Then he frantically spins like a lawn sprinkler desperately spraying unhinged nonsense.
2/
So, in Trump’s narcissistic cycle, there is a predictable sequence of phases that play out whenever he is facing a public humiliation.
1) Double Down Donnie
2) Loco Lawn Sprinkler
3) Sad and Silent
4) Hunting for Scapegoats
5) Riding the Excuse Train
1/
Trump will soon be joining Fox & Friends, only about 6 hours after his last Election Day-eve rally ended pic.twitter.com/EAhGEGO1m1
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) November 3, 2020
Then he frantically spins like a lawn sprinkler desperately spraying unhinged nonsense.
2/
See: the past week.
It has been just a firehose of industrial-grade batshit.
3/
Listen to the clips from the thread in the first post. Talking about his presidency in a tired, dejected past tense.
No aggression. No real fight left.
4/
Then the train passes the point of avoidance though and Trump shrinks into a sad ball (albeit briefly).
5/
Next up should be cocooning.
Not sure how that can work with Trump allegedly hosting hundreds at the White House tonight.
6/
That would be my wager. Postures like he is in fine spirits early before polls close. Then runs and hides.
7/
8/
Starting a network or running one to take on CNN or some dumb shit like that.
9/
So, let’s see what happens but if/when he loses, he’s going to pivot to face-saving about how he actually won by not winning.
10/
More from The Hoarse Whisperer
This is the most significant window into Trump’s psychology since the election.
He is so gravely wounded by his loss, even the usual protections a narcissist employs aren’t saving him.
1/
The pattern for Trump has always been the exact same without deviation.
When faced with a public humiliation, he 1) broods; 2) scapegoats; 3) adopts a face-saving excuse; and 4) gets back on his feet.
He isn’t reaching #4.
2/
It is remarkable and striking.
He is so debilitated by the public humiliation of having lost, he can’t even function in the dysfunctional way he used to...
Normally, he’d be posturing about how his loss was actually somehow a win for him. He’d be claiming he benefitted.
3/
He would have fully adopted a narrative about what happened *in the past* and would be talking about how great things were for him *in the present and future*.
Instead, he is a month into a spiral he can’t pull himself out of where he is still trying to change the outcome.
4/
I thought a trip to Mar a Lago would pull him out of that.
He’d be surrounded by people who looked at him adoringly and nodded at his nonsense with love and reverence.
He’d see that his facade of specialness was still intact *there at least*.
5/
He is so gravely wounded by his loss, even the usual protections a narcissist employs aren’t saving him.
1/
Trump is flying back from Mar-a-Lago today to the White House. He usually stays through the holiday. He will miss the New Year festivities at his precious club. The White House did not provide a reason for this early departure. So...watch out.
— David Corn (@DavidCornDC) December 31, 2020
The pattern for Trump has always been the exact same without deviation.
When faced with a public humiliation, he 1) broods; 2) scapegoats; 3) adopts a face-saving excuse; and 4) gets back on his feet.
He isn’t reaching #4.
2/
It is remarkable and striking.
He is so debilitated by the public humiliation of having lost, he can’t even function in the dysfunctional way he used to...
Normally, he’d be posturing about how his loss was actually somehow a win for him. He’d be claiming he benefitted.
3/
He would have fully adopted a narrative about what happened *in the past* and would be talking about how great things were for him *in the present and future*.
Instead, he is a month into a spiral he can’t pull himself out of where he is still trying to change the outcome.
4/
I thought a trip to Mar a Lago would pull him out of that.
He’d be surrounded by people who looked at him adoringly and nodded at his nonsense with love and reverence.
He’d see that his facade of specialness was still intact *there at least*.
5/
I’m just going to lay this down now so it’s on record:
Trump’s campaign has used the exact same strategy it used in 2016: smear his opponent; attempt to demotivate their base; and actively attempt to prevent or obstruct them from voting.
It is a push-down strategy.
1/
In 2016, didn’t win because he made a winning case to a big enough population.
He won because his opponent’s turnout was pushed down by a full-court press that tapped everything from misogyny to poll tampering.
2/
He is trying to run the exact same playbook against Biden.
But it isn’t working because:
1) We now understand it
2) Many who were effectively suppressed last time have had four years to see what that cost
3) Biden isn’t susceptible to the same illegitimate biases
3/
And 4) Many people who first engaged with politics because of Bernie are now well past the “...or Bust” vibe of 2016 and are now solidly active progressive voters
The media, pundits and analysts never fully reckoned with the extent to which Hillary’s vote was just suppressed.
4/
Instead, they overestimated Trump’s strength.
Trump only won by smothering just enough of his opponent’s support.
Some of the voters who that succeeded with in 2016 are vehemently un-smotherable this time.
5/
Trump’s campaign has used the exact same strategy it used in 2016: smear his opponent; attempt to demotivate their base; and actively attempt to prevent or obstruct them from voting.
It is a push-down strategy.
1/
Striking finding from NYT/Siena: Biden has big leads among those who didn't vote in 2016. And they make up non-trivial portions of the electorate.
— Greg Sargent (@ThePlumLineGS) November 1, 2020
Here are Biden's leads, followed by their vote share:
WI +19 (11%)
FL +17 (18%)
PA +12 (18%)
AZ +7 (22%)
It's a new electorate.
In 2016, didn’t win because he made a winning case to a big enough population.
He won because his opponent’s turnout was pushed down by a full-court press that tapped everything from misogyny to poll tampering.
2/
He is trying to run the exact same playbook against Biden.
But it isn’t working because:
1) We now understand it
2) Many who were effectively suppressed last time have had four years to see what that cost
3) Biden isn’t susceptible to the same illegitimate biases
3/
And 4) Many people who first engaged with politics because of Bernie are now well past the “...or Bust” vibe of 2016 and are now solidly active progressive voters
The media, pundits and analysts never fully reckoned with the extent to which Hillary’s vote was just suppressed.
4/
Instead, they overestimated Trump’s strength.
Trump only won by smothering just enough of his opponent’s support.
Some of the voters who that succeeded with in 2016 are vehemently un-smotherable this time.
5/
I read up on the last several men the federal government rushed to put to death this past month.
Sister Helen is 100% right. None of the defendants would have come anywhere near a death penalty had they had money and privilege.
1/
Take the person executed last night: Dustin Higgs.
Higgs, another man and a woman were involved in the murder of two people. The trio had picked the victims up and taken them to a desolate area where they were shot.
2/
The reasons for the shooting were unclear. To make their case, prosecutors offered a deal to Higgs’ two associates: testify that Higgs had orchestrated the killing and they would be charged with lesser offenses.
So, the two did.
3/
The man testified that he had actually been the shooter and had murdered the two women - but had been told to do so by Higgs.
The actual murderer avoided the death penalty. The other associate got a lighter sentence.
4/
I entirely 1,000% believe that prosecutors would have never even pursued the death penalty had Higgs had intimidating counsel.
Epstein got a walk for a boatload of crimes, in part, because prosecutors were intimidated of the fight they’d face.
5/
Sister Helen is 100% right. None of the defendants would have come anywhere near a death penalty had they had money and privilege.
1/
The death penalty is fundamentally a poor person\u2019s issue. Over nearly 40 years of visiting death row facilities across the United States, I have never met a single person with money or resources. Capital punishment means \u201cthose without the capital get the punishment.\u201d
— Sister Helen Prejean (@helenprejean) January 16, 2021
Take the person executed last night: Dustin Higgs.
Higgs, another man and a woman were involved in the murder of two people. The trio had picked the victims up and taken them to a desolate area where they were shot.
2/
The reasons for the shooting were unclear. To make their case, prosecutors offered a deal to Higgs’ two associates: testify that Higgs had orchestrated the killing and they would be charged with lesser offenses.
So, the two did.
3/
The man testified that he had actually been the shooter and had murdered the two women - but had been told to do so by Higgs.
The actual murderer avoided the death penalty. The other associate got a lighter sentence.
4/
I entirely 1,000% believe that prosecutors would have never even pursued the death penalty had Higgs had intimidating counsel.
Epstein got a walk for a boatload of crimes, in part, because prosecutors were intimidated of the fight they’d face.
5/
More from All
https://t.co/6cRR2B3jBE
Viruses and other pathogens are often studied as stand-alone entities, despite that, in nature, they mostly live in multispecies associations called biofilms—both externally and within the host.
https://t.co/FBfXhUrH5d
Microorganisms in biofilms are enclosed by an extracellular matrix that confers protection and improves survival. Previous studies have shown that viruses can secondarily colonize preexisting biofilms, and viral biofilms have also been described.
...we raise the perspective that CoVs can persistently infect bats due to their association with biofilm structures. This phenomenon potentially provides an optimal environment for nonpathogenic & well-adapted viruses to interact with the host, as well as for viral recombination.
Biofilms can also enhance virion viability in extracellular environments, such as on fomites and in aquatic sediments, allowing viral persistence and dissemination.
Viruses and other pathogens are often studied as stand-alone entities, despite that, in nature, they mostly live in multispecies associations called biofilms—both externally and within the host.
https://t.co/FBfXhUrH5d
Microorganisms in biofilms are enclosed by an extracellular matrix that confers protection and improves survival. Previous studies have shown that viruses can secondarily colonize preexisting biofilms, and viral biofilms have also been described.
...we raise the perspective that CoVs can persistently infect bats due to their association with biofilm structures. This phenomenon potentially provides an optimal environment for nonpathogenic & well-adapted viruses to interact with the host, as well as for viral recombination.
Biofilms can also enhance virion viability in extracellular environments, such as on fomites and in aquatic sediments, allowing viral persistence and dissemination.
You May Also Like
“We don’t negotiate salaries” is a negotiation tactic.
Always. No, your company is not an exception.
A tactic I don’t appreciate at all because of how unfairly it penalizes low-leverage, junior employees, and those loyal enough not to question it, but that’s negotiation for you after all. Weaponized information asymmetry.
Listen to Aditya
And by the way, you should never be worried that an offer would be withdrawn if you politely negotiate.
I have seen this happen *extremely* rarely, mostly to women, and anyway is a giant red flag. It suggests you probably didn’t want to work there.
You wish there was no negotiating so it would all be more fair? I feel you, but it’s not happening.
Instead, negotiate hard, use your privilege, and then go and share numbers with your underrepresented and underpaid colleagues. […]
Always. No, your company is not an exception.
A tactic I don’t appreciate at all because of how unfairly it penalizes low-leverage, junior employees, and those loyal enough not to question it, but that’s negotiation for you after all. Weaponized information asymmetry.
Listen to Aditya
"we don't negotiate salaries" really means "we'd prefer to negotiate massive signing bonuses and equity grants, but we'll negotiate salary if you REALLY insist" https://t.co/80k7nWAMoK
— Aditya Mukerjee, the Otterrific \U0001f3f3\ufe0f\u200d\U0001f308 (@chimeracoder) December 4, 2018
And by the way, you should never be worried that an offer would be withdrawn if you politely negotiate.
I have seen this happen *extremely* rarely, mostly to women, and anyway is a giant red flag. It suggests you probably didn’t want to work there.
You wish there was no negotiating so it would all be more fair? I feel you, but it’s not happening.
Instead, negotiate hard, use your privilege, and then go and share numbers with your underrepresented and underpaid colleagues. […]
1/“What would need to be true for you to….X”
Why is this the most powerful question you can ask when attempting to reach an agreement with another human being or organization?
A thread, co-written by @deanmbrody:
2/ First, “X” could be lots of things. Examples: What would need to be true for you to
- “Feel it's in our best interest for me to be CMO"
- “Feel that we’re in a good place as a company”
- “Feel that we’re on the same page”
- “Feel that we both got what we wanted from this deal
3/ Normally, we aren’t that direct. Example from startup/VC land:
Founders leave VC meetings thinking that every VC will invest, but they rarely do.
Worse over, the founders don’t know what they need to do in order to be fundable.
4/ So why should you ask the magic Q?
To get clarity.
You want to know where you stand, and what it takes to get what you want in a way that also gets them what they want.
It also holds them (mentally) accountable once the thing they need becomes true.
5/ Staying in the context of soliciting investors, the question is “what would need to be true for you to want to invest (or partner with us on this journey, etc)?”
Multiple responses to this question are likely to deliver a positive result.
Why is this the most powerful question you can ask when attempting to reach an agreement with another human being or organization?
A thread, co-written by @deanmbrody:
Next level tactic when closing a sale, candidate, or investment:
— Erik Torenberg (@eriktorenberg) February 27, 2018
Ask: \u201cWhat needs to be true for you to be all in?\u201d
You'll usually get an explicit answer that you might not get otherwise. It also holds them accountable once the thing they need becomes true.
2/ First, “X” could be lots of things. Examples: What would need to be true for you to
- “Feel it's in our best interest for me to be CMO"
- “Feel that we’re in a good place as a company”
- “Feel that we’re on the same page”
- “Feel that we both got what we wanted from this deal
3/ Normally, we aren’t that direct. Example from startup/VC land:
Founders leave VC meetings thinking that every VC will invest, but they rarely do.
Worse over, the founders don’t know what they need to do in order to be fundable.
4/ So why should you ask the magic Q?
To get clarity.
You want to know where you stand, and what it takes to get what you want in a way that also gets them what they want.
It also holds them (mentally) accountable once the thing they need becomes true.
5/ Staying in the context of soliciting investors, the question is “what would need to be true for you to want to invest (or partner with us on this journey, etc)?”
Multiple responses to this question are likely to deliver a positive result.
