Welcome to From Insults To Respect.
Today, millions of people continue to believe in President Trump. Given what we have learned about him, does it make sense to insult these believers by viewing them as crazy? Let’s give this question some thought.
* * *
This week, I went to a community theater to see a play. It involved two married couples arguing over how to discipline the 11-year old son of one of the couples who had violently attacked the son of the other couple. In no way did the subject of the play have anything to do with political issues. Nevertheless, one of the audience members proudly came wearing a huge red, white, and blue bucket hat– puffy on top, and prominently displaying Trump’s name. He also wore a shirt that looked like it could have been made from the red, white, blue and stars of the American flag. In all appearance, this guy plainly looked like he worships our current president. In light of the series of actions of President Trump, many Americans view such worshipers as crazy.
I’m not suggesting all of those who still support Trump actually worship him. I have met voters who say they still support him even though they don’t particularly like him, but nevertheless believe he is better than any of the candidates who are likely to be put up by the Democrats in the next presidential election. What I am here referring to are just the Trump supporters who truly worship him despite knowing the current situation.
The Current Situation
Here, I describe just some of the major events that might lead people who had in the past believed in Trump to change their minds.
September 2005, Trump is caught on tape advocating “grabbing women by the pussy.”
Between 2005 and 2010, Trump ran a costly course promising to help real estate hopefuls break into the business, something he called Trump University – only its false promises of success proved a total flop. In 2018, a judge ruled that Trump must pay out $25 million as part of a settlement.
In the Spring 2023, E. Jean Carroll won her case when a jury found Trump was liable for sexually abusing and defaming her.
On January 13, 2023: The Trump Organization was convicted of tax fraud and fined $1.6 million in relation to 17 charges, which included falsifying documents and allegedly inflating asset values for loans and insurance purposes, while simultaneously undervaluing them for tax purposes.
On May 30, 2023, Trump was convicted by a jury on 34 counts of falsifying business records “to conceal damaging information and unlawful activity.” The records pertained to money allegedly paid to adult-film actress Stormy Daniels to not reveal details of an extramarital affair she said she had had with Trump in 2006.
Very early in Trump’s current administration, he pardoned people who assaulted the capital, including those who were convicted of violently attacking police officers.
By early 2026, hundreds of legal cases had been filed against different parts of his agenda, meaning his administration has spent millions of dollars of tax payer money fighting court battles alongside governing. One of the most recent involves the Supreme Court declaring his tariffs are unconstitutional, thereby leaving his administration to figure out how to pay back the millions of dollars his tariffs had collected. That’s one hell of a mess. Meanwhile, the tariffs never led to the great boom in U.S.manufacturing jobs that Trump had promised.
Trump had claimed that to close our southern border, a border wall had to be built. Despite most of the border wall having not been built, he now brags he has closed the border and claims no one else was able to do it until he did.
Well, there is no way to fully determine how many people are currently illegally crossing the border, but authorities say the best way to estimate this is by determining the number of apprehensions that are currently occurring there. Below, in Figure 1, the record of apprehensions is laid out for the past 25 years. It indicates that during the Obama Administration (2009 to 2017) the border crossings had been at about the level that it is now. This continued for the most part during Trump’s first term (2017 to 2021) with a large bump around 2019, and then quickly returning to the Obama era levels. Shortly after Biden took over, there was a huge jump in border crossings until bipartisan efforts began to strongly complain. Biden responded with much stricter policies and by his last year in office border crossings began to drop, quickly returning to the Obama era levels.
Figure 1: 25 Years of Apprehensions at the Southern Border
As we can see below in Figure 2, it continued to drop a little more during the first month Trump began his second term, a period prior to any of Trump’s border policies actually having time to be instituted. This lower level has remained through the rest of his first year back in office.
This current level is somewhat questionable because Trump has installed an administration that he selected to make him look as good as possible. Some of their efforts have not always been viewed as completely on the level. For example, Trump had promised to release the Epstein files upon his return to the presidency. He refused to do it until Congress passed a law that was veto proof requiring him to do so by a specific date. It is now several months past that date, and Trump is now refusing to release over a million of them. His current administration is backing him on this clear violation of the law. Meanwhile, FBI agents have been quiting, refusing to carry out his demands. So any evidence Trump’s administration provides must be taken with a pinch of salt.
Figure 2:
Returning to the issue of immigration, a poll conducted in January by The New York Times and Siena University found that 63 percent of voters disapproved of Trump’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s tactics, feeling it had gone too far. Particularly upsetting is that upon ICE killing two Americans, his administration made statements about what had occurred clearly in contrast to what the American public could see with their own eyes in video recordings. Then, even more egregious, the administration officials declared before any investigation that those who were killed were domestic terrorists.
Trump’s Justice Department recently filed a lawsuit against Fed Chairman Jerome Powell that a federal judge quashed saying it was obviously just for retribution because Powell had refused to lower interest rates that Trump wanted. This is costly, and completely wastes the time of judges who have better things to be doing then dealing with such frivolous cases.
Now, Trump has started a war with Iran, after pledging, when running for office, he would not engage the U.S. in foreign wars instead focusing on problems right here at home.
He had promised to lower consumer prices; they have instead risen.
Finally, recent polls indicate many who voted for him in the last election have turned against him, with his current approval level sitting at about 38 percent.
Given The Above Well Known Set Of Facts, Is It Useful For People To Consider Believers In Trump Crazy?
Considering someone as crazy is typically viewed as an insult. If you call someone crazy, it is likely to elicit an angry response such as, “No, I’m not crazy, you are!” Perhaps creating such animosity is fine with you, but here on this blog I advocate considering the value of converting your insults to respectful exchanges. To that end, let’s consider the great master of such endeavors–Abraham Lincoln (See HERE for a full discussion of this).
In 1865, Old Abe had been reelected president for a second term. Seeking to unify the nation as the end of the brutal four-year Civil War was in sight, he attempted to rise above the anger and divisiveness and start the process of healing. In his inaugural address, he asked his fellow country folk, referencing the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 7:1) to “let us judge not that we be not judged.” He concludes with these immortal words:
“With malice toward none with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right let us strive on to finish the work we are in to bind up the nation’s wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan ~ to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations.”
Throughout the Civil War, many in the southern states truly and passionately believed they were fighting for a noble cause consistent entirely with their religious beliefs. Although Lincoln felt differently, he still asked his citizens to have malice toward none with charity for all. And in America, we honor the principle of religious freedom.
Can we not find it in our hearts to view the people whom I symbolize as the man wearing that huge red, white, and blue bucket hat– puffy on top, and prominently displaying Trump’s name, not as crazy, but rather as having deeply religious views. This doesn’t mean we should or shouldn’t vote for Trump supporters, but, rather, it provides us the understanding that those who believe in him, when he speaks, provides the spark that lights up their religious faith.
My Best,
Jeff
——————————-
Some people will enjoy reading this blog by beginning with the first post and then moving forward to the next more recent one; then to the next one; and so on. This permits readers to catch up on some ideas that were presented earlier and to move through all of the ideas in a systematic fashion to develop their emotional intelligence. To begin at the very first post you can click HERE.
“Crazy” is a concept used when people are puzzled about the actions of others or themselves. By using this type of name calling, it really doesn’t provide any clarification, but to some, they think it does. So, we might hear something like the following conversation:
Nevertheless, I would like you to consider the following possibility.
Trump’s supporters, in addition to being called crazy, have repeatedly been called mentally ill as a way to make sense of what seems to be irrational. Because the mental illness concept is supported by many doctors, including many psychiatrists and psychologists, some folks have been left with the impression that it must be a more sound, scientific concept than “crazy.” Is it?
When psychiatrists use their mental illness classification system and call it a diagnostic system, they do so despite numerous scientific arguments about its shortcomings (see 
You have trouble starting your car. You bring it to Fred, your friendly local mechanic. On hearing your concern, he provides an initial theory of what is causing this—perhaps your car needs a new starter. This is the initial “theoretical” diagnosis. Then, Fred inspects the starter and finds that it is in fine shape. Thus, his original theory of what is wrong proves incorrect. He then theorizes that your spark plugs are dirty. He takes a look and finds that they are indeed dirty. He cleans them up, puts them back in their proper place, and the car starts right up. In the end, he “diagnosed” what was wrong with your car—it had dirty spark plugs.
The psychiatric mental illness diagnostic system is described in a manual published with the title, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM). There it refers to itself as a manual for making diagnoses. This masks the difference between the following three types of statements:
The DSM does not claim its so called “diagnostic classifications” are just a theory of what the cause is for the expressed concern; it doesn’t even provide a theory. The manual’s developers explicitly say it is theory neutral. The DSM labels are just type 3 statements, that is, just statements that restate expressed concerns into medical jargon. Thus, the lack of reliability and validity for the DSM classifications and applying the word “diagnosis” to them in a misleading, imprecise manner are just three of its many serious principles of science violations.
Contrast psychiatry’s DSM “diagnosis” system with a diagnosis system used by other doctors. If someone comes to a virologist expressing a concern about being feverish, having difficulty breathing, and loss of taste, the doctor will label these as the patient’s medical complaints, rather then simply translating the complaints into medical jargon and then claiming the jargon constitutes the diagnosis. Instead, the virologist, after writing down the various complaints, will then look for the cause for these complaints. If it is found that there is the presence of the Covid 19 virus, the doctor will say the diagnosis is a Covid 19 infection.
On one fine spring day, I was sitting on a Central Park bench and two women were sitting one bench just to my right reading their newspapers. Suddenly, one of them cried out, “Sophie, can you believe this! The story I’m reading here, oh my God! This young boy, seventeen years old mind you, the same age as my Jonathan, he’s struggling with ideas about suicide. Seventeen years old, his whole life before him and he wants to kill himself. What would lead a boy to this?”
With that explanation, the two women nodded to one another, and continued on to another story, seemingly satisfied that they now knew why the boy was dealing with this issue.
In my opinion, even a play, which lasts but two or three hours, can only provide in its narrative a simplified account of what real life stories are all about. And yet, in today’s world, for many people a very different type of play is sufficient for providing the reason why someone is dealing with a challenging concern. This new type of play begins with the curtain rising. A character says to the audience he is struggling with feelings of suicide. A psychiatrist then proclaims the character has the mental disorder known as major depressive disorder, and then the curtain comes down. That’s the whole play. And people walk away fully satisfied that an adequate explanation has been provided.
That said, I leave you with the following suggestion: If you have a theory of why people continue to support Trump and his continued claims that he won the 2020 presidential election by a landslide, let those with whom you want to share your theory know it is a “theory,” and forgo the mental illness name calling. By doing so, you may not get as many cheers from people who agree with you. Nevertheless, among people truly seeking to deepen their understanding of this difficult to understand phenomenon, you will be more respected. Moreover, for those who may disagree with your theory, they will appreciate your ability to distinguish fact from theory. You’ll come across, I theorize, as more open-minded and you will be modeling a higher level of discourse than what we have been hearing from many of our political leaders.
As some of you may know, my 
My first thought was that using a president as an example of someone who brags too much is a bit tricky because when they run for office, and when they give the annual State of the Union Address, it is perfectly acceptable that they promote what they view are their accomplishments. All presidents during my lifetime have done so, and of course they have speech writers who help to frame such self-promotion in a manner that comes off as eloquent and likable. And then, as I thought about this more, some things Trump has said over the years does seem to take legitimate self-promotion well into the realm of downright, way over the top, bragging.
All of the states, including largely Republican ones, had certified their results, and Trump’s hand picked Attorney General declared Trump’s claims of widespread fraud were not true. Making this brag even more horrendous is that Trump didn’t stop even when it became clear that it was leading to numerous death threats to election officials, and credible sources were relating serious concerns that his rhetoric was inciting white supremacy groups to violence.
The first thing I noticed from my search was that there is about 876,000 hits. This seemed to be a lot, but to check if this was unusual for recent presidents, I did the same search for the president who served right before Trump, and then for the current president. Here are those results:
What made this writer think Biden is a socialist, while Trump is not, apparently has to do with Biden advocating that everyone have access to affordable health care and the minimum wage should be raised to $15 an hour. If you think this makes Biden a socialist, while Trump provides welfare to the rich, you are free to decide so, but that is irrelevant to the question before us today–whether or not Trump is a particularly good example of a braggart. As I read over many of the comments I came upon as a result of my internet search, clearly there is wide spread agreement that the answer is affirmative.
Trump has repeatedly claimed he is a genius. For numerous observers, this falls into the category of dubious claims. To take one example, Michael Wolff, referring to numerous interviews he had with people who worked closely with Trump, revealed “everyone around the president questioned his mental capacity, ability to read reports, overall intelligence and fitness for office.”
As I write this post, Election Day, with all of its turbulence, has now passed us by. Perhaps now is a good time for us to take some deep calming breaths and reflect on all that transpired.
We knew beyond doubt that our president was an inveterate liar, a business cheat, and a bully, but the debate last week proved that he refuses to adhere to any rules, even those upon which he has himself agreed. Those who counted say he interrupted 71 times in 90 minutes. That should not come as a surprise, since he does not appear to respect any of the laws that everyone else is expected to obey, including our Constitution. Talk about a lack of law and order.
With regard to the environment issue, Trump has repeatedly claimed scientists are perpetuating a hoax when they tell us that urgent action is needed to transition from fossil fuels to renewable sources of energy such as wind and solar. My guess is that rather than really believing this is a hoax, Trump promoted it because of how crucial he viewed winning Pennsylvania was for his chances to be elected.
The Keystone State obtains huge economic benefits from its fracking industry, which is a technique that draws the fossil fuel of natural gas from deep below the Earth’s surface. To move forward on a transition plan threatens the livelihood of many state citizens, and consequently, anyone supporting such a plan risks losing a significant number of votes.
I will explain my reasons for this guess shortly, but let’s just pretend, for the benefit of this exercise, that it is true that Trump does respect science but his desire to hold onto the presidency is of greater importance to him. If you were convinced that Trump chose holding on to the presidency over protecting the health and safety of human beings by avoiding further damage to the environment, would that influence how much respect you have for him? How much would it influence you?
In the articles that I came upon in my search, much of the argument that claims Trump does not respect science comes from his statements that contradicted or undermined the pandemic recommendations from science experts within and outside his own administration. Also, in complete contradiction to scientific evidence, he has repeatedly told the American people that the end of the virus’s spread was just around the corner, and continued to do so even as it was increasingly plain to all that the virus was spreading at alarming rates. Nevertheless, as I indicated in the previous section, I doubt that these public statements of Trump are really indicative of his true feelings. Here’s why.
First of all, on Bob Woodward’s tape recordings, Trump repeatedly admitted, based on the information he received from his expert scientists, just how deadly and contagious the virus is. Thus, on February 7 he told Woodward the disease is “deadly stuff.” In an April 5 interview with Woodward, Trump explained, “It moves rapidly, Bob. It moves rapidly and viciously. If you’re the wrong person and if it gets you, your life is pretty much over if you’re in the wrong group.” During his April 13 interview with Woodward, Trump told the journalist that the virus is “so easily transmissible, you wouldn’t even believe it.”
With regard to his financial interests, it is well known that Trump is heavily invested in hotels around the world. When Trump heard about the pandemic from his advisors, when he asked about what needed to be done to contain it, he was told that the public has to stay home and only leave their homes for absolutely essential reasons. This is not at all good news for someone in Trump’s financial situation. And keep in mind, he has repeatedly faced bankruptcy, a pretty awful experience, especially for someone who hates the image of a loser.
Although Trump claims he has been playing down the seriousness of the virus because he doesn’t want to cause a panic, this is implausible. If he was in a reasonable state of mind, he would have known the general public would hear from plenty of experts an accurate account of the risks that are involved.
The most plausible reason to me is because many of his base supporters delight in claiming the news is fake. We see them at his rallies throwing up their arms in jubilation each time he mentions the “awful lying fake media.” Many of them, just like him, are in denial about the dangers of the pandemic because a full shut down of nonessential businesses has terrible consequences for their own businesses, and the thought of not partying at bars is, to them, completely unacceptable.
For this part of today’s exercise, I’d like you to rate Trump’s style of responding to criticism. To help guide you in coming up with your rating, below is one model that describes five different responding to criticism styles. I put them in order from the least respected to the most respected. Each higher level is viewed as more mature, likable, and respected by a wide group of individuals who watched video recordings depicting different people displaying the five different styles.
Weeps or sobs with tears or pouts without using any of the higher level skills
4. Level 4 individuals listen to the criticizer in a supportive, warm, friendly style, and then make it clear that they fully understand what was said. Moreover, they put the criticizer at ease by making statements that indicate that the wise learn from criticism. Some time is spent on showing that they are thinking about the criticism. If, after thinking about the criticism the criticism is deemed to be correct, they make a statement frankly indicating, “I can see your ideas have merit and I intend to use them in the future.” If they are not sure if they agree, they make a statement indicating that they are very interested in what was said, plan to think a little more about this over the next few days and then they will be ready to discuss this further. If, after thinking about the criticism, the criticism is deemed to be incorrect, a statement is made designed to disagree without being disagreeable. More specifically, a sense of humor, some listening in a caring way and a few smiles help to traverse rough terrain. As the episode winds down, the criticizer is encouraged to feel comfortable communicating suggestions in the future.
In addition to actions consistent with level 4, people responding to criticism in a manner consistent with level 5 seek ways to use, whenever they disagree with the criticism, a technique known as steering in the direction the criticizer would prefer to go. That is, rather than just disagreeing without being disagreeable, the criticized person seeks to find a new choice of action that creatively utilizes some aspect suggested from the criticism. Steering cannot be incorporated into all situations, but it is an additional goal of the most mature individuals.
For this part of today’s exercise, I’d like you to rate Trump’s style of providing criticism. As I did when I asked you to rate his style of responding to criticism, to help guide you in coming up with your rating, below is one model that describes five different styles placed in order from the least respected to the most respected.
Well, there you have it, an exercise designed to deepen your idea about the nature of respect. As I mentioned above, you are of course free to create your own conceptualization of respect according to your own lights. Nothing that I’ve said throughout this exercise is designed to be presented in a dogmatic fashion.
Myeshia Johnson’s husband, Sgt. La David Johnson, died in an ambush in Niger on Oct. 4, 2017. Shortly afterwards, Mrs. Johnson received a condolence call from President Trump. Mrs. Johnson then told ABC news that the president struck a callous tone during their conversation–telling her, “He knew what he signed up for”–and that he repeatedly forgot her husband’s name.
Verifying what Mrs. Johnson heard was her long time friend, Frederica Wilson, a Texas congresswoman. Wilson was in the car with Mrs. Johnson when the president’s call came, and Mrs. Johnson chose to put the call on speaker mode so her friend could hear.
Upon hearing Wilson’s take on what happened, the president publicly derided her as “wacky” and called her account a “total lie.” In doing so, he indirectly said that the grieving widow had lied, since Wilson’s account of what happened matches what the widow said. Additionally, he publicly insulted the widow’s close friend.
Then, the White House Chief of Staff John Kelly appears in the White House briefing room seeking to defend the president and clarify what had occurred.
Kelly further explained that in these cases presidents typically write a letter, and he recommended to Trump that he not make calls because “it’s not the phone call that parents, family members are looking forward to.” Nevertheless, Trump elected to make phone calls in the cases of four young men who were killed in Niger. I note here that Trump also chose to politicize his calls by going before the national press to inform the public of his decision, and that former President Obama did not make such phone calls.
Let me tell you what my best friend, Joe Dunford, told me — because he was my casualty officer [when my son was killed in action]. He said, Kel, he was doing exactly what he wanted to do when he was killed. He knew what he was getting into by joining that 1 percent. He knew what the possibilities were because we’re at war. And when he died, in the four cases we’re talking about, Niger, and my son’s case in Afghanistan — when he died, he was surrounded by the best men on this Earth: his friends.”
“That’s what the President tried to say to four families the other day. I was stunned when I came to work yesterday morning, and broken-hearted at what I saw a member of Congress doing. A member of Congress [Wilson] who listened in on a phone call from the President of the United States to a young wife, and in his way tried to express that opinion — that he’s a brave man, a fallen hero, he knew what he was getting himself into because he enlisted. There’s no reason to enlist; he enlisted. And he was where he wanted to be, exactly where he wanted to be, with exactly the people he wanted to be with when his life was taken.
“It stuns me that a member of Congress [Wilson] would have listened in on that conversation. Absolutely stuns me. And I thought at least that was sacred….”
Kelly finished up by further attacking Wilson, calling her an empty Barrel and falsely claiming she used a speech commemorating a building named for two fallen FBI agents to brag about her role in getting funds for the project. A video of the event shows that this did not happen, but Kelly, like his boss, Trump, has been refusing to apologize.
Here I’ll make a few general comments about condolence calls, and then give my personal critique of how the president and his chief of staff handled this situation.
Condolence calls, in my opinion, are about paying one’s respect to the bereaved. This involves giving the bereaved a chance to express their grief and joy for having had the opportunity to share a life together. For the person who is mourning, it is very important to know there are people who are supportive of what they are going through. So the condolence call lets those in the family, and others particularly close to the deceased, know you are thinking about them in their time of need. It also gives you an opportunity to share in that grief.
The general format of what to say is something like this, “I am truly sorry for your loss.” Then we listen in a caring manner.
Upon making such comments, the bereaved party may often make some replies, and here again, listening in a caring manner is crucial. The main focus is on a caring tone, and saying things that you feel would be helpful to the bereaved, while avoiding attacking the bereaved for any perceived transgressions.
Another example of this occurred when then President George W. Bush met the families of slain soldiers. Some screamed at him and blamed him for their deaths. Bush stood and took it, holding them and weeping with them. Despite those verbal attacks occurring in a public setting, he never tried to defend himself by insulting any of the family members.
“I went over there [to Arlington National Cemetery] for an hour-and-a-half, walked among the stones, some of whom I put there because they were doing what I told them to do when they were killed.” 
Another miscalculation, in my opinion, came when Kelly took great offense that Mrs. Johnson chose to put her phone on speaker mode when Trump made the call to her. Framing it as violating something sacred seems to me as rather puzzling. Where did Kelly get this principle that it is somehow sacred for a grieving woman to not share a president’s call with others? This is certainly not anything I, or anyone else that I talked with, ever heard of. Rather than becoming angry about some unheard of principle of sacredness, it seems far more plausible that he was actually incensed that there was a witness to the call that didn’t go down very well.
Another thing that I would have also done is to let the public know that in order to better handle these types of situations I shall be inviting a large group of Gold Star family members to the White House to confer with them on their views about what is the best way for US presidents to respond whenever loved ones die in combat. After all, paying one’s respect to Gold Star families should not be about what the president views as helpful, but rather what the family members view as helpful.
Finally, from the personal perspective of this writer, Trump’s effort to make the condolence calls a way to make political points by saying Obama didn’t make such phone calls failed miserably to achieve its purpose.
Recently, I wrote a post titled “
“Oh, yes!” he cries enthusiastically. “He’s great!”
With little more than a public high school education, you managed to save a little money to open your own small convenience store. From your background, isn’t there anything indicating to you that Trump is not out to help people like you and those in your family and community?”
“Donald Trump, who was born rich, went to the finest private schools, was set up in the real estate business by his wealthy father, has always associated with rich people. He was over 70-years old when he began to run for president, and prior to that never showed any passion to help people like you and me. In fact, he has a long history of screwing people like us. You really think Trump cares one bit about people like you? Sure, he’ll say anything to get your vote, but we’ve seen him lie over and over again.”
His Trump University project ended up costing 30 million dollars to settle charges of fraud. You say he’s not beholden to anyone, but he and his associates are beholden to their own enormous financial interests. That’s why he has put the richest people he could find in top political positions.”
Under Obama, unemployment went from 10 percent to 5 percent, and the economy was improving steadily while he was in office. The fact that it has slightly further improved the first few months under Trump was during a time when there was not a single congressional bill passed designed to aid the economy. Despite this, you are completely convinced that the improvement, slight as it is, has to do with Trump?”
“OK, if that’s what you believe. Let’s move on to health care. Trump vaguely said when he was running for president that he had a great health plan he would enact as soon as he is elected. He said he will repeal and replace the Affordable Health Care Plan, and his own plan would be great and cover everyone. It turned out that he had no plan of his own. The plan he first supported came out of the House of Representatives, a bill that cut coverage for millions according to the Congressional Budget Office, so he plainly lied. Then, when the bill went to the Senate, they didn’t like it and so Trump ended up saying that the House bill was really mean. Then he supported the Senate bill that also cut services for millions of Americans. Nothing got passed, and he antagonized in the process the very people he has to work with if he is to get anything of his agenda through the congressional process. Why do you remain so gullible that he knows what he is doing and trust what he says?”
And people can climb over walls using rope ladders or cherry pickers. Drilling a little hole in the wall and sticking a stick of dynamite in it will blast a hole in the wall that will allow people to walk right through it. In a matter of a few years the wall will look like Swiss cheese. Maintaining the wall will cost tax payers like you and me billions and billions of dollars. His arguments for the need for the wall makes absolutely no sense.”
Now that we looked over today’s parable, let’s see if we can determine how well our Trump supporter utilized the three sets of skills that help to keep us from being gullible–Plausibility Checking, Trust Calibration, and Assessing Argumentation.
In the parable, the only evidence I can see that Bob used any plausibility checking occurs when he says Trump is a business man. Apparently that is enough for him despite the fact that the practice of business pits some business interests with other interests. When Ann points out that Trump’s business interests lie in big business and Bob’s business is a small business, this has no apparent effect on him.
The final skill set that helps to prevent people from being strongly gullible is “Assessing Argumentation.” In the parable, Bob does mention that Trump’s rhetoric appears to have led to the economy improving. But he does not explain why he is convinced that Trump’s rhetoric is the reason for the improved economy. Moreover, Bob’s support that somehow building a wall on the Mexico border makes sense is backed up with nothing more then declaring that we have to stop illegal immigration. There is not a single argument that he provides to defend that the wall would be a reasonable way to accomplish what he desires.
It begins with Sanders turning to Kasich and asking him, “Is Trump a liar?”
Kasich, 
Then, Kasich says, “But I’m not going to go so far as to call someone a liar! That when you get, when you start using terms like that, Bernie, we saw it in Congress. You know, back in the days when we were in the majority and they were after Jim Wright and all those things and there was a lot of calling people dogs and liars. Just let the facts speak for themselves, and then we can draw a conclusion. And I’m only saying this, not because I’m trying to defend anybody. I’m worried about my country. I’m worried about getting through this.”
At this point, Sanders replies, “But when we talk about the facts, I mean Jake asked a pretty simple question. All that I’m saying is, it’s not a question of, you’re a Conservative and I don’t think you’re a liar. We disagree on everything, but that doesn’t make you a liar, and I don’t think that makes me a liar. But if you were to tell me that three to five million people voted illegally in this election, of which no Republican or Democratic official believes, what can I say? I think that it’s a lie.”
Here Kasich looks troubled, and replies, “I, I, look, I guess I’m gonna do it, I didn’t think I would, does that mean that someone who writes a campaign ad that distorts somebody’s record is a liar? I mean, we have to be careful about our terms. That’s all I’m saying, okay?” 
Regular readers of this blog well know that name calling leads to me and others to lose some respect for the name caller. Calling someone a “liar” is name calling, and we can see the loss of respect that Governor Kasich feels for those who use that term when we watch the video clip.
As Bob Dylan once said on his radio show, “According to a survey, 4 out of 5 people admit to telling white lies at least once a day, and I’m telling you that that other guy, he’s lying.”
And they love pictures of him illustrating his lying ways. This might have been the reason for the chuckling of Senator Sanders and those in the audience when Governor Kasich began to reply to the question, “Is Trump a liar?” But consider how you would feel if someone called the candidate you support a liar. 
Recall that there were people calling President Obama a liar during his administration and illustrations of what some believed were his lying tendencies. 
I think the Golden Rule applies here. Moreover, calling the president a liar stirs up his supporters to be angry, and this can produce less than ideal conditions for people to come together in mutually beneficial ways.
Now, Senator Sanders has been trying to make the case that there is something different in the type of lying that President Trump engages in compared to what most people engage in. He is seeking to see how he can best make that distinction by bringing up the liar issue. In the clip, he brings up the example of the president declaring repeatedly that between three million and five million people voted illegally, and that if just the legal votes were counted, he not only won the electoral votes, he also won the popular vote. At other times, Sanders noted that the president has repeatedly claimed that his electoral vote victory was by the largest amount in history. When the president is confronted with the facts that the previous president, Mr. Obama, had won more electoral votes then he did, that many other presidents also won by more electoral votes then he did, and that this can easily be verified by anyone really interested in the truth of the matter, he just continued to claim he won the election by the greatest margin in history. At another time, the president claimed he was against the Iraq War despite a videotape clearly showing his support of that war, and no evidence that he spoke out against the war when it was getting under way.
These, along with others that he has made, are indeed whopper-sized lies. By providing the type of specifics that I provided in the previous paragraph it makes the point clearer than calling him a liar.
For example, in this panel from a recent comic, we see a caricature of Trump insulting several news outlets. Whenever the president has been asked why he has been utilizing these types of insults, he claims that the other side started it. He’s just getting back at them, he explains, because they insulted him first.
In the comic, TRFF, the guy with a mustache and cigar, views himself as an authoritarian and is just delighted that he has been appointed Deputy Director of Payback. Let’s begin our exploration below the surface with a quick discussion of what it means to be an authoritarian.
“An authoritarian leadership style is being used when a leader dictates policies and procedures, decides what goals are to be achieved, and directs and controls all activities without any meaningful participation by the subordinates. This leader has full control of the team, leaving low autonomy within the group.
Perhaps one of the best known leaders who embodied the authoritative style of leadership was Nelson Mandela. After serving 27 years in jail for seeking justice for the majority of South African people, he had plenty of reasons to seek payback. But in a speech delivered to the European Parliament in 1990, he stated:
In contrast to the image that many people have of Nelson Mandela’s leadership style, take another look at the caricature in the Doonesbury comic of a authoritarian in charge of payback for the president’s administration. As a response to some guy who is disloyal to the administration, TRFF says that if it was up to him, he’d throw the guy out of a plane. TRFF is just loving the fact that he gets to demean, threaten, or fire people every day.
In the short run, there are people who are willing to Kowtow to them, but there is a spirit within that slowly begins to get riled, and danger lurks below. It is not always easy to see this in the muddy complexity of large organizations, but search your own heart and you will know of its existence.
A while back, I heard about a company that had been having a hard time getting its workers to arrive on time. The company executives had a policy of punishing those who came late by docking their pay. Not only didn’t this work well, but the workers became bitter toward the executives, and many workers, after being trained at great expense, would soon leave for employment at competing companies.
Recently, President Trump advocated that the current US health plan be replaced with a new health care law. He was unable to get enough votes for its passage. Will he now unleash the dogs of payback? Should he?