Donald Trump's recent interview with Time Magazine provides further insight into the man who now runs the most powerful country on earth. And to be blunt, it is terrifying.
If you read the interview in its entirety, you get the distinct impression that Trump is not only not very bright, but quite possibly seriously mentally impaired. His inability to focus on what he is being asked results in a meandering, rambling interview that bears no relationship to what is actually happening in the country. Trump basically appears to view the interview as an opportunity to brag about how great his political instincts are, leading any rational observer to conclude that to the contrary, his political instincts are in fact horse shit.
The president genuinely appears to believe that because he believes something it makes it real. Just read this incredible interaction:
One of my ideas here is that throughout the campaign and now as president, you have used disputed statements, this is one of them that is disputed, the claim that three million undocumented people voted in the election…
Well I think I will be proved right about that too.
The claim that Muslims celebrated on 9-11 in New Jersey…
Well if you look at the reporter, he wrote the story in the Washington Post.
But my idea is that whatever the reality of what you are describing, the fact that they are disputed makes them a more effective message, that you are able to spread the message further, that more people get excited about it, that it gets on TV.
Well now if you take a look at the votes, when I say that, I mean mostly they register wrong, in other words, for the votes, they register incorrectly, and/or illegally. And they then vote. You have tremendous numbers of people. In fact I’m forming a committee on it.
But there’s no evidence that 3 million people voted with…
We’ll see after the committee. I have people say it was more than that. We will see after we have. But there will be, we are forming a committee. And we are going to do a study on it, a very serious problem.
Is there anything different about making these kinds of predictions without having the factual evidence as President?
I’m a very instinctual person, but my instinct turns out to be right. When everyone said I wasn’t going to win the election, I said well I think I would. You know it is interesting, somebody came up to me and said the other day, gee whiz, the New York Times and other people, you know other groups, had you down at one percent, well, I said no I think I am going to win, and people smiled, George Stephanopoulos laughed, you remember. He thought it was very cute, and very funny. Other people smiled. And some people, the smart people or the people that know me didn’t laugh at all. There are people that know me, like Carl Icahn and many others, that didn’t laugh at all, they thought I was going to win, because they understand how I, they understand me. They get it. But you take a look and guess what, I won, and I won easily. I predicted Brexit. Remember they said there was no way to get to 270? Well I ended up at 306. I had election night, 306. But there was no way to get to, in fact I went to Maine four times, four times I went to Maine, because I had to get one vote, because there was no way to get to 270, but I ended up getting to 306. Brexit, I predicted Brexit, you remember that, the day before the event. I said, no, Brexit is going to happen, and everybody laughed, and Brexit happened. Many many things. They turn out to be right. And now today, Devin Nunes, just had a news conference.
Of all the examples the very instinctual Trump gives, only his Brexit prediction can be taken seriously (a vote that was basically 50/50 anyway). Contrary to his bravado, Trump clearly did not think he was going to win the presidency. He was as shocked as everyone by the result, and came into the White House so unprepared to govern that he made the post invasion handling of Iraq seem like a finely tuned operation planned years in advance. As for the 3 million undocumented voters and the mysterious American Muslims he claimed he saw celebrating 9/11, they are real in the same way he won the biggest electoral college victory since Ronald Reagan.
The rest of the interview follows the same pattern -- the interviewer calls Trump out on something he's lied about, Trump responds with more bullshit claiming he was only quoting people he'd read and was proven right anyway. Here he was lying his way out of the Obama wiretap lie:
If you go back to Comey testifying that he and the Justice Department have no information to back up your tweet, the head of the NSA testifying that there is no information to back up your tweet, or the claim made by Judge Napolitano…
On front page of the New York, OK? It’s in the title of the front page. And I would like you to officially—I know you are going to write a bad article because you always do—[mention] wiretap data used in inquiry of Trump aides. OK.Wiretapped data used in inquiry of Trump aids. Ok? Can you possibly put that down? Front page, January 20th. Now in their second editions, they took it all down under the internet. They took that out. Ok? But that’s the way it is. And then they just had a news conference now where they turned out, you watch. You watch.
It appears Trump is saying something like "New York Times wrote something about wiretapping aides, therefore Obama wiretapped me, and even if it was wrong, just watch because I'll turn out to be right" (if anyone can parse this rambling word salad more accurately, then please leave it in the comments section below).
The key take away from this interview is that because Donald Trump had the instincts to become president, he must be right. And even if he is wrong, he'll end up being right anyway because the media is fake news and only he gets to determine what is real.