Can we reasonably discuss Trump?

So..how can you be narcissistic without being a narcissist?

I don't do the semantics thing. One of the most maddening symptom of commiecratism is the way they destroy the language, and arbitrarily change definitions.

How can a woman be "sexy" and not be a whore?

Can people be "dishonest" and not be a liar?

Can you have "prejudice" but not be a racist?

Can you dislike meat but not be a vegan?

I can think of millions of examples to express my point but the bottom line is, I agree that semantics is a big way the left controls the dialogue. It's largely out of misrepresenting context. Words have meaning but they also have context.

Because I am "pro-life" doesn't mean I am a sexist who wants to control women's bodies. Because I am against illegal immigration doesn't mean I hate brown people.

Actually, it would be more like..
"How can a woman sell her body, yet not be a whore?" (answer..she can't)
"Can people lie and not be a liar?" (no)
"Can you hate people of a particular color and not be racist?" (Nope).
"Can you live by vegan principles and not be a vegan?" (Negatory).

Well all you're doing is distorting what I posted to make your point. If you don't want to see my point that's fine. Just say so. No need to go through all these gymnastics. I was simply trying to present examples of context. People can be less than truthful and not be liars... Women can be very sexy and sensual without being whores. Everyone I know of has prejudices... no one is beyond that... but everyone is not a racist. You can dislike meat but not be a vegetarian. And... someone can convey the perception of narcissism yet not be a narcissist.

Now... if you want to rigidly apply the dictionary definition of narcissism, you can make the argument that it fits Donald Trump's behavior. But this requires disregarding context and that's the whole problem with the liberal left's semantics game. I don't know why you're arguing with me on something we agree on? :dunno:

Because I don't agree. I hate it when people throw words around without being cognizant of what they mean.

Narcissism is characterized, primarily, by a LACK OF EMPATHY and a fragile ego. To say someone is "narcissistic" is to say they lack empathy and have an ego that is easily bruised. They are anti-social, and I see NOTHING in Trump that screams "NARCISSIST" to me. He bloviates, but that isn't a characteristic of a narcissist. He doesn't back down when he thinks he's right, also not a characteristic of a narcissist. He apologizes when he's wrong, his family, kids and employees all seem to adore him...none of those indicate narcissism.

So why the fuck say he's narcissistic?

OBAMA is a narcissist. He cannot speak without self aggrandizing. Compare their usage of the word "I" in their speeches, that pretty much says it all. Obama has no empathy..he has repeatedly said he has no problem with mowing over people to establish an ideology. THAT'S narcissism. And I suspect his interpersonal relationships are shitty. At any rate, you don't hear people saying what a fab guy he is..they never have. And they never will. I suspect his kids will be hot messes. Those are indicators of narcissm.

Just because someone says something you don't like, and has the chops to defend it, isn't the defining characteristic of a narcissist.

Noun
narcissism ‎(usually uncountable, plural narcissisms)
Excessive love of oneself.

Noun
narcissist ‎(plural narcissists)
(Colloquial, loose use) Egoist, egocentric, person full of egoism and pride.
One who shows extreme affection, love and admiration for himself or herself.

Adjective
narcissistic ‎(comparative more narcissistic, superlative most narcissistic)
Having an inflated idea of one's own importance.
Obsessed with one's own self image and ego.

As you can see by the dictionary definitions, Trump can be "narcissistic" in his behaviors. If you deny this, you are in denial of the truth and I can't help you. However, Trump (in my opinion) is not a narcissist. Again, read the fucking definition from the dictionary! There is a subtle but important difference and it's in the context of the actual words and what they imply. You can be narcissistic, or give the impression of narcissism but NOT be a narcissist.

Look at it like this... I can like watching fires. I can even enjoy making fires. It can give me a thrill to watch or make a fire. That doesn't mean I am an arsonist, does it? :dunno:
 
So..how can you be narcissistic without being a narcissist?

I don't do the semantics thing. One of the most maddening symptom of commiecratism is the way they destroy the language, and arbitrarily change definitions.

How can a woman be "sexy" and not be a whore?

Can people be "dishonest" and not be a liar?

Can you have "prejudice" but not be a racist?

Can you dislike meat but not be a vegan?

I can think of millions of examples to express my point but the bottom line is, I agree that semantics is a big way the left controls the dialogue. It's largely out of misrepresenting context. Words have meaning but they also have context.

Because I am "pro-life" doesn't mean I am a sexist who wants to control women's bodies. Because I am against illegal immigration doesn't mean I hate brown people.

Actually, it would be more like..
"How can a woman sell her body, yet not be a whore?" (answer..she can't)
"Can people lie and not be a liar?" (no)
"Can you hate people of a particular color and not be racist?" (Nope).
"Can you live by vegan principles and not be a vegan?" (Negatory).

Well all you're doing is distorting what I posted to make your point. If you don't want to see my point that's fine. Just say so. No need to go through all these gymnastics. I was simply trying to present examples of context. People can be less than truthful and not be liars... Women can be very sexy and sensual without being whores. Everyone I know of has prejudices... no one is beyond that... but everyone is not a racist. You can dislike meat but not be a vegetarian. And... someone can convey the perception of narcissism yet not be a narcissist.

Now... if you want to rigidly apply the dictionary definition of narcissism, you can make the argument that it fits Donald Trump's behavior. But this requires disregarding context and that's the whole problem with the liberal left's semantics game. I don't know why you're arguing with me on something we agree on? :dunno:

Because I don't agree. I hate it when people throw words around without being cognizant of what they mean.

Narcissism is characterized, primarily, by a LACK OF EMPATHY and a fragile ego. To say someone is "narcissistic" is to say they lack empathy and have an ego that is easily bruised. They are anti-social, and I see NOTHING in Trump that screams "NARCISSIST" to me. He bloviates, but that isn't a characteristic of a narcissist. He doesn't back down when he thinks he's right, also not a characteristic of a narcissist. He apologizes when he's wrong, his family, kids and employees all seem to adore him...none of those indicate narcissism.

So why the fuck say he's narcissistic?

OBAMA is a narcissist. He cannot speak without self aggrandizing. Compare their usage of the word "I" in their speeches, that pretty much says it all. Obama has no empathy..he has repeatedly said he has no problem with mowing over people to establish an ideology. THAT'S narcissism. And I suspect his interpersonal relationships are shitty. At any rate, you don't hear people saying what a fab guy he is..they never have. And they never will. I suspect his kids will be hot messes. Those are indicators of narcissm.

Just because someone says something you don't like, and has the chops to defend it, isn't the defining characteristic of a narcissist.

Noun
narcissism ‎(usually uncountable, plural narcissisms)
Excessive love of oneself.

Noun
narcissist ‎(plural narcissists)
(Colloquial, loose use) Egoist, egocentric, person full of egoism and pride.
One who shows extreme affection, love and admiration for himself or herself.

Adjective
narcissistic ‎(comparative more narcissistic, superlative most narcissistic)
Having an inflated idea of one's own importance.
Obsessed with one's own self image and ego.

As you can see by the dictionary definitions, Trump can be "narcissistic" in his behaviors. If you deny this, you are in denial of the truth and I can't help you. However, Trump (in my opinion) is not a narcissist. Again, read the fucking definition from the dictionary! There is a subtle but important difference and it's in the context of the actual words and what they imply. You can be narcissistic, or give the impression of narcissism but NOT be a narcissist.

Look at it like this... I can like watching fires. I can even enjoy making fires. It can give me a thrill to watch or make a fire. That doesn't mean I am an arsonist, does it? :dunno:

He doesn't have the narcissistic characteristics, therefore, he isn't "narcissistic".
Anyway.
 
He doesn't have the narcissistic characteristics, therefore, he isn't "narcissistic".
Anyway.

Except he DOES have narcissistic characteristics as does ANYONE who seeks the most powerful office in the world. That doesn't make him a narcissist.
 
He doesn't have the narcissistic characteristics, therefore, he isn't "narcissistic".
Anyway.

Except he DOES have narcissistic characteristics as does ANYONE who seeks the most powerful office in the world. That doesn't make him a narcissist.

That is a subjective call.

Which is why psychology is a crock of shit anyway.
 
The fact that you fail to see simply demolishes your claim at having any honest discussion...

The fact that I fail to see hyperbolic rhetoric and conjecture as factual evidence? :dunno:
The fact that you consider Global Warming, Gay Rights, Women's Rights, etc as rhetoric once again proves your intellectual failings or the lack of intellect to seriously comprehend such issues...
 
so who did you vote for dumbass? easy question

Darrell Castle for president. Republicans for everything else. I almost left the presidential selection blank but decided to throw a vote to the Constitution Party.

Now, in the spirit of full disclosure.... I knew that Alabama was an easy win for Trump and my vote wasn't going to matter. IF my state had been a toss-up state where there was ANY possibility of Hillary winning, I would have probably voted for Trump.

See? That's exactly the point I've been making about the negative effects of the Electoral College for the entire duration of this campaign. Finally you agree with me on something.

No, I don't agree with you on anything. Had the election been decided on popular vote, I would have voted for Trump and MILLIONS of others would have as well. Trump would have spent an enormous amount of money and campaign time in California and his home state of NY because those votes would have been crucial. He knew he wasn't going to win those states so it didn't matter. But all of this is an academic argument because we have a Constitution which outlines the Electoral College process for electing a president. We don't have another system.

Yeah I'm afraid you do agree ---- and you just reconfirmed it (bold).

Been pointing that out relentlessly for over a year here, as well as in the past. As I like to illustrate it, I had a vote last fall, only because NC was in the bullshit label "battleground state" category (a classification which would not exist without the EC winner-take-all system) --- but my friends and relatives in California and Texas and Massachusetts and Mississippi, had no vote. Their vote --- how did you put it --- "wasn't going to matter". They could have voted for Rump, they could have voted for Clinton, they could have voted for freaking Richard Nixon, or they could have just stayed home, and all four options would have produced exactly the same result.

You know it as well as I do. You even said it before I did.

The weird part is even when you agree with me, you find the need to disagree on the fact that you agree.
Must be an interesting cacophony inside your head.
 
The fact that you fail to see simply demolishes your claim at having any honest discussion...

The fact that I fail to see hyperbolic rhetoric and conjecture as factual evidence? :dunno:
The fact that you consider Global Warming, Gay Rights, Women's Rights, etc as rhetoric once again proves your intellectual failings or the lack of intellect to seriously comprehend such issues...
Public school?
 
So..how can you be narcissistic without being a narcissist?

I don't do the semantics thing. One of the most maddening symptom of commiecratism is the way they destroy the language, and arbitrarily change definitions.

How can a woman be "sexy" and not be a whore?

Can people be "dishonest" and not be a liar?

Can you have "prejudice" but not be a racist?

Can you dislike meat but not be a vegan?

I can think of millions of examples to express my point but the bottom line is, I agree that semantics is a big way the left controls the dialogue. It's largely out of misrepresenting context. Words have meaning but they also have context.

Because I am "pro-life" doesn't mean I am a sexist who wants to control women's bodies. Because I am against illegal immigration doesn't mean I hate brown people.

Actually, it would be more like..
"How can a woman sell her body, yet not be a whore?" (answer..she can't)
"Can people lie and not be a liar?" (no)
"Can you hate people of a particular color and not be racist?" (Nope).
"Can you live by vegan principles and not be a vegan?" (Negatory).

Well all you're doing is distorting what I posted to make your point. If you don't want to see my point that's fine. Just say so. No need to go through all these gymnastics. I was simply trying to present examples of context. People can be less than truthful and not be liars... Women can be very sexy and sensual without being whores. Everyone I know of has prejudices... no one is beyond that... but everyone is not a racist. You can dislike meat but not be a vegetarian. And... someone can convey the perception of narcissism yet not be a narcissist.

Now... if you want to rigidly apply the dictionary definition of narcissism, you can make the argument that it fits Donald Trump's behavior. But this requires disregarding context and that's the whole problem with the liberal left's semantics game. I don't know why you're arguing with me on something we agree on? :dunno:

Because I don't agree. I hate it when people throw words around without being cognizant of what they mean.

Narcissism is characterized, primarily, by a LACK OF EMPATHY and a fragile ego. To say someone is "narcissistic" is to say they lack empathy and have an ego that is easily bruised. They are anti-social, and I see NOTHING in Trump that screams "NARCISSIST" to me. He bloviates, but that isn't a characteristic of a narcissist. He doesn't back down when he thinks he's right, also not a characteristic of a narcissist. He apologizes when he's wrong, his family, kids and employees all seem to adore him...none of those indicate narcissism.

So why the fuck say he's narcissistic?

OBAMA is a narcissist. He cannot speak without self aggrandizing. Compare their usage of the word "I" in their speeches, that pretty much says it all. Obama has no empathy..he has repeatedly said he has no problem with mowing over people to establish an ideology. THAT'S narcissism. And I suspect his interpersonal relationships are shitty. At any rate, you don't hear people saying what a fab guy he is..they never have. And they never will. I suspect his kids will be hot messes. Those are indicators of narcissm.

Just because someone says something you don't like, and has the chops to defend it, isn't the defining characteristic of a narcissist.

Rump has never apologized for anything in his life. Not until pussygate when he was completely trapped. Find me any other instance. Any time, anywhere, in any situation. In other cases he's outright directly denied things he's done or said, things that are already on record; one example -- claiming he was never for the Iraq war even after his own voice is on tape saying just that. Another -- denying he ever impersonated his own fictitious PR man, even after having admitted he did it. And those PR people (there were at least two, "John Miller" and ""John Baron") were invented solely for the purpose of self-aggrandizement. If that ain't classic Narcissism I'm the fucking Queen of Belgium. It's also pure self-delusion.

Want more?
How 'bout "I will be the greatest jobs president that god ever created"?

How about "I never went bankrupt"? Again --- pure self-delusion.

I tells ya what --- let's just run this list again from way back in the thread. Perhaps you missed it while you were running over wild turkeys.

Narrated Rumple al-Egomaniakh:

“No one is more conservative than me.”

“No one is stronger on the Second Amendment than me.”

“No one respects women more than me."

"No one reads the Bible more than me.”

“There’s nobody more pro-Israel than I am.”

“There’s nobody that’s done so much for equality as I have.”

“There’s nobody who feels more strongly about women’s health issues.”

“Nobody knows more about taxes than me, maybe in the history of the world.”

“I have studied the Iran deal in great detail, greater by far than anyone else.”

“Nobody’s ever been more successful than me.”

“Nobody knows banking better than I do.”

“Nobody knows more about debt than I do.”

“Nobody’s bigger or better at the military I am.”

“I am the least racist person you’ll ever meet.”

“Nobody knows the system better than me.”

“Nobody knows politicians better than me.”

“Nobody builds better walls than me.”

“Nobody knows more about trade than me.”

“There is nobody more against Obamacare than me.”

“Nobody has better toys than me.”

“I can be more presidential than anybody. I would say more presidential, and I’ve said this a couple of times, more presidential other than the great Abe Lincoln.”​

:wtf:

Garry Trudeau assembled these for his comic Doonesbury, all of which are real, and then added a fictitious one:

“Nobody is better on humility than me.”

And yet.... soon enough, I believe it was the 60 Minutes interview.... Rump did just that. Actually he outdid that.

When asked about humility he actually said --- not even making this up----


"I'm very humble. I'm humble in ways you wouldn't even understand".
shakehead.gif

He actually said that. On camera with a straight face.

That's the kind of thing that lead me to think Andy Kaufmann never really died, he just donned a wig and painted his face orange to pull the most outrageous dadaist joke in history.

So to recap --- Rump is, according to the word of Rump (praised be unto his orange name) that he, personally, is the absolute superlative in the areas of:

  • Being conservative
  • Being "strong" on the Second Amendment
  • Reading the bible
  • respecting women :rofl:
  • being "pro-Israel", whatever that might mean
  • doing 'things' for equality, ditto
  • "feeling strongly" about women's health issues, presumably regarding blood and bathrooms
  • knowing about taxes, ever (notice he doesn't mention actually paying them)
  • studying "the Iran deal"
  • Banking (in which he's never worked)
  • Being "successful", whatever that might mean
  • Being in debt --- oopsie, get George Orwell on the horn
  • Knowing "the system"
  • Being "bigger or better at the military", whatever that means, despite having zero military experience to be "big at"
  • Being the "least racist"
  • Knowing politicians (and bribing them)
  • Building "walls" -- well metaphorically, yes without a doubt
  • Knowing about trade
  • Being against Obamacare
  • Having the best toys
  • Being presidential
  • Being humble
    rofl.gif
And of course let's not leave out:
  • Being the greatest jobs president that god ever created (notice what kind of job was not specified, e.g. "con")
----- Simultaneously he's all that.

But there's no way he's a Narcissist. :eusa_liar:
 
Last edited:
so who did you vote for dumbass? easy question

Darrell Castle for president. Republicans for everything else. I almost left the presidential selection blank but decided to throw a vote to the Constitution Party.

Now, in the spirit of full disclosure.... I knew that Alabama was an easy win for Trump and my vote wasn't going to matter. IF my state had been a toss-up state where there was ANY possibility of Hillary winning, I would have probably voted for Trump.

See? That's exactly the point I've been making about the negative effects of the Electoral College for the entire duration of this campaign. Finally you agree with me on something.

No, I don't agree with you on anything. Had the election been decided on popular vote, I would have voted for Trump and MILLIONS of others would have as well. Trump would have spent an enormous amount of money and campaign time in California and his home state of NY because those votes would have been crucial. He knew he wasn't going to win those states so it didn't matter. But all of this is an academic argument because we have a Constitution which outlines the Electoral College process for electing a president. We don't have another system.

Yeah I'm afraid you do agree ---- and you just reconfirmed it (bold).

Been pointing that out relentlessly for over a year here, as well as in the past. As I like to illustrate it, I had a vote last fall, only because NC was in the bullshit label "battleground state" category (a classification which would not exist without the EC winner-take-all system) --- but my friends and relatives in California and Texas and Massachusetts and Mississippi, had no vote. Their vote --- how did you put it --- "wasn't going to matter". They could have voted for Rump, they could have voted for Clinton, they could have voted for freaking Richard Nixon, or they could have just stayed home, and all four options would have produced exactly the same result.

You know it as well as I do. You even said it before I did.

The weird part is even when you agree with me, you find the need to disagree on the fact that you agree.
Must be an interesting cacophony inside your head.

We don't agree.

You are afraid... but we don't agree.
 
Is Trump a Narcissist? Perhaps, but he has quite a long way to go before he even gets close to 0bama's level of self love.

Obama wasn't that bad. The Clinton's on the other hand, they leave Trump in the dust.

Do you remember when Bill Clinton, met with Rush Limbaugh? Do remember this from the early 2000? After Clinton left office, Rush was at some sort of Charity dinner, and Billy showed up. Billy actually didn't know who the woman was, who sitting at the table over, and started hitting on Rush's wife.... His wife told him that Billy came over and started saying "hey you know I was president of the united states right?" wink wink....

Seriously the Clinton's are brain damaged. There is no couple in politics, more self aggrandizing than the Clintons. Thank Heaven, they are gone forever.

Good point about Bill and Hillary, but I still think 0bama edges them out.
 
so who did you vote for dumbass? easy question

Darrell Castle for president. Republicans for everything else. I almost left the presidential selection blank but decided to throw a vote to the Constitution Party.

Now, in the spirit of full disclosure.... I knew that Alabama was an easy win for Trump and my vote wasn't going to matter. IF my state had been a toss-up state where there was ANY possibility of Hillary winning, I would have probably voted for Trump.

See? That's exactly the point I've been making about the negative effects of the Electoral College for the entire duration of this campaign. Finally you agree with me on something.

No, I don't agree with you on anything. Had the election been decided on popular vote, I would have voted for Trump and MILLIONS of others would have as well. Trump would have spent an enormous amount of money and campaign time in California and his home state of NY because those votes would have been crucial. He knew he wasn't going to win those states so it didn't matter. But all of this is an academic argument because we have a Constitution which outlines the Electoral College process for electing a president. We don't have another system.

Yeah I'm afraid you do agree ---- and you just reconfirmed it (bold).

Been pointing that out relentlessly for over a year here, as well as in the past. As I like to illustrate it, I had a vote last fall, only because NC was in the bullshit label "battleground state" category (a classification which would not exist without the EC winner-take-all system) --- but my friends and relatives in California and Texas and Massachusetts and Mississippi, had no vote. Their vote --- how did you put it --- "wasn't going to matter". They could have voted for Rump, they could have voted for Clinton, they could have voted for freaking Richard Nixon, or they could have just stayed home, and all four options would have produced exactly the same result.

You know it as well as I do. You even said it before I did.

The weird part is even when you agree with me, you find the need to disagree on the fact that you agree.
Must be an interesting cacophony inside your head.

We don't agree.

You are afraid... but we don't agree.

See? You just proved my point AGAIN. You and I note exactly the same thing about the effect of the EC. That's what we call in English "agreement". And you sit here and deny that that agreement exists even when it's sitting here on the record.

That's some power of self-delusion. Are you by any chance an Orange American?
 
Okay, so the election happened and the transition is over. Donald John Trump is officially our 45th President of the United States of America. Some of us supported him enthusiastically, some of us held our noses and voted for him, some of us couldn't vote for him, some of us opposed him strongly and some probably didn't care one way or another. But he's now the president and he'll be the president unless he dies or gets impeached. Love him or hate him, that's now a fact of life.

I've been patient with those who supported Clinton and had to work through the shock of losing the election because I know how this feels. It takes you a while to work through the emotions and come to terms with things. In the meantime, you might say things that aren't very reasonable. I think we've all had time to let this soak in now and it's time we get on with the business of life.

I keep seeing these comments on social media and elsewhere about Trump being a racist, homophobe, misogynist, Hitler-like, etc. Whenever you question someone about such allegations, they just emote nonsense. They never can really tell me what the man said that supports such a charge. It's always a gross misinterpretation of something he said or did or an outright lie about something he never said or did. You have to twist things out of context and make false assumptions to reach this conclusion. When you have to do that, it's not reasonable. You're not making a reasoned argument.

Look, I totally get that a lot of people don't like his policy ideas. I understand an objection to things he has proposed doing or positions he has taken. I don't agree with Trump on everything, in fact, I couldn't actually cast my vote for him in the general. He said too many things that contradict my conservative principles and he just didn't meet my criteria to earn my vote. But he's not a racist. He's not a homophobe or misogynist. I see no comparison whatsoever to Hitler. I don't even think he is a narcissist. He's very confident in himself, I'll give you that. He can be very cocky and abrasively arrogant, and sometimes that can be construed as narcissism.

So now, if you have calmed down emotionally enough to reasonably discuss Trump, I am willing to entertain your thoughts on these allegations of whatever. This isn't a flame-fest or thread for you to emotively vent your frustration with the outcome of the elections. It's not about policies or politics in general, I realize many people disagree on his policies and politics. This is specifically for the reasoned discussion of Trump's personal views on race, gender, lifestyle, etc. It's time to put your evidence on the table and let's have a reasoned evaluation based on the facts.

There ain't no "can be construed" about it, at all. He's the MODEL of classic Narcissistic Personality Disorder. No one else would be literally up all night sending whiny tweets at 3 in the morning. He's severely mentally ill. There's simply no question about that.

However, that's nothing we didn't all know before the election, so it's not in any way news.

As far as racist/misogynist etc --- who knows. Given that he's a born liar and con artist who's out to manipulate people for his own benefit (again, Numero Uno), it's hard to find evidence. Manipulating other people's bigoted views of racism, religious or ethnic hatred, whatever, is not the same thing as actually holding those views oneself. With a con artist you really can't tell what he really believes personally ----- as distinct from what he believes will benefit him personally.

I do believe he's a misogynist though. There's way too much evidence.

And there's a big fat no to:
Can we reasonably discuss Trump?
 
See? You just proved my point AGAIN. You and I note exactly the same thing about the effect of the EC. That's what we call in English "agreement". And you sit here and deny that that agreement exists even when it's sitting here on the record.

That's some power of self-delusion. Are you by any chance an Orange American?

But I didn't agree with you. IF you are agreeing with ME, hit that little green check mark at the bottom of my post and move on. That's how you handle that.
 

Forum List

Back
Top