years. It does not drive the negative reporting about Trump. It has long been in the interest of Trump defenders to treat this effect as a cause, thereby absolving Trump of responsibility for his behavior.

Yes they have, and some anchors make it easier to keep that stance than others.
As a small point, I get why some would point out how fat and unattractive tRump is, for he judges others in the same manner. I still think that should not be done.
AS a big point, of course I get why they "hate" Trump and in most cases, I get why their reporting can't possibly be free of that attitude. It is on Trump. I see him and I "hate" him too in the same sense and with the same passion, no question.

(07-15-2020, 01:48 PM)Dill Wrote: "Trump is in Putin's pocket" does not seem to me to be "taking it too far." There are good reasons to suspect that Putin has some hold over Trump, even if it is only psychological (not compromat), and all on Trump's side, as someone who badly wants a dictator to be his best friend. I have not heard anyone go beyond a "maybe" Putin has compromat on Trump.

Nah, some stated it as a fact. Again, these are usually the guests that say these things, but there were quite a few definitive ones. And I don't think that should be in the news really, as speculation from someone ok, but this is an instance where "I do not know that for a fact" would be a good introductiuon that often is missing.

I personally believe that Putin has kompromat and that Trump is entangled in money laundering schemes. I wouldn't state it as fact though.

(07-15-2020, 01:48 PM)Dill Wrote: Finally, I agree that "liberals" ought not to take claims beyond evidence. But everyone ought to hold to that rule, whether Trump is president or not.  And consider--if Trump supporters/defenders can treat Trump hate as a cause rather than an effect, then they can do pretty much whatever they want with any Trump criticism, accurate/correct/true or not.

Sure, they can do that always, the kind of reality-defying, mind-bending interpretations and misinterpretations taken to defend tTrump are impressive and leave me as puzuzled as anyone.
Probably not uch to do about this anyway. I would argue to make this at least as hard as possible.

There are those right-leaning folks on the fence, after all. One true instance of this "anti-Trump media" narrative can do a lot of damage, imho.

[Dill]

(07-16-2020, 02:50 PM)hollodero Wrote: I don't disagree. Besides it being unethical to diagnose someone against his wishes though, it is also not quite professional. You just can not reach a conclusive verdict by watching someone on TV. You can say some diagnosis is "likely" or that there are signs of this and that, but being all conclusive, that imho takes it a step too far. At least I can not quite counter those that say that it does.
If someone does this whole diagnosing with much care, I'd be less inclined to call it unfair. But I've seen a couple that were not careful at all and threw out their diagnosis as fact. And someone really took it as far as to invent the clinical condition of a a "Hitler mind". That particular instance imho does not belong in the news.

I think there is quite a difference still. Between saying I saw this and that and found it troubling and saying I am an expert that watched Trump from afar and as an expert, I state that Trump has this and that diagnosis.
Whistleblowers usually share their observation, not their interpretation... and it's the observed stuff that gets followed.

--- I sure get that it's tricky and I put these things out to share views, not to defend everything I said and insist that I'm right.

Whistleblowers do have to "interpret" observations in order to judge whether to go public or not.

In Trump's case there is also "observation" of a very public sort in the various rants and meltdowns and angry tweets.

As far as diagnosing people against their wishes, the case is rather different when we are speaking of a public figure whose poor judgment takes lives every day--someone placed in power by the vote.  The 25th Amendment would be useless if presidential "wishes" trumped public judgment.

Anyway, what I really wanted to ask in this post is whether you have seen the recent interviews of Mary Trump by Maddow and Cuomo?  Trump was not her patient, but she interacted with him personally and professionally for a number of years, with immediate observation of his interaction with parents and other siblings. Observation backed with a PhD in psychology.

She has publicly and forcefully stated that he is a "broken" personality, a sociopath incapable of empathy, the product of a supremely dysfunctional family.  Trump supporters might respond that her negative view is biased becauseTrump cheated her out of an inheritance, without noticing their own argument confirms Mary's diagnosis.

The most interesting thing she said to Cuomo was this progression in syllogistic form:

In Trump's family, errors and misjudgment indicated "weakness."

Taking responsibility for actions inevitably includes admitting/recognizing when those actions arise from errors in judgment, mistakes. 

Therefore taking responsibility/admitting error or misjudgment shows weakness (in Trump's mind). 

Thus he is determined NOT to show weakness of any kind.

I add that many of his followers may see things this way as well, and so defend Trump (and their own judgment) against any and all charges of weakness. Trump is a very different president from OBama in this regard, as O readily admitted "errors" (e.g., the ACA rollout) and his supporters recognized when he failed to perform (e.g., the first Romney debate, which most Dems agreed he lost).

Mary's "interpretation" lines up nicely with my public observation and the insider accounts I have read by Woodward and Bolton.

[Dill]

(07-16-2020, 02:50 PM)hollodero Wrote: If someone does this whole diagnosing with much care, I'd be less inclined to call it unfair. But I've seen a couple that were not careful at all and threw out their diagnosis as fact. And someone really took it as far as to invent the clinical condition of a a "Hitler mind". That particular instance imho does not belong in the news.

This one has really got me curious. 

Was your culprit Ron Rosenbaum, author of Explaining Hitler?

[BmorePat87]

It's unfair to blame his entire presidency on him. Republicans in Congress are responsible for enabling it.

[hollodero]

(07-19-2020, 01:52 PM)Dill Wrote: This one has really got me curious. 

Was your culprit Ron Rosenbaum, author of Explaining Hitler?

I am in a bit of a loss, for I could not find the segment again... it was on Lawrence O'Donnell's show.

I did, however, find another example from 2019 that illustrates what I mean, from CNN. A Dr. Allen Frances claimed that "Trump is as destructive a person in this century as Hitler, Stalin, and Mao were in the last century. He may be responsible for many million more deaths than they were."

EDIT just after I posted, I found it: https://www.mrctv.org/videos/odonnell-insists-trump-narcissist-guest-calls-trump-killer-hitler-or-stalin

"-- he is evil, that is accurate/he is like a serial killer/he is like Hitler or Stalin, those people are just different, a rare condition"

...yeah, I might still come across as being contrived, but this is going waaay to far, imho. And these are professional psychiatrists and are introduced as such.

[hollodero]

(07-19-2020, 01:49 PM)Dill Wrote: Whistleblowers do have to "interpret" observations in order to judge whether to go public or not.

I guess there is a certain procedure regarding official whistleblowing and it does not start with going public. Interpretation is not solely up to the whistleblower. Inofficial whistleblowing by going public, imho, is just akin to leaking to the press. I won't go as far as to judge if these instances are legal or ethical, I guess they are not exactly legal and I think this often is a double edged sword.
I did, however, refrain from putting "excessive leaks" and a press that willfully takes every piece of unflattering descriptions of Trump at face value on my list, but I did feel inclined to.

(07-19-2020, 01:49 PM)Dill Wrote: As far as diagnosing people against their wishes, the case is rather different when we are speaking of a public figure whose poor judgment takes lives every day--someone placed in power by the vote.  The 25th Amendment would be useless if presidential "wishes" trumped public judgment.

I am not a constitutional scholar (no, for real, I am indeed not), so whatever, I just thought that the 25th amendment is not based on public judgment.

(07-19-2020, 01:49 PM)Dill Wrote: Anyway, what I really wanted to ask in this post is whether you have seen the recent interviews of Mary Trump by Maddow and Cuomo?

No I have not, I might during the day. I am quite torn about this one as well (if it's ethical to publish a book like that) - and I suppose nothing she says really will surprise me. I am not questioining that he is some kind of a nut case, probably a narcissist, a solipsist, and then some. I am, however, not a psychiatrist and if I were one, I might be more cautious to put this professional weight behind my unclinical observations.