"I think he’s definitely got attention deficit disorder" Trump Biographer

[Phil1111 1,183]

"In the late 1980s, Jack O’Donnell, one of Donald Trump’s Atlantic City casino executives, devised a special strategy for talking to the in-and-out owner. “I would know Donald was coming to town,” O’Donnell said in a recent interview from his home in Arizona. “And if you were going to pitch him something, you would say”—and here he sped up his cadence, as if he were hitting a verbal fast-forward button—“‘Oh-hey-Donald-good-to-see-you-hey-I-wanted-to-run-something-by-you.’ Boom. That was it. Because if you hit him too late in the conversation, he might say, ‘Let’s talk about it later’—and he was gone.”

In the early ‘90s, Barbara Res, a project manager on Trump Tower who was a vice president in the Trump Organization, attempted to prepare him for a deposition for a court case pitting a Trump-led group against the Los Angeles school district in a battle for a coveted piece of property. “He said, ‘No, I don’t need to be prepared,’” Res said last week from her home in New Jersey. Finally, she persuaded him to give her, an associate and an attorney two hours in his office. “In the two hours, he kept taking phone calls,” Res said. Unprepared, he did “poorly” in the deposition, she said; his group lost the case, and the deal fell apart. “He was so distracted,” she said. “He really couldn’t stay focused.”...

The question of Trump’s attention span recently has leapt from a longtime employee complaint to a meaningful national issue. Res, O’Donnell and others like them have long collected stories of their exasperation over Trump’s impetuous nature as a boss. But this one personal attribute has become a subject of more widespread concern as voters consider how Trump’s habits and personality might translate to the presidency—a job that demands uncommon focus, with life in the West Wing often feeling like a control panel of perpetually blinking emergency lights."
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/09/donald-trump-attention-span-214223

http://www.haaretz.com/world-news/u-s-election-2016/1.741098

"Well, The Donald is not manic, nor psychotic, nor autistic. He could have some ADD (attention deficit disorder). He is bored easily, easily distracted, not known to concentrate for long on any problem, uninterested in detail, and, in a sense, quite creative. He also speaks as a teenager with ADD. Seldom can he start a sentence and bring it to logical closure without an insert or two, these inserts often derailing the original intention of the sentence."
https://dawsonross.wordpress.com/2016/08/12/the-unfiltered-mind-of-donald-trump-a-tentative-psychiatric-evaluation/

[BIGUN 1,486]

You say that as though its a bad thing. Google: "benefits of attention deficit disorder."

A close friend of mine is a BSEE, Naval Officer, several Master's degrees in varying disciplines including Telecomm fiber, member of Mensa and now works on a classified supercomputer.

Given Trump's education and ability to build an empire; seems to work for him. Some might call it a disability, others an ability.

Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

[billvon 3,118]

From The Oregonian:
=================
Donald Trump's 'rage reactions' lead eminent psychiatrists to declare him 'incapable of serving'

Douglas Perry
The Oregonian/OregonLive
February 15, 2017 at 7:43 AM

. . . .

The lack of a professional mental-health evaluation of the president "has resulted in a failure to lend our expertise to worried journalists and members of Congress at this critical time," Lance Dodes and Joseph Schachter write in a letter to the editor published this week by the New York Times. "We fear that too much is at stake to be silent any longer." Dodes is a retired Harvard Medical School psychiatry professor, and Schachter, who received his Ph.D. from Harvard, has held leading positions with the International Psychoanalytical Association.

They write in the letter:

"Mr. Trump's speech and actions demonstrate an inability to tolerate views different from his own, leading to rage reactions. His words and behavior suggest a profound inability to empathize. Individuals with these traits distort reality to suit their psychological state, attacking facts and those who convey them (journalists, scientists). ...

"We believe that the grave emotional instability indicated by Mr. Trump's speech and actions makes him incapable of serving safely as president."

33 other mental-health professionals have attached their names to the New York Times letter.
====================

[headoverheels 334]

billvon

From The Oregonian:
=================

"Mr. Trump's speech and actions demonstrate an inability to tolerate views different from his own, leading to rage reactions. His words and behavior suggest a profound inability to empathize. Individuals with these traits distort reality to suit their psychological state, attacking facts and those who convey them (journalists, scientists). ...

I think that pretty much everyone recognizes that. For many, that trait doesn't matter if they see him "moving the country in the right direction."

Heck, you could find 33 Republicans in the Senate that would agree with that statement, but they wouldn't be signing a list about it.

[BIGUN 1,486]

I'll see your Dodes and Schachter and raise you a Frances...

Quote

Dr. Allen Frances, professor emeritus of psychiatry at Duke University Medical College, wrote the book on it. "Most amateur diagnosticians have mislabeled President Trump with the diagnosis of narcissistic personality disorder. I wrote the criteria that define this disorder, and Mr. Trump doesn't meet them," Frances wrote in a letter to the New York Times.

http://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/donald-trump-isn-t-mentally-ill-he-s-just-unpleasant-n721766

Man, the next four years are gonna be fun on here.

Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

[Phil1111 1,183]

BIGUN

I'll see your Dodes and Schachter and raise you a Frances...

Quote

Dr. Allen Frances, professor emeritus of psychiatry at Duke University Medical College, wrote the book on it. "Most amateur diagnosticians have mislabeled President Trump with the diagnosis of narcissistic personality disorder. I wrote the criteria that define this disorder, and Mr. Trump doesn't meet them," Frances wrote in a letter to the New York Times.

http://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/donald-trump-isn-t-mentally-ill-he-s-just-unpleasant-n721766

Man, the next four years are gonna be fun on here.

According to the doctor:
""He may be a world-class narcissist, but this doesn't make him mentally ill, because he does not suffer from the distress and impairment required to diagnose mental disorder," Frances wrote."

But he fails to recognize that a super narcissist, like trump. Can never feel personal distress because his ego overcompensates for his super narcissist behaviors.

Sorry almost three dozen doctors trump one. If you'll pardon the pun. A conscious would also be necessary to feel " significant distress or impairment". To the damage he causes to himself, those around him, the country and the world.

Clearly his endless tweets about his lack of popularity vr other Presidents, failure to win outright victory at the polls, failures in office with regards to implementation of promises.

Recent polling:
http://www.people-press.org/2017/02/16/in-first-month-views-of-trump-are-already-strongly-felt-deeply-polarized/

Prove the diagnosis of the 33 professionals.

[airdvr 210]

Some of the most successful people I know probably suffer from ADHD. I worked for one of them and it sucked balls but I couldn't argue with their success.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[Phil1111 1,183]

airdvr

Some of the most successful people I know probably suffer from ADHD. I worked for one of them and it sucked balls but I couldn't argue with their success.

Can absolutely be true.

[BIGUN 1,486]

Phil1111

***I'll see your Dodes and Schachter and raise you a Frances...

Quote

Dr. Allen Frances, professor emeritus of psychiatry at Duke University Medical College, wrote the book on it. "Most amateur diagnosticians have mislabeled President Trump with the diagnosis of narcissistic personality disorder. I wrote the criteria that define this disorder, and Mr. Trump doesn't meet them," Frances wrote in a letter to the New York Times.

http://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/donald-trump-isn-t-mentally-ill-he-s-just-unpleasant-n721766

Man, the next four years are gonna be fun on here.

According to the doctor:
""He may be a world-class narcissist, but this doesn't make him mentally ill, because he does not suffer from the distress and impairment required to diagnose mental disorder," Frances wrote."

But he fails to recognize that a super narcissist, like trump. Can never feel personal distress because his ego overcompensates for his super narcissist behaviors.

Sorry almost three dozen doctors trump one. If you'll pardon the pun. A conscious would also be necessary to feel " significant distress or impairment". To the damage he causes to himself, those around him, the country and the world.

Clearly his endless tweets about his lack of popularity vr other Presidents, failure to win outright victory at the polls, failures in office with regards to implementation of promises.

Recent polling:
http://www.people-press.org/2017/02/16/in-first-month-views-of-trump-are-already-strongly-felt-deeply-polarized/

Prove the diagnosis of the 33 professionals.

This will continue ad nauseum for the next four years. Here's the one thing everyone has to realize... He's our narcissist and I'm willing to give him more than less than 30 days before calling for blood.

Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

[Phil1111 1,183]

Completely fair. If he surrounded himself with a CIA director, a economist, someone with dual Presidency WH experience. He could do a reasonable job.

[wmw999 2,588]

Nothing wrong with ADD as long as you realize where you're weak and make sure it's covered with your people. Kind of like how a CEO with ADD who's hard to work for would improve his or her company if they were to have a second in command they listened to.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[normiss 897]

Didn't it take about 2 years to oust Nixon?
So far, this is much worse.

[BIGUN 1,486]

normiss

Didn't it take about 2 years to oust Nixon?
So far, this is much worse.

I don't know that I can agree. I was in Basic when Nixon had to resign. I also remember that we had technically won the war in South Vietnam and the Dem side of the house is what caused Vietnam to ultimately fail. And, it's when I learned I was more of a centrist than a hard party-liner. There has been an increase in authoritative abuse with each passing administration. I've voted for Democrats in the past (even for the first female Mayor Democrat in Tulsa - Oh the horror!!) They were fiscally responsible with a perfect blend of economic and social issues.

Here's where I'm at right now... Most of America was looking for change. I know I was. And, we're here for the next four years and I'm willing to support him until I can't. The other thing I think we need to acknowledge is both Clinton and Obama did some good things. I was living in NW Arkansas when Clinton ran and I took a long hard look at him and his record, what he'd done for Arkansas and that he acted like a regular person. Loved that about him. And, he's one of the Democrats I voted for.

Clinton brought one of the most important legislation's about when he created the Insurance Portability act. I think Obama had good intentions with ACA, but I would have liked to see him fix the VA system and then use that as a model for his next step. Unfortunately, he tried the big plan first and even if Trump wasn't touting, "We must repeal and replace" ACA.... it was going to fail by next year.

Here's what we need to keep in mind.... To "Repeal and Replace" ACA is still an acknowledgement to me of what Clinton and Obama brought to the table. The need is there - it validates the Dems side. With the exponential increase of an aging population and rising health care costs; corporations used to provide healthcare, then they had to have their employees subsidize it. Then they quit offering it all together. Twenty years ago... My better half used to offer health care to her eight employees. It got to the point where she just could not financially do it and stay in business. An area I think the Obama Administration missed. Small business' being able to afford to offer their employees health care again.

Here's what else I like about Trump. He pledged the high import taxes as part of his campaign... yet, earlier this week he met with some of America's largest retail chains and listened to their concerns about the impact that would have on the economy. If he stays the course, he's a bad guy, if he listened and changes part of that campaign promise; people will say he reneged on a campaign promise.

The EO regarding immigration from those seven countries was blown out of proportion. It was a temporary stop-gap to develop a better process for 120 days. The ninth court saw otherwise, but to me; that was an emotional verdict and not made from law. The US Code fully allowed Trump to make that EO. Admittedly, I am personally vested in the immigration situation regarding both terrorist countries and the borders. A friend of mine's wife was killed by an illegal alien. He spent 6 months in jail (not prison) and was then sent back to Honduras.

I still believe in the core of his campaign and I'm reminded of that line from I "think" the show called newsroom - "We're not the greatest nation in the world anymore, but we can be." I still believe we could do with 50% less federal government than we have now. There's a yellow page test. Use it.

Now is the time for the Dems to re-group. Trump didn't win as much as Hillary and status quo lost. Now is the time for all of us to come more towards center and unite. If the pendulum continues to swing further and further to each side with each new administration, we'll always find ourselves four years more away from the great united country we can be. But, that's just my opinion and again; I'm willing to support him until I can't and I hope that we as a nation can come closer to center - if not... I fear both sides will lose.

And, I pledge to not spend the next four year on here not throwing rocks at friends and/or people I respect just because we have differing viewpoints. I'd like to discuss issues of difference with offers of "How it can be done better for all."

To Trump: Get your fingers off the Twitter feed for fuck's sake. You have a Communications Director.

Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

[mistercwood 287]

BIGUN

The EO regarding immigration from those seven countries was blown out of proportion. It was a temporary stop-gap to develop a better process for 120 days. The ninth court saw otherwise, but to me; that was an emotional verdict and not made from law. The US Code fully allowed Trump to make that EO. Admittedly, I am personally vested in the immigration situation regarding both terrorist countries and the borders. A friend of mine's wife was killed by an illegal alien. He spent 6 months in jail (not prison) and was then sent back to Honduras.

I could at least meet you halfway on most of what you wrote, except for this one. The EO was poorly written, self-contradictory, rushed and flat-out unconstitutional. As I've posted before, that last part should alarm ANY citizen regardless of political leaning. The EO itself was emotionally based, not the court's ruling.

I also disagree that the EO was blown out of proportion. If it hadn't had the backlash that it did, and somehow had been allowed to stand, the precedent it would set for this administration and future ones would be horrifying.

My personal litmus test remains: If I like it, is it my guy doing it? If the other guy was doing it, would I still like it? If the answer's no, I need to do more thinking.

ETA: Sorry to hear about your friend's wife, that must suck. But to make the obvious point (which I suspect you already know and understand), this EO would do nothing to change what happened.

You are playing chicken with a planet - you can't dodge and planets don't blink. Act accordingly.

[BIGUN 1,486]

My suspicion is you've read what others have wrote about what they read. One clause of note from the EO:


In order to protect Americans, the United States must ensure that those admitted to this country do not bear hostile attitudes toward it and its founding principles. The United States cannot, and should not, admit those who do not support the Constitution, or those who would place violent ideologies over American law. In addition, the United States should not admit those who engage in acts of bigotry or hatred (including "honor" killings, other forms of violence against women, or the persecution of those who practice religions different from their own) or those who would oppress Americans of any race, gender, or sexual orientation.

Feel free to read the actual EO here:

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/01/27/executive-order-protecting-nation-foreign-terrorist-entry-united-states

As for the ninth court... Here is what Snopes says; and they are admittedly left leaning - but not in their research (might be centrists :)

http://www.snopes.com/ninth-circuit-court-most-overturned/

Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

[quade 4]

BIGUN

My suspicion is you've read what others have wrote about what they read. One clause of note from the EO:


In order to protect Americans, the United States must ensure that those admitted to this country do not bear hostile attitudes toward it and its founding principles. The United States cannot, and should not, admit those who do not support the Constitution, or those who would place violent ideologies over American law. In addition, the United States should not admit those who engage in acts of bigotry or hatred (including "honor" killings, other forms of violence against women, or the persecution of those who practice religions different from their own) or those who would oppress Americans of any race, gender, or sexual orientation.

Please explain to me then why Trump's sons were in Dubai this last week?

When you can do that, we can begin to discuss the hypocrisy of the EO.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Phil1111 1,183]

BIGUN

As for the ninth court... Here is what Snopes says; and they are admittedly left leaning - but not in their research (might be centrists :)

http://www.snopes.com/ninth-circuit-court-most-overturned/

IMO this explains the court better:

"Fox News host Sean Hannity says it’s no surprise that the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against President Donald Trump and his executive order on immigration.

"We have both been predicting for days now the 9th Circuit — the most liberal court of appeals, the most overturned court in the country — it would act this way," Hannity said on his show Feb. 9, speaking with a guest...

In our research, we found that the 9th Circuit has a higher-than-average reversal rate, but not the highest. Additionally, experts told us that counting reversals doesn’t necessarily say much about the quality or substance of the 9th Circuit’s work...

In fact, the Supreme Court reversed about 70 percent of cases it took between 2010-15. Among cases it reviewed from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, it reversed about 79 percent.

The 9th Circuit’s reversal rate is higher than average, but it’s not the absolute highest among the circuit courts. That distinction goes to the 6th Circuit, which serves Ohio, Michigan, Kentucky and Tennessee, with an 87 percent average between 2010-15. The 9th Circuit is in third place...

We also found that the 9th Circuit never had the highest reversal rate in any individual term between 2004-15. (That’s the farthest back we could go.)

A spokesperson for Hannity pointed us to a 2014 article in National Review titled, "Ninth Circuit Leading the Pack for ‘Most Reversed.’ " But the evidence presented in the article does not support the headline.

So Hannity’s claim that the 9th Circuit is the "most overturned court in the country" is incorrect...

This means the Supreme Court generally reverses far less than 1 percent of all the cases the 9th Circuit (and other circuits) decide...

While the 9th Circuit has a higher than average reversal rate among cases it sends to the Supreme Court, it has not had the highest rate since at least 2004 (the oldest data point we could find).

Even if it did, experts told us that the massive size of the 9th Circuit compared to the handful of cases it sends to the Supreme Court every year make reversal rates an imperfect measure of the quality of the 9th Circuit’s decisions. More broadly, experts say this statistic is a poor way of comparing courts.

We rate Hannity’s claim False."
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2017/feb/10/sean-hannity/no-9th-circuit-isnt-most-overturned-court-country-/

Hannity is a Fox news reporter that started the whole 9th circuit b.s. rouge court story. Too bad its completely misleading. This story was a Fox news originating report. i.e. it was Fox news reporting that started this entire story. Given that its not only wrong but orientated to mislead its viewers to the orientation of the political ideology of the reporter. Its especially egregious.

[jakee 1,595]

Quote

The EO regarding immigration from those seven countries was blown out of proportion. It was a temporary stop-gap to develop a better process for 120 days. The ninth court saw otherwise, but to me; that was an emotional verdict and not made from law. The US Code fully allowed Trump to make that EO. Admittedly, I am personally vested in the immigration situation regarding both terrorist countries and the borders. A friend of mine's wife was killed by an illegal alien. He spent 6 months in jail (not prison) and was then sent back to Honduras.

For sure, that's a terrible situation but if you want to talk about emotional judgements - the EO doesn't involve Honduras and it doesn't involve illegal aliens. So why mention it?

Look, some immigrants and visitors are going to be criminals, just like some citizens are going to be criminals. The only way you'll guarantee there are no criminal immigrants is by somehow stopping all immigration and all travel to the US. Good luck with that. Even then you'll still have violent crime, unless you kick out all the americans from america too. But there wouldn't be much point to that, would there?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[BIGUN 1,486]

You know, Jakee... one of the reasons that I don't really listen to you anymore is because you have enough (if not worse) problems in your own country and rather than try to help your own countrymen.... you feel as though you have a grip on the solutions for our country.

You have had no less than 800 Muslims leave your country to go to Jihadist training camps, you have over 12,000 Muslim immigrants in prison, they represent the fastest/largest growing segment of drain on your social welfare programs. Fix that, then get back to me.

For me, it's easy... watch what Britain does; then do the opposite - in advance.

Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

[jakee 1,595]

Quote

You know, Jakee... one of the reasons that I don't really listen to you anymore

Is because you don't have the answers to my questions. Yeah, I know.

Quote

you have enough (if not worse) problems in your own country and rather than try to help your own countrymen

There are some really strange logical contortions going on in your head that you think this argument makes sense.

You seem to have been paying enough attention to what I post to know that I am opposed to excessive immigration controls and that I think western nations have a moral duty to accept a large number of refugees from genuinely shit parts of the world (that we quite often had a direct or indirect role in making shit). So when you say that I should sort out Britain's excess immigration problem before commenting on the US's, what on earth is it that makes you think I agree that Britain has a problem with too many immigrants? I'm quite happy for my country to offer a place for desperate human beings.

Quote

You have had no less than 800 Muslims leave your country to go to Jihadist training camps,

So we shouldn't let muslims in, but it's a problem when we let them leave as well?

Quote

you have over 12,000 Muslim immigrants in prison,

I believe you may have found a reference to 12,000 muslim prisoners, but where do you get that they are all immigrants? Cite please!

Quote

they represent the fastest/largest growing segment of drain on your social welfare programs. Fix that, then get back to me.

If they're the fastest growing social group, it makes sense that they'd be the fastest growing welfare group also. That's what social welfare is for. Again, if you expect me to want to 'fix' the fact that social welfare programs are helping people then I really don't know who you think I am.

Quote

For me, it's easy... watch what Britain does; then do the opposite - in advance.

And yet I'm pretty sure you supported invading Afghanistan. Didn't learn from that one, did ya!

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[billvon 3,118]

Quote

The EO regarding immigration from those seven countries was blown out of proportion. It was a temporary stop-gap to develop a better process for 120 days. The ninth court saw otherwise, but to me; that was an emotional verdict and not made from law.

It was indeed made from law.

It violates the First Amendment, since it discriminates against specific religions. It expressly allows exceptions of specific religions based on minority status. It also de facto prohibits Muslims from emigrating; Trump himself has said he used the term "territory" instead of "Muslim" because he knew that saying "Muslim" would get him in trouble, so he used a different word to get the same effect.

US courts have ruled many times that trying to cloak the purpose of a law or order in different terminology to achieve the effect of restricting specific religions does not affect the illegality of such a law or order.

In addition, the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1965 explicitly prohibits the US from banning entry based on the person's place of residence. Specifically, no one can be “discriminated against in the issuance of an immigrant visa because of the person’s race, sex, nationality, place of birth or place of residence.”

Trump may not like that part. In that case, he is free to ask Congress to pass a new law that changes the act. Until he does that, his executive order is illegal.

The court ruled correctly in this case.

[billvon 3,118]

Quote

As for the ninth court... Here is what Snopes says; and they are admittedly left leaning - but not in their research (might be centrists :)

http://www.snopes.com/...urt-most-overturned/

From that article:

"The Supreme Court neither reviewed nor overturned eighty percent of Ninth Circuit Court's decisions."

It then goes on to show the actual stats. In 2008, the 9th heard 12,000 cases. Of their decisions, 16 were reversed and 1 was vacated. That's about 0.1% of their cases.

[BIGUN 1,486]

Yup. That's why I posted it. I just got to thinking that I know of no court getting overturned 80‰ of the time. Looks like fake news is a two way street.

Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

[wmw999 2,588]

It would make sense that of the cases that are selected for review by a superior court, a majority would be overturned. Otherwise they're affirmed without review, or simply not appealed in the first place.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

Here's what else I like about Trump. He pledged the high import taxes as part of his campaign... yet, earlier this week he met with some of America's largest retail chains and listened to their concerns about the impact that would have on the economy. If he stays the course, he's a bad guy, if he listened and changes part of that campaign promise; people will say he reneged on a campaign promise.

How would a successful and brilliant businessman like Trump not know that high import taxes would hurt the retail industry?