The one thing Donald Trump can’t bear people saying of him is something many near him confirm is true—he smells terrible. What will voters do with this intelligence? This report unpacks that question.
So, trump is a huge asshole to other people about the way they smell. See the clip with Larry King for one example.
. . . Trump is certainly willing to exact vengeance on those who fail to mask native scents that offend him. As he told GQ in 2012, “I have fired people that, and maybe it wasn’t the main reason, didn’t exactly smell good. Maybe that was an early indicator [of their inadequacies].” Is it presuming too much, then, to suppose Trump might fear voters spurning him for the same reason that he’s at times spurned others?
That’s an “other” reason it’s a valid news story to write about. He knows it’s politically damaging to him if it becomes a trending topic.
His germaphobia is discussed here as “cover” for his preoccupation with smells. Several examples of him lashing out at people close to him, such as
Trump was in the midst of an extremely serious conversation with Digital Media Director Brad Parscale, Deputy Campaign Manager David Bossie, and Campaign Manager Kellyanne Conway when the last of these had the temerity to cough—once.
Trump went “nuts” and stormed off, according to the official.
This is described as “a sort of “two-sizes-fits-all” narcissism, with one rule for the narcissist and another for the rest of the world.”
Is a personality disorder something you’d want to know about a candidate? You really should.
But your question “Who cares? Dumb Americans?” Is then directly addressed. Let’s see:
. . . does smell matter to voters as a matter of political science? And the answer, it turns out, is a qualified yes.
The “yes” here is a “qualified” one because it turns out that one political demographic in particular is likely to refuse to vote for any politician who smells bad.
That demographic is Donald Trump supporters.
Did you catch that? The people most likely to weigh a vote based on how someone smells are his own voters. What a twist! So now he’s not only unable to not talk about how people smell bad, his supporters have to ensure this story of his own bad smell of “feces, armpits, and ketchup” does not reach a repetitive level with his voters.
So there’s a high value on NOT talking about it. Who cares? The MAGAts. The Qanuts. His base cares. They must never know!
And THAT is the real point: Political journalism about trump is already beyond abysmal. But here’s a facet of his political life so banal and yet explosive (pardon the pun) that even those corporate news outlets who DARE to state that trump “falsely claimed” something, not that they can bring themselves to say he lied even, won’t touch this story. It would be too damaging to him to do so, for one.
Additionally, the national conversations, such as they are, about it would be overwhelmingly strident calls that “who cares?!” And “how is this even a topic?!” As your own comments predict.
Well political journalism has failed democracy and America many times before with trump. But never so much as this one particular point demonstrates.
The point is that helping Americans and the world see Donald Trump for what he is, not what his fans wishcast him into being, is the prime directive of all journalists who cover the man and his self-admitted dictatorial ambitions inside the United States. If Trump smells horrific, that’s not only an indication of why he’s hidden so much of his medical record from American voters but could also reveal personal habits that would impact his ability to serve as president. Indeed, they could even explain some of his most destructive conduct during his time in office. That it might also do damage to his reputation as a self-conceived “alpha male” is less of a concern for journalists, of course, but even that potential outcome to reporting on Trump’s odor would at least strike a blow for those in the journalistic establishment who—on matters of war and peace and even matters of personal conduct (like the fact that a federal court has held Trump to be a “rapist”)—have thus far had no luck getting news readers to simply see Trump for who and what he actually is.
Part III and I’ll just cut to the chase here as you’re no doubt a busy person with little time to read things beyond a few sentences.
Trump is demented - his mental capacity and competence are noticeably diminished in a medical sense. Trump is a narcissist - he has a personality disorder that distorts his understanding of the world. Trump is sociopatic - he has little-to-no empathy for others and is incapable of seeing things from someone else’s point of view.
And finally, trump is a rapist - a criminal whose sexual assaults are brutal, and cowardly, and reported publicly at least twenty times and counting.
Political journalism won’t touch these topics - the most important of information voters should have. And trump’s horrifying public explosive shits and fecal stench are more than a gross story - it’s a metaphor for who he is and how he’s handled by the supposed fourth-estate, whose role is creating a well-informed populace.
Oh okay so you employ the same strategy as the article. Just provide enough text (with an LLM) in your response to discourage the reader from engaging meaningfully while amazingly saying nothing meaningfully related to our discussion.
The disinformation age sucks. I have no words for how much you suck. So unless your response to this message is a succinct, human-typed reply that makes a single related argument to the legitmacy of a candidates smell then good day to you, chatgpt.
Thats your own fault. My request was simple. You have not commented on the smell of a candidate contributing or detracting from their ability to hold office. You just said trumps fans may hate it, and trump indeed smells, and that trump has done bad things including telling people they smell.
Still waiting for your answer to the original question.
You have not commented on the smell of a candidate contributing or detracting from their ability to hold office.
Fair. I explained what the article was actually about, which wasn’t that. I personally think a candidate whose stench of feces and ketchup is legendary would not be a good representative to send out to other countries as leader of America. But that’s just me. A lowly LLM. Still I know you don’t give a good goddamn about that either, so in other news the things I like are awesome and the things you like suck. Infinity plus one.
Oh wow an actual reason provided. Too bad it doesnt mean shit compared presidents that were too unhealthy to fit in a bathtub or even walk. What other arbitrary limits should we set upon holding office, or for that matter to work in america? Why stop at discriminating smell? Is it maybe because you are deriving candidate viability based on trump instead of objective criteria for a candidate?
Part II
So, trump is a huge asshole to other people about the way they smell. See the clip with Larry King for one example.
That’s an “other” reason it’s a valid news story to write about. He knows it’s politically damaging to him if it becomes a trending topic.
His germaphobia is discussed here as “cover” for his preoccupation with smells. Several examples of him lashing out at people close to him, such as
This is described as “a sort of “two-sizes-fits-all” narcissism, with one rule for the narcissist and another for the rest of the world.”
Is a personality disorder something you’d want to know about a candidate? You really should.
But your question “Who cares? Dumb Americans?” Is then directly addressed. Let’s see:
Did you catch that? The people most likely to weigh a vote based on how someone smells are his own voters. What a twist! So now he’s not only unable to not talk about how people smell bad, his supporters have to ensure this story of his own bad smell of “feces, armpits, and ketchup” does not reach a repetitive level with his voters.
So there’s a high value on NOT talking about it. Who cares? The MAGAts. The Qanuts. His base cares. They must never know!
And THAT is the real point: Political journalism about trump is already beyond abysmal. But here’s a facet of his political life so banal and yet explosive (pardon the pun) that even those corporate news outlets who DARE to state that trump “falsely claimed” something, not that they can bring themselves to say he lied even, won’t touch this story. It would be too damaging to him to do so, for one.
Additionally, the national conversations, such as they are, about it would be overwhelmingly strident calls that “who cares?!” And “how is this even a topic?!” As your own comments predict.
Well political journalism has failed democracy and America many times before with trump. But never so much as this one particular point demonstrates.
So now do you care what a candidate smells like?
Wait- there’s more
Part III and I’ll just cut to the chase here as you’re no doubt a busy person with little time to read things beyond a few sentences.
Trump is demented - his mental capacity and competence are noticeably diminished in a medical sense. Trump is a narcissist - he has a personality disorder that distorts his understanding of the world. Trump is sociopatic - he has little-to-no empathy for others and is incapable of seeing things from someone else’s point of view.
And finally, trump is a rapist - a criminal whose sexual assaults are brutal, and cowardly, and reported publicly at least twenty times and counting.
Political journalism won’t touch these topics - the most important of information voters should have. And trump’s horrifying public explosive shits and fecal stench are more than a gross story - it’s a metaphor for who he is and how he’s handled by the supposed fourth-estate, whose role is creating a well-informed populace.
That’s why it’s important.
Oh okay so you employ the same strategy as the article. Just provide enough text (with an LLM) in your response to discourage the reader from engaging meaningfully while amazingly saying nothing meaningfully related to our discussion.
The disinformation age sucks. I have no words for how much you suck. So unless your response to this message is a succinct, human-typed reply that makes a single related argument to the legitmacy of a candidates smell then good day to you, chatgpt.
Goddamn son, do you have a comment on the facts or not? I spent twenty minutes replying to you and this is what you’ve got.
Christ.
Thats your own fault. My request was simple. You have not commented on the smell of a candidate contributing or detracting from their ability to hold office. You just said trumps fans may hate it, and trump indeed smells, and that trump has done bad things including telling people they smell.
Still waiting for your answer to the original question.
Edit: “facts” lmao
lmao rofl lol wtf rizz
Fair. I explained what the article was actually about, which wasn’t that. I personally think a candidate whose stench of feces and ketchup is legendary would not be a good representative to send out to other countries as leader of America. But that’s just me. A lowly LLM. Still I know you don’t give a good goddamn about that either, so in other news the things I like are awesome and the things you like suck. Infinity plus one.
Oh wow an actual reason provided. Too bad it doesnt mean shit compared presidents that were too unhealthy to fit in a bathtub or even walk. What other arbitrary limits should we set upon holding office, or for that matter to work in america? Why stop at discriminating smell? Is it maybe because you are deriving candidate viability based on trump instead of objective criteria for a candidate?
Lets pick on blind people next maybe?
Again, no, that’s not what it’s about.
Gosh you’re a strange person. Okay then. Bye.
What is “it”, and what is it about?
Sorry your bullshit rambling doesnt amount to an opinion. :(
Get well soon.