Monday, July 03, 2017
Trump's Attacks On The Media Endangers Our Democracy
Our Founding Fathers understood the value of a free and independent press. They thought it was necessary to the continuation of our representative democracy -- so necessary that it was prominently placed in the First Amendment of our Constitution.
And to our good fortune, our modern presidents have understood this. They may have disagreed with some things the press reported, but they never attacked the press as an institution, or made personal attacks and threats against individual journalists.
Donald Trump is different. He started his attacks on the press during his campaign, and those attacks have only increased since he took office -- both against the media in general and against individual journalists. Trump has sought to destroy the reputation of the press in the eyes of the American people, calling their stories about him "fake news" -- and sadly, too many in his cult of personality are accepting that as truth.
Trump doesn't understand that if the public's faith in the independence and fairness of the press is undermined then our democracy is also undermined. How can a democracy survive if the people don't know what their government is doing (or how government actions will affect them)?
I am left to wonder if Trump even cares about the survival of our democracy. Does his narcissistic personality demand a cowered press? Does he want the ability of a king or dictator to do whatever he wants -- without a free press to report it? That's what it looks like. It seems that he is more concerned with his own narcissistic needs than he is with preserving and defending our democratic way of life.
Trump's attacks on the media are not amusing or inconsequential. They are dangerous -- and they should be treated that way. The survival of our democracy demands it.
Will (Can) Trump Stand Up To Putin At G20 Summit ?
The chart above was made from info in a new Economist / YouGov Poll -- done between June 25th and 27th of a random national sample of 1,500 adults (including 1,295 registered voters), with a 3.1 point margin of error.
It shows that a substantial majority of Americans consider Russia to be an enemy of the United States (63%), while only a tiny minority consider that country to be a friend (17%). But Americans don't believe Donald Trump shares their view. About 44% think Trump views Russia as a friend, while only 31% think he views Russia as an enemy.
I think this brings up a valid question -- when Trump meets with Putin at the G20 summit this next weekend, will he stand up to Putin? Can he stand up to him? Will Trump vigorously defend the interests of the United States, or will he knuckle under to Putin (worst case scenario) or be noncommittal (best case scenario)?
Neither of those options is good for the safety and security of the United States, but there is reason to believe that Trump either won't or can't stand up to Putin and defend the interests of the United States (on election hacking, economic sanctions, Syria, Ukraine, etc.).
Every other president (of both political parties) has understood that Russia is not our friend, and they have all vigorously defended the interests of this country. But none of those presidents had the relationship with Russia that Donald Trump has.
Every day we learn more about the possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian officials to subvert the 2016 American election, and only a fool would believe this possible collusion occurred without the knowledge and direction of Trump himself. We know that Trump attempted to remove economic sanctions against Russia upon being sworn into office, and opposes the new economic sanctions (passed nearly unanimously by the Senate). Is this a quid pro quo for the Russian help during the election? Is he afraid the Russians will reveal his part in the collusion?
We also know that since U.S. banks are loath to loan money to Trump (because of his bankruptcies and failure to repay loans), and because of that, Trump's businesses are heavily indebted to Russian banks. Would Trump be afraid that Russian money would dry up if he stood up to Putin, or even worse, those loans would be called in?
The election of Donald Trump has put this country in a bad (and possibly dangerous) situation. We now have a president who won't (or can't) defend the country against its most powerful enemy -- Russia.
U.S. Should Guarantee Paid Sick Leave For All Workers
The United States is the only developed nation that does not guarantee all workers at least some paid sick leave (and one of the very few in the entire world). About 61% of workers in the bottom 25% and 73% of workers in the bottom 10% get no paid sick leave at all. This means these workers, when they get sick, must make a terrible choice -- go to work anyway and endanger themselves, co-workers, and maybe even customers (since many work in service sector jobs), or do without some basic necessities for their families because of the loss in pay for missing work.
This is especially critical in our current economy, since a substantial portion of workers are trying to exist on these low-wage jobs -- and by 2020, it is expected that a full quarter of the U.S. work force will be in these low-wage jobs.
Elise Gould and Jessica Schieder of the Economic Policy Institute have written an excellent article on this issue (and it's well worth reading). I post below only the summary and conclusion of their study:
Summary
There is no federal law that ensures all workers are able to earn paid sick days in the United States. For workers who fall ill or whose families depend on them to provide care in the event of an illness, this means sick days can be incredibly costly. Taking needed sick time means workers go without pay or must show up at work while sick and delay seeking treatment for themselves or their dependents.
This paper examines recent trends in paid sick time and highlights some of the costs to workers and their families when they are not given the opportunity to earn paid sick time. By quantifying how lack of paid sick days threatens the economic security of low- and moderate-income families, it adds new data to debates over paid sick days measures in states and cities and the need for federal legislation. Over the last several years seven states, the District of Columbia, and 31 other localities have passed paid sick days laws, five of which are set to go into effect this July. Ballot initiatives are on the horizon and some policymakers are calling for a federal guarantee to allow workers to earn paid sick time.
Following are the main findings of the paper:
- Lack of paid sick days is a real problem, particularly for low-wage workers, and it shows up in the large paid sick days gap between high- and low-wage workers. While approximately 64 percent of private-sector American workers currently have access to paid sick days, this topline number masks the fact that higher-wage workers have much greater access to paid sick days than lower-wage workers do: for example, 87 percent of private-sector workers in the top 10 percent of wages have the ability to earn paid sick days, compared with only 27 percent of private-sector workers in the bottom 10 percent.
- Lack of paid sick days deprives workers of funds needed for basic necessities.Without the ability to earn paid sick days, workers must choose between going to work sick (or sending a child to school sick) and losing much-needed pay. For the average worker who does not have access to paid sick days, the costs of taking unpaid sick time can make a painful dent in the monthly budget for the worker’s household:
- If the worker needs to take off even a half day due to illness, the lost wages are equivalent to the household’s monthly spending for fruits and vegetables; lost wages from taking off nearly three days equal their entire grocery budget for the month.
- Two days of unpaid sick time are roughly the equivalent of a month’s worth of gas, making it difficult to get to work.
- Three days of unpaid sick time translate into a household’s monthly utilities budget, preventing the worker from paying for electricity and heat.
- In the event of a lengthier illness—say, seven and a half days of unpaid sick time—the worker would lose income equivalent to a monthly rent or mortgage payment.
- State laws providing the right to paid sick days appear to be having a small but meaningful effect as the share of workers with access to paid sick time has increased, particularly at the low end of the wage spectrum.
- Access to paid sick time for low-wage workers has increased since 2012, the year the first state law requiring paid sick days went into effect, in Connecticut. The share of low-wage, private-sector workers nationwide with paid sick time rose from 18 percent in 2012 to 27 percent in 2016, while the share of the top 10 percent of wage earners with this benefit has barely budged (86 to 87 percent over this period).
- Of all regions, the Pacific region had the biggest overall increase in access to paid sick days, with the share of workers with access rising from 63 percent in 2012 to 73 percent in 2016 (in contrast, the share nationwide rose from 61 to 64 percent during the same period). Paid sick days laws went into effect in 2015 in California and 2016 in Oregon (two of the three states in the Census-designated Pacific region).
Conclusion
For the millions of workers without access to paid sick days, many workers who are sick feel forced to go to work, where they are less likely to be productive and more prone to mistakes. The income security provided by paid sick days allows workers to rest, get the health care they need, and fully recover from an illness before returning to work. Also important, it allows workers to continue paying their monthly bills, even in the event of illness. This economic security is incredibly important for low-wage workers and their families, given that the vast majority of low-wage workers do not currently have access to paid sick time.State and local measures are critical but the problem calls for a national solution—especially given impending state attacks on the right of localities to legislate these protections (National Partnership 2017b). This year paid sick days protections were provided to the federal contractor workforce, guaranteeing the ability to earn (or expand) paid sick days to an estimated one million private-sector workers (Gould 2017). But efforts to reach the overall workforce have yet to succeed. The Healthy Families Act, first introduced in 2004, would allow workers in workplaces with 15 or more employees to earn at least one hour of paid sick time per 30 hours worked, among other provisions. While Congress has reintroduced the Healthy Families Act with stronger sponsorship than before, the act is not expected to advance. More action is needed to reach workers across the economy regardless of their wage levels, hours, or where their jobs are located.
Sunday, July 02, 2017
Does Trump Even Care About Healthcare For Americans ?
During his campaign for the presidency, Donald Trump promised his followers that he would immediately repeal Obamacare and replace it with something better. After being sworn in, he promised Americans that his plan to replace Obamacare would cover all Americans with health insurance.
Both of those promises have fallen by the wayside. The House Republicans passed a plan (AHCA) that would repeal Obamacare and throw 23 million Americans off the health insurance rolls. Trump embraced the plan as though it was a great victory -- and invited House Republicans to the White House for a victory celebration.
That plan immediately ran into trouble in the Senate, and a similar plan (BCRA) crafted by Senate GOP leaders has been unable to get enough Republican votes to pass. Now it's beginning to look like the Senate Republicans are not going to be able to come up with a plan they can agree on.
This has Trump once again changing his mind. He has now tweeted that the Senate should just repeal Obamacare, and worry about replacing it later. His thinking is that once Obamacare is repealed, people will be happy to accept any GOP plan -- even a bad one like those already proposed (which would take health insurance away from 22-23 million Americans, and raise premium prices for everyone).
Trump's proposal would repeal Obamacare, but delay that repeal from taking effect until next year -- which would give Republicans another year to come up with a plan. The problem with that is that after more than seven years of complaining about Obamacare, the Republicans have been unable to come up with a plan -- and there's no reason to believe that could do that in another year. This would just keep the argument alive over the bad Republican proposals, and have them trying to do something just a few months before the November 2018 election. That's something no Republican in Congress wants to happen.
Trump has now gone from promising to cover everyone to throwing most Americans under the bus. It brings this question to mind -- Does he really care about providing healthcare for Americans, or is he just desperate to get a legislative victory (and be able to show his cult followers that he can deliver on his promises).
So far, he has not delivered on any of the big promises of his campaign. There is no legislation (or funding) to build a wall between the U.S. and Mexico. There is no infrastructure legislation. There is no new immigration legislation. There has been no tax reform legislation. In short, there have been no major legislative achievements at all -- lending credence to the view that Trump and the Republican Congress are incapable of governing.
Trump and his family (and his friends) are rich. They have the money to buy any insurance they want (or pay any medical bills they might accrue). Most Americans are not so lucky. They need Obamacare to be fixed -- not repealed. But Trump seems ready to throw them under the bus to get a legislative victory. He has shown that he really doesn't care about healthcare for American citizens. He only cares about looking good to his cult followers -- and he needs a legislative victory (preferably repeal of Obamacare), even if that means thousands of Americans die for lack of insurance (and many more go bankrupt because they can't pay gigantic medical bills).
As usual, the narcissist-in-chief only cares about himself.
Nevada Becomes The 5th State For Legal Marijuana
Yesterday (July 1st), Nevada became the fifth state where the sale and possession of small amounts of marijuana is legal. After passing the legalization initiative in the last election, Nevada joined four other states (Colorado, Washington, Oregon, and Alaska) in implementing that legalization. They expect the tax on marijuana sales to bring the state about $60 million in revenue in the next two years. I think that's probably a very low estimate.
By early next year, the number of states with legal marijuana will climb to eight states. Massachusetts, California, and Maine have all voted to legalize the gentle herb. The legalization will actually go into effect in Massachusetts on December 15th, in California on January 1st, and in Maine next February.
The genie is now out of the bottle -- and I expect several more states to jump on the legalization bandwagon in the next few years.
The (Really Bad) Numbers For Senate's "Health" Plan
Senate Majority Leader McConnell is still trying to convince enough of his fellow Republicans to vote for the Senate's version of Trumpcare (BCRA). Most Republicans claim the bill is a health care plan, will not throw millions of people off the insurance rolls, and will lower insurance premiums. None of those things are true. It is much more a tax plan, takes health care away from at least 22 million Americans, and will actually increase insurance premiums for plans with current benefits.
Honest Republicans know this, and that's why McConnell is having so much trouble rounding up 50 votes for his version of Trumpcare. Here is how NBC News describes what the Senate plan will do:
As frustrated GOP senators are discovering, their bill is much less generous than Obamacare because it spends hundreds of billions of dollars less on people’s health care. And the main reason it spends so much less is that its savings are used to cut taxes for wealthy Americans and for medical companies.
How close is the relationship? When it comes to Medicaid, it’s almost 1:1. The Senate bill slashes tax revenues by $701 billion over a decade, while reducing Medicaid spending by $772 billion versus current law. Overall, the Senate bill reduces federal health care spending by $1 trillion.
The result: More Americans without insurance. According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, the bill would cover about 22 million fewer people by 2026 than Obamacare.
It might be easier to make this tradeoff if the Americans losing aid for health care were the ones benefiting from the tax cuts. But unless you’re paying a penalty under Obamacare's individual mandate for deciding to go without insurance, you’re unlikely to notice the difference in your return.
Instead, the biggest gains from the bill, by far, go to the top 1 percent of earners and especially the top 0.1 percent. The individual taxes the Senate would eliminate, a 3.8 percent surtax on investment income and a 0.9 percent payroll tax, only apply to single filers making over $200,000 and families making over $250,000.
The cost of including these tax cuts, even for small numbers of high earners, is not chump change either. The Center for Budget and Policy Priorities estimatesthe bill’s tax benefits for the 400 highest earning households in America alone are equal to the cost of keeping Obamacare's Medicaid expansion in four states that cover 726,000 people.
On the spending side, the bill requires people to pay higher premiums to buy a private plan similar to what's available under Obamacare. It accomplishes this by reducing spending on subsidies and distributing them in a way that encourages people to purchase higher deductible plans with lower premiums. At the same time, it eliminates Obamacare subsidies that help low-income people pay their deductibles.
Here, too, the lower end of the economic spectrum fares worse than the higher end. The nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation projected premiums for people making over and under 200 percent of the federal poverty line (about $24,000 a year for an individual) and found the biggest spikes came for older low-income customers. The CBO also found this group would have the hardest time finding affordable insurance under the Senate bill.
Saturday, July 01, 2017
More Trust Democrats On Healthcare Than GOP Or Trump
The pie chart above was made with information in a new USA Today / Suffolk University Poll -- done between June 24th and 27th of a random national sample of 1,000 registered voters, with a 3 point margin of error.
The Senate Republicans are still wrangling over healthcare -- trying to find a plan they can get a majority to support -- a plan that would repeal and replace Obamacare. They've had over seven years to come up with that plan, and still can't do it. Meanwhile, Trump keeps shooting them in the foot with his tweets.
Perhaps it's a good thing that they can't agree on a plan to replace Obamacare, because the public doesn't trust them to come up with a plan that would protect healthcare for Americans. Only 10.1% think Congress can come up with a reasonable plan, while 18.5% think Trump could do that. Combined, that is 28.6% -- far below the 42.8% that believe the Democrats are best suited to protect the heal care interests of Americans.
Trump Tries To Blackmail MSNBC's "Morning Joe" Show
The mainstream media (and social media) have been full of news about Donald Trump's personal attack on Mike Brzezinski. It was not just unpresidential, but grossly misogynistic -- and it has been condemned by members of both political parties. It's as though Donald Trump is determined to put the American presidency down into the gutter -- simply because he is unhappy with the media reporting the truth about his failing presidency.
But we now learn Trump has done more than make nasty and bigoted remarks about the hosts of "Morning Joe". CNN is reporting that Trump actually tried to blackmail and bully Joe and Mika into calling him to make a personal apology for broadcasting the truth. He threatened to have an unflattering article about them printed in the National Inquirer if they didn't personally apologize.
But he picked on the wrong people. Instead of knuckling under to Trump's outrageous threats, they have just gone public with his threats and bullying -- and it looks like they have evidence to back up their claims. Here is how Political Wire reported the story:
Joe Scarborough said that “three people at the very top of the administration” threatened him with a bad story in the National Enquirer unless he apologized to President Trump, CNN reports.
Said Scarborough: “We got a call that, ‘Hey, the National Enquirer is going to run a negative story against you guys…’ And they said, ‘If you call the president up, and you apologize for your coverage, then he will pick up the phone and basically spike this story.”
He added: “The calls kept coming and kept coming, and they were like ‘Call. You need to call. Please call. Come on, Joe. Just pick up the phone and call him.'”
BCRA Will Cause 208,500 Unnecessary Deaths By 2026
The charts above are from an article at Vox.com written by Ann Crawford-Roberts, Nichole Roxas, and Ichiro Kawachi. It concerns a study they have done on the effects of passing the GOP Senate plan (the Better Care Reconciliation Act of 2017) -- i.e., Trumpcare. They predict the passage of this odious plan will cause about 208,500 unnecessary deaths of American citizens by 2026. Here is just a part of their article:
The Congressional Budget Office projects that if the Senate Republicans’ health care bill becomes law, 14 million Americans will lose their health insurance in 2018, and, by 2026, 22 million would lose coverage.
Drawing on that work, we estimate that if the Senate bill becomes law, 22,900 excess deaths will occur in 2020 — and the figure will grow over time. 26,500 extra deaths will take place in 2026. Over the next decade, we estimate that a total of 208,500 unnecessary deaths will occur if the law is passed (see Table 1).
We also calculate anticipated additional deaths, state by state, using state-level coverage losses for the year 2026 (see Table 2). The predicted excess deaths by state range from 30 in North Dakota to 2,992 in California in 2026 alone.
Some commentators have argued that it’s inappropriate — beyond the pale — to suggest that people will die as a result of this legislation. To the contrary, we contend that no debate over a health care policy can ignore evidence that it could have negative effects on health and mortality.
In making these calculations, we draw on the scientific literature demonstrating that expanding health insurance reduces deaths. We specifically apply the results of a particularly robust study of the effects of health care reform in Massachusetts on mortality. Massachusetts’ health care reform — which expanded Medicaid, offered subsidized private insurance, and included an individual mandate — famously served as a model for the ACA. The Massachusetts study looked at county-level mortality data in 2001 to 2005 (pre-reform) and 2007 to 2010 (post-reform), and compared the changes to carefully selected control groups in other states that had not enacted health reform.
For every 830 individuals insured, the authors found, one life was saved. In medical terms, 830 in this context is the “number needed to treat.” To put this into perspective, the colonoscopy number needed to treat is 1250; you need to conduct 1250 colonoscopy screenings to prevent one colorectal cancer death.
Overall, in Massachusetts, insurance coverage expansion was associated with a 3 percent decline in mortality from all causes, and a 4.5 percent decrease in deaths from causes that are especially amenable to being prevented by health care — including heart disease, infection, diabetes, and cancer.
Assuming that one death will occur for every 830 people who lose coverage is the same methodology used by the White House Council of Economic Advisers under the Obama administration to calculate reductions in mortality associated with the ACA.
This methodology admittedly has limits. There are demographic and health workforce differences between Massachusetts and other states — the Massachusetts population is whiter, older, and more female, and has a higher per-capita physician rate than national averages.
We also assume that losing insurance has the equal and opposite impact of gaining insurance; existing research focuses on the effects of gaining insurance. Further, we look only at mortality effects of insurance losses. It is possible that there are negative mortality effects of losing certain insurance benefits, or being required to pay higher premiums or deductibles, but we did not explore those.
Friday, June 30, 2017
Revised Estimate Shows Senate Bill Worse Than Thought
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) predicted that the Senate bill (BCRA) would cost about 22 million Americans their health insurance. Some would come from individuals no longer buying plans (many because they could no longer afford them), and some would come from employers no longer providing insurance for employees -- but most would come from the 26% in cuts to Medicaid in the 10 year projection.
Well, it turns out the Senate bill is even worse than the CBO first projected. That's because the cuts to Medicaid don't stop at 2026. They grow even larger in later years -- growing to 35% by 2036. Those cuts past 2026, combined with the expected growth in medical care costs, would mean that millions more people would be dumped from Medicaid roles -- raising the number of people losing health coverage far beyond the 22 million projected.
The BCRA (i.e., Trumpcare) is a very mean-spirited bill. It would deny health coverage to a huge hunk of the American population. The Republicans have once again shown they simply don't care for their fellow Americans -- unless they are rich.
Obamacare & Single-Payer More Popular Than Trumpcare
These charts were all made from information in a new Economist / YouGov Poll -- done between June 25th and 27th of a random national sample of 1,500 adults (including 1,295 registered voters), with a margin of error of 3.1 points.
This poll asked what respondents thought of three different health care plans -- Obamacare, Trumpcare, and a Single-Payer system.
Obamacare was most popular with the public (48%), while Trumpcare was the least popular (28%). But the surprise for me was that the Single-Payer system was also much more popular than Trumpcare -- with 44% saying they would approve of it.
Single-Payer still doesn't have the support of a majority of Americans, and I doubt it will even be seriously considered until it has the approval of a substantial majority. But 44% is a pretty good starting place. That's much higher than it would have scored just a few years ago. If the Republicans continue trying to destroy Obamacare instead of fixing it (and are able to actually do that), we may see support for Single-Payer climb much higher.
That's because most Americans do see healthcare as a right -- and not a product to be sold to only those who can afford it (as the Republican officials continue to believe). They are not going to stand for the GOP to take us back to a system even worse than Obamacare.
The charts below are a demographic breakdown of public opinion on all three plans.
40% Of Dems Think Sanders Will be The 2020 Nominee
This chart was made from information in a new Rasmussen Poll -- done on June 26th and 27th of a random national sample of 1,000 likely voters, with a 3 point margin of error. Only Democrats were asked this question.
Personally, I find this poll rather frightening. About 40% of Democrats questioned said they thought Bernie Sanders (who is ashamed to call himself a Democrat or join the party) would be the Democratic nominee for president in 2020. About 47% said he wouldn't, and another 13% were not sure.
I know Sanders has a die-hard (and rather rabid) following among a minority of Democrats, but I had no idea this many Democrats actually thought he could be the party's presidential nominee. Personally, I think the Democrats have an excellent chance of unseating Trump in 2020 -- unless the party veers too far out of the mainstream and nominates an extremist like Sanders. I think nominating Sanders would insure a Democratic defeat in 2020.
There are a couple of saving graces about the poll. First, 47% did not think he would be the nominee. Second, the poll didn't ask that 40% if they wanted him to be the nominee, but only if they thought he would be the nominee.
Frankly, I can't see Democrats nominating someone who still refuses to join the party (and has refused to join for many decades). I also don't see Democrats voting for Sanders after the way he demonized Hillary Clinton in 2016 with unwarranted and untrue accusations. He's a big reason why we have Trump living in the White House.
The Democrats don't need to go outside the party to nominate someone who obviously doesn't respect the party and it's elected officials. There are plenty of good Democrats worthy of the nomination. We need to stop this Bernie nonsense and get serious about nominating a real Democrat who can unseat Trump.
Donald Trump Is Diagnosed As A "Malignant Narcissist"
This troubling (and scary) article was written by Olive Murphy at the Bipartisan Report:
If there’s one thing we can say about Donald Trump, it’s that he’s unlike any other world leader we’ve seen to date. The problem, however, is that his differences fail to set him apart in a positive manner.
Almost daily, Trump tweets about the “biased media,” “fake news,” or a world leader who has suddenly done something so terrible that he must take to Twitter to publicly berate them. Notice, however, that it’s always someone else with the problem. It’s never him.
However, John D. Gartner, a registered psychotherapist from the renowned Johns Hopkins University Medical School seems to think Trump may, in fact, be the one with the problem. Gartner, who teaches psychiatric residents at Hopkins, decided to break the ethical code known as the “Goldwater Rule” in order to warn the American public about the dangerousness of our new commander-in-chief’s mental state.
The “Goldwater Rule” is defined as “the informal term for part of the ethics code of the American Psychiatric Association saying it is wrong to provide a professional opinion of a public figure without examining that person and gaining consent to discuss the evaluation.”
Trump’s Democratic challenger, Hillary Clinton called it first. She said Trump is “temperamentally unfit” to serve as president, following his numerous sexist remarks about women, mocking of a disabled reporter, and blatantly racist statements about basically every single human being who isn’t white.
Gartner, who is also the author of In Search of Bill Clinton: A Psychological Biography, says “Donald Trump is dangerously mentally ill and temperamentally incapable of being president.”
According to USNews, Gartner unofficially diagnosed Trump with “malignant narcissism.” Although he himself has not personally examined Trump, Gartner claims it’s obvious from watching even a little of his behavior that he meets the diagnostic criteria for the disorder. Some of the characteristics include:
- Anti-social behavior
- Sadism
- Aggressiveness
- Paranoia
- Grandiosity
- Entitled
- Regressed
- Manipulative
- Destructive
- Egocentric
- Use of projection
- Lack of conscience
- Narcissistic
Gartner says that individuals with malignant narcissism often lack impulse control and empathy. He also says many who suffer from this disorder believe that others around them don’t recognize their greatness.
‘We’ve seen enough public behavior by Donald Trump now that we can make this diagnosis indisputably,’ Gartner claims.
As Psychology Today notes, “Malignant Narcissists will go to great lengths to achieve their aim. They can be intelligent, high functioning (hold an important job for example) soft-spoken, charming, tearful/seemingly emotional, gracious, well-mannered, kind and have the ability to form relationships. They may lie, falsely accuse, dramatize, smear, cheat, steal, manipulate, accuse, blame or twist to get what they want and feel justified in doing so. Because they are entitled, egocentric and desperate, they do not experience it as wrong.”
Malignant narcissists are:
‘Determined to gratify their wishes and furious if thwarted. Their desire can be so consuming that there is little comprehension of, respect for or ability to empathize with the other. They lack guilt or remorse and tend to feel or pronounce that it is they who have been mistreated. They can be of any gender, race or social class.’
As if that weren’t enough, malignant narcissism is incurable.
So there you have it. The leader of the United States of America is more than likely a malignant narcissist who has the fate of the free world in his two tiny hands. Not to mention, he now has access to the United States government’s nuclear codes. If that’s not terrifying, we don’t know what is.
Thursday, June 29, 2017
Trump Is Steadily Losing The Support Of Independents
The charts reflect the results from the new NPR / PBS NewsHour / Marist Poll -- done between June 21st and 25th of a random national sample of 1,205 adults (including 995 registered voters), with a margin of error of 2.8 points.
It shows that only 37% of the public approves of the job Donald Trump is doing, while 51% disapproves -- a negative gap of 14 points.
Democrats didn't like Trump back in February and still don't, while Republican support was strong in February and still is. It is among the Independents that Trump is steadily losing support. His net approval among Independents was about -11 back in February, while it currently rests at -28 -- a drop in support of about 17 points in the last four months.
Only 12%-17% Of Public Approves Senate "Health" Plan
The Senate Republicans crafted a health plan (actually more of a tax cuts for the rich plan) behind closed doors. But once their "secret" plan was revealed (and appraised by the CBO), it turned out that the plan couldn't even get enough GOP votes to pass. The Republicans have now gone back behind closed doors to tweak their plan, in hopes of getting enough of their party to agree to pass it.
They would be better off if they just tossed their plan out the window. It is extremely unpopular with the general public. Three new polls have been released on the plan, and it turns out that only a tiny percentage of the public approves of the GOP's plan. The three plans have approval at 12%, 16%, and 17% -- with disapproval at 45%, 58%, and 55%.
The Quinnipiac University Poll was done between June 22nd and 27th of a random national sample of 1,212 voters, with a 3.4 point margin of error.
The NPR / PBS NewsHour / Marist Poll was done between June 21st and 25th of a random national sample of 1,205 adults, with a 2.8 point margin of error.
The USA Today / Suffolk University Poll was done between June 24th and 27th of a random national sample of 1,000 registered voters, with a 3 point margin of error.
All three polls showed a majority of Americans don't want Obamacare repealed. They want it fixed. If the GOP continues to ignore the feelings of the public, they will be spanked at the polls in 2018.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)