Donald Trump’s behavior is so far outside the norm that many people (including mental health professionals) have suggested that he is mentally ill. The most common suggestions I’ve seen are that he suffers from narcissistic personality disorder (NPD), antisocial personality disorder (ASPD, also known as sociopathy), or a combination of the two (known as malignant narcissism). There is also widespread concern about cognitive decline.
I looked up the diagnostic criteria for NPD and ASPD, and it’s shocking how many of the boxes Trump ticks. Here are the criteria for NPD according to the American Psychiatric Association’s diagnostic manual, the DSM-5-TR:
Narcissistic Personality Disorder (301.81 [F60.81])
Diagnostic Criteria
A pervasive pattern of grandiosity (in fantasy or behavior), need for admiration, and lack of empathy, beginning by early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts, as indicated by five (or more) of the following:
- Has a grandiose sense of self-importance (e.g., exaggerates achievements and talents, expects to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements).
- Is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love.
- Believes that he or she is “special” and unique and can only be understood by, or should associate with, other special or high-status people (or institutions).
- Requires excessive admiration.
- Has a sense of entitlement (i.e., unreasonable expectations of especially favorable treatment or automatic compliance with his or her expectations).
- Is interpersonally exploitative (i.e., takes advantage of others to achieve his or her own ends).
- Lacks empathy: is unwilling to recognize or identify with the feelings and needs of others.
- Is often envious of others or believes that others are envious of him or her.
- Shows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes.
I would argue that Trump meets all 9 of those criteria. Only 5 are required for an NPD diagnosis.
Here are the criteria for ASPD:
Antisocial Personality Disorder (301.7 [F60.2])
Diagnostic Criteria
A. A pervasive pattern of disregard for and violation of the rights of others, occurring since age 15 years, as indicated by three (or more) of the following:
- Failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors, as indicated by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for arrest.
- Deceitfulness, as indicated by repeated lying, use of aliases, or conning others for personal profit or pleasure.
- Impulsivity or failure to plan ahead.
- Irritability and aggressiveness, as indicated by repeated physical fights or assaults.
- Reckless disregard for safety of self or others.
- Consistent irresponsibility, as indicated by repeated failure to sustain consistent work behavior or honor financial obligations.
- Lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another.
B. The individual is at least age 18 years.
C. There is evidence of Conduct Disorder with onset before age 15 years.
D. The occurrence of antisocial behavior is not exclusively during the course of Schizophrenia or a manic episode.
I’d say that Trump meets all of the numbered criteria except #4. Only 3 are needed for an ASPD diagnosis. He’s certainly irritable and aggressive, but I haven’t heard reports of any physical altercations. He meets criteria B and D, but I don’t know enough about his early life to comment on criterion C, which is Conduct Disorder.
Anyway, the point is not whether Trump would qualify for a formal diagnosis. Diagnosis or no, any person who meets that many criteria for both NPD and ASPD is manifestly unfit for office.
Secondary to what? Besides, he has tripled down on it with less and less support. Sufficiently checks some boxes on the sociopath chart. Similar to yourself, but worse.
Erik,
I am no more a Trump cultist than you are.
But you are an irrational liberal lunatic who only cares about your false ideology. If someone trusts your posts they are a moron.
Ok we can each make personal attacks but is this really productive?
Secondary to continually accusing Trump of lying as a dishonest tactic.
The unproductive part is that you do not know what facts are. You idiotically thought that Trump had ended the wars he claimed. You did not know that some of those wars did not exist, and he had nothing to do with almost any of them. Of all six-seven-ten wars, just one paper has been signed.
And sadly, after all this has been explained to you, even though you should have looked it up before you mouthed off on this topic, you still continue on your path of Trump-fed lies. Very unproductive.
I see. Meaning that Trump’s lie was not secondary to anything at all. It was perfectly correct to point it out for what it was – a lie.
Here’s a survival tip when discussing Trump: Most of what Trump says can be reasonably expected to be a lie. Always verify everything.
Erik,
Here is a survival tip for those following your and Keiths posts. Almost every claim you guys make is poorly supported.
I admitted my error. It’s time for you guys to get real.
Which error did you admit? Because, you see, you have made so many errors (more accurately – spewed so many propaganda lies) that by any rational assessment you are still a Trump cultist. And you keep spewing more propaganda lies as we speak. One of the very recent obvious ones:
It is hard to acknowledge your admission of error when at the same time you keep adding more propaganda lies. Get a grip of facts, dude.
Erik,
The claim that Trump stopped 7 wars.
What errors have you admitted to?
You can start with your many unsupported bald assertions.
https://grok.com/share/bGVnYWN5LWNvcHk%3D_99661dae-17fb-4ed1-8d96-4672a2fbc52d
Which ones? I do not do Grok-debates, because you misread Grok. You are basically illiterate.
Well, I clicked on it and I see where you misread it. Hint: When you look at statistics, stop to think and ask yourself – *What* is being counted by this number? It is spelled out there what is being counted.
The problem with you is actually much deeper, definitional. Namely, you do not know the definition of “illegal immigrant”. You are using Trump’s meaning, but Trump is wrong. For Trump, “immigrant” equals “illegal” equals “undocumented” but this is false. That Trump holds to such an equation was clear from his presidential debate with Kamala Harris when he exclaimed “They are eating the cats! They are eating the dogs!” when referring to *legal and documented* immigrants. And, of course, nobody was eating cats or dogs. And that he holds to the false equation is also clear from his current deportation policies: Most of the deported are *not* illegal immigrants, most do not have any criminal record, and some are even US citizens.
Another deep problem is your profoundly fallacious thinking. Trump’s flaws are independent of Biden’s. When the topic is Trump, stay on topic. Biden’s flaws do not negate Trump’s flaws.
And, what I consider most serious, is your absolute lack of moral compass. Anybody who expresses support for Trump’s deportation policies is a flat-out fascist and there is no excuse for it. And anybody who compares Biden (or Kamala Harris) and Trump and finds Trump more favourable is brainwashed by cultist propaganda. As a politician (and a human being in general), Trump is objectively far worse and it’s not even close.
keiths:
Allan:
It’s weird. He knows we’re right. If he thought a claim of ours was wrong, he’d jump on it, lay out the facts, and pick apart our arguments. It would be a triumph, and he would bask in the glow of having successfully defended His Orange Majesty. Instead, he either
1) silently runs away;
2) tries to attack us or our sources as biased, without addressing the facts or showing in any way that what we are saying is wrong; or, and this is a new one:
3) makes a false “Burden Shift Fallacy!” accusation.
Anything but actually defend the Dear Leader. Trump would be so disappointed in you, Bill.
colewd:
That’s an own goal. Your burden shift logic has backfired on you, and you’ve accidentally placed the burden on yourself. Remember, you made the claim that Trump ended those wars, echoing him. I’m challenging your claim. By your “burden shift” logic, you are the one who is obligated to prove the claim, and I’m not obligated to prove you wrong. OK, then: show us that he ended seven wars, and show us that he didn’t contradict himself regarding the ceasefires, and you will have proven that he’s not lying. Good luck.
But of course, your burden shift reasoning is faulty. You don’t understand the burden shift fallacy, just as you didn’t (and probably still don’t) understand the ad hominem fallacy. Don’t you ever look these things up before you use them?
I’ll explain the actual burden shift fallacy to you later.
colewd:
And thousands more.
I posted two links, one showing that Trump didn’t end seven wars, contrary to his claim, and another showing that Trump contradicted himself on the ceasefires. Those are facts.
And this is your defense? That maybe Trump isn’t dishonest, he’s just a confused man who actually believes the ridiculous things he’s been saying? An addled 79-year-old with delusions of grandeur who thinks he ended wars that he didn’t end, including some imaginary ones, and completely forgot about the ceasefires that he was crowing about in ALL CAPS at the time? Your argument is that Trump isn’t dishonest, he’s just utterly delusional and cognitively impaired? Because those are your only two choices: dishonest, or mentally incapacitated. Which is it?
colewd:
You need to pay more attention and stick your head out of the right wing bubble from time to time. Congress considered a bipartisan bill in 2024 that would have tightened border security and increased border funding by $20 billion. Biden and Harris supported it.
Want to guess who killed the bill? Republicans.
Want to guess who told them to kill it? Trump.
Want to guess why Trump told them to kill the bill? Because he was afraid it would help the Democrats politically:
And:
Trump didn’t give a rat’s ass about the people. His question was, as it always is, “What’s in it for me?” “Will it help me get elected?” He didn’t want border security to be tightened unless he got the credit for it and benefitted politically.
This isn’t a surprise. In the other thread, I pointed out that Trump’s shutdown of USAID will cost 14 million lives over the next five years. Trump doesn’t care; he wouldn’t have gotten credit for saving those lives since the aid programs were already in place. Lives don’t matter unless there’s something in it for Trump. As I said:
What is your explanation?
There’s a whole word of facts and rationality out here, Bill. Come join us.
colewd:
Stop trying to change the subject. We’re discussing Trump, and specifically, at the moment, Trump’s lies. He lied, and nothing you say about Harris, Biden, Obama, or Millard Fillmore can change that. They could all be pathological liars and serial killers, and it would still be true that Trump lied. Why? Because his statements don’t correspond to reality. That’s it. That’s the criterion. Deal with it.
I’ve already shown that he didn’t end the wars the claims to have ended. That is definitive proof, regardless of whom he did or didn’t talk to. And since some of those wars never existed, we know that he couldn’t have ended them.
Ask yourself who is making sense in the following hypothetical argument. Doug is on the phone with his neighbor Jeff:
Doug:
Jeff:
Doug:
Jeff:
Doug:
Jeff:
You can’t paint a nonexistent fence, and Trump didn’t end any nonexistent wars.
Allan:
colewd:
Fixed that for you. And it’s the original claim, the one that you made.
Are you willing to admit that it’s a lie? Or are you going to claim that Trump is deluded enough to believe what he is saying, when even you have acknowledged that it’s false?
This “Trump is actually honest, because he isn’t intentionally lying” defense is laughable for a number of reasons. It paints him as mentally incompetent, which I assume is not what you are trying to achieve. It’s also ridiculous, because if you look at the false statements he makes, they are always to his advantage. Do you really think he’s trying to be honest, but that the dozens of false statements he makes, day after day, are just coincidentally favorable to him? Give me a break.
He’s lying about the wars because he’s lusting after the Nobel Peace Prize. It’s obvious, and he himself has made it obvious how badly he wants it.
keiths,
Witkoff has covered himself in brown stuff in support of this [Nobel] bid. It is quite unseemly.
keiths,
2024~2.2 million~1.5 million released + ~360,000 got-aways + ~200,000 visa overstays + ~150,000 CHNV/parole. Encounters: ~2.1 million (FY), with sharp drop mid-year (e.g., 58,000 in August).2025
2025-(Jan–Aug)~0.3–0.5 million~0.2–0.3 million released + <100,000 got-aways + ~100,000 visa overstays. Encounters very low (e.g., 4,600 in July), likely due to executive actions restricting asylum and increased enforcement. Full year projection: <1 million if trends hold.
The sharp drop in illegal border crossing is simply leadership that cares about the safety of citizens. Border enforcement is under the executive branch. Biden/Harris failed here and Trump had to clean it up. A top responsibility to the President is to keep Americans safe. The democrats continue to fail here.
From Grok
For a number of years, the press used the “colewd method” of assessing Trump’s claims. They kept writing that his statements were “contrary to common understanding” or “in dispute” or “misinterpreted.” They really really didn’t want to say Trump was lying. After all, nobody can read minds. Yes, nearly everything he said was contrary to fact, but that doesn’t prove he knew this. And if he says false things believing they are true, then is he lying? Even after he’s corrected multiple times and still says them, does that matter?
There is a technical difference between a liar and a bullshitter. The liar says things he knows to be untrue for the purpose of deceiving his audience. The bullshitter says things that fit his own internal narrative of how the world should be, without regard to whether they describe the real world. In severe cases this is regarded as insanity.
In Trump’s case, what he says and what he does (often very different) have a common goal in mind – to remake reality to fit his preferences. Basically, Trump is frozen in a permanent “good old days” when white men had all the power and money, minorities knew their place and belonged in jail if they didn’t, government regulation was what constrained progress, pollution didn’t exist, and a man’s character was measured in dollars. This hazy vision of an imaginary past appeals to a LOT of people, whose lifelong failure to get ahead is due to exactly the kinds of people Trump blames, holding them back and taking their jobs and replacing hard working Christian men with negroes, Jews, and other subhumans. And even women! The emotional appeal of this is so powerful that its victims cannot notice Trump’s lies even when their faces are rubbed in them in detail over and over.
Here’s a wonderful illustration. Nearly everyone in the US is either an immigrant or descended from immigrants. But somehow, this doesn’t mean everyone is a criminal or a threat to safety. In fact, extremely few of us are. For many decades, immigration was encouraged because the US was the land of opportunity, the country needed workers. Even today, immigrants have fewer arrests per capita than longtime citizens. “Safety” was never even an afterthought.
So what makes “safety from immigrants” such a critical issue? What would lead colewd to take it for granted that closing the border increases “safety” when it demonstrably does not and never has? Could it be that Trump (and Fox “News”) have been drumming this into his head for years, to the point where he considers his “safety” point proved simply by citing immigration numbers, because he thinks immigration=crime?
I wonder if there is any possible way for it to penetrate into colewd’s brain that we WANT immigrants, we need them, we value them, we aren’t getting enough of them? I wonder if he even notices that the people ICE is rounding up aren’t criminals, most have no criminal record, most have long work histories, stable families? What they are, of course, is brown and black. Now white people, that’s different. Trump invites them in. But we all know, ever since Nixon’s “law and order” dog whistle, that brown=criminal. Trump makes this clear every day (and is it sheer random chance that Trump is trying to fire the only black woman on the Fed?)
Different from colewd, Trump has no attachment to any of his own policies (insofar as they are policies). He may have shown some brutal strength in handling “illegals”, such as for example foreign students, but then after a phone call with Xi (or whomever) he serves a program for fresh 600,000 incoming Chinese students as a great win for America https://apnews.com/article/chinese-student-visas-trump-maga-dce4e064ea61a4df090865668ca48cde
Will colewd say that Trump, now opening the floodgates for an unprecedented number of Chinese students, is worse than Biden on this point? Of course not. Whatever Trump does, break the law, lie, double down, backtrack, or pivot, must be always good.
Thanks for clarifying. I was slightly worried if I overshot with my accusation of fascism. It’s settled now. Cool.
Allan:
That story didn’t last long, courtesy of Fox News:
Trump Tells Fake ‘Greatest President Of My Lifetime’ Story Hours After Fox News Busted Him — With Video
What do you think, Bill? Is he dishonest or just addled?
My answer is “both”, of course. He’s always been dishonest, but now he is becoming increasingly addled.
Flint,
Hi Flint
The US brings in about 1 million legal immigrants per year. This is a process where the background of those entering our country is understood.
Do you believe we should have open boarders where anyone can cross? The open boarder policy was unique to Biden/ Harris.
Now that’s a claim. Prove it that there was such a policy.
colewd:
You’re trying to evade my point, as usual. I showed you that Trump pressured Congress to kill a bipartisan bill that would have tightened border security. A bill that was backed by both Biden and Harris:
Instead of running away, face this question: If Trump wants to reduce illegal immigration because he cares so much about the people and wants to protect them, as you claim, then why did he kill a bill that would have reduced illegal immigration? Why didn’t the people’s safety matter then, before the election?
It’s obvious. If he truly cared about the people, he would have supported the bill. He killed it instead, and he told the world why: it was for his political benefit. He’s a hypocrite. And you are a sucker who fell for his shtick.
He doesn’t care about Americans, and he doesn’t care about the 14 million people who will die over the next five years due to his aid cuts. He cares about Trump. Full stop.
Testing database connection.
It works. Anyone else have trouble today?
petrushka,
Yes, I’ve been seeing it too. I’ve also seen it in the past. I think it may correlate to traffic volume.
keiths,
The data shows you the bill was not necessary to close the border. The border had been under control 10 years before Biden Harris. It got back under control during the first 6 months of the Trump administration.
https://grok.com/share/bGVnYWN5LWNvcHk%3D_37f9a418-9697-405f-b34a-22f9b2fe8801
How do you explain this level of extreme incompetence that the democrats put in the White House? How can we trust this party given what is happening in democratic controlled cities and poorly run states like New York and California with the highest state taxes in the nation?
https://grok.com/share/bGVnYWN5LWNvcHk%3D_5d01c04c-c496-45dd-84c8-b7ac510ce07a
When I entered the Army, I was given every vaccination available, including plague. No options, no questions.
I subscribe to Paul Offit’s blog, and I asked why incoming migrants were not vaccinated.
He did not personally respond, but someone asserted that most of the sending countries had better vaccination policies than the US.
I rather doubt this, but have no data. It seemed to me that considering the covid crisis, that immigration during the pandemic was rather rushed and disorganized, from a public health standpoint.
colewd,
That bill would have reduced illegal immigration. Trump stepped in to prevent it from passing. He told you why he killed it: it was for his political benefit. He wanted illegal immigration to continue undiminished so that he could exploit it as a campaign issue. He’s telling you that in his own words, and you are so deep in the cult that you can’t acknowledge it. It obviously distresses you, but reality is what it is. Your distress can’t change it.
Your Dear Leader is a creep who doesn’t care about the people. He cares about himself.
I’m confused by the phrase, “he wanted illegal immigration to continue.”
petrushka,
Is it still confusing when examined in context?
keiths,
Keiths
Do you really believe your argument is plausible given the data. Trump knew as an executive and prior President he could close the border without additional spending. It was a policy issue not a spending issue.
Biden/Harris did not need the money to close the border.
The correct spelling is “border”. Note that “boarder” means something else.
The “open border policy” was a lie told by Donald Trump, and believed by cultists such as colewd.
Yes. I’m confused by the phrase illegal immigration.
I confess I haven’t really studied the laws, so there must be some nuance that eludes me.
On its face, it sounds like he wanted to make a campaign issue out of failure to enforce existing laws.
Assuming the most cynical interpretation. Is there anything even remotely uncommon about opposing a bill and making political hay? Can you cite a year in history when this didn’t happen?
What does it mean for the border to be under control? What does it mean for the border to be out of control?
The statistics that we are talking about are *border encounters*. Do you know what this means? It means an illegal border crossing attempt was detected. That there are such detections means that the border is not open. And when there are more such detections, it means borderguards are diligently at work. When there are less such detections, it does not necessarily mean that there are less illegal border crossings, but it definitely means that less crossings are detected.
I do not expect you to comprehend this. The open border policy under Biden is a Trumpite propaganda lie. The borders were never open at any point. There never was an invasion of foreigners that required emergency powers.
Biden’s Border Act was opposed by Trump (from whom Mike Johnson took orders) because it addressed the issue that Trump was campaigning on. Trump wanted the issue to remain the issue so he could continue campaigning on it. This is the political game that petrushka cannot wrap his head around because he is too thick and colewd cannot acknowledge because he is a brainwashed partisan hypocrite cultist. Well, both of them are both.
petrushka:
No. If that had been his intent, he could have easily done that while also supporting the bill. He could have said something like “Biden and Harris let the border get out of control, and only now are they finally doing something about it. It’s about time. This is long overdue, and I fully support this bill.”
Instead, he blocked the bill, because it sells better to say “Biden and Harris are doing nothing about the border” than to say “Biden and Harris are finally getting around to addressing the border.” And God forbid the bill actually pass and reduce illegal immigration while Biden and Harris were still in office.
Trump told us explicitly why he blocked the bill. It was for his own political gain.
He did it for himself, not for the people. There’s nothing surprising about this. He’s spent his entire life screwing people for his personal benefit. The hundreds of thousands of people who have already died due to Trump’s aid cuts? They don’t matter. Their deaths don’t affect Trump, and he doesn’t gain anything by saving them.
Remember, this is the guy whose first concern after sending food aid to Gaza was himself, not the Gazans:
Trump is a perfect fit for #5 (sense of entitlement) and #7 (lack of empathy) in the list of traits for narcissistic personality order.
colewd:
Yes, and not only is it plausible, it’s correct. Trump stated his motives clearly and publicly:
And:
It’s staring you in the face, Bill. Trump blocked it for his personal benefit. I know that’s distressing to you as a cult member, but it’s the truth.
colewd,
Here’s my explanation of what the burden shift fallacy actually is, since you’ve been having trouble with it. The fallacy occurs when someone makes a debatable or even ridiculous claim and then instead of defending it, expects their interlocutor to prove them wrong.
Example:
Lisa is right, and David is commiting the burden shift fallacy.
Now consider the following exchange:
Steve obviously doesn’t have the burden of proof, even though it was his claim. Do you see the difference?
Also, you did something weird yesterday. I presented you with evidence showing that Trump hasn’t ended six wars, contrary to his grandiose claim. I challenged you to refute me, and you objected, claiming that I was shifting the burden of proof. But think about it. If you were correct, it would never be possible to have a back-and-forth discussion. In response to any claim, no matter how well supported it was, you could just say “You’re wrong, and I don’t have to say why. The burden of proof isn’t on me,” and bring the conversation to a halt. That’s absurd, and it isn’t how intelligent discussion works.
petrushka,
Well, this is an interesting side-issue. MAGAs are overrepresented in antivaxxers, and Trump’s HHS pick (read: sop for standing aside) RFK is a card-carrying antivaxxer. He’s down on Gardasil (which has virtually eliminated cervical cancer), wishes to abandon mRNA technology, is almost certain to conclude that vaccines cause autism (there is NO scientific evidence for this).
So if it wasn’t true that other countries had better vaccine programs, it damn well soon will be.
This is two distinct questions, and no single answer makes sense. First, let’s dispose of this “open border policy unique to Biden/Harrs”. The border was never open. I see someone else attempted to explain the difference between immigrants and encounters. I’m not convinced this distinction is meaningful except as a way to overcount people who never crossed the border under the “enemy” administration, and undercount them under Trump. Trump lies a lot.
But the question of open borders is more complicated. Presumably it’s possible to alter how porous the borders are, but this is tied in with immigration quotas, logistical issues surrounding paths to citizenship (like how many immigration courts, agents, caseworkers etc. is best), and political policies which seem rooted in implicit racism. My belief is that, given the perceived desirability of coming to the US, it would be best to permit as many immigrants as can be handled, and really beefing up the handling process. One of the main reasons there are so many illegal immigrants in the US is because of absurd restrictions on legal immigration.
And this leads to the question of why immigrants are so bad and why they should be discouraged. On one side, we have farmers letting crops rot in the fields because long-time farm workers are suddenly prohibited or are scared off by ICE chasing then down in the fields, a truly perverse Trump policy. And on the other hand, we have Trump claiming that all illegal immigrants (the only kind he talks about) are all murderers and rapists. And eating peoples’ pets. And “poisoning the blood” of our wonderful white, Christian nation. Even you have swallowed the lie that immigrants make us unsafe.
I’m not in favor of the Trump-fantasy “open borders” where anyone can just walk or drive in any time. But I am in favor of encouraging immigration, and making it as easy as possible to immigrate and become a citizen. I’m kind of depressed that Trump’s symbol of the land of the free, is a 2000 mile ugly barrier announcing to the world that brown people are not welcome. Why are they not welcome, except that Trump (and Stephen Miller) are bigots, willing to shoot ourselves in the foot? Insane immigration restrictions don’t keep illegals out, they only keep them illegal. And once again, “safety” is irrelevant to actual safety, it’s only a code word for a minority.
Michael Wolff is reporting that during the Trump-Putin summit, Trump was under the impression that the US and USSR were on the same side during the Cold War:
Trump’s Jaw-Dropping Ignorance Exposed During Putin Meet: Author
Wolff said his sources are “twice removed” from the principals (Rubio and Witkoff), so we have to take this with a grain of salt. However, whether it’s true or false, here’s what’s scary: this story is totally plausible. With any other president, we’d say “No way, he isn’t that dumb. That’s ridiculous.” It would be unthinkable, but with Trump, it’s actually believable. It wouldn’t be a surprise. It fits with what we know about him and his lack of intelligence, education, and curiosity.
After all, this is the guy who thought that the Declaration of Independence was “a declaration of unity, and love, and respect” and that it had something to do with the Civil War. Anyone that ignorant of American history might very well believe that the Soviets were our buddies during the Cold War.
colewd clearly thought that encounters are people: from 8 million encounters he straightforwardly derived 8 million illegal immigrants. But no, encounters are encounters.
When you have e.g. such-and-such million border crossings with tourist visas, you do not have the same million of tourists in your country, because
– some tourists visit several times
– tourists go back from where they came from
When the public transit ridership is counted, it does not mean that there are the same number of people in the city. It’s usually the same people commuting at least twice a day.
When an illegal border crossing is detected, it does not mean that the person was allowed in (the crossing was illegal, duh). It means that illegal border crossings are being watched and the border is being guarded, i.e. borders are not open.
All these simple basics are over the heads of brainwashed Q/MAGA cultist morons, including colewd, who may self-identify as an independent as much as he wants, but he is what he is.
Edit: Namely, he is a fascist because he thinks that cracking down on (illegal) immigrants means safety for the citizens. The fact is that illegal immigrants normally want to lay low, hence their crime rate is far below the crime rate of citizens. But more obviously, Trump is not cracking down on illegal immigrants. He is cracking down on *all* immigrants with a strong selective bias toward legal and documented immigrants, such as foreign students, foreigners married to citizens, and employed/working foreigners, because those are easier to find. In other words, Trump’s deportations are a circus for MAGAtards. It’s fascism.
Flint,
Hi Flint
I agree it is a reasonable debate how much immigration the US can economically handle per year. The legal immigration rate has been steady with explained variation over the last 20 years, What is odd is the rate is down in 2021 due to covid yet the illegal immigration spiked under the Biden/Harris administration.
https://grok.com/share/bGVnYWN5LWNvcHk%3D_8fde0626-30be-4afe-8efb-8fa61af08bb0
petrushka,
It’s like accusing an NFL running back of evading a tackle just to score a touchdown.
The Biden/Harris admin could have shut the border down without a bill. The bill itself was a political ploy as would be expected by someone trying to get elected and leaving the border open to collect additional future democratic voters.
He waits until an election year. Also the point of emergency action was 5000 crossings a day which essentially enforced the open border policy.
Flint:
All while the administration claims to be going after “the worst of the worst”. What a crock. Here are some statistics from the Cato Institute:
As of June 14, ICE had detained 204,297 people in FY 2025. Here is the breakdown by convictions:
65% without any convictions, and only 7% convicted of violent crimes. That means 93% of the people detained are non-violent. Do they sound like “the worst of the worst” to you, Bill? Is it important for public safety that ICE detained 180,000 non-violent people? Are you glad that ICE is raiding farm fields and Home Depots for your protection, detaining all those horrible, violent people who are working, paying taxes, and not collecting federal benefits like Social Security and Medicare?
Trump lied to you yet again, and you bought it. Also, let me stress that those percentages are for people detained by ICE. They aren’t reflective of the general population of illegal immigrants.
From an AP article:
ICE itself is saying that 84% of detainees pose no threat. Do you think people who pose no threat are “the worst of the worst”? It’s ludicrous.
From an article in the Washington Examiner about the ghoulish Stephen Miller:
Straight from the Trump administration playbook: lie to the public and pursue something different and creepy in private.
Here in the UK, Trump is largely a figure of derision. Memorably, on his last State visit, someone made a giant inflatable Trump baby. Before he was elected the first time, a satirical TV show paid someone to follow him round Scotland parping on a tuba. Of course, we are laughing on the other side of our faces now (as the saying goes), and his unpleasant politics are reflected over here in the rise of a rebranded near-fascist party promising to deport all the brown people.
One thing’s for sure: he’s the most divisive figure of my lifetime. I can see no redeeming features, me and my TDS. Others act like it’s the Second Coming. Not much middle ground.
Yeah, this is a problem. According to the latest Gallup poll, 93% of republicans thought Trump is doing a great job, and only 1% (yep, one percent) of democrats thought so. As far as I can tell, about 60% of voters are appalled by Trump becoming dictator, but 40% encourage and support this. As colewd shows us, the cultists cannot see Trump doing anything wrong, no matter what it is and no matter that it flips from day to day. And that 40% of voters, organized and represented by over half of Congress, are working diligently to rig future elections – which they see as a Good Thing!
As the liberal justices have pointed out, the Trump administration never consults the law to see if something is legal, they simply go ahead and do whatever they want and see how much they can get away with. Turns out they can get away with nearly everything because those not solidly in support aren’t willing to defend the rule of law.
Flint,
The only problem is if we consistently pick the wrong candidate. The game is about the best candidate for the current job. All candidates like all humans have strengths and weaknesses. Based on polling averages Trump has better favourability rating than republicans and democrats with democrats with the lowest rating.
https://www.realclearpolling.com/polls/favorability/rcp_averages
Except Trump who does not have a single weakness, only strengths. You have not named a single weakness or flaw in him. Even his mental illness is a strength.