One doesn’t need a degree in medicine or psychology to decide about the Trumpeter. He is condemned by his own words.
Even a superficial reading of de Sade identifies the fascination with nubile feminine charms and the accompanying disgust and punitive rage when the call of nature has to be obeyed by the lust objects in de Sade’s garden.
Trump was “disgusted” by Hillary’s ablutions and “not impressed” when she walked in front of him. His own wife identifies his talk as boy talk at an adolescent level. His problem is that he can’t control the behavior. The puerile threat to sue the women who are pouring forth with accusations may be the equivalent of de Sade’s imprecations and abuse. Misogyny may be at an all-time high, as well as bigotry and hate crime. Assange’s leaks about the deleted messages can’t compare, despite the party (grr)—hetoric.
The Octogenarians 
Hi All im newbie here. Good post! Thx! Love your stories!
On 9/14/15, theoctogenarians.com posited for discussion “Analogic Thinking & National Character.” Urged by a dear friend, it was my introduction to and first participation to this blog. daedal2207’s question … “Is there such a thing as national character?” … became the lure. Interestingly enough, it caught the attention of “hdmi cables for sale in sri lanka” who commented on this very post on 10/23/16, and “Top Eleven 2016 mod apk” on 9/5/16. While belatedly, it would seem that, even with an accent, the comments show an appreciation for the mission of this blog … that of offering perspective and lessons learned on issues affecting the human experience, transcending global and age barriers.
daedal2207: “One doesn’t need a degree in medicine or psychology to decide about the Trumpeter.”
Thank you, Professor. This was a booster since, not possessing either, it conveyed appreciation for the layman’s observations in light of the dismissal contained in one of the blog’s participants’ remarks:
“This blog portends to tap some of the highest aptitudes among the human population. It has been disappointing that more of these minds do not participate. We need to see penetrating analysis and much less in the way of superficial opinion. The quality of idea is for these purposes far more important than the display of sentiments.”
Who is the judge of the “quality of ideas?” Is the quality “superb” and “exalting” if it aligns with … whom? There is no muzzle of thought in these postings. At its most altruistic effort (after all, where’s the gain?) is an attempt to enhance understanding.
Mr. Trump is the wrong messenger and leader for our nation, and … by our own position … the world. Wishing it so is unabashed fantasy in search of reality. Mr. Trump does not respect himself. To quote him, “I don’t like to analyze myself because I might not like what I see.” And, in response to who earns his respect … “For the most part, you can’t respect people because most people aren’t worthy of respect.” http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/26/us/politics/donald-trump-interviews.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news
By every measure of human decency and stable character, Mr. Trump cannot be excused for any and all pronouncements. http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watch/fmr-trump-rental-agent-recalls-racist-policy-793597507676. He is unfit for the office he is seeking. We will be waiting in vain for his apology to our country for having subjected us to the vilest standards of thought and behavior.
A robust and healthy discussion honestly identifying the effects of globalization, technology, climate change, education, healthcare, energy, tolerance, and the growing income inequality, is not only welcomed, but with the seething anger that is erupting, a must. Each of these issues, which are not necessarily listed in order of priority, have subcategories. Perhaps they could be assigned a discussion focus. Obviously the frustration is there and the extremes of the political spectrum are not helping. The analogy of being at a crossroad is no longer applicable. There are so many paths that are being presented before us. And, this brings us back to the starting reference thanks to daedal2207 … “Is there such a thing as national character?” Hopefully, the answer is “yes” … one in which respect of one another is paramount.
Charges of WORSHIPPING, due to expression of a particular value, are arrogant … especially when it’s all in the eye of the beholder. There is a brutality in mocking … more so when what is being advocated is respect and generosity. No religion here … just, for small moments, walking in someone else’s shoes.
DS: “The cure to the ills of ‘worship’ is to get real, literally. (That is – use well the objective tools of the scientific method.)”
Very true. And, the “rule” works both ways. In preempting the evaluation of this posting, and in an attempt to demonstrate introspection to our younger readers, I apologize for the lack of “penetrating analysis” in continuing with my “superficial opinion,” thus demeaning the lofty importance of the discussion with “display of sentiments.”
daedal2207 … may she win BIG!!!
Thanks SB for weaving whole cloth from many strands!
Thank you SB. You have provided ideas which if examined can clarify. People tend to seek the substance that SUPPORTS the sentiments we love to love. The scientific method, if applied well, hopes to seek the substance that TESTS AND ADJUSTS the sentiments we love to love.
The question was asked, “Is there national character?” I think the most honest answer has to acknowledge that there is always a national character. The issue is not that of its existence, it is that of its appropriateness – and its appropriateness relative to what criteria. This understanding helps us clarify the nature of the political conflicts we are experiencing. We can then understand that our conflicts have to do with differing agendas and their correlated sentiments.
Earlier I wrote that “We need to see penetrating analysis and much less in the way of superficial opinion. The quality of idea is for these purposes far more important than the display of sentiments.” To which SB then asks “Who is the judge of the “quality of ideas?” My answer to this most revealing question has been to assign less importance to the “who” and apply focus on the “what”. By asking “what” is the best judge of the “quality of ideas”, we avoid that which is subjective and place the focus on our use of objective tools. The best tools allowing for accurate measurement and comparisons are those of math and logic. There is always a “who” involved, but those who use best the objective tools of math and logic will be the better judges of the “quality of ideas”. To imply that truth is only in the eye of the beholder, that there is no way to judge what is better or less, is to give one’s self a license to PROTECT the cherished sentiments that one loves to love.
It is hard to grasp where your measured objectivity is coming from.It carries with it a determinism which if valid makes choice not only unnecessary,but unavailable.The construct of national character depends on who was present within a geographical setting at a particular time with acknowledgement by a power elite.Nonetheless,there is an ongoing synthesis that results in contribution by all within the boundaries,resulting in gradual alteration by inmigration and political power change.Some of the problems encountered internationally are related to the discrepancy between the exportable transactional view of national character and the actual,more volatile and often non transactional and in this sense,conservative entity.It is once again the argument between progressivism and (neoconservatism).
The bizarre physics involved in deterministic understandings of the universe can distract us from the pragmatics required to preserve the process of human life. Yes, what we call choice (free will), and time itself too, can be legitimately questioned when attempting to deal with the big picture ontology. Determinism may have caused us to be what we are AND at the same time imposed sufficient degrees of “awareness” that we are caused to attempt the improvement (preservation) of our condition.
Pragmatically, to the degree that our universe might not be deterministic we must acknowledge that we have no control. Thus to that degree we could not plan and achieve. Be it illusion or not, a “choice” to focus on cause and effect at least allows us to enhance the probabilities that our plans to affect the play of events will flow to objective measurements of human advantage. Math and logic are tools (What other conceptual tools do we have?). They allow us to reliably understand the objective nature of our “condition” and thereby help us to construct, and/or navigate to, “better” environments.
I agree with Daedal2207 that there will be an “ongoing synthesis” that we can call national character. However, judgments as to the good and bad of this character are often subjective. What criteria are most helpful when making judgments? How about those ideas that MEASURABLY help us survive? Those would be objective in nature, not faith-based morality dictates – such as the cultivation of a belief that requires a forced equality-of-product distribution regardless inequalities of contribution. Hopefully we understand that there are some ideas that steer us well and some that steer us poorly in conducting this process of human life. For instance, does our country display sufficient numbers wise enough to understand the conflict between “justice” (conservative) and “social justice” (progressivism)? Does it display predominantly a Horacio Alger can-do thus I-am-responsible attitude (conservative) over a “they-did-it-to-me” attitude of victimization (Progressivism)? Does it value free markets, individual liberty, and freedom of thought (conservative) over that of government-knows-best dictate (Progressivism)? Is it individual rights regardless race affiliation (conservative) or is the possession of some forms of skin pigmentation something deserving of special rights, special importance (Progressive)? Do its people tolerate the corruption of its highest offices?
Daedal2207 is correct again in observing that there are problems encountered internationally that are colored by national-character-defined political differences. Peace through strength – no matter the intransigence of another’s hate for our system (conservative), or a (likely temporary) peace through transactions and compromise with foreign interests whose agendas if achieved will require the destruction of ours (Progressivism).
Reblogged this on daedal2207's Blog.