Dont worry Steelie i don't expect an apology from you. I know regressives usually can only spend other people's money and apologize on behalf of wicked white males.

Dear runner,

Whoa hold on a moment young fella, why did you think I owed you an apology?

It surely can't be for showing your emperor has no clothes, I mean what did you expect? That I would fall to the ground along side you and lick his other boot then sing glory to god in harmony when he bent over?

Well I'm not sorry to disappoint mate. You will just have to get over it.

The figures show he delivered worse yearly job creation figures than Obama managed in all of his entire second term. By your measure he is a failure. If your idolatry doesn't permit you to acknowledge that fact then obviously I can't help you but one thing is for sure, you don't deserve any apology.

leoj,

Why would I be sceptical of Trump’s narcissism when he has given me absolutely no reason to believe that he is not a narcissist? I’ll tell you what I WOULD be sceptical of, any claims that Trump was NOT a narcissist.

As for Foxy’s link, did you even read it? The author wasn’t just presenting his worldview. He was exploring the Goldwater rule and whether there was a case for change with regards to it - precisely what I mentioned in my last post to you.

--

mhaze,

It wasn’t my “little test”. It was an APA checklist.

<<People like AJ might not be able to remember Obama's more narcissistic moments having memory-holed them …>>

No, people like AJ don’t remember them because the examples are far less frequent (and for damn-near any other leader throughout history, so far as I can see). To pass it off as mere bias at work is either dishonest, or evidence of an even stronger bias at work.

<<… much like they conveniently forget that this same tactic was used against Bush the Younger and all previous Republican leaders.>>

No, I didn’t forget them. I had bit of a google and have no memory of anything I found. To me, Bush was best known for his Bushisms:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/bushisms/2000/03/the_complete_bushisms.html

(Try compiling a list that long for Clinton or Obama (or any other ex-president, for that matter), Trump looks set to thrash Bush, however.)

Don’t mistake me for some Obama fan who is hand-wringing or frothing at the mouth over a Trump presidency. I understand full well why Trump was elected.

If I’m a fan of anything, then it is the steady and frequently flow of humour Trump provides us with. Bush Jr. gave us much of the same (albeit in a far more endearing way), and I was genuinely disappointed when he had to clear the White House because I knew I was going to miss the Bushisms. I even spoke once of looking forward to the possibility of similar entertainment in the event that Trump won the presidency:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18285#324812

He has not disappointed.

AJ Philips,

Yes, I did read the article and the responses to it. You and I differ on what constitutes evidence, especially where professionals and standards, ethics too, are involved.

I have no oar in the water either way on this, no political interest.

However I would like to see some universities and professional bodies take action where science is being brought into disrepute as in this case. Joe Public recognises what is going on here. It is shameful. It is how the credibility of science is eroded and people start to reject public vaccination campaigns for instance - which is not an extreme example at all.

On Trump, by all means criticise his policies. But there is no call to set the baying hounds of psychology against him. That just proves that his opponents recognise there is likely no substance to their own argument and they are relying on poisoning the well against Trump via a personality attack.

leoj,

I don't think the article Foxy linked to was evidence of anything. To me, it was just a discussion which raised some interesting points.

<<You and I differ on what constitutes evidence, especially where professionals and standards, ethics too, are involved.>>

How do you figure that? I don't think opinions are evidence of anything (as you seem to think I do), and I don't think the Goldwater rule should change. However, I do think the question of whether mental health experts have a duty to warn people when a leader has a mental illness or personality disorder is an interesting one, and warrants further discussion.

<<On Trump, by all means criticise his policies.>>

I have. I have spoken about the potentially disastrous effects a Muslim ban would have (by giving ISIS was that want and increasing the chances of radicalising young Muslims in the US); I've spoken about how Trump's selection of countries for his Muslim ban conveniently skipped the countries in which he has business interests (With Saudi Arabia being one of the biggest exporters of terrorists).

We could go on for days about bad and poorly thought-through many of his policies are. But when a leader behaves in bizarre ways, it is worth asking why - especially if it could negatively impact their country, let alone the rest of the world. In my opinion, brushing such questions off as ad hominem, desperation, or a standard tactic, in a case as extreme as Trump's, comes off as defensive.

My comments here are not partisan-driven as mhaze and yourself are keen to dismiss them has. I thought Kevin Rudd showed signs of NPD (albeit far less extreme), yet I don't think GW Bush had any psychological or personality disorders (which I have now found that he too was accused of, but you apparently really had to be watching close to see them). Furthermore, it appears my 'at least 7 our of 9' traits was conservative. Here's a video showing him fulfill all nine:

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/donald-trump-mental-illness-narcisissm-us-president-psychologists-inauguration-crowd-size-paranoia-a7552661.html

SR,

"Runner originally asked;

“Anyone seen US the employment figures lately?”.
Yes. But 'employment figures' is a catch-all phrase. If I say it was hot at the end of December, only someone with an agenda would seek to prove that wrong by looking at the literal end ie 31/12. Equally here.

Now SR, I've noted previously your rather tenuous grasp of statistics (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17749&page=0#314330) so I won't vex you too much longer.

But your rationalisations as to why Trump has been reducing unemployment rates is, to put it mildly, utter BS. Go back and look at the BLS statistics for (Seas) Employment-Population Ratio and (Seas) Labor Force Participation Rate to find that the former has increased under Trump and the latter has remained essential unchanged since 2012. So your claims that "Another [reason] is the number of baby boomers moving out of the job market" are unfounded and the victory of wishful-thinking over data.

But I did get a laugh from this .."Well one factor is the markedly increasing school retention rates within black communities because of policies implemented by the Obama administration." So in your anti-Trump hysteria, any problems with employment are caused by Trump and any improvements (in the same period!!) are caused by the Obamessiah. But you're not prejudiced? Giggle!

I'll probably loose you here, but there is a problem with the numbers. IT doesn't really make sense that the participation rate is rising, the unemployment rate and numbers are falling, while the employment numbers are stagnant. As I understand it, one explanation for this is that the employment numbers are based on surveys of employers. Given that there are a large number of illegals in the US workforce and that Trump/ICE are gearing up to go after them and their employers, it is said that these employers are, often, no longer counting the illegals in the survey responses. This, it is opined, is the reason for the apparent problems in the employment numbers when all the other employment related stats are moving as expected in a growing/booming economy.