You're getting into the area of dictatorship and, well, Napoleon complex there.
"The Napoleon complex, known informally as small man syndrome, is a syndrome normally attributed to people of short stature. It is characterized by overly aggressive or domineering social behavior, and carries the implication that such behavior is compensatory for the subject's physical or social shortcomings."
Many dictators were/are shorties.
That's not the same as taller people feeling more powerful, or being perceived as more competent and better leaders.
Studies have demonstrated that height effects a person's sense of power.
Taller people are also perceived to be more competent and to have more leadership qualities than their shorter counterparts.
That would suggest he's trying to fake it until he makes it, but maybe people are seeing through that.
Cottoning on to him using lifts perhaps just explains what people were picking up on anyway, that is, his body language, demeanor, behaviour, etc. doesn't match up with the person he is trying to portray himself as.
It certainly comes across as him lacking confidence, personal congruity, self-actualised traits and integrity.
That's not the kind of person who should be making unqualified, blanket and remote medical decisions about women's reproductive health.
I'm sure that he did because it would be one almighty feck up if he wasn't informed that the stay was being lifted, or if him having been informed wasn't on record.
There still has to be an evidentiary hearing to demonstrate he did know.
I imagine Judge Chutkan denying Jack Smith's motion to make the gag order a condition of his pretrial release went to his head.
I imagine Trump assumed that paying $5-10K was worth the defiance, particuarly as his grifting off of hs supporters that would pay for the pocket money sum.
That first footnote in the ruling is rather omninous, however.
I don't think light financial penalties, or detention are the only remedies at Judge Chutkan's disposal and discretion.
Judge Chutkan has denied Trump's motion to stay the gag order, arguing that it does not infringe upon his right to free speech.
During a temporary stay of the order, Trump posted on Truth Social content that woud have violated the order had it not been temporarily stayed for the administrative purpose of briefing the parties on Trump's motion:
In the ruling reimposing the order she spells out what Trump can and cannot say using examples from his posting history, one attacking Biden that isn't covered by the order, and one referring to a potential witness which is.
Judge Chutkin denied Jack Smith's motion to make the gag order a condition of his pretrial release, stating in a foonote of her ruling:
That means Jack Smith can ask again, but it gives her options, including revoking his pretrial release in the event that Trump breaches the order. As financial penalties have failed to inhibit Trump's breaches of his gag order in hs civil fraud case and his behavioural history there can be taken into account in this case, it's unlikely that her next move will be to impose a financial penalty of a similar order of manitude.
It's perhaps also unlikely that she'll revoke his pretrial release on the first breach since reimposing the order, as she's clearly building a record of his recidivist behaviour before doing that.
About an hour after the order was reimposed, Trump posted on Truth Social:
That appears to breach the gag order prohibiting him from targetting a potential witness, or the substance of their testimony.
It's likely that there will be an evidentiary hearing fairly soon to confirm that Trump knew he was subject to the reimposed order when he breached it. Judge Chutkan will have informed Trump's lawyers that she was about to lift the temporary stay and will have expected confirmation that he had been informed before releasing her ruling.
My comment wasn't directed at anyone in particular, but inspired by the discussion.
The topic of opening doors has come up so many times over the years and so many men seem to struggle with it, that I wrote an outline of current etiquettes that we can all partake in regardless of gender, or any other difference.
Push the door open with your hand and partially pass through the doorway.
Look over your shoulder on the door side and wait for the person behind you to put their hand on the door, ensuring it doesn't swing shut in their face.
It's only necessary to open the door like a hotel porter if the person behind you is pushing a baby buggy, is in a wheelchair, is carrying too much to hold the door themselves, is too infirm to hold the door open themselves, etc.
Whilst holding the door open like a porter, don't stare at the person you are holding the door for. Allow them to initiate small talk if they feel comfortable, otherwise politely reply 'you're welcome' to their polite 'thank you' and be on your way.
This etiquette is appropriate for anyone regardless of gender, or any other group belonging.
It may not always be obvious that someone can't open the door themselves due to a physical condition, especially if the doors are large, heavy and/or self-closing like a fire door. If you offer help, a brisk and slightly destracted demeanor is a useful tool to avoid the impression of an ulterior motive, like theft, or s*xual harassment.
I don't think you're too intelectually challenged to understand my comment, but I appreciate it might be emotionally challenging.
I'm sorry about that, but think we're all up to the task of living a fair and equal life whatever we have to give and take. To think otherwise is unfair, unequal and discriminatory by default.
Well, he's the onlly candidate remaining who said he wouldn't support Trump if he was criminally convicted, so I agree, he's the only viable option.
He can also string a sentence together, although I recognise the bar is pretty low there.
He did decline to condemn Jim Jordan for House speaker last week, which I thought was a pretty poor show under the insurrection involvement circumstances.
Feminism is the movement for equal rights for women.
You can't have equal rights for women without having equal rights for everyone else, by default.
Why do you think that equal rights is too big for women, people of colour, differently abled, LGBTQ+, etc. people to handle? Like we're not real people, nor equal to the task?
Why is it inconceivable that women might see how everyone has much to gain from equality?
Any of us in an advantagious position where others are subjugated has a price to pay. It's not healthy for anyone.
jac_the_gripper Blog Comments (2,986)
RE: Bootgate: How tall is Ron DeSantis...
Desantis should stuff his cowboy poulaines with moss.