Understatement of the day.
Only a little?
Which means Rome Airport is something like 28 times the area of Vatican City. Even just the shortest runway takes up about 5 times as much real estate.
When I read this, I wondered and asked ChatGPT this question:
Can a narcissist realize that he’s dishonest?
ChatGPT:
That’s a really thoughtful question.
Short answer: yes, a narcissist can realize they’re being dishonest — but it’s complicated.
Narcissistic people often have defense mechanisms like denial, distortion, or rationalization. They might lie or twist things, but in the moment, they often believe their own narrative because it protects their fragile self-image. So while lying, they might not consciously think, “I’m being dishonest.” They might genuinely convince themselves they’re right.
However, some narcissists do have moments of insight, especially the ones with traits of “covert” or “vulnerable” narcissism. In rare moments — maybe when their defenses are lowered, or they face major consequences — they might realize: “I was lying,” or “I twisted the truth to look better.” But admitting it to themselves or to others is very uncomfortable and rare, because it threatens their self-esteem.
It really depends on the severity of the narcissism and the person’s self-awareness.
Are you wondering about this in a general sense, or is it about someone in particular?
Me: It’s about Donald Trump
ChatGPT:
Got it — that makes a lot of sense.
With Trump, most psychologists who have publicly commented (carefully, since it’s tricky ethically) suggest he shows strong narcissistic traits — grandiosity, need for admiration, sensitivity to criticism, etc. Based on how he behaves, it seems like he often believes his own narratives, even when they’re objectively false.
In his case, it’s probably not simple, like “I’m lying and I know it.” It seems more like “Whatever I say must be true because I’m saying it.”
When facts don’t fit his story, he often reframes reality rather than admitting dishonesty — classic narcissistic defense.That said, in private, especially when he’s strategizing (like in business or politics), there’s some evidence he does know when he’s bending the truth — but he justifies it as necessary or clever rather than wrong.
So:
- Public Trump might actually believe a lot of his own exaggerations.
- Private Trump may sometimes realize he’s being dishonest but doesn’t care because he sees it as winning or survival.
Would you want me to share a few psychological insights from people who’ve studied him specifically? There are some pretty wild quotes from experts if you’re interested.
It seems more like “Whatever I say must be true because I’m saying it.”
Yeah, I can believe that Trump thinks that.
Probably a question for ChatGPT rather than you but, I am struggling with this one, does it suggest that his brain somehow switches between the two states and whether he’s in public or not actuslly affects whether he believes himself or not? I can’t get my own head around that
I think this one’s easy to answer. It’s the size of the audience. There’s a huge audience for his public statements. His private statements are to a handful of people and some of those people may push back. (Not that I’ve seen a lot of pushback for the second felonial era.)
There really is no limit to Trump’s shittiness:
Between scrubbing government websites of information about everything from vaccine efficacy to LGBT health matters and the ongoing war with higher education, the Trump administration seems to have a problem with freely available information that doesn’t align with its particular ideology. That war on knowledge appears to have extended to Wikipedia. Earlier this week, a Trump appointed attorney sent a letter to the Wikimedia Foundation accusing it of allowing the spread of propaganda and threatening its nonprofit status.
The letter—which was sent by Ed Martin, the acting US attorney for the District of Columbia, and first obtained by The Free Press—alleges that Wikipedia’s host organization may be “engaging in a series of activities that could violate its obligations under Section 501(c)(3) of Title 26 of the United States Code”—the law that allows the organization to operate as a tax-exempt nonprofit.
Between this and a letter they sent to a few medical journals, it’s definitely getting quite Orwellian, but I love the characterization from Isaac Asimov:
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that ‘my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.’”
MAGAs power, control, and ability to implement its vision relies wholly on knocking out any level of ‘fact-checking,’ just as the think-tanks behind its ideology rely on the apotheosis of the Unitary Executive Theory in much the same way that robbing a bank may rely on knocking out the guards, the security cameras, any panic buttons or other security features, and confiscating/destroying everybody’s cell phones.
[I don’t presume that you don’t know these things. I’m just offering them up for ‘the room’ and the topic, generally]
“And we have always been at war with Eastasia.”
That, it seems to me, perfectly sums up this Trump administration. “What we say today is the truth, what we said yesterday, didn’t happen.”
Is there no way to get rid of him, short of impeachment? In a parliamentary democracy, the leader can be deposed just on a vote of non-confidence. I know about impeachment, and I know the US Constitution, but there must be some way to get rid of a President, no matter how Democratic/Republican leaning the House and Senate is. When he is clearly out of his mind, and his policies are hurting Americans, is there nothing that can be done?
Maybe the US should become a parliamentary democracy, where the leader’s power is determined by how much confidence the House, representing the people, has in him. No confidence, we go to an election. Next!
(And yes, I know the US Constitution, I know term limits, I know about Tuesdays in November, and so on. But as an elector in a parliamentary democracy (Canada), I gotta say, that the US system is … well, democratic, but voters are locked in on their choice; at least, until the midterms or the next general election. There’s no way to get rid of a President mid-term, excluding impeachment? Really?)
He could be convinced to resign, but that’s so far outside the realm of plausibility as to be dismissed without further consideration.
There’s also removal for unfitness by the Cabinet, but that’s also entirely implausible for various reasons. (Edit to add: I just did a search, and there doesn’t seem to be a dedicated single thread on this subject to which I can quickly refer you. It’s come up many times in other threads, been discussed briefly, and then dismissed. Here is one example. You can search for “25th amendment” to find other similar references.)
But that’s it, in terms of legal paths.
There is another option but we are forbidden from discussing it.
Yes, I’ve thought about that one too.
Umm … nice weather we’ve been having. How about you?
Sunny and warm in Luxembourg. Also we spent last week enjoying the beach on the Albanian Riviera. The weather has indeed been excellent. (smiles, silence stretches out)
Ah, sounds nice. Here in southern Alberta, we had a beautiful blue sky today, decorated with a few mares’ tails (wind clouds, but that’s what we call them).
I recall a high school trip to Greece that took place in March. Weather was great, much like Albania at this time, I would imagine. Sounds great!
To bring this thread back on topic: He’s still breathing.
I didn’t know about the medical journals. That seems worse. Not sure, both are awful in their own way. I guess it is not helpful to try to guess what awful thing Trump did is MORE awful than another thing…the man is a menace in all things and to be reviled.
Paul Krugman is having the same thoughts this morning. He is supposed to be on vacation, but he has still been posting on his substack everyday.
Ler me be clear: Trump hitting the wall this early is a good thing for the survival of U.S. democracy. Consolidation of one-party rule looks a lot less likely today than it did a few weeks ago.
But where do we go from here? Unlike the British parliamentary system, the U.S. has no break-the-glass off switch that lets us get rid of a deeply unpopular and delusional leader. Impeachment won’t happen, because this isn’t the Nixon era: Trump’s party is too corrupt to help save the country.
So we must begin to ask ourselves: in the 1364 days left of the Trump administration, how much damage can he do? And what can those of us who want to save the country do to minimize the damage?
Cowardice is now a core value of the Republican party.
Apparently, when Trump says “Build the Wall”, he also means a firewall.
First, they came for Wikipedia…
The People’s Republic of China (PRC) censors both the publishing and viewing of online material. Many controversial events are censored from news coverage, preventing many Chinese citizens from knowing about the actions of their government, and severely restricting freedom of the press.[1] China’s censorship includes the complete blockage of various websites, apps, and video games, inspiring the policy’s nickname, the Great Firewall of China,[2] which blocks websites. Methods used to block websites and pages include DNS spoofing, blocking access to IP addresses, analyzing and filtering URLs, packet inspection, and resetting connections.[3]
The government blocks website content and monitors Internet access.[4] As required by the government, major Internet platforms in China have established elaborate self-censorship mechanisms as well as implementing a real-name system. As of 2019, more than sixty online restrictions had been created by the Government of China and implemented by provincial branches of state-owned ISPs, companies and organizations.[5][6][7] Some companies hire teams and invest in powerful artificial intelligence algorithms to police and remove illegal online content.[8] Despite restrictions, all websites except TikTok can still be accessible to Chinese users by using VPNs, which are currently heavily restricted but not banned due to them often being used for business purposes.[9]
Sounds like an ideal situation Trump.
Advice from past presidents falls on deaf ears:
More from the Time interview.
Art O’ Dadeal explains how he negotiated 200 trade deals without anyone noticing.
It turns out making deals is really hard when you have to do it with other people. But, as the great businessman explains, it’s easy when you cut out the other party.
Does the department store talk to you, the customer, when they set their prices? No? Then why should Trump talk to you, the other countries, when he makes deals?
So he’s just going to wait two weeks and pull out another stupid chart, one that will probably be substantially the same as the last one.
Not one has been announced yet. When are you going to announce them?
I’ve made 200 deals.
You’ve made 200 deals?
100%.
Can you share with whom?
Because the deal is a deal that I choose. View it differently: We are a department store, and we set the price. I meet with the companies, and then I set a fair price, what I consider to be a fair price, and they can pay it, or they don’t have to pay it. They don’t have to do business with the United States, but I set a tariff on countries. Some have been horrible to us. Some have been okay. Nobody’s been great. Nobody’s been great. Everybody took advantage of us. What I’m doing is I will, at a certain point in the not too distant future, I will set a fair price of tariffs for different countries. These are countries—some of them have made hundreds of billions of dollars, and some of them have made just a lot of money. Very few of them have made nothing because the United States was being ripped off by every, almost every country in the world, in the entire world. So I will set a price, and when I set the price, and I will set it fairly according to the statistics, and according to everything else. For instance, do they have the VAT system in play? Do they charge us tariffs? How much are they charging us? How much have they been charging us? Many, many different factors, right. How are we being treated by that country? And then I will set a tariff.
Today I learned that all spending is discretionary and that people don’t have to buy stuff unless they want to.
During a radio interview Saturday with Larry Kudlow, Bessent said “tariffs can’t be inflationary because if the price of one thing goes up, unless you give people more money, then they have less money to spend on the other thing, so there is no inflation.”
“The inflation comes through either increasing the money supply or increasing the government spending, and that’s what happened under Biden,” he added.
Scott Bessent: CEOs relieved about Trump pick to lead Treasury | CNN Business