#Psychological analysis of Donald J. Trump

[civicsavvy]

The Complexity of Donald J. Trump: A Psychological Exploration by Dr. Jordan B. Peterson

Dr. Jordan B. Peterson’s conversation on Donald J. Trump offers a nuanced, multi-dimensional view of the former president’s personality, leadership style, and the broader psychological impact he has had on society. Peterson approaches Trump not simply as a political figure but as a psychological subject whose behaviors and traits evoke intense reactions, both positive and negative, in the public sphere.

The video is insightful for several reasons, mainly because Peterson, a clinical psychologist, applies his understanding of personality psychology to analyze Trump’s complex personality. By examining Trump’s leadership qualities, public persona, and social impact, Peterson offers a blend of psychological, social, and moral perspectives that reveal how Trump's personality influences not only his own behavior but also his supporters and critics alike. Here are some key points Peterson raises:

1. Public Persona and Influence as a Celebrity

Peterson observes that Trump’s public persona is central to his success. He notes that Trump built his brand as a celebrity and businessman long before entering politics, giving him a unique, almost “larger-than-life” status. His background in real estate and as a television personality shaped his ability to command attention, charm certain audiences, and polarize others. This larger-than-life image, Peterson argues, equipped Trump to break traditional political norms and capture public fascination in a way that few others have been able to achieve.

2. Leadership Style: Bold, Direct, and Unorthodox

Trump’s approach to leadership is bold, often unfiltered, and confrontational, which Peterson suggests aligns with certain personality traits, including high extroversion and assertiveness. This style appeals strongly to his supporters, who see these traits as signs of strength, decisiveness, and authenticity. On the other hand, these same qualities provoke intense opposition and criticism from those who interpret them as aggressive, narcissistic, or dangerous. Peterson sees Trump’s leadership as embodying a kind of “charismatic authority” that deviates from typical political decorum but resonates deeply with a significant portion of the American public.

3. Key Personality Traits: Extroversion, Openness, and Plasticity

Peterson specifically points to Trump’s high levels of extroversion and openness as defining traits. High extroversion often correlates with assertiveness, energy, and sociability, all of which have been apparent in Trump’s public appearances. Openness, which reflects creativity and willingness to embrace novel experiences, is another trait that likely contributes to Trump’s risk-taking and adaptability.

A unique aspect Peterson discusses is “plasticity”—the capacity to adapt and change, which Trump demonstrates through his ability to switch roles and professions, from business mogul to television star to politician. Peterson believes this plasticity allows Trump to survive and thrive in rapidly changing social and economic environments, a skill that has helped him remain relevant across different decades.

4. Humor as a Strategic Tool

Peterson examines Trump’s use of humor, particularly his “ruthless” style, which combines sarcasm, irony, and directness. This humor often disarms his critics, energizes his supporters, and disrupts traditional political rhetoric. Peterson notes that humor is a powerful tool in leadership because it allows a person to communicate complex or controversial messages in a less direct, confrontational way. However, Trump’s style of humor can also alienate people and feed into negative perceptions, especially among those who view him as disrespectful or divisive.

5. Trump’s Appeal to the Working Class

One of the more compassionate aspects of Peterson’s analysis is his acknowledgment of Trump’s empathy for the working class. He argues that Trump’s straightforward, brash communication style resonates with people who feel alienated by political elites. According to Peterson, many working-class Americans appreciate Trump’s perceived authenticity and see him as a defender of their values and economic concerns. This, Peterson posits, may explain why Trump’s support base remains loyal, even when his behavior challenges conventional standards.

6. Empathy, Narcissism, and Agreeableness

Peterson recognizes that Trump’s personality is paradoxical in several ways. For instance, while Trump often displays traits associated with narcissism, he also exhibits moments of genuine empathy, particularly towards those he perceives as “ordinary Americans.” Peterson discusses how Trump’s low agreeableness (a personality trait associated with cooperation and kindness) contributes to his confrontational and competitive demeanor, which some perceive as a lack of empathy. However, Peterson suggests that Trump’s empathy for his base is selective rather than generalized, leading to complex public reactions.

7. Social Media Mastery: Power and Pitfalls of Twitter

Trump’s unique use of Twitter (and other social media platforms) has been a defining aspect of his public image and political influence. Peterson notes that Twitter allows Trump to bypass traditional media and speak directly to his supporters, creating a sense of intimacy and immediacy. However, this direct line of communication also intensifies polarization, as Trump’s unfiltered remarks reach a global audience instantly. Peterson points out that social media amplifies both the positive and negative aspects of Trump’s personality, further fueling division within the public.

8. Controversial Populist Appeal and Psychological Impact

Trump’s approach often aligns with populist themes, positioning himself as an “outsider” against an entrenched political establishment. Peterson suggests that Trump’s populist appeal may be psychologically reassuring to those who feel disempowered, as he promises to “drain the swamp” and restore power to the people. However, this populist stance also invites criticism and concerns about authoritarianism. Peterson weighs these risks carefully, noting that populism can serve as both a force for change and a potential source of division.

9. Adaptability and Reinvention as a Survival Mechanism

Trump’s life is marked by continual reinvention, a quality that Peterson finds psychologically significant. Unlike most people, who become more set in their ways as they age, Trump demonstrates a remarkable ability to adapt, whether it’s shifting from the world of real estate to television or, ultimately, politics. Peterson sees this adaptability as part of Trump’s resilience and success, though he cautions that it can also contribute to volatility.

10. Is Trump Dangerous? Peterson’s Final Thoughts

Peterson concludes his analysis with a reflection on the broader question: “Is Trump dangerous?” While he acknowledges that Trump’s personality can be polarizing, Peterson does not reduce Trump to a purely positive or negative figure. Instead, he emphasizes the complexity of Trump’s influence, arguing that Trump’s impact depends largely on how his personality traits interact with the context and the responses of those around him. Peterson encourages a balanced view that recognizes both Trump’s strengths and potential risks, emphasizing the importance of understanding complex personalities in political leaders.

Conclusion

Dr. Peterson’s analysis of Donald Trump goes beyond simplistic judgments, exploring Trump as a case study in personality, psychology, and social impact. Peterson’s approach is both empathetic and critical, allowing readers to see Trump’s strengths and weaknesses as two sides of the same coin. His focus on Trump’s personality traits—extroversion, openness, and plasticity—helps to explain how Trump’s unconventional behavior connects with a significant portion of the public while also intensifying divisions. Ultimately, Peterson’s conversation sheds light on Trump’s lasting influence and encourages a more nuanced view of one of the most polarizing figures in modern history.

Introduction: Understanding a Controversial Figure

In today’s polarized world, few figures have been as divisive and influential as Donald J. Trump. From his beginnings as a real estate developer and television personality to his tenure as the 45th President of the United States, Trump has reshaped the political landscape and challenged conventional norms in ways that continue to provoke strong reactions. For some, he represents a bold break from the status quo, a leader unafraid to speak his mind and tackle issues with a directness often missing in traditional politics. For others, he embodies a threat to established democratic values, with his unconventional style and polarizing rhetoric deepening the divides in American society.

Dr. Jordan B. Peterson’s approach to examining Trump’s personality offers a unique and thought-provoking perspective. As a clinical psychologist known for his insights into human behavior, Peterson does not attempt to cast Trump simply as a hero or villain. Instead, he approaches Trump as a complex psychological subject, one whose traits and behaviors reveal much about leadership, charisma, and the psychological undercurrents that influence both individual and collective behavior. Peterson’s analysis is grounded in his understanding of personality psychology, which allows him to explore the ways in which Trump’s distinctive personality traits resonate with his supporters while repelling his detractors.

This essay aims to unpack Dr. Peterson’s in-depth examination of Donald Trump’s personality, exploring the ways in which Trump’s traits—such as his high levels of extroversion, his adaptability, and his confrontational style—intersect with the expectations and demands of American political life. Through this lens, readers will gain a clearer understanding of the impact of Trump’s public persona and the reasons why he has become a central figure in contemporary political and social discourse.

In doing so, we will delve into the nature of Trump’s influence: How has his background as a businessman and celebrity shaped his public image? What psychological traits contribute to his leadership style, and why do these traits provoke such strong reactions from people across the political spectrum? How does Peterson’s psychological perspective help us make sense of Trump’s enduring impact on American politics and society?

Through this analysis, we hope to move beyond simplistic judgments and offer a balanced view that highlights both the strengths and challenges presented by Trump’s unique personality. Whether one sees Trump as a transformative figure or a destabilizing force, Dr. Peterson’s insights provide a valuable framework for understanding the psychological and cultural factors that shape our perception of one of the most controversial figures of our time.

In the following ten sections, we will examine specific aspects of Dr. Peterson’s analysis, exploring Trump’s personality traits, leadership style, use of humor, appeal to the working class, and mastery of social media. By approaching each of these topics from a psychological and cultural perspective, we aim to offer readers a comprehensive understanding of the many facets of Trump’s public persona and the lasting impact of his unconventional approach to leadership.

Section 1: The Public Persona – Celebrity and Businessman

Donald Trump’s journey to becoming a household name began long before he entered politics. With roots in New York real estate, he leveraged his business acumen, showmanship, and a keen understanding of branding to build a public persona that blurred the lines between businessman, celebrity, and, eventually, politician. Trump’s rise to fame highlights the ways in which he crafted an identity not only as a real estate mogul but also as a charismatic figure capable of captivating the public’s attention—a skill that would serve him well in his political career.

Trump’s Ascent in Real Estate and Entertainment

Trump’s early success can be attributed to both his ambition and his deep understanding of the value of visibility. Starting his career in his father’s real estate business, Trump quickly established himself as a risk-taker willing to pursue high-profile projects. His ventures included high-rise developments, luxury hotels, and casinos, often emblazoned with his name—a branding choice that symbolized the “Trump” lifestyle and made him synonymous with opulence and success.

Beyond his business ventures, Trump recognized the importance of cultivating his image in the media. His brash style, larger-than-life personality, and unapologetic self-promotion were not just traits but strategic tools that he used to stay in the public eye. By the 1980s and 1990s, he had transformed from a relatively unknown businessman into a public figure whose name alone evoked wealth and status. His ventures may have been financially tumultuous at times, but the strength of his brand allowed him to maintain relevance, demonstrating the power of perception in shaping public influence.

Trump’s role as the host of The Apprentice in the early 2000s took his celebrity status to a new level. The reality TV show presented Trump as a decisive, no-nonsense figure with an aura of authority, cementing his image as a successful businessman who understood the principles of winning and losing. In the eyes of millions, he became a symbol of the American Dream—a self-made success story, whether fully accurate or not. This portrayal tapped into viewers’ aspirations and desire for guidance on achieving success, reinforcing his image as a “man of the people” who had mastered the complexities of both business and life.

The Calculated Moves Behind His Public Persona

Trump’s public persona is not simply a reflection of who he is, but rather a carefully constructed image designed to attract attention and maintain relevance. From his early days, he understood the psychology of fame, recognizing that being controversial could be just as effective as being liked. He embraced controversy as a tool for staying in the public eye, frequently making bold statements that captured headlines and drew widespread attention. This strategy of using shock value to maintain visibility has proven effective, as it aligns with the media’s preference for sensational stories and public fascination with polarizing figures.

Moreover, Trump’s approach to fame involves creating a clear and consistent narrative about himself. He often positions himself as an outsider—a fighter going up against an “establishment” that doesn’t understand or respect him. This narrative resonates with those who feel similarly overlooked or disenfranchised, particularly within the working class. By painting himself as a fighter for the “forgotten man,” Trump has tapped into a powerful, unifying theme that allows him to appeal to a broad demographic despite his wealth and elite status. His understanding of the audience’s desires, combined with his talent for self-promotion, has enabled him to cultivate a following that sees him as both a leader and a relatable figure.

The Psychology of Fame and Attention

Fame, in psychological terms, is a powerful and complex phenomenon. It creates a perception of authority and influence, often regardless of the person’s qualifications or experience. In Trump’s case, his fame has acted as both a protective shield and a magnifying glass. It has allowed him to maintain influence even in the face of controversies, while also amplifying his actions and statements. The “celebrity effect” works to his advantage by drawing public interest and lending credibility to his persona, simply because he is a known figure.

Psychologically, Trump’s rise reveals a deep understanding of the human desire for strong, decisive leaders. Fame provides a sense of familiarity, which often translates into trust, regardless of whether that trust is well-founded. For many, Trump’s persona as a self-made billionaire and television icon made him seem like someone who could “get things done” in the political arena as well. His unfiltered and often provocative style is appealing to those who see it as “real” and unpolished compared to traditional politicians who carefully curate their image.

In the realm of psychology, people are often drawn to larger-than-life figures who embody traits they aspire to or admire, such as confidence, success, and resilience. Trump’s calculated public persona taps into these desires, positioning him as a “winner” in a world where many feel like they are constantly losing. This appeal is enhanced by his unapologetic approach to confrontation and his readiness to challenge anyone who criticizes him, reinforcing the perception of him as someone who doesn’t back down and who “says what others are afraid to say.”

Conclusion

Trump’s early career as a businessman and his role on The Apprentice laid the foundation for his eventual foray into politics by establishing him as a well-known and polarizing figure. His skill in managing his public image and his ability to use fame to his advantage reveal a deep understanding of human psychology and the cultural power of celebrity. As we explore Trump’s political impact, it becomes clear that his public persona—crafted with intent and precision—has played a significant role in shaping public perception, enabling him to transition from a celebrity to a political force in a way that few could have predicted.

In the next section, we will explore how Trump’s personality traits, particularly his high extroversion and adaptability, shape his approach to leadership and contribute to his unconventional style in the political arena. Through Dr. Peterson’s lens, we’ll gain insight into how these traits manifest in Trump’s actions, decisions, and interactions on the world stage.

Section 2: The Leadership Approach – Bold, Unorthodox, and Assertive

Donald Trump’s leadership approach defies many conventions traditionally associated with political figures. His style is characterized by boldness, unorthodoxy, and a direct assertiveness that stands in sharp contrast to the more measured and calculated approaches of typical politicians. His decisions, statements, and overall demeanor are unapologetically straightforward, often provocative, and reveal a leadership approach that prioritizes action, immediate impact, and visible results over long-term strategy or cautious diplomacy.

Trump’s Leadership Style and Decision-Making Processes

Trump’s leadership approach is rooted in his background as a businessman rather than a career politician. Unlike traditional politicians who might value consensus-building and careful deliberation, Trump’s decision-making style is more rapid and instinctive. He often relies on his own judgment and intuition rather than the advice of experts or long-standing protocols. This business-minded approach favors decisive actions, and he is known for making bold moves that he believes will yield immediate benefits, regardless of their polarizing effects.

For example, Trump’s willingness to take risks is evident in some of his highest-profile decisions, including renegotiating trade deals and engaging in unprecedented direct talks with foreign leaders. His decision-making process often emphasizes breaking away from established norms. Rather than gradually working toward change through bipartisan efforts, Trump frequently aims for sweeping, attention-grabbing shifts, positioning himself as a disruptor willing to challenge the status quo.

This approach is both a strength and a liability. His willingness to act decisively has, at times, led to rapid results in areas such as regulatory rollbacks and tax reforms. However, it has also drawn criticism for perceived impulsiveness and a lack of adherence to established processes. Trump’s decision to frequently bypass traditional channels of communication and governance creates an image of unpredictability, which resonates with supporters but can frustrate allies and partners. This unpredictability often keeps opponents off-balance and can serve as a strategic advantage by preventing others from fully anticipating his next move.

The Impact of His Extroverted and Assertive Nature on His Leadership

Trump’s high extroversion and assertive personality play central roles in shaping his leadership style. Extroverts tend to be energized by social interactions and seek out environments where they can assert themselves and stand out. Trump’s preference for rallies, media appearances, and public events showcases his desire for the spotlight and his comfort with engaging large audiences. His assertiveness translates into a leadership style where he does not shy away from expressing his opinions boldly and directly, often challenging or even dismissing those who disagree with him.

His extroverted nature allows him to connect with his audience on a visceral level, speaking in ways that resonate deeply with supporters. Rather than using technical language or carefully worded political jargon, he speaks in a way that feels more conversational and relatable, which has endeared him to many who view him as a “man of the people.” This connection fosters a sense of loyalty and trust, as Trump’s supporters often feel that he speaks directly to their concerns, without the perceived filters or hesitations typical of other politicians.

Trump’s assertive nature also contributes to his combative approach. He is known for responding swiftly and firmly to criticism, whether it’s from political opponents, media figures, or even members of his own administration. This assertiveness creates an image of strength and resilience, appealing to those who prioritize a leader who is unwavering and unyielding. For his supporters, Trump’s confrontational style is seen as a sign of his commitment to stand firm against opposition and to fight on behalf of his ideals, reinforcing his image as a leader who is both bold and fearless.

How His Leadership Style Compares to Traditional Political Figures

Comparing Trump’s leadership approach to that of traditional political figures highlights his distinctiveness. While conventional politicians typically prioritize compromise, diplomacy, and stability, Trump often embraces a direct, transactional, and results-driven style. For example, former U.S. presidents, such as Ronald Reagan or Barack Obama, often emphasized unifying rhetoric and sought to maintain cordial relationships across the aisle. Trump, however, is more inclined to draw stark contrasts, creating clear divisions between allies and opponents.

His leadership style resembles that of a CEO or an entrepreneur more than that of a politician, reflecting his private sector background. Whereas traditional leaders in government might rely heavily on advisors, committees, and institutional frameworks to guide decisions, Trump tends to prioritize personal intuition and loyalty. This approach aligns with his emphasis on loyalty and his preference for surrounding himself with close allies rather than career politicians or institutional experts.

While some view this as a refreshing departure from “politics as usual,” it has also invited criticism. Detractors argue that Trump’s disregard for established norms and his reluctance to work within traditional channels create instability and undermine institutional trust. Yet, for his supporters, this approach is precisely what makes him appealing—they view him as a disruptor, someone who is willing to challenge the status quo and make significant changes where others might proceed with caution.

Conclusion

Trump’s leadership style is a product of his unique personality, background, and beliefs. His bold, unorthodox, and assertive approach to leadership is both a strength and a source of contention. By embracing a direct and often combative style, he has energized a base of supporters who value his “outsider” persona and his willingness to defy norms. At the same time, his approach has highlighted the tension between business-oriented and political styles of leadership, sparking debates about what qualities are essential in a public servant versus a business executive.

Let's move on to the next section of our reading, which delves into the psychological analysis of Donald Trump's personality traits and their impact on his leadership style. This section explores how Trump's extroversion, openness, and plasticity have contributed to his success and appeal, as well as the controversies surrounding his unorthodox approach to policy-making.

Section 3: Personality Traits – Extroversion, Openness, and Plasticity

Donald Trump’s unique personality has played a central role in shaping his public life, business success, and political career. According to Dr. Jordan Peterson, Trump’s personality is marked by significant levels of extroversion and openness, which together contribute to his adaptability and remarkable ability to reinvent himself. These traits are not only apparent in his approach to leadership but also in his response to challenges, his media presence, and his enduring appeal. This section explores these defining traits in depth and introduces the concept of “plasticity,” which describes Trump’s capacity for change and growth—a crucial factor in his ability to thrive in the unpredictable arenas of business and politics.

Key Personality Traits: Extroversion and Openness

Extroversion

Trump’s extroversion is one of his most visible and influential traits. Extroverted individuals tend to be energetic, assertive, and sociable, finding stimulation in interactions with others. Trump’s extroversion manifests in his comfort with the spotlight, his energetic engagement with crowds, and his bold communication style. This trait has been essential to his success in various fields, as it allows him to confidently navigate high-stakes environments, engage in public speaking, and connect with diverse audiences.

Extroversion also contributes to Trump’s resilience under pressure. Unlike more introverted leaders who may seek time alone to recharge, Trump appears energized by public appearances and interactions. His frequent rallies, press conferences, and use of social media illustrate his preference for active engagement over introspection or detachment. This extroverted nature not only makes him highly visible but also creates a perception of strength and approachability, which resonates with his base. Supporters often view him as a “man of the people,” a quality that is rooted in his genuine comfort with public life.

Openness

In addition to extroversion, Trump exhibits high levels of openness—a trait associated with creativity, curiosity, and a willingness to explore new ideas and experiences. Openness is often linked to innovation and a readiness to challenge conventional thinking. For Trump, openness translates into an unconventional approach to both business and politics. His career spans multiple industries, from real estate and entertainment to politics, demonstrating a remarkable willingness to venture into new fields without fear of failure or public scrutiny.

Openness also drives Trump’s ability to adopt new strategies and take risks that others might avoid. This trait is evident in his reality television ventures, where he effectively turned “The Apprentice” into a cultural phenomenon, as well as in his decision to enter the political arena as a complete outsider. Rather than following a traditional path into politics, he leveraged his background and celebrity status to connect with voters in unexpected ways, capturing public attention by promising to disrupt “business as usual” in Washington.

Trump’s openness to experience allows him to adapt to rapidly changing circumstances and to think outside the box when addressing issues. In politics, this has led to policy decisions that depart from conventional norms, from rethinking trade agreements to engaging directly with foreign adversaries. While his openness has been a source of innovation, it has also been polarizing, as it sometimes leads to decisions that appear impulsive or unorthodox compared to those of more traditionally minded politicians.

Plasticity: The Capacity to Change and Reinvent

Dr. Peterson emphasizes the concept of “plasticity” in Trump’s personality, which refers to his capacity to change, grow, and reinvent himself over time. Plasticity combines elements of extroversion and openness, enabling an individual to remain flexible, resilient, and responsive to new challenges. For Trump, plasticity is evident in his ability to adapt his image and strategies to suit different roles and industries. He has successfully shifted from being a real estate mogul to a television personality and, ultimately, to a political figure, each time modifying his approach to fit the demands of the role.

This adaptability has been critical to Trump’s success, as it allows him to adjust to shifting landscapes and maintain relevance. In business, he has rebranded himself multiple times, with each reinvention bringing him renewed public interest and opportunities. For example, during economic downturns, he has often found ways to reposition his brand, whether by shifting focus to new ventures or by capitalizing on his status as a media personality.

In politics, Trump’s plasticity has allowed him to pivot from one narrative to another, depending on the audience and circumstances. He presents himself as a populist and outsider, yet he also appeals to business leaders and conservative voters by championing free-market principles. This ability to shape-shift and align with various groups demonstrates his skill in adapting his message to suit different audiences, making him a complex and, at times, polarizing figure.

The Role of Plasticity in His Political Career

Trump’s plasticity became particularly relevant during his presidency, as he navigated the complexities of government and public scrutiny. Unlike many politicians who rely on carefully crafted personas, Trump’s personality is dynamic and less constrained by the need for consistency. He often shifts his rhetoric and positions, depending on the context, a strategy that some view as adaptable while others perceive it as inconsistent. His supporters, however, often interpret this adaptability as a sign of pragmatism, arguing that it reflects his willingness to do whatever is necessary to achieve his goals.

This flexibility also allows Trump to weather controversies and setbacks in ways that would be challenging for more conventional leaders. When faced with criticism or political opposition, he often shifts the conversation or adopts a new stance, allowing him to remain resilient in the face of adversity. This resilience is one reason he has been able to maintain a strong base of support, as his adaptability enables him to respond to challenges without losing his core identity.

For instance, during his presidency, Trump was criticized for his handling of the COVID-19 pandemic. Instead of getting defensive, he shifted the conversation to his administration's efforts to develop vaccines and reopen the economy. This ability to adapt and pivot helped him maintain his core identity as a strong leader and problem-solver, which has been key to his enduring support.

Another example is how Trump has handled controversies surrounding his business dealings and personal finances. When faced with criticism and legal challenges, he has been able to redirect the conversation to his success as a businessman and job creator. This resilience has allowed him to maintain a strong base of support among his fans, who see him as a fighter who can withstand adversity and come out on top.

Overall, Trump's ability to weather controversies and setbacks is a key aspect of his leadership style and appeal. By shifting the conversation, adapting to new challenges, and maintaining his core identity, he has been able to stay resilient in the face of adversity and continue to attract support from his base.

The Psychological Basis of Trump’s Public Appeal

From a psychological standpoint, Trump’s extroversion, openness, and plasticity contribute to his appeal as a larger-than-life figure who defies conventional expectations. His extroverted energy draws people in, making him a charismatic and captivating presence in public settings. His openness attracts those who appreciate his willingness to challenge norms and think differently, while his plasticity reassures supporters that he can handle whatever challenges come his way, adapting as needed to remain effective.

For his supporters, these traits represent qualities of strength, resilience, and boldness—qualities they believe are essential in a leader. For his critics, however, these same traits can be seen as erratic, unpredictable, and even reckless, as his willingness to adapt and change is often interpreted as a lack of consistency or adherence to principles. Nonetheless, his personality traits give Trump a unique profile that stands out in the political landscape, drawing both admiration and criticism.

Conclusion

Donald Trump’s personality traits—particularly his extroversion, openness, and plasticity—are central to understanding his public image and approach to leadership. These qualities have allowed him to remain adaptable and resilient, enabling him to navigate different industries and roles with relative ease. His extroversion fuels his energetic engagement with the public, his openness allows for bold and unconventional ideas, and his plasticity provides the flexibility to reinvent himself as needed.

In the next section, we are going to explores how Donald Trump's humor has shaped his public image and impacted the broader political landscape. We'll see how his use of humor has been both a defense mechanism and an offensive strategy, and how it has resonated with his supporters while alienating others. Additionally, we'll compare Trump's humor to that of other political leaders, including those in democratic societies and authoritarian regimes.

Section 4: Humor and Aggression – A Double-Edged Sword

One of the most striking aspects of Donald Trump’s public persona is his use of humor, which often combines sharp wit with a level of aggression that resonates strongly with his supporters but alienates others. Humor, for Trump, serves multiple purposes: it is both a defense mechanism and an offensive strategy. Dr. Jordan Peterson observes that Trump’s “ruthlessly funny” style creates a distinct political brand that uses humor to deflect criticism, engage his base, and, at times, intimidate opponents. This section explores how Trump’s humor works as a double-edged sword, shaping his public image and impacting the broader political landscape. We will also compare Trump’s humor to its use by other political leaders, including those in democratic societies and authoritarian regimes.

Humor as a Shield and Weapon

Humor is a powerful social tool, and Trump has mastered its use to both connect with his supporters and fend off critics. His jokes, often at the expense of his opponents, serve to shift the conversation, deflecting negative attention and reinforcing his status as an outsider unafraid to mock the political establishment. This approach creates a sense of camaraderie with his base, who view his humor as a refreshing departure from the typically serious and formal tone of traditional politicians.

Trump’s humor acts as a shield in several ways. When confronted with criticism or accusations, he frequently turns to humor to redirect focus. By making light of serious issues, he diffuses tension and creates a buffer between himself and the criticism. For example, when facing scrutiny over his policies or decisions, Trump often resorts to quips that both disarm his critics and rally his supporters. This “never back down” style prevents his opponents from gaining the upper hand, as they struggle to land substantial critiques when he sidesteps issues through humor.

At the same time, humor is one of Trump’s most effective weapons. He uses it to target opponents, often reducing them to humorous caricatures that linger in the public consciousness. By branding political adversaries with memorable nicknames or mocking their flaws, he diminishes their authority and credibility. His humor can be ruthless, playing on the insecurities of others or amplifying their weaknesses in ways that resonate with the public. This approach is particularly effective in a media-driven age where sound bites and viral moments define public opinion.

The “Ruthlessly Funny” Style and Its Impact

Dr. Peterson describes Trump’s humor as “ruthlessly funny,” capturing the sharp, sometimes brutal, edge of his style. This approach to humor is strategic, blending entertainment with aggression in a way that engages and excites his audience. Unlike the humor of traditional politicians, which often stays within the bounds of decorum, Trump’s jokes push limits, often provoking strong reactions. His supporters view this as a sign of his authenticity and fearlessness, while critics see it as evidence of a lack of respect for opponents and the democratic process.

This ruthlessness creates a unique dynamic in Trump’s public image. To his followers, his humor is a sign of strength, an ability to “tell it like it is” without concern for offending others. They appreciate his willingness to mock what he sees as hypocrisy or incompetence in the political establishment, interpreting it as a sign of integrity. By exposing the flaws of his rivals through humor, Trump reinforces his position as a disruptor, one who refuses to conform to the usual political rules.

However, this style of humor has its drawbacks. While it solidifies his base, it also alienates potential allies and reinforces negative perceptions among his critics. Many see his jokes as mean-spirited or divisive, contributing to a political culture that is increasingly polarized and hostile. His humor often blurs the line between legitimate critique and personal attack, complicating his relationships with other leaders and impacting diplomatic ties. In some cases, his jokes are perceived as undermining the seriousness of important issues, reducing complex matters to punchlines that trivialize legitimate concerns.

Humor in Political Leadership and Authoritarian Contexts

Humor has long played a role in politics, serving various functions depending on the leader and the context. In democratic societies, humor is typically used to humanize leaders, creating a sense of approachability and relatability. Politicians often employ self-deprecating humor to show humility and connect with voters on a personal level. In contrast, authoritarian leaders may use humor as a tool of control, mocking dissenters or using satire to diminish opposition. By ridiculing rivals, they send a message that challenges to their authority will not be taken seriously or will be met with scorn.

Trump’s humor draws elements from both of these traditions. In some ways, his style resembles that of a populist in a democracy, as he uses humor to engage and entertain his supporters, creating a bond based on shared amusement and camaraderie. However, his aggressive humor also carries shades of authoritarian tactics, as he seeks to delegitimize opponents and undermine critics through ridicule. His approach blends democratic populism with an authoritarian edge, creating a distinct style that reflects both his appeal to the public and his disdain for political opponents.

Comparing Trump’s humor to that of other leaders highlights the unique impact of his approach. In Western democracies, humor is often seen as a tool for bridging gaps and fostering unity, yet Trump’s humor often does the opposite, intensifying divisions and provoking confrontations. This reflects a shift in political culture, where leaders increasingly use humor as a means of solidifying their base rather than appealing to a broad spectrum of voters. By contrast, in authoritarian regimes, leaders use humor as a method of control, often mocking dissent as a way to discourage opposition. While Trump operates within a democratic system, his humor echoes the tactics of authoritarian leaders who use ridicule to maintain dominance over rivals.

Humor as a Reflection of Public Sentiment

Trump’s humor not only reflects his personality but also mirrors the frustrations and desires of his supporters. Many Americans are disillusioned with the political establishment, perceiving it as elitist, out of touch, and overly focused on political correctness. Trump’s humor resonates with this sentiment, as he uses jokes to express dissatisfaction with the “status quo” and to challenge the norms that many see as restrictive. His willingness to mock established figures and institutions speaks to a broader desire for authenticity and freedom from convention.

This resonance with public sentiment is a major factor in Trump’s appeal. His humor provides an outlet for frustrations that many feel but are reluctant to express. By voicing these frustrations in a humorous way, he gives his followers permission to laugh at the political establishment and feel validated in their dissatisfaction. This dynamic reinforces his role as a populist leader who champions the grievances of ordinary people, strengthening his connection with his base while deepening the divide with his detractors.

For instance, he often uses humor to mock the political establishment and the media, making jokes about the "deep state" and the "fake news" media, which resonates with his supporters who feel disillusioned with the political system. He also makes light of serious issues, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, although this has been criticized by some as being insensitive. Additionally, Trump often uses irony and sarcasm in his humor, poking fun at his opponents and the political establishment, and has been known to use self-deprecation, making jokes about his own hair and weight, which has been seen as a way of showing humility and relatability.

Conclusion

Donald Trump’s humor serves as both a shield and a weapon, allowing him to navigate political conflicts while energizing his supporters. His “ruthlessly funny” style is a defining feature of his public image, embodying both his authenticity and his willingness to challenge norms. Through humor, he creates a sense of solidarity with his base, who appreciate his irreverence and rejection of political correctness. However, his humor also has its costs, as it alienates critics, intensifies divisions, and sometimes undermines the seriousness of important issues.

In the following section we're going to examines how Trump's unique blend of rhetoric, personality, and policy promises resonates deeply with working-class Americans. It delves into the elements that contribute to his appeal among working-class citizens, from his tone and language to his stance on issues that impact their daily lives. Dr. Jordan Peterson analyzes Trump's appeal to the working class, noting how his assertiveness, "rough" humor, and perceived authenticity create a sense of shared identity with many Americans in blue-collar professions.

Section 5: The Appeal to the Working Class

One of the most notable aspects of Donald Trump’s political journey has been his ability to resonate deeply with working-class Americans. His connection with this demographic reflects a unique blend of rhetoric, personality, and policy promises that speak directly to their experiences and concerns. Dr. Jordan Peterson has analyzed Trump’s appeal to the working class, noting how his assertiveness, “rough” humor, and perceived authenticity create a sense of shared identity with many Americans in blue-collar professions. This section delves into the elements that contribute to Trump’s appeal among working-class citizens, from his tone and language to his stance on issues that impact their daily lives.

Understanding Trump’s Connection with Working-Class Americans

Trump’s appeal to working-class Americans stems largely from his ability to communicate in a way that feels relatable and unfiltered. Unlike many politicians who adopt polished and often scripted communication styles, Trump’s approach comes across as raw and direct, cutting through what his supporters view as the excessive formality and detachment of traditional politicians. His speeches often use plain language, simple slogans, and memorable phrases that resonate with audiences who may feel left out of the complexities and nuances of “elite” political discourse.

His rhetoric often centers on themes of national pride, job security, and American strength—topics that hit close to home for many working-class individuals. For Americans facing economic hardship or struggling with job insecurity, Trump’s promises to bring back manufacturing jobs, protect American industries, and put “America first” align closely with their aspirations. By emphasizing these issues, Trump taps into a longstanding discontent with globalization and economic policies that many see as harmful to American workers.

Moreover, Trump’s background as a businessman who “understands” the economy contributes to his credibility with this demographic. Many working-class Americans appreciate his portrayal as a successful businessman who knows how to create jobs and navigate financial challenges. Although Trump’s actual wealth and lifestyle are far removed from those of the average worker, his focus on economic concerns makes him appear as someone who “gets it,” addressing the financial struggles that many working-class people face.

How His Rough Humor and Assertiveness Resonate

One of the key components of Trump’s appeal is his use of humor and assertive rhetoric, which both entertain and inspire confidence among his followers. His “rough around the edges” humor, which often includes direct insults or blunt commentary, is seen by many of his supporters as refreshing honesty. This style deviates sharply from the diplomatic language of typical political speech, giving Trump an “outsider” appeal that resonates with those who feel alienated by mainstream politics.

Dr. Peterson observes that Trump’s humor and assertiveness have a way of rallying his base, as they provide an outlet for the frustrations of working-class Americans. Many in this demographic feel dismissed or ignored by elites, and Trump’s willingness to speak bluntly—often addressing topics that other politicians avoid or gloss over—validates these feelings. His jokes and offhand comments about “swamp” politicians, the media, and foreign adversaries tap into a sense of shared grievance, allowing his supporters to feel that he is fighting for their interests against powerful, disconnected elites.

Furthermore, Trump’s assertiveness conveys strength and confidence, qualities that are highly valued by Americans in tough, often dangerous professions. People working in physically demanding or high-risk jobs, such as construction workers, miners, soldiers, and police officers, often admire leaders who demonstrate resilience and boldness. Trump’s style aligns with the mindset of individuals who tackle challenges head-on and value toughness, reinforcing his connection with working-class Americans who identify with these characteristics.

The “Real People” Connection: Soldiers, Police Officers, and Blue-Collar Workers

Trump’s ability to connect with “real people” in challenging jobs, such as soldiers, police officers, and blue-collar workers, is a significant factor in his appeal. These individuals often face high-stress situations, and many feel that their sacrifices are underappreciated by society. Trump’s vocal support for these groups, along with his criticism of policies and social movements that he claims undermine their work, resonates deeply with this demographic.

For instance, Trump frequently expresses strong support for law enforcement, presenting himself as a defender of “law and order.” At a time when police officers face heightened scrutiny and criticism, his stance is appreciated by those who feel their work is unfairly criticized. His speeches and rallies often include statements of gratitude for military service members, law enforcement officers, and first responders, reinforcing his image as a leader who respects and values their contributions. This respect, combined with his assertive tone, appeals to a demographic that views physical and moral strength as essential qualities in a leader.

Additionally, Trump’s willingness to address the concerns of veterans and promise improvements to the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has endeared him to many in the military community. His focus on veterans’ healthcare, benefits, and the improvement of VA facilities taps into a long-standing issue within the military community. Veterans and active-duty service members appreciate a leader who recognizes the sacrifices they’ve made and promises tangible improvements to their post-service lives.

Appeals to National Identity and Economic Self-Sufficiency

A major component of Trump’s appeal to working-class Americans is his focus on national identity and economic self-sufficiency. Trump’s “America First” platform emphasizes the need to protect American jobs, industries, and borders, themes that resonate with individuals who may feel vulnerable to the effects of globalization and outsourcing. Working-class Americans, particularly in areas hit hard by deindustrialization, are drawn to Trump’s promise to revive domestic industries and bring back jobs that were lost to overseas competition.

This focus on self-sufficiency is reinforced by Trump’s stance on immigration and trade. Many of his working-class supporters feel that immigration policies and international trade agreements have undermined American job security and wage growth. By calling for stricter immigration controls and renegotiating trade deals, Trump addresses the economic concerns of these individuals. His criticism of companies that relocate factories to other countries and his calls for tariffs on foreign goods align with a desire to protect American jobs, an issue that deeply resonates with blue-collar workers.

Dr. Peterson notes that this connection to national pride and economic sovereignty has a powerful appeal for those who feel left behind by economic change. For many working-class Americans, Trump’s promises to defend their livelihoods and promote American-made products go beyond simple political promises—they reflect a desire for stability and respect for their hard work. This sense of loyalty and protection is especially meaningful to those who feel marginalized by the changing economy.

The Working-Class Divide: Supporters and Critics

While Trump has garnered significant support from working-class Americans, it’s important to acknowledge that his appeal is not universal within this demographic. Working-class individuals are a diverse group, and many remain skeptical of his policies and leadership style. Some see his promises as unfulfilled or view his rhetoric as divisive. For example, while some working-class voters appreciate his strong stance on trade and immigration, others believe that his policies have failed to deliver the economic improvements they hoped for.

Additionally, Trump’s often controversial comments on race and immigration have alienated certain segments of the working class, particularly those in communities that value diversity and inclusion. The working class in urban and multicultural areas may view his rhetoric as a threat to the social cohesion they value, highlighting a divide within the demographic. This internal division underscores the complexity of Trump’s appeal—while his style and policies resonate deeply with some, they are polarizing and off-putting to others.

Conclusion

Donald Trump’s appeal to working-class Americans is rooted in his ability to connect on a level that feels personal, authentic, and direct. His assertive humor, focus on national pride, and promises to protect American jobs and industries resonate with individuals who feel underrepresented and undervalued by mainstream politicians. His support for soldiers, police officers, and blue-collar workers reinforces his image as a leader who respects and fights for “real people” facing real challenges.

However, this appeal is not without its complexities. While many in the working class view Trump as a champion of their interests, others see his approach as divisive or disingenuous. This divide reflects the multifaceted nature of the working-class demographic, highlighting both the strengths and limitations of Trump’s appeal.

In the following section, Peterson argues that Trump's empathy for the working class is one of his defining characteristics, albeit one that is easy to miss due to his combative style. Trump's ability to communicate in a way that resonates with "ordinary" people demonstrates an intuitive understanding of their frustrations and priorities. This pragmatic approach to empathy prioritizes practical solutions over emotional connection and is evident in Trump's messaging around trade and domestic industry.

Section 6: Empathy and Narcissism – A Paradox in Personality

Donald Trump’s personality presents an intriguing paradox, one that combines traits of both empathy and narcissism. His ability to resonate with certain demographics, particularly the working class, seems to suggest a level of understanding and empathy for their struggles. Yet, his brash, often unapologetic public persona and apparent focus on self-promotion lead many to view him as a textbook narcissist. Dr. Jordan Peterson’s analysis delves into this tension within Trump’s personality, highlighting the ways in which empathy and agreeableness can coexist—even within someone who often presents a combative, impolite exterior.

The Paradox of Trump’s Empathy and Agreeableness

Empathy, in its simplest form, is the ability to understand and share the feelings of others. Agreeableness, one of the “Big Five” personality traits, involves qualities like compassion, cooperation, and a tendency to avoid conflict. On the surface, Donald Trump’s personality might seem incompatible with these traits. His confrontational style, quickness to criticize opponents, and strong need for attention can overshadow any impression of empathy or agreeableness.

However, as Dr. Peterson observes, there are moments when Trump’s actions reflect a surprising level of empathy, particularly toward the working class. His willingness to address issues like job loss, economic insecurity, and lack of recognition resonates deeply with people who feel marginalized or left behind by political elites. His direct approach—although often blunt—can convey a sense of honesty and concern that some find more genuine than the carefully crafted statements of traditional politicians.

Trump’s empathy may not always appear in the form of soft-spoken compassion, but it does manifest in his ability to understand and advocate for the struggles of certain groups. He frequently acknowledges the challenges faced by “ordinary” Americans, whether they are struggling with job instability, rising living costs, or perceived threats to national security. His rhetoric, aimed at protecting American jobs and industries, suggests a focus on issues that affect working-class lives—issues that might be overlooked by more polished, traditional politicians.

Dr. Peterson’s Insights into Trump’s Empathy for the Working Class

Dr. Peterson argues that Trump’s empathy for the working class is one of his defining characteristics, albeit one that is easy to miss due to his combative style. Trump’s ability to communicate in a way that resonates with “ordinary” people demonstrates an intuitive understanding of their frustrations and priorities. Peterson points out that this kind of empathy, while not always framed in gentle language, can be highly effective, particularly when it involves issues like economic security and personal safety.

Peterson also suggests that Trump’s empathy is more strategic than emotional. Rather than expressing empathy in an overtly warm or affectionate manner, Trump communicates empathy by addressing the concrete, tangible needs of his supporters. He speaks to the concerns that affect their daily lives—promising more jobs, stronger borders, and economic stability. This focus on real-life issues speaks to a certain pragmatic empathy, one that prioritizes practical solutions over emotional connection.

This pragmatic approach to empathy is evident in Trump’s messaging around trade and domestic industry. By promising to renegotiate trade deals and bring back manufacturing jobs, he aligns himself with the concerns of those who feel left out of the benefits of globalization. For many working-class Americans, these promises resonate because they address immediate, real-world concerns, even if Trump’s delivery style is more forceful than comforting.

Narcissistic Tendencies and the Public Persona

Narcissism, often characterized by self-centeredness, a need for admiration, and a lack of sensitivity toward others, is another key element of Trump’s personality. His critics often cite this as a defining feature, pointing to his tendency to boast, self-promote, and deflect blame. Trump’s focus on “winning,” as well as his insistence on being the best or the greatest, has led to perceptions of him as a quintessential narcissist.

However, Dr. Peterson argues that Trump’s narcissistic tendencies don’t necessarily negate his capacity for empathy. Narcissism in public figures is often tempered by a need for validation from their audience. In Trump’s case, his desire for public approval pushes him to address the concerns of his supporters in a way that reinforces their loyalty. This relationship between narcissism and empathy is complex: while Trump’s need for admiration may drive his behavior, it also leads him to prioritize issues that matter to his base. Thus, even his more self-centered tendencies can result in actions that benefit his followers.

Furthermore, Trump’s narcissism can serve as a motivator, pushing him to achieve and maintain power by delivering on promises that resonate with his supporters. His need for success and recognition makes him attentive to the concerns of his audience, as their approval is essential to his self-image. In this way, his narcissism may actually enhance his ability to act empathetically—at least in a way that satisfies his supporters’ expectations.

How Agreeableness Coexists with a Brash and Impolite Exterior

One of the most counterintuitive aspects of Trump’s personality is the coexistence of agreeableness with his often brash and impolite exterior. Agreeableness, in the traditional sense, involves a tendency toward cooperation, kindness, and a desire to avoid conflict. Trump’s public persona appears to conflict with this trait, as he is known for his confrontational style, frequent insults, and lack of concern for political correctness.

However, Peterson suggests that agreeableness in Trump’s case may not manifest in the traditional way. Instead of expressing agreeableness through politeness or conciliation, Trump channels it into a desire to protect and advocate for his supporters. His brand of agreeableness, then, is selective: he directs it toward those he considers “on his side” while remaining unyielding and combative toward those he perceives as adversaries.

This selective agreeableness is visible in Trump’s interactions with his supporters at rallies. His speeches often include positive reinforcement, encouragement, and even affection toward his followers, whom he frequently praises as “patriots” and “hardworking Americans.” In these settings, he displays warmth and camaraderie, creating a sense of loyalty and solidarity. This version of agreeableness is less about universal kindness and more about loyalty and group cohesion—qualities that, for his supporters, compensate for his lack of traditional politeness.

The Strategic Balance Between Empathy and Narcissism

The interplay between empathy and narcissism in Trump’s personality creates a unique balance, one that is central to his effectiveness as a public figure. His empathy, though often pragmatic and selective, allows him to connect with his base on a level that feels personal and genuine. At the same time, his narcissistic tendencies fuel his drive to maintain this connection, as his self-image depends on the support and admiration of his followers.

Peterson’s analysis highlights how this balance enables Trump to appeal to people who might otherwise reject a more overtly narcissistic leader. By framing his ambitions in terms of benefiting the “forgotten” Americans, Trump turns what might be seen as self-centeredness into a focus on advocating for the underrepresented. His self-assured and assertive demeanor reinforces this image, painting him as a leader who is strong enough to fight for those who feel left out of the political process.

The Broader Implications of This Paradox

The paradox of empathy and narcissism in Trump’s personality has significant implications for how we understand public figures and leaders more broadly. While narcissism is often viewed as a negative trait, Dr. Peterson’s analysis suggests that in certain contexts, it can coexist with empathy in ways that enhance a leader’s effectiveness. For Trump, the need for admiration and approval motivates him to address his supporters’ concerns, even if his style is abrasive and unapologetic.

This paradox challenges traditional notions of empathy, agreeableness, and leadership. It suggests that empathy does not always require gentleness or humility, nor does narcissism necessarily preclude a genuine desire to help others. For many of Trump’s supporters, this combination is precisely what makes him effective: he is seen as both tough and compassionate, as someone who will fight for their interests while refusing to back down in the face of opposition.

Conclusion

Donald Trump’s personality defies simple categorization, as it encompasses both seemingly contradictory traits of empathy and narcissism. His ability to empathize with the working class, combined with his narcissistic drive for validation, creates a complex and effective public persona. While he may not display empathy in the traditional sense, his focus on concrete, relatable issues and his selective agreeableness allow him to forge a powerful connection with his base.

In the next section, we will explore Trump’s approach to media and communication, examining how he leverages his unique personality traits to influence public perception and maintain his influence in the ever-evolving media landscape. Dr. Peterson’s insights will shed light on Trump’s media strategy, offering a deeper understanding of his impact on modern political discourse.

[thunki]

Digital Citizenship

What is Digital Citizenship?

"Digital citizenship" refers to the capability to engage and interact responsibly in the online community (Mossberger, Tolbert& McNeal, 2008). In today’s modern world where technology is increasingly advanced, being a responsible digital citizen is more important than ever. Digital citizenship, defined as the online expression of behaviours that ensure the legal, safe, ethical and responsible use of information and communication technology (Ribble, 2011). With social media playing a major role in how we engage in politics, activism and community online, it is essential to understand its benefits and challenges. 

The positive side of digital citizenship 

 Social media has revolutionized digital engagement by allowing users to directly participate in movements and communicate with leaders. Political campaigns, such as Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign, Twitter played a crucial role as a primary communication tool for Donald Trump during his 2016 campaign. (Clarke & Grieve, 2019), have demonstrated the power of social media in political action.

The negative side of digital citizenship

 Despite its many strengths, social media also promotes polarization and misinformation. Algorithms create echo chambers in which users are exposed to a limited and uniform range of viewpoints, reinforcing their pre-existing beliefs and hindering their access to diverse or conflicting information (Luzsa, 2019). The problem lies in the way social media algorithms operate, which reinforce bias rather than promote debate. Furthermore, the increasing prevalence of cyber threats underscores the importance of internet safety, with 1 in every 1,000 individuals experiencing malware attacks, scams, fraud, data breaches, or compromises to digital security. (Čergeť & Hudec, 2023). Therefore, protecting one’s online identity is crucial to navigating the complexities of digital interactions. 

Conclusion

In conclusion, being a good digital citizen means more than just maintaining an online presence, it also requires critical thinking, engagement, and ethical responsibility. By verifying sources, practicing internet safety, and engaging in meaningful discussions, digital citizens can make the internet a safer and more productive space for everyone.

References:

Mossberger, K., Tolbert, C. J., & McNeal, R. S. (2008). Digital citizenship. The internet, society, and participation, 1, 21. https://perpustakaan.atmaluhur.ac.id/uploaded_files/temporary/DigitalCollection/ZjAwNzAyN2NmNWI2MGExNWY0ZjczMzA3NDZiMjYyZTgwYzc5YmQ4MQ==.pdf 

Ribble, M. (2011). Digital citizenship in schools, second edition. Washington: International Society for Technology in Education. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/340468314_Digital_Citizenship_in_Schools_Second_Edition

Clarke, I., & Grieve, J. (2019). Stylistic variation on the Donald Trump Twitter account: A linguistic analysis of tweets posted between 2009 and 2018. PloS one, 14(9), e0222062. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0222062

Luzsa, R. (2019). A Psychological and Empirical Investigation of

the Online Echo Chamber Phenomenon. Universität

Passau. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/336085427_A_Psychological_and_Empirical_Investigation_of_the_Online_Echo_Chamber_Phenomenon

Čergeť, M., & Hudec, J. (2023). Cyber-Security Threats Origins and their Analysis. Acta Polytechnica Hungarica, 20(9). https://www.researchgate.net/publication/385973181_Cyber-Security_Threats_Origins_and_their_Analysis

[spicylove4ever]

Lore Olympus 231 reactions

As per usual, I feel compelled to remind that Lore Olympus is a comic that dwells on Hades and Persephone as a couple and roots for them, SO IT'S ONLY NATURAL DEMETER IS GOING TO BE PORTRAYED AS THE ANTAGONIST. Also, the author has every right to do with their work whatever they feel like, since it's her work and art.

So, a child leaving home is painful for the parents, and is natural that is saddening. The Hymn to Demeter is about this pain, so far so good, but I feel like this comic reminds us that still it's not a reason to try to keep your offspring tied to you when they have showed multiple times that they want to have their own life, which is something absolutely natural as well.

With all this in mind, let's begin with the reaction and comments.

So we start with Persephone asking Hades to stay as an spectator-moral support by just their pressense. Persephone is sure she is ready for whatever her mother is going to do, since Persephone is aware her mother is not happy with her moving out, but she's sure a good normalized talk, insisting in how she is determined that she is starting a new life that she fully wishes is going to be enough....

.... only Demeter has clearly decided to go fully wrecking ball mode to attack every independency idea and rip it to the root.

Interesting detail: despite inviting the members of TGOEM, I don't see Artemis or Athena anywhere.

Emotional Wrecking ball Mode part 1: basically calls her ungrateful.

Emotional Wrecking ball Mode part 2: questions Persephone's sanity.

Emotional Wrecking ball Mode part 3: undermines the self-worth and achievements of the target.

More than Emotional Wrecking ball mode, it's totally gaslighting.

I have mentioned before how Demeter is showing a good amount of gaslighting. I leave you a link of the signs below and the mentioned publication as well. (ignore the part of Trump)

The comic chapter finishes with this:

Demeter insists on Persephone to put this dress on.

Now, exchanging clothes to the type of wardrope she used to wear seems to be a way to metaphorically show her regression to being just Kore.

I have the feeling this dress might be enchanted, but Demeter has only ever used psychological manipulation so far, so I'm not sure.

So, predictions to the next chapter:

Well, since we have seen Hestia being is dissaproval of this so called intervention:

Then this below might be a hint of what is going to happen:

Hestia notices a moth that is encased and it's also clearly Hades and he's also....

...FURIOUS AS HELL.

Someone else bets Hestia is going to let Hades go and put an end on this intervention went extremely far?

And again, does someone else want this to go like in Turning Red with MeiMei vs her mother?

[jaspersboy]

The bill says:

A RESOLUTION to recognize CNN and The Washington Post as fake news and condemn them for denigrating our citizens.

WHEREAS, on October 3, 2019, an editor for The Washington Post wrote that President Donald J. Trump has cast a spell on the Republican Party and suggested that Trumpism is cultlike; and

WHEREAS, on November 24, 2019, a CNN host suggested that Trump supporters belong to a cult and that our president is using mind control; and

WHEREAS, we recognize that fake news outlets suggest ideas without directly making accusations so that they can claim innocence from their ivory towers; and

WHEREAS, it is fascinating to see this latest "cult-of-Trump" meme coming from the left, because they are the true masters of deploying mobs to demand total conformity and compliance with their agenda; and

WHEREAS, any thoughtful observer can see the cult-of-Trump meme as a classic case of psychological projection; after all, accusing someone's perceived opponent of exactly what one intends to do is a very old tactic; and

WHEREAS, the mainstream media is in a panic because President Trump has opened the eyes of many average Americans who are tired of politics as usual. They are tired of being politicians' political pawns, and they are tired of every other country's needs being put before their own; and

WHEREAS, suggestions of cult-like behavior by President Trump's supporters substitute a value judgment in place of a sorely needed argumentative analysis of how voters generate their own political views; and

WHEREAS, to describe the entire Republican Party as a cult led by President Trump is problematic: If journalists are going to refer to the party as a cult and its supporters as cultists, they must define what "cult" means; otherwise, they are assuming that a cult is some obvious phenomenon and everyone knows what the word means; and

WHEREAS, this cult diagnosis isn’t a reasoned argument or even an objective description; and

WHEREAS, the cult diagnosis draws a line between Trump opponents and Trump supporters, and it oversimplifies the way people think and feel about their own beliefs and those on the other side of that line; and

WHEREAS, President Trump understood their frustration when he ran for office; he has taken a stand on behalf of the middle class and everyday people, and that is the reason he has growing support; and

WHEREAS, suggestions that supporters of President Trump are exhibiting cult-like behavior isn't helpful in an era of significant political polarization; now, therefore,

BE IT RESOLVED BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF TENNESSEE, THE SENATE CONCURRING, that the State of Tennessee recognizes CNN and The Washington Post as fake news and part of the media wing of the Democratic Party.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that we condemn them for denigrating our citizens and implying that they are weak-minded followers instead of people exercising their rights that our veterans paid for with their blood.

[orbemnews]

How to Laugh at Work The DealBook newsletter delves into a single topic or theme every weekend, providing reporting and analysis that offers a better understanding of an important issue in business. If you don’t already receive the daily newsletter, sign up here. Taking humor seriously In 2014, the behavioral scientist Jennifer Aaker invited Naomi Bagdonas to give a guest lecture as part of her Stanford business school course on “The Power of Story.��� Unbeknown to many, Ms. Bagdonas, a media and strategy consultant who was completing her M.B.A. at Stanford at the time, also spent evenings and weekends performing improv at comedy clubs. Though the lecture was ostensibly about combining stories and data, with detours into factor analysis and neurochemistry, Ms. Aaker watched with delight and surprise as students laughed to the point of tears over Ms. Bagdonas’s delivery. And when the course evaluations came in, students recalled Ms. Bagdonas’s points with more clarity and detail than they did for almost any other guest speaker. If stories have power, it seemed, funny ones had something close to magic. Ms. Aaker and Ms. Bagdonas now teach a course together at Stanford called “Humor: Serious Business,” which shows aspiring executives and entrepreneurs how to leverage laughter for better relationships and business results. They’ve also distilled their findings into a new book, “Humor, Seriously: Why Humor Is A Secret Weapon in Business and Life.” But can people really be taught to be funny at work? Should people be taught to be funny at work? If you explain a joke, its force disperses. The whole point of “The Office,” after all, is that it’s agony to work with a self-appointed comedian. And the framing of humor as a tool of self-advancement is somewhat unsettling, evoking the image of a sociopath calmly studying the human psyche’s soft spots to exploit them for professional gain. Humor at work is much less about wisecracks than about levity: the shared moments of lightness that propel relationships forward and balance the seriousness of labor. Levity is strikingly absent from a lot of adult life, particularly in professional settings. “On Tuesday, I did not laugh once. Not once,” a Stanford student wrote once in the “humor audit” the instructors ask students to fill out at the start of the term. Levity is a powerful bonding agent. A workplace that embraces laughter is likely one that also encourages the kind of creativity, authenticity and psychological safety that allows people to perform their best. Humor is a Trojan horse for humanity — and that, Ms. Aaker and Ms. Bagdonas argue, is the thing that knits people and organizations together. DealBook caught up with Ms. Aaker and Ms. Bagdonas over Zoom to learn more about professional levity, what comedy and sports have in common, and why a leader doesn’t have to be funny to build a team that embraces humor. The conversation has been edited and condensed. DealBook: What do people not understand about humor when they first come to your class — or open your book? Bogdanos: In the book, we break down four myths of humor. The first is the “serious business” myth, which is the idea that levity undermines the mission of your work, that you can come off as not taking your job seriously if you’re joking around. This is simply not true. Managers with a sense of humor are more motivating and admired. Their employees are more engaged. Their teams are more likely to solve a creativity challenge. There’s all this evidence around the R.O.I. of humor. And then the failure myth: People think that failing at humor is going to have these huge repercussions. We teach our students that it’s so much less about telling jokes. It’s about cultivating joy. There’s the “being funny” myth, which is that humor is about cracking jokes. Again, it’s really not about that. It’s about being more generous with your laughter. It’s about naming truths in our lives and giving a window into our humanity. And then lastly, the “born with it” myth, which is the idea that our sense of humor is either there or it’s not. In fact, it is a muscle that we can work. You make a great analogy in the book comparing the relationship between levity, humor and comedy to that between movement, exercise and competitive athletics. Bagdonas: Levity is a mind-set, an inherent state of how you approach the world. Similarly, movement is how we move through space. Minor adjustments in the way that we move, or in our mind-set around levity, have major adjustments in how we feel and how people interact with us. Humor then channels levity toward these specific goals. When you go for a run, you are using movement in a specific way. In humor, you hone levity into a specific outcome. Similarly, with comedy and with sports, there are specific moves you can make to get the outcomes you want. Comedians know exactly how to pause before the punchline, how to construct sentences, how to use the “rule of three” or contrast or exaggeration to get the outcome they want — which is, in this case, laughs. It’s just like how athletes know the exact form that they should use. That’s a good analogy. You can have a healthy, happy life as someone who exercises regularly but never crosses over into athletic competition. It sounds like it’s also fine to be a person who appreciates humor but prefers not to be the one cracking jokes. Aaker: It’s not about “trying to be funny.” That’s the Michael Scott problem. Dick Costolo, the former C.E.O. of Twitter, has said: “The easiest way to be funny is not to try — instead, just look for moments to laugh.” This isn’t about being funny. This is about being generous with laughter. You’re empowering others to use it, and showing up much more as a human — not a clown. How can leaders ensure the humor they’re encouraging is appropriate? Aaker: Many people who have used humor to good effect in the past often equate humor with their style of humor. Like, “I just threw out a joke, it didn’t land, I think it would have two years ago, therefore the world is not funny anymore.” The calculation is not that the world is humorless, per se. It’s that we need to better understand the diversity of humor styles that other people have, and better understand — through empathy more than anything else — how to better read a room and understand the dynamics of status. What’s interesting is that while trust in leadership is plunging — which is a problem for leaders who have used the same old jokes for a while — those organizations that somehow manage to maintain a high-trust environment are thriving. We know that when employees rate what characteristics inspire trust, their answers are things like, “My boss speaks like a regular person.” We’re living in a time when empathy, inclusivity and authenticity are important for all leaders. Humor is actually a secret weapon that can serve them well. So how do we keep levity alive on remote teams, when you don’t have the in-person benefits of facial expression and tone — or feel like you have much to laugh about? Bagdonas: This was such a pressing need that at the beginning of the pandemic that we created a course called “Remotely Humorous,” which is all about having humor in remote teams. Part of this is creating space for it. We need to have a norm that at the beginning of every call, we just talk like humans rather than jump right into the agenda. We talk about what just happened with our kids, or whose dog is running around in the background or what genuine mishap has happened in people’s lives due to this pandemic. Even though maintaining levity feels harder, there are also more creative ways to do it. It’s also more important than ever because the more technology-mediated our communication becomes, the easier it is to leave our humanity and our sense of humor at the door. When we’re constantly talking through machines, it’s easier to behave like one as well. When jokes aren’t funny What counts as boundary-pushing comedy to one person is downright rude to another. Here are rules for checking yourself to ensure your “material” doesn’t cause pain, according to Ms. Aaker and Ms. Bagdonas: Examine the truth. Is this observation still true or appropriate to share when the humor is removed? They offer the example of a recent Cisco hire who tweeted about having to weigh “a fatty paycheck against … hating the work.” It may have been intended as a laugh, but it essentially said that the author disliked the potential new employer. The joke failed and the offer was rescinded. Consider the pain and distance. Is it “too soon” to make a crack about a troubling recent event? Are you, the attempted jokester, not close enough to the issue to truly share the pain you’re trying to laugh about? Read the room. Are people in the mood for a laugh? Are there cultural differences, status differences or other reasons your audience might feel awkward about fielding a joke? The goal of office humor isn’t to get a laugh; it’s to make everyone in the room feel lighter and more at ease. Who to watch Steve Carell’s portrayal of Michael Scott on “The Office” is the perfect case study of how not to be funny at work. For better ideas, Ms. Aaker and Ms. Bagdonas suggest checking out these comedians instead: Sarah Cooper Before her social media lip-syncs of former President Donald J. Trump’s public statements became a pandemic-era hit, the former Google manager trained her comedic sights on meetings, email and other workplace absurdities. “Never look for what’s funny,” Ms. Cooper told Stanford students in a guest lecture. “Look for what’s true, and go from there.” Demi Adejuyigbe The comedian and writer for shows like “The Good Place” and “The Late Late Show With James Corden” finds the funny in everything, including technology’s tendency to overcomplicate our personal and professional lives. Amber Ruffin The host of “The Amber Ruffin Show” has been a writer on “Late Night With Seth Meyers” since 2014. She regularly appears with co-writer Jenny Hagel in the segment “Jokes Seth Can’t Tell,” where the two women deliver punch lines that would sound wrong coming from a straight white guy’s mouth, in any setting. What do you think? Is work better when there’s humor or should it be strictly business? Let us know: dealbook@nytimes.com. Source link Orbem News #laugh #Work

[donalddo-cxp306]

The rise of AOC and ‘She finds the youth’

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) is the representative for New York’s 14th congressional district. She has not caught my attention until her controversial proposal of “Trump Accountability Project” (“TAP”), a project to blacklist Donald Trump’ supporters and employees (Dorman, News,2020).

Source: @AOC Twitter

Source: Trump Accountability Project

AOC as the rookie in 2019 has already 1.54 million Twitter followers more than all 63 democratic freshmen combined (Silva,2019). 

Source:https://www.axios.com/ocasio-cortez-dominates-twitter-6a997938-b8a5-4a8b-a895-0a1bcd073fea.html

AOC branded herself in distinctive purple colour and personalised design layout when she was first running in the congress. Born in Puerto Rico as a female gave her great amount of stakes and political correctness acting in the democratic party. As the youngest congresswoman in the history, putting controversial tweets such as the “TAP”, boycott work after corona-virus shutdown (Fox News Dorman,2020) and boycott Goya Food over CEO praising Trump. (Ebrahimji, 2020) had sharpened her image and the distinctive image differ from democratic set her in the centre of the stage (Scammell, 2015).

Source: Tandem Design NYC

If Trump had discouraged the Black community to vote in 2016, I believe AOC has her strategy to encourge the youth to vote. 

According to the PEW research’s data in 2016, youth in 18-29 shares the largest proportion of support to the democratic party, however, this group has equally the same percentage of non-voters with another backbone of the party. It reflects many sleeping potential youths could be activated and motivate to vote. 

The research conducted by Kaid et al. (2007) suggested that young citizen tends not to vote because they are not confident in political issues. Interestingly, attractive politicians are more likely to be voted by the public if they do not have adequate political knowledge (by heuristic) and not cognitive nor motivated to correct their choice. (Hart et al.,2011).

A political brand could give shortcuts to supporters that remind them of their key attitude and direction when making a political decision such as voting (Smith et al., 2009).

Back to the time when the computer penetration rate is relatively low and, mobile media was not well-developed. Nickerson’s experiment illustrated that contacting the youth is the major obstacle to persuade them to vote and he suggested that the persuasion work the best in youth’s daily mission (Nickerson, 2006).

When the time has come to 2020, politicians are trying very hard to adapt mobile technology to maximize their reach to their potential supporters especially the not awake Millennials.

The youngest congress member has an alternative strategy to target the youth voters. As the non-voting youth are less likely to find the news by themselves suggested in Matthew Effect (Fletcher, 2017).

Instead of the old-fashioned door to door canvassing, she tried to make the news to find the unexposed youth. AOC takes the initiative and takes a step into the undiscovered gaming world. 

AOC accompanied with star-streamers to play the recently popular “Among Us” on Twitch on 20th October. The live stream not only open the opportunity to encourage viewers to vote, but viewers also enjoyed the game streaming is likely to build up a sense of involvement with the channel community in terms of sympathy and built a personal relationship with streamers (Wulf,2018). This door enables AOC to educate the youth consistently and implant her brand in their heart. Despite the brand of AOC is not representing her democratic party all the time, smaller political brands could form a more structured bonding with more trust and shared value (Abid et al., 2020). 

Source: @FionnOnFire Twitter

To conclude, I believe capturing the Millennials and Gen-Z’s awareness is the most important mission for actors no matter in politics or marketing. Despite the news may not find them straight away, the case of AOC had demonstrated political actors can actively work on the undiscovered audience.

Reference Abid, A., Harrigan, P., & Roy, S. (2020). A relationship marketing orientation in politics: Young voters’ perceptions of political brands’ use of social media. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/0965254x.2020.1777457 

Dorman, S. (2020a, April 23). AOC suggests low-income Americans should boycott work after coronavirus shutdown ends. Fox News. https://www.foxnews.com/media/aoc-boycott-work-coronavirus-shutdown

Dorman, S. (2020, November 10). AOC, others pushing for apparent blacklist of people who worked with Trump. Fox News. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/aoc-blacklist-trump-supporters

Ebrahimji, S. C. A. A. A. (2020, July 10). Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Chef José Andrés and more criticize Goya CEO for support of Trump. CNN. https://edition.cnn.com/2020/07/10/business/goya-foods-boycott-reaction-trnd/index.html

Fletcher, R., & Nielsen, R. K. (2017b). Are people incidentally exposed to news on social media? A comparative analysis. New Media & Society, 20(7), 2450–2468. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444817724170

Hart, W., Ottati, V., & Krumdick, N. (2011). Physical Attractiveness and Candidate Evaluation: A Model of Correction. Political Psychology, 32(2), 181-203. Retrieved November 28, 2020, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/41262892

Hollis, D. (2020, October 22). Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s ‘Among Us’ stream was one of Twitch’s biggest. NME. https://www.nme.com/en_au/news/gaming-news/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-among-us-stream-was-one-of-twitchs-biggest-2795396

Kaid, L. L., McKinney, M. S., & Tedesco, J. C. (2007). American Behavioral Scientist. Political Information Efficacy and Young Voters, 50(9), 1093–1111. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764207300040

Nickerson, D. W. (2006). Hunting the Elusive Young Voter. Journal of Political Marketing, 5(3), 47–69. https://doi.org/10.1300/j199v05n03_03

Scammell, M. (2015). Politics and Image: The Conceptual Value of Branding. Journal of Political Marketing, 14(1–2), 7–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/15377857.2014.990829

Silva, C. (2019, January 7). Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Has as Many Twitter Followers as Incoming Democratic Freshman House Members Combined. Newsweek. https://www.newsweek.com/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-has-many-twitter-followers-incoming-60-democratic-1251551

Smith, G., & French, A. (2009). The political brand: A consumer perspective. Marketing Theory, 9(2), 209–226. https://doi.org/10.1177/1470593109103068

[dailynewswebsite]

Which of Trump’s Supreme Court choices might be most reliably conservative?

President Donald Trump has stated he’ll identify a Supreme Court docket nominee within the coming days. AP Picture/Keith Srakocic

As President Donald Trump appears to fill the Supreme Court docket seat left open by the loss of life of Affiliate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, he and different Republicans need to safe a dependable conservative majority on the nation’s highest court docket for a few years to return.

They’ve tried to do that previously, nevertheless it hasn’t labored out, as a result of Republicans have repeatedly nominated justices who’ve drifted to the left after they have been confirmed.

My evaluation of the judicial data of 26 individuals presently serving as judges on Trump’s record of proposed nominees means that this time shall be totally different.

What predicts ideological drift

Psychologists have devised a strategy to quantify an individual’s flexibility and tendency to alter, and former political science analysis has proven that any such measurement can precisely predict a justice’s future ideological shift on the Supreme Court docket.

In brief, this predictive relationship exists as a result of some persons are extra inflexible of their considering and discover it onerous to regulate their worldviews, whereas different individuals have extra versatile outlooks and are extra open to revision.

To measure this among the many potential nominees, I collected each concurring and dissenting opinion written by the 26 individuals on Trump’s record who’re presently serving as an appeals court docket choose or a state supreme court docket justice. Then I used a research-based piece of software program to judge the language the judges utilized in these 1,723 opinions – over three million phrases.

Lastly, following the methodology of political scientists Ryan J. Owens and Justin Wedeking, I translated these opinions’ use of language right into a rating of every nominee’s psychological flexibility, which political psychologists name their “cognitive consistency.”

Trump’s selections’ cognitive consistencies

For comparability, I plotted these scores alongside the identified prenomination scores for Affiliate Justice Clarence Thomas and retired Affiliate Justice David Souter. Thomas is broadly thought to be being probably the most ideologically inflexible individual on the present court docket. Souter, against this, was initially hailed as a “dwelling run for conservatives” when he was appointed by President George H.W. Bush, however he later drifted left and have become a reliable liberal vote as an alternative.

Trump’s potential nominees are all extra prone to drift than Thomas, however much less doubtless than Souter, suggesting that they are going to all be reliably conservative.

The individual least prone to drift is Barbara Lagoa. The 52-year-old Cuban American now serves on the 11th U.S. Circuit Court docket of Appeals, and is reportedly one in all Trump’s front-runners. Based mostly on this evaluation, her choices thus far point out that she has a comparatively inflexible thought course of that will not yield to opposing arguments.

William H. Pryor Jr. is the 58-year-old chief choose of the 11th Circuit. His prior choices point out he can be the potential nominee most open to alter sooner or later, regardless of his conservative bona fides now.

Why drift could not matter

No matter whom Trump picks, Republicans can afford some drift by their nominee.

To indicate why, I plotted the utmost potential drift over the subsequent 10 years for every potential nominee whose present ideological place will be estimated based mostly on who appointed them to the U.S. Courts of Appeals.

Even assuming that Trump’s nominee drifts solely leftward and by no means rightward, all however one in all Trump’s attainable picks is prone to stay extra conservative than the reasonable Chief Justice John Roberts, guaranteeing the Republicans keep at the least a 5-Four majority it doesn’t matter what.

This might assure further assist for conservative outcomes, even when sure conservative judges typically determine to flip sides – like Affiliate Justice Neil Gorsuch, who infuriated Republicans with a June vote to uphold employment protections for homosexual and transgender staff. A brand new appointee from Trump’s record will doubtless shift the court docket’s steadiness a lot additional to the best that one justice flipping could have a lot much less of an impact on any case’s consequence.

Matthew Dahl doesn’t work for, seek the advice of, personal shares in or obtain funding from any firm or group that will profit from this text, and has disclosed no related affiliations past their educational appointment.

from Growth News https://growthnews.in/which-of-trumps-supreme-court-choices-might-be-most-reliably-conservative/ via https://growthnews.in

[glittergummicandypeach]

Trump claims Biden will “obliterate” life, religion, jobs and the economy in unhinged response to Kennedy loss

Senator Ed Markey (D-MA) won a highly watched Democratic primary yesterday for his Massachusetts U.S. Senate seat against the latest member of the Kennedy clan with ambitions for higher office, Representative Joseph Kennedy III (D-MA), with progressive support largely credited as helping him fend off the high profile primary challenge.

As co-sponsor of the Green New Deal program with Congresswoman Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), Senator Markey attributed his win to the votes of millennials who will be forced to face the effects of climate change for a much longer period than his older constituents will.

“Tonight’s victory is a tribute to those young people,” Senator Markey said, promising that “the age of incrementalism is over.”

After news of Markey’s victory over Kennedy — a candidate who enjoyed the support of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) — Donald Trump took to Twitter to offer his own version of political analysis of the primary results, spinning the news to fit his own electoral agenda.

When a Kennedy loses a Democrat Primary in Massachusetts, by a lot, it just shows how far LEFT that party has gone. Joe Hiden’ will never be able to hold them back. Life, 2nd A, Energy, Religion, Jobs and the Economy, would be totally obliterated!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 2, 2020

Trump’s comments fit his campaign strategy of falsely painting Democrats as socialist radicals who will destroy all that America once was — as if his own tenure hasn’t accomplished significant strides towards that goal, as recent history amply proves.

Trump did debut a new nickname for his Democratic presidential opponent, however.

Gone from this particular tweet is his old reliable sobriquet for Biden, Sleepy Joe.

In its place, Trump tries out “Joe Hiden’,” an apparent reference to his opponent’s dearth of coronavirus super-spreader events on the campaign trail compared to the president’s own Typhoid Mary tour of battleground swing states.

Trump seems to abandon his accusation that Biden personally holds views that are part of a vast socialist conspiracy to redistribute the wealth that the GOP handed to the ultra-wealthy in their last tax bill in favor of arguing that he is too weak to hold back the overwhelming progressive forces in the Democratic party.

The list of aspects of American life that Trump claims will be destroyed under a Democratic administration includes several items that have already been significantly obliterated by his own administration and its incompetent bungling of the COVID-19 pandemic, including the lives of over 184,866 people who died from the disease, the jobs of 31 million people currently receiving unemployment benefits, and an economy that slipped over 30% in the last quarter.

Trump’s characterization of Democratic calls for sensible gun regulations as an attack on 2nd Amendment rights puts him out of step with the 66% of Americans who support stricter gun laws, while his attack on Democratic positions on environmental regulations in the midst of a life-altering climate crisis already causing wildfires, massive hurricanes, and rising sea levels go against the 67% of Americans who support reducing the effects of climate change.

None of Trump’s scare tactics in this tweet can match his most ludicrously and exaggeratedly false prediction — that life itself will be “totally obliterated” if he is not re-elected.

Perhaps psychologists could trace Trump’s psychological pathologies to a lack of maternal affection in his childhood.

It’s clearly apparent that this president’s mother never read him the fairy tale of the boy who cried wolf, or if she did, that the moral of the story was never properly explained to him.

Ignore Trump’s lies and elect Joe Biden as our next president. Unlike what the current president says, Life, 2nd A, Energy, Religion, Jobs, and the Economy, would be totally liberated…or at least unshackled from Trump’s incompetence and malfeasance.

Follow Vinnie Longobardo onTwitter. 

We want to hear what YOU have to say. Scroll down and let us know in our NEW comment section!

The post Trump claims Biden will “obliterate” life, religion, jobs and the economy in unhinged response to Kennedy loss appeared first on Occupy Democrats.

This content was originally published here.

[vpng]

Everyone who thinks Bernie didn’t want to get into Iraq is FUCKING WRONG. Bernie just wanted us to go to war with out friends.

He’s a (seemingly) nice dude who yells a lot while he tells you half truths - the real truth is too complicated for his supporters

either he thinks they/we are too stupid to notice or he is deliberately misleading everyone for his own political gains while he accomplishes nothing more than his entitled hand waving for the you tube

[Sanders wanted a coalition of a nations to respond to the threat, and if such a coalition formed, he suggested he might change his mind regarding invasion. “Now if you gave me that sentence and said, ‘Let us act as we did with the Persian Gulf War, with the international community, with the United Nations,’” he concluded, “that becomes a different story.”.....

Over time, this morphed into a dubious -- and much more sinister – notion: namely, that Bush and his inner circle “lied” about their reasons for invading Iraq. He’s not the first presidential contender to proffer this particular conspiracy theory. Four years ago, another truculent candidate made similar accusations on the debate stage.

The U.S. military involvement in Iraq was “a big fat mistake,” this candidate said. “They lied,” he added. “They said there were weapons of mass destruction -- there were none. And they knew there were none.”

This candidate’s name, of course, was Donald J. Trump.]

This article is a perfect example of Bernie’s brand of politics: let someone write an amendment and vote for it knowing it will fail to cover your political career INSTEAD of USING your political career to GET INVOLVED with the legislation and hold back meaningful votes for something harmful until you get your way.

It doesn’t work he is not effective this is not efficient and it why Obama hated working w him (and Warren but she got SHIT done)

people are willfully IGNORING THE FUCKING FIGHT WE HAVE AT HAND RIGHT NOW WITH THE TIMES AND POWERS THAT BE the GOP that just let us hold a trial with no witnesses and fucking NO ONE IS IN JAIL FOR IGNORING congressional SUBPOENAS. We once again have a fucking idiot GOP prez in the whitehouse off the rails - we have barely got a majority in the House THATS IT ASSHOLES THATS ALL DEMS CAN DO THAT WILL BE LEGAL THE HOUSE NANCY IS THE ONLY THING STANDING BETWEEN YOU DONALD AND MITCH.....

and the Senate is fucking full of people getting PAID by DJT and they are swearing in as jurors for the same man -

If you THINK that vote doesn’t matter you’ve lost- already - and you wasted a lot of fucking time complaining about things while you stood by and watched them get worse. That’s Bernie Brand politics.

Really hard core Bernie fans reading this - I was you just three months ago...so people coming here “who’s payin you bud” @geisterwand .....if your an honest supporter and not a Russian psychology op ....I was paying Bernie

I’m kinda pissed bc I wasted my money and in a way supported a lying douche do nothing who turned on everyone helping him (AOC) and failed to discuss an actual future (VP) strategy with progressive strategy.

From the ground up I respect progressives like Katie Porter Who take direct action. Bernie is top down indirect action which gets nothing done. His special power is being pissed off and pissing people off

I feel like now he wants this all for himself and unity is no longer an option.

I think he knows he helped Trump win last time and he knows that the political environment has to be just right for his revolution or he isn’t appealing at all.

I think he knows he is less accomplished than his rivals so he feeds off grievances that seemingly put him on some moral pedestal.

I believe he is weighing out this coronovirus pandemic to further push his ideological politics with some moral grandstanding attached to it while he fails to critically re-evaluate his policy’s based upon evidence from Italy that government run health care does lead inevitable to shortages - nantionalized health care in the UK and other places that have had funds slashed by austerity measures that were put into place by the government.

I believe his campaign managers do not care about our country. Only their narcissistic political careers based on insincere insinuations instead of policy and critical analysis. It make supporters parroting these points easy targets

I think his campaign lies to us all and he is most certainly the benefactor and is aware and allows it to continue

It’s such a scam

[itunesbooks]

The Plot to Destroy Democracy - Malcolm Nance & Rob Reiner

The Plot to Destroy Democracy How Putin and His Spies Are Undermining America and Dismantling the West Malcolm Nance & Rob Reiner Genre: World Affairs Price: $14.99 Publish Date: June 26, 2018 Publisher: Hachette Books Seller: Hachette Digital, Inc. New York Times and USA Today bestselling author provides a provocative, comprehensive analysis of Vladimir Putin and Russia's master plan to destroy democracy in the age of Donald Trump, with a foreword by Rob Reiner. "A convincing cry that treason is afoot." - Kirkus Reviews "[E]ven as this plot gets more intricate (and, yes, sometimes it does read like a political thriller), readers will be turning pages quickly, feeling both anxiety and betrayal. . . . [E]ven supporters of the president will have something to think about." - Booklist In the greatest intelligence operation in the history of the world, Donald Trump was made President of the United States with the assistance of a foreign power. The Plot to Destroy Democracy reveals the dramatic story of how blackmail, espionage, assassination, and psychological warfare were used by Vladimir Putin and his spy agencies to steal the 2016 U.S. election-and attempted to bring about the fall of NATO, the European Union, and Western democracy. Career U.S. intelligence officer Malcolm Nance examines how Russia has used cyberwarfare, political propaganda, and manipulation of our perception of reality-and will do so again-to weaponize American news, traditional media, social media, and the workings of the internet to attack and break apart democratic institutions from within, and what we can expect to come should we fail to stop their next attack. Nance has utilized top secret Russian-sourced political and hybrid warfare strategy documents to demonstrate the master plan to undermine American institutions that has been in effect from the Cold War to the present day. He exposes how Russia has supported the campaigns of right-wing extremists throughout both the U.S. and Europe to leverage an axis of autocracy, and how Putin's agencies have worked since 2010 to bring fringe candidate Donald Trump into elections. Revelatory, insightful, and shocking, The Plot to Destroy Democracy puts a professional spy lens on Putin's plot and unravels it play-by-play. In the end, Nance provides a better understanding of why Putin's efforts are a serious threat to our national security and global alliances-in much more than one election-and a blistering indictment of Putin's puppet, President Donald J. Trump. http://bit.ly/2IlibyN

[virginiaprelawland]

An In-Depth Look At The Siege On Capitol Hill

By Lima Shekib, George Mason University Class of 2020 

January 12, 2021

A violent mob of President Donald Trump’s supporters caught the world’s attention as they stormed the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021. They forcefully made their way onto the Capitol grounds as Congress convened to affirm the election of President-Elect Joe Biden [1]. Due to the chaos that ensued, members of Congress had to either escape through secret passageways or hide from the rioters. Police officers were attacked while trying to maintain peace, one of whom ultimately died of injuries sustained during these events. [2]

The nation is still reeling from the events that unfolded on Wednesday afternoon. Many are unsure what to make of the events. Was this merely a protest gone wrong or an attempted coup d'état? Here is what remains certain: regardless of the intent or severity of the protest, many criminal statutes were violated. Lawmakers, such as Mike Pence, vow that “those involved will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.” [3]

To begin, it is worth discussing one’s right to protest along with what actions deems a protest to be unlawful. After all, the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution grants us the “...the right of the people peaceably to assemble.”[4] The key word to look at here is peaceably. As soon as a protest becomes a disturbance to the peace, it is unlawful assembly [5]. When an act of violence is threatened or occurs in the name of furthering one’s cause, the protest becomes a riot [6].

When a protest becomes violent, law enforcement has the right to act accordingly in order to maintain the peace [7], as per Cantwell v. Connecticut (1940). If there is “clear and present danger of riot, disorder, interference with traffic upon the public streets…” or any other immediate threat [8], law enforcement has the right to disperse protestors and take any reasonable measure to do so. An important distinction to make is that there must be an actual threat of violence for law enforcement to step in, as per Cox v. Louisiana (1965) [9]. The mere presence of protestors is not enough to warrant a dispersal or arrest.

It can be fairly concluded that the protestors at the Capitol engaged in violent conduct to where it was justified for law enforcement to intervene. It would also be justified for prosecutors to bring out several charges against the protestors. This would not be an exhaustive list of the charges that could be levied against them but is an estimate at how much is covered under the law.

To begin, the protestors could be charged with unlawfully coming onto government property without permission. To paraphrase 18 U.S.C § 1752 [10], it is unlawful for one to knowingly enter a restricted building without the lawful authority to do so, knowingly disrupt or impede government business while trespassing, and to knowingly engage in any act of physical violence against the people or property of the restricted building. Doing so would incur a fine and imprisonment of up to 10 years, especially if the person were to carry a deadly weapon and if their actions resulted in significant bodily injury. They could also be charged for interrupting Congress that day. In accordance with 18 U.S.C § 1505, whoever obstructs the proper administration of the law "under which any pending proceeding is being had before any department or agency of the United States" or any inquiry being held by Congress, would be fined or imprisoned for up to 5 years (8 if domestic terrorism is involved in the act) [11].

The way the protestors broke into the Capitol and its offices (ie. breaking the glass) could also carry federal charges. 18 U.S.C § 1361 protects government property from “actual or attempted depredation,” which is defined as “the act of plundering, robbing, pillaging or laying waste [12]. We saw many counts of this, such as when protestors were found breaking glass windows, tearing down American flags, putting Trump 2020 flags on presidential statues, and in one case, carrying House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s podium through the Capitol. These people could also be in violation of 18 U.S.C § 2101, which punishes those who travel over state lines in order to incite, organize, promote, or to take part in a riot [13].

Those who were carrying firearms could be in violation of 18 U.S.C § 930, which states that those knowingly carrying firearms or dangerous weapons in a federal facility will be punished under the law [14]. They could also be charged in accordance with 18 U.S.C § 231, which prohibits people from transporting or manufacturing any firearm or explosive device to be used for furthering a civil disorder [15]. This is especially true of the man who was found putting two pipe bombs onto the Capitol grounds, for whom the Federal Bureau of Investigation currently has a $50,000 reward [16]. He could also be found in violation of 41 CFR § 102-74.435, which explicitly forbids people from entering federal property with explosive devices [17].

The protestors that attacked police officers at the scene could also be charged with assaulting and impeding law enforcement. According to 18 U.S.C § 111, those who assault or impede a police officer that is doing his/her official duty is subject to a maximum of 8 years [18]. These acts would also be in violation against 18 U.S.C § 231 section A, as they impeded on law enforcement during a civil disorder [19]. In this case, many officers sustained injuries and one died of the injuries sustained during the protests. Under 18 U.S.C § 111, those responsible could be imprisoned for up to 20 years [20].

Finally, the protestors could be charged with insurrection and sedition according to the definition laid out by 18 U.S.C Chapter 115. 18 U.S.C § 2383 prohibits the act of “...incit[ing],...assist[ing], or engag[ing] in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof [21]”. One could argue that storming the Capitol building and driving Congress out falls within this charge. If someone were to take it a notch further by attempting to overthrow, oppose the authority of, or hinder the duties of the U.S government, they would fall within the realm of seditious conspiracy, as defined by 18 U.S.C § 2384 [22]. While this is a serious accusation to make, the attempt to prevent Congress from affirming President-Elect Joe Biden could fall within this definition of sedition.

Regardless of where one stands on the political spectrum, the events that took place on Wednesday should not be taken lightly. Many agree that they were inappropriate at the very least, while some say that it was one of the United States’ ugliest days. As more of the protestors are identified and arrested, it is only a matter of time before they are brought to justice.

______________________________________________________________

Lima Shekib is a recent graduate from George Mason University in Fairfax, Virginia. She majored in Criminology, minored in both Psychology and Forensic Psychology, and pursued a concentration in Homeland Security. While pursuing intelligence analysis as a career path, she holds a passion for writing and learning more about law.

______________________________________________________________

[1] Fisher, M., Flynn, M., Contrera, J., & Leonnig, C. D. (2021, January 07). The four-hour insurrection. Retrieved January 09, 2021, from https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2021/politics/trump-insurrection-capitol/

[2] LeBlanc, P., & Perez, E. (2021, January 08). US Capitol Police confirm death of officer after pro-Trump riot. Retrieved January 09, 2021, from https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/08/politics/capitol-police-officer-killed/index.html

[3] Fisher, M., Flynn, M., Contrera, J., & Leonnig, C. D. (2021, January 07). The four-hour insurrection. Retrieved January 09, 2021, from https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2021/politics/trump-insurrection-capitol/

[4] U.S. Const. amend. I.

[5] Unlawful assembly. (n.d.). Retrieved January 09, 2021, from https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/unlawful_assembly

[6] Riot. (n.d.). Retrieved January 09, 2021, from https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/riot

[7] E.A. Gjelten, A. (2020, June 23). What Can the Police Arrest You for at a Protest? Retrieved January 09, 2021, from https://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/what-can-the-police-arrest-you-for-at-a-protest.html

[8] 310 U.S. 296

[9] 379 U.S. 536

[10] Restricted Buildings or Grounds, 18 U.S.C § 1752

[11] Obstruction of Proceedings before Departments, Agencies, and Committees, 18 U.S.C § 1505

[12] Destruction of Government Property, 18 U.S.C § 1361

[13] Riots, 18 U.S.C § 2101

[14] Possession of firearms and dangerous weapons in Federal facilities, 18 U.S.C § 930

[15] Civil Disorders, 18 U.S.C § 231

[16] Szymanowski, G., & Gordine, E. (2021, January 08). US Capitol siege: Will rioters face legal action? Retrieved January 09, 2021, from https://www.dw.com/en/us-capitol-siege-will-rioters-face-legal-action/a-56168507

[17] What is the policy concerning explosives on Federal property? 41 CFR § 102-74.435

[18] Assaulting, resisting, or impeding certain officers or employees, 18 U.S.C § 111

[19] Civil Disorders, 18 U.S.C § 231

[20] Assaulting, resisting, or impeding certain officers or employees, 18 U.S.C § 111

[21] Rebellion or insurrection, 18 U.S.C § 2383

[22] Seditious conspiracy, 18 U.S.C § 2384

Photo Credit: Tyler Merbler