Personality: Trump vs. Obama

[lpetrich]

Is Trumpism a cult? - Vox
What I find interesting about that article is its comparison of Donald Trump's personality and Barack Obama's.

Cult expert Steven Hassan has written a book, "The Cult of Trump". He starts off with describing malignant narcissism.

I have a chapter in the book on malignant narcissism as a characteristic of destructive cult leaders. These are people who have a deep need for grandiosity, to be the center of attention, who need to control others, and who lack empathy and lie without hesitation. These are psychological traits perfectly attuned to manipulation and projection.

But the malignant part is about sociopathic tendencies. Almost every cult leader thinks he’s above the law, which is why he’s allowed to persecute and harass or harm anyone he wants. When someone really believes this, they can rationalize all kinds of destructive behavior.

He then recalled his experience as a follower of Sun Myung Moon, and he thinks that Donald Trump has a lot in common with him. Like claiming that "only I can fix it".

Then how Trump was raised in Norman Vincent Peale's church - he was a big believer in prosperity theology.

His interviewer Sean Illing tried a comparison.

So, I kept thinking about a politician like Barack Obama while reading your book. Obama is the opposite of Trump in every sense imaginable, and yet he exercised a similar pull on many of his followers.

The big difference between Trump and Obama is that Trump lies and insults and projects weakness onto others, and that seems more straightforwardly cultish, and maybe that’s where we cross the line into cult territory. But Obama still had something like a cult of personality, although many people don’t see it that way because he was a good man with benign intentions and he didn’t use his influence over people for malicious purposes.

SH then claimed that if one runs for President, one does have to have some narcissism.

... But it’s the amorality piece that distinguishes Trump from Barack Obama.

Beyond that, Obama was brilliant and he was someone who liked to learn, who wanted to hear different opinions and make reasonable decisions, as opposed to Trump, who says “I use my gut” and insists he knows more than his generals.

Obama seems fundamentally decent, but he seemed desperate to get Republican politicians' approval, even after they obstructed him a lot. He also seems like something of a sellout, like wanting to give talks to bankers after his presidency, instead of to ordinary people.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Well, surprise, surprise, "bankers" are actually ordinary people. Secondly, it's not about "wanting to give talks to bankers" as it is about a livelihood. Paid speeches is a great way to make money. You get paid for your thoughts. It's identical to writing a book.

Second, what do you mean by "ordinary people"? He speaks all the time all over the world, after all, but that's different than taking paid gigs, so what "ordinary people" are you imagining that would want him to come to their city and give a speech about, what exactly? Like, formally come to our city and give us a speech, but for free! Not to mention that he also gives a lot of that money to his charity (and others).

Why does anyone have a problem with someone being paid to speak? I really don't understand this. Have you ever attended or watched a video online of any of these speeches? It's professionals speaking their opinions on things they know a lot about. For "bankers" that would obviously be about financial regulations and oversight and how politics and statecraft impacts all of that, etc. It's not, "Hey everyone, here are the secret keys to world domination!!"

Sorry, I just don't understand how we allowed the notion of being paid to give a speech to get so unquestioningly demonized. It started with the Sanders camp ffs attacking Hillary Clinton with nothing more than an argument from incredulity. Wink wink, she gave speeches, so of course she was being paid for her vote, because that's what it means to be paid for a speech!

It was horseshit then and it's horseshit now.

Sorry, bit of a sidetrack.

 

[bilby]

... wanting to give talks to bankers after his presidency, instead of to ordinary people ...

"Because that's where the money is" - Willie Sutton.

 

[lpetrich]

Obama's $400,000 Wall Street Speech Is Completely In Character | HuffPost - 2017 Apr 26

Obama refused to prosecute the rampant fraud behind the 2008 Wall Street collapse, despite inking multibillion-dollar settlement after multibillion-dollar settlement with major firms over misconduct ranging from foreclosure fraud to rigging energy markets to tax evasion. In some cases, big banks even pleaded guilty to felonies, but Obama’s Justice Department allowed actual human bankers to ride into the sunset. Early in his presidency, Obama vowed to spend up to $100 billion to help struggling families avert foreclosure. Instead, the administration converted the relief plan into a slush fund for big banks, as top traders at bailed-out firms were allowed to collect six-figure bonuses on the taxpayers’ dime.

...
It’s easier for Democrats to denounce Trump supporters as morally unworthy individuals than to consider whether governing failures in the Obama era contributed to Trump’s popularity. In the final years of his presidency, Obama made clear that he wanted to be remembered as a great Democratic reformer — a leader who expanded access to health care and embodied the humane, egalitarian side of Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Lyndon B. Johnson. But the disconnect between this progressive vision and his Wall Street record is not trivial. The Obama foreclosure plan hurt families. Refusing to punish financial crime has encouraged more of it. Workers are still digging out from the economic wreckage caused by too-big-to-fail banks in 2008, and those banks are bigger today than they were during the meltdown. Wealth accrues to a tiny population of bank executives and shareholders instead of flowing to households. Society is more unequal, and the prospects for progress depend on a financial sector fraught with unnecessary systemic risk.

So he's a coward and a sellout. He let the Republicans obstruct him, and when he left office, he was on the take.

 

[barbos]

Well, surprise, surprise, "bankers" are actually ordinary people. Secondly, it's not about "wanting to give talks to bankers" as it is about a livelihood. Paid speeches is a great way to make money. You get paid for your thoughts. It's identical to writing a book.

Thoughts? what thoughts? It's a payback. Obama did not send them to prison and they now pay him for that.
And all presidential candidates see that and know what they should and should not do in order to have very comfortable life after they leave the office.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Well, surprise, surprise, "bankers" are actually ordinary people. Secondly, it's not about "wanting to give talks to bankers" as it is about a livelihood. Paid speeches is a great way to make money. You get paid for your thoughts. It's identical to writing a book.

Thoughts? what thoughts? It's a payback. Obama did not send them to prison and they now pay him for that.
And all presidential candidates see that and know what they should and should not do in order to have very comfortable life after they leave the office.

What crime was he suppose to send them to jail for? Obama was a great president. By far the greatest President of my generation. He brought civility and patient leadership to the office. You can't satisfy everyone. But he inspired many non-white people into believing that they have a spot at the table. His 8 years went to fast...

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

"But the disconnect between this progressive vision and his Wall Street record is not trivial."

President Obama didn't have a grand "progressive vision". After 8 years of W, Obama was the most progressive guy we could get... and he wasn't very progressive. On the other hand, Obama walked into the Great Recession of '08. He didn't cause it, and honestly, there was no fixing anything. Dodd-Franks was as aggressive as would be possible, with the right-wing filibustering any legislation. ACA was a miracle (via creative legislating).

Yes, the money governs. This is why the whole Bernie Sanders thing is ridiculous, because ultimately, those with control of the money get first, second, and third say on laws and regulations.

Sending people to prison? How so? On what charges, specifically, after how long in court?

 

[southernhybrid]

Well, surprise, surprise, "bankers" are actually ordinary people. Secondly, it's not about "wanting to give talks to bankers" as it is about a livelihood. Paid speeches is a great way to make money. You get paid for your thoughts. It's identical to writing a book.

Thoughts? what thoughts? It's a payback. Obama did not send them to prison and they now pay him for that.
And all presidential candidates see that and know what they should and should not do in order to have very comfortable life after they leave the office.

What crime was he suppose to send them to jail for? Obama was a great president. By far the greatest President of my generation. He brought civility and patient leadership to the office. You can't satisfy everyone. But he inspired many non-white people into believing that they have a spot at the table. His 8 years went to fast...

I agree with this. And comparing Trump's personality to Obamas is sick.

Obama was a very inspiring man who did have a large following when he ran for president, but unlike Trump's cult like followers, Obama's supporters frequently criticized him for all kinds of things. I'm still waiting for Trump supporters to do some thoughtful criticism of Trump. Some will say they don't like his behavior, but how many realize how corrupt and unfit the man really is? Crickets.

I'm disgusted with those who are expecting some type of purity from any politician. None of them are perfect. None of them will ever be able to please everyone or have their goals come to pass. If one of the more leftist candidates somehow became president, the exact same thing will happen. He or she will be obstructed by both Republicans and more moderate Democrats, just like Obama was, and little will be achieved. Sooner or later, their followers will accuse him/her of being inept, too moderate etc.

Will people ever realize that in a country of almost 350 million, there are always very diverse views and ideologies and compromise is always vitally important to achieve anything? That goes for people on both the right and the left.

We have the most corrupt, incompetent president, most likely in the history of the country, and some of you want to criticize the last president? Seriously?

Obama was a dignified president who was obstructed by both the Republicans and the more moderate members of his own party. It's amazing that he accomplished anything when you consider what he was up against.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

So he's a coward and a sellout.

If you REALLY give a shit about what happened and why, start here and then go here and finally, here and note:

In response to the historic foreclosure crisis, President Obama put in place foreclosure prevention initiatives that helped millions of struggling homeowners stay in their homes and strengthen the ongoing housing market recovery. These actions include:

• Expanded principal reduction through the national mortgage settlement and tripled principal reduction incentives in HAMP. This has collectively helped more than 300,000 families and contributed to 1.7 million coming above water on their mortgages in 2012.
• Expanded refinancing through Home Affordable Refinance Program (HARP 2.0). This has dramatically increased the number of families receiving HARP refinancing from 400,000 in 2011 to 1.1 million in 2012 – a 164.5% increase.
• Helped 6.1 million households modify their mortgages through Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP), Federal Housing Administration (FHA), and other private sector modifications based on the HAMP template.

That was back in 2013. To date these programs have helped upwards of ten million people save their homes, which is on par with the number of families impacted by the crash.

He let the Republicans obstruct him

“Let” them? Exactly what choice did he have? Don’t say “executive orders,” because he used those constantly and got nothing but shit for it.

and when he left office, he was on the take.

HOW? WHY DON’T ANY OF YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT BEING PAID FOR SPEAKING MEANS?

It’s a mundane, common practice that thousands of people do every single year. It’s exactly what stand up comedy is ffs.

So fucking bizarre.

 

[barbos]

Well, surprise, surprise, "bankers" are actually ordinary people. Secondly, it's not about "wanting to give talks to bankers" as it is about a livelihood. Paid speeches is a great way to make money. You get paid for your thoughts. It's identical to writing a book.

Thoughts? what thoughts? It's a payback. Obama did not send them to prison and they now pay him for that.
And all presidential candidates see that and know what they should and should not do in order to have very comfortable life after they leave the office.

What crime was he suppose to send them to jail for?

Don't know, there was no investigation.

 

[ZiprHead]

What crime was he suppose to send them to jail for?

Don't know, there was no investigation.

 Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission

The report of the commission.

 

[barbos]

What crime was he suppose to send them to jail for?

Don't know, there was no investigation.

 Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission

The report of the commission.

There was more investigation into Butina than into Banksters
.

 

[ZiprHead]

 Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission

The report of the commission.

There was more investigation into Butina than into Banksters
.

Butina was a Russian spy and shit-stirrer.

 

[barbos]

 Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission

The report of the commission.

There was more investigation into Butina than into Banksters
.

Butina was a Russian spy and shit-stirrer.

That's not what she was sentenced for.

 

[Harry Bosch]

What crime was he suppose to send them to jail for?

Don't know, there was no investigation.

 Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission

The report of the commission.

I read a few pages, but I'm not going to read the whole report. What crimes were ignored? Bankers that committed fraud were prosecuted. I personally know a banker who served a year for bank fraud during the 1998 crash. Here's the deal, there's no law against sub prime home loans. Sub-prime loans are simply loans that done fit the basic lending criteria (Debt to income, personal credit score, down payment, and etc.) Some people have credit scores that are low due to past problems that have been corrected. Some people don't have the recognized income to make the monthly payment. But they can make the payments for alternate means (side work jobs, sale of assets, non-marriage partner helping with the payments, rental income, fixing the property and then selling, and etc.) As long as sub-prime loans are priced accordingly (higher rate due to higher risk), categorized correctly, and the borrower understands the consequences, all is good. Sub-prime loans have allowed a lot of people to buy a home and create wealth despite having non-traditional income or credit challenges.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

As far as personality goes, Trump and Obama are pretty much polar opposites. Obama was cool as a cucumber, "No Drama Obama". Trump lives on drama.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

https://www.webmd.com/alzheimers/guide/picks-disease#2

...
Pick's disease is a kind of dementia similar to Alzheimer's but far less common. It affects parts of the brain that control emotions, behavior, personality, and language. It's also a type of disorder known as frontotemporal dementia (FTD) or frontotemporal lobar degeneration (FTLD).
...

[h=2]Symptoms[/h] Pick bodies typically form in the frontal and temporal lobes of the brain. These sections control your behavior, personality, and speech. Symptoms usually show up in those areas.

You may:

• Act aggressively toward others
• Be uninterested in everyday activities
• Be very aware of everything you do all the time
• Feel irritable or agitated
• Have drastic and quick mood swings
• Have trouble feeling warmth, sympathy, or concern for others
• Have trouble with unplanned activities
• Make rash decisions
• Repeat actions over and over
• Say and do inappropriate things

Some people become hungry all the time, and some develop an unhealthy "sweet tooth" and eat much more sugar than they should.
Problems with language usually happen early in the disease. Pick bodies in the speech section of your brain can cause problems with:

• Recalling names of common objects
• Copying simple shapes with pencil and paper
• Understanding written words
• Speaking because of halted or stilted speech

....

 

[lpetrich]

The mainstream theory of personality is the  Big Five personality traits. It's like the MBTI but much more researched and much better supported. In that theory, human personality has five main dimensions:

• Openness to experience (inventive/curious vs. consistent/cautious)
• Conscientiousness (efficient/organized vs. easy-going/careless)
• Extraversion (outgoing/energetic vs. solitary/reserved)
• Agreeableness (friendly/compassionate vs. challenging/detached)
• Neuroticism (sensitive/nervous vs. secure/confident)

Extraversion or extroversion is as in MBTI; the others are partially correlated with the other MBTI dimensions except for Neuroticism.

There is a supertrait theory:

• Plasticity (dopamine): extroversion, openness(?)
• Stability (serotonin): conscientiousness, agreeableness, inverse neuroticism (emotional stability)

I've seen various identifications of subtraits, but I haven't found any consensus on them.

Dr. Steven Rubenzer and Dr. Thomas Faschingbauer have done a psychological study of most of the presidents, rating them by Big Five scores. Since most of them are not available for psychological testing, they consulted 120 experts on the presidents for subjective ratings. They did find some interesting trends, however.

Presidents are usually high in conscientiousness: industriousness and orderliness. That is not surprising, since this trait is correlated with academic and career success. One can't get very far at anything that requires a lot of work without being willing to do that work.

Only a few have been low in c'ness, and R&F identify Warren Harding, JFK, Bill Clinton, and Ronald Reagan. R&F rate JFK and BC low because of their love affairs, something I consider weak. But I agree with them about Ronald Reagan. He joked about getting up at the crack of noon, and he liked his briefing papers short.

What Makes President Barack Obama Successful - claims that BO is high in c'ness, much higher than George Bush II or Donald Trump.

What Trump and Clinton's personality traits tell us about how they might govern as president. | USAPP - Trump is low in c'ness, and Hillary Clinton high in c'ness.

Looking at other politicians, Nancy Pelosi is high in c'ness (The stunning life and career of Nancy Pelosi, speaker of the House - Business Insider - "Her work ethic is legendary. She barely sleeps, doesn't drink coffee — she prefers hot water with lemon — does The New York Times crossword daily, and often eats New York Super Fudge Chunk ice cream for breakfast."), Mitch McConnell likely is (he seems to be a patient strategist, and he wrote an autobiography called "The Long Game"), and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is high in it also.

Trump, however, is much like Reagan. He likes his briefing papers short, and he can be manipulated by his aides removing documents from his desk. He spends much of his day in "Executive Time", and much of that is watching Fox & Friends and sounding off on Twitter. Some of his aides try to manipulate him by trying to show up on F&F.

In his tweets (Twitter messages), he comes off as angry and belligerent.

So Trump is an anomaly in having low conscientiousness, and Obama is much more typical in having high c'ness.