4-Year-Olds Don’t Act Like Trump

The analogy is pervasive among his critics: Donald Trump is like a child. Making him the president was like making a 4-year-old the leader of the free world.

But the analogy is profoundly wrong, and it’s unfair to children. The scientific developmental research of the past 30 years shows that Mr. Trump is utterly unlike a 4-year-old.

Four-year-olds care deeply about the truth. They constantly try to seek out information and to figure out how the world works. Of course, 4-year-olds, as well as adults, occasionally lie. But Mr. Trump doesn’t just lie; he seems not even to care whether his statements are true.

Four-year-olds are insatiably curious. One study found that the average preschooler asks hundreds of questions per day. Just watch a toddler “getting into everything” — endangering his own safety to investigate interesting new objects like knives and toasters. Mr. Trump refuses to read and is bored by anything that doesn’t involve him personally.

Four-year-olds can pay attention. They do have difficulty changing the focus of their attention in response to arbitrary commands. But recent studies show that even babies systematically direct their focus to the events and objects that will teach them the most. They pay special attention to events that contradict what they already believe. Mr. Trump refuses to pay attention to anything that clashes with his preconceptions.

Four-year-olds understand the difference between fantasy and reality. They certainly enjoy pretend play, imagining that the world is full of villains and that they are all-powerful heroes. But studies show that they know they are pretending and understand that their imaginary companions are just that: imaginary. Mr. Trump seems to have no sense of the boundary between his self-aggrandizing fantasies and reality.

Four-year-olds have a “theory of mind,” an understanding of their own minds and those of others. In my lab we have found that 4-year-olds recognize that their own past beliefs might have been wrong. Mr. Trump contradicts himself without hesitation and doesn’t seem to recognize any conflict between his past and present beliefs.

Four-year-olds, contrary to popular belief, are not egocentric or self-centered. They understand and care about how other people feel and think, and recognize that other people can feel and think differently from them. In my lab, which studies the cognitive development of children, we have found that even 1½-year-olds can understand that someone else might want something different from what they want. They understand that someone else might like broccoli, even though they themselves prefer crackers, and they will help that person get what he wants.

In fact, children as young as 1½ demonstrate both empathy and altruism: They will rush to comfort someone who is hurt, and they will spontaneously go out of their way to help someone. In one study, if 1-year-olds saw a stranger drop a pen and strain to reach for it, they would crawl over obstacles to find the pen and give it to him. Mr. Trump displays neither empathy nor altruism, and his egocentrism is staggering.

Four-year-olds have a strong moral sense. Children as young as 2½ say that hurting another child is always wrong, even if an authority figure were to say otherwise. Babies will avoid a puppet that has been mean to another puppet. Mr. Trump admires authoritarian leaders who have no compunctions about harming their own people.

Four-year-olds are sensitive to social norms and think that they and other people should obey them. In one recent study, seeing a puppet play a game involving particular rules led children to follow the rules themselves and to expect other people to do so. Even 2- and 3-year-olds protested when they saw someone break the rules. Mr. Trump has time and again shown his contempt for norms of behavior in every community he has belonged to.

Now, all this is not to say that a 4-year-old would make a good chief executive. Being president is certainly a grown-up job. Still, most adults, even most presidents, and certainly the best presidents, manage to retain some of their childlike traits — curiosity, openness to experience, intuitive sensitivity to others.

We’d all be better off if Mr. Trump were more like that.

[B]Alison Gopnik[/B] is a professor of psychology at the University of California, Berkeley, and the author, most recently, of “The Gardener and the Carpenter: What the New Science of Child Development Tells Us About the Relationship Between Parents and Children.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/20/opinion/sunday/4-year-olds-children-trump-gopnik.html?_r=0

shida yako na trump huwa nini?hata ucreate a million threads against him hata cease kuwa rais wa USA

Trump is the leader the US deserves. He embodies the extreme anti-intellectualism the American people have.

Yenyewe wachana na hii mambo ya Trump…

I think very few people in this forum were saddened by Trumps win! At least we have someone Ferking Amerifools from within!

Hiyo mambo ingine sijui nini doesnt bother me at all

Of course, 4 year olds are not billionaires nor presidents

please!! please!! tufagie kwetu. leave Americans with their trumps tu kazane na madre na mapediophile wetu. washarudisha unga to 90bob(we don’t know how) bado maziwa na sukari. they have until august alaf we fire them. so please let Amerka be, am sure they are better off than we are and yet we are here pitying them…

Americans made their bed. So will Kenyans come August. We get the leaders we deserve.

Why do folks here open Drumpf threads and then catch feelings for him, urging others not to discuss hus comical career?

hata wewe umekuwa comical sasa,day in, day out mambo ni ya trump,kwani alikukamulia bibi?

Hapa ni News & Politics Villager. Ukitaka kukamuliwa, go down 3 doors utapata Sex & Relationships.

But its clear mambo ya Trump umeyafanya kuwa a relationship issue vile huwa unalialia hapa kila siku. Btw hows hillary?

There is something to be learned by observing Trump. As totally nonsensical as he is, Americans have a tough time believing that they could’ve be elected someone so stupid. I believe that Kenyans are more tolerant than Americans. Trump’s goofiness will shortly lead him to losing his post but I wouldn’t be so sure that Kenyans would have the wherethall to act logically without being tribalistic if one of their own acted just as atavistically ignorant.

So rather than being dismissive, maybe you could try and see if you can learn something from it. If for no other reason. so that you avoid being in the situation Americans are in.

Oh one more thing; for the morbidly curious, he is entertaining as the as heck.:wink:

For Impeachment, It Doesn’t Matter Whether Trump Broke The Law

POLITICS - 05/18/2017 12:33 PM EDT

People are asking the wrong questions about what the president did.

A serious conversation about impeaching President Donald Trump is underway. But it may be going in the wrong direction already.
Even before Wednesday’s appointment of a special counsel to investigate ties between the Trump campaign and Russia as well as possible attempts to conceal them, lawyers were all over television arguing whether Trump’s actions to date constituted an “obstruction of justice” that would earn a conviction in a normal criminal proceeding. They particularly focused on the president’s reported request that former FBI Director James Comey drop an investigation into Trump’s former national security adviser, Michael Flynn.

But impeachment is not a normal criminal proceeding, and official constitutional grounds for removal go beyond whether a president has broken the law. On the contrary, the Constitution reserves impeachment and removal for instances of “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

There’s a reason for that. The document’s framers weren’t out to punish crime when they wrote the impeachment clause. They were trying to construct a mechanism for removing a threat to democracy.

The question for Congress ― and eventually, the public ― is whether, given available evidence, Trump constitutes that kind of threat.
Impeachment is about protecting constitutional democracy.

The Constitution is reasonably specific about how Congress goes about removing a president. The process begins in the House, with the Judiciary Committee (or some other committee that Congress designates) drawing up articles of impeachment specifying the president’s alleged offenses. If the committee approves the articles, the full House considers them. On the floor, as in committee, a mere majority is sufficient for approval.

Such a vote ends the actual impeachment phase, which is roughly akin to an indictment. The question of whether to “convict” falls to the Senate, where deliberations can appear more judicial than political ― with the House sending over “managers” who serve the role of prosecutors, and the president sending his lawyers to defend him. The chief justice of the Supreme Court sits as the presiding officer, ruling on procedural matters, although the Senate can overrule the chief justice by majority vote.

Eventually, the Senate withdraws to closed session to deliberate, and then returns to vote in public, with a hefty two-thirds majority ― 67 senators, if the full Senate is present ― necessary to expel the president from office and power.

Yet the Constitution is a lot less specific about which transgressions actually warrant removal. Bribery and treason are clearly defined enough, but the phrase “high crimes and misdemeanors” is a different story.

The framers added the phrase to the impeachment clause at the Constitutional Convention, when George Mason feared that provisions against bribery and treason alone would not sufficiently contain a despotic executive, but James Madison thought Mason’s choice of phrase, “maladministration,” was overly broad.

“I take the idea to be that they wanted to deal with serious offenses against the state, not petty illegality,” Josh Chafetz, professor of law at Cornell, explained over email on Wednesday.
The point, Chafetz said, was to deal with transgressions that “had to do with aggrandizement of the office, trampling on norms of governance, etc. They didn’t have to do with contempt in a civil case, or other small-bore offenses that were largely unrelated to office.”

Clintonian and Nixonian offenses are different.
That standard prevailed in the late 1990s, during the impeachment of former President Bill Clinton. Nobody questioned that Clinton had broken the law when, during a deposition for a civil case, he lied under oath about his sexual relationship with a White House intern. He was guilty of perjury.

But after the House passed articles of impeachment, the Senate fell well short of impeaching Clinton, mainly because even Republicans came to agree with Democrats that he was not guilty of any offense that qualified as a “high crime.” He had lied to conceal the existence of a private relationship that many people thought should never have become public in the first place.

The circumstances were very different in 1974, when the House Judiciary Committee was preparing articles of impeachment for former President Richard Nixon. Over the course of two years, thanks to a combination of intrepid journalism and an aggressive special counsel, it became apparent that Nixon had conspired with his aides to cover up ― and then suppress the investigation of ― efforts to spy on and sabotage Democrats in the 1972 election.
To this day, it remains unclear whether Nixon actually ordered the Watergate break-in that gave the scandal its name. (For a refresher, read Dylan Matthew’s comprehensive guide to Watergate at Vox.)

But recordings captured Nixon telling his aides he wanted the FBI to back off investigation of a crime ― and not just of any crime, but of an attempt to tamper with a presidential election. They were also evidence that Nixon was using his control of federal law enforcement to shield himself and his associates from accountability.
This week’s New York Times revelation ― that Comey has a memo, written contemporaneously, about Trump urging him to back off the Flynn investigation ― suggests Trump may have engaged in behavior strikingly similar to Nixon’s, although he has denied wrongdoing. More such evidence may emerge, whether through congressional testimony or the special counsel investigation now getting underway.

It still might not be enough to win a conviction in court, given the technical definition of “obstruction of justice” and how it would apply to the president, who occupies a unique position overseeing federal law enforcement. But, as Harvard Law Professor Noah Feldman wrote this week at Bloomberg View, it could still be an “obvious and egregious abuse of power” ― the kind that would have eventually led to Nixon’s removal from office, had he not resigned first.

As Chafetz explained, “A violation of the criminal law is neither necessary nor sufficient to make something a high crime or misdemeanor for impeachment purposes. It’s not necessary because all sorts of petty crimes shouldn’t rise to the level of impeachable offenses. And it’s not sufficient, because one can imagine plenty of really bad derelictions of duty or malfeasance … that don’t happen to be criminal but are certainly disqualifying from remaining in the presidency.”

Impeachment always comes down to politics.
In the end, it wasn’t principle that drove Nixon from the presidency. It was politics. He resisted resignation as long as he could, relenting only when a group of loyal Republicans told him, in person, he didn’t have the votes to survive the coming impeachment proceedings.

And so it will be now. Trump’s ability to survive the coming investigation and what it produces will ultimately depend on whether Republicans are willing to stand by him.

So far, by and large, they have ― shielding him from inquiries on everything from Russia to his tax returns ― perhaps because they believe his continued presence in the White House offers their best opportunity to pass their legislative agenda, or perhaps because they are not yet ready to openly challenge a party leader who retains the enthusiastic support of so many Republican voters.

For better or worse, this, too, is how the framers wanted it.
“The trappings of legality serve to discipline the proceedings and to prevent them from becoming merely a tool of partisan warfare,” Nicholas Bagley, law professor at the University of Michigan, said on Wednesday. “At the same time, the House and the Senate ― not judges ― are charged with carrying out this judicial-style process. The Constitution’s drafters knew that political considerations would influence legislators’ judgments. The open-endedness of the ‘high crimes and misdemeanors’ phrase affords legislators a lot of room to designate those offenses that, under the circumstances, warrant impeachment.”

Of course, political conditions change. If the special counsel produces even more powerful evidence of Trump’s wrongdoing, public outrage might become too overwhelming for this Republican Congress to ignore.

But a lot depends on whether the conversation about Trump’s future in office focuses on the right question: whether, through his actions, he has seriously undermined the rule of law or democratic process.

The only lesson to be learnt here is the one of accept the results and move on, which unfortunately you and the sorry dems seem not to learn as you are still in denial six months down the line. Now you’ve been reduced to a hyena-kungoja mkono uanguke

I don’t think you can quote one time I have ever asked why he won or that I can’t believe he won. If you want to engage me forget about clichés and argue intelligently. I’ve always talked about what he’s doing now and the likely repercussions of his actions. If that offends you then I regret to inform you that I’m not your babysitter. Go whine to somebody else.

[QOUTE=“Amused, post: 994496, member: 15711”]I don’t think you can quote one time I have ever asked why he won or that I can’t believe he won. If you want to engage me forget about clichés and argue intelligently. I’ve always talked about what he’s doing now and the likely repercussions of his actions. If that offends you then I regret to inform you that I’m not your babysitter. Go whine to somebody else.
[/QUOTE]

Thank you, whoever it was you gave that tongue-lashing. They are stuck in Drumpf’s ‘victory’ and inauguration crowds.

Thank you, whoever it was you gave that tongue-lashing. They are stuck in Drumpf’s ‘victory’ and inauguration crowds.
[/QUOTE]

Not really. You see, what you and the sorry dems keep doing is exactly what we keep accusing raila and the opposition right here at home. And that is keeping a country in perpetual election campaign mode. Americans would right now be discussing meaningful developmental issues rather than meaningless power shows by the sorry dems. You see, they lost. They should live with that. Tinga right here does the same thing. Keeping meaningless political temparatures high. Yet people dont eat politics. People eat jobs, infrastructure, economic growth etc. Simple