Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Do you classify Obama and Hillary as narcissists?
Did you read the content found at the link in the edit I posted to my OP? If you did, you know what I think about their being or not being narcissists.
Please answer a simple direct question. I repeat; do you classify Obama and Hillary as narcissists?
I believe both of them, along with several GOP candidates, are healthy narcissists, because as Dr. Malkin points out, they "inspire without undermining; they lead with conviction not cruelty; they bring out the best, not the worst in people around them."
As I wrote in the edit to my OP, I recognize that a great many Presidential hopefuls and other leaders are narcissists; thus it's important to understand the distinction between an healthy one and an unhealthy one.
The recognition that I'd not originally articulated that distinction, engendered by the initial comments posted after my OP, made it clear to me that a meaningful share of the audience here may not be aware that there are types of narcissism. That is why I feel obliged to include the edit to my OP.
That's a load of nonsense. Narcissism by definition turns off people. It alienates. You can claim degrees of narcissism. But there's no such thing as healthy narcissism. You made a fake argument against Trump basically. You're not mad that he's a narcissist. You're mad that he isn't your narcissist.
I didn't coin the idea of healthy narcissism. I merely applied it to Mr. Trump and have attempted to bring it to the attention of others.
I'm in no position to credibly refute a medical doctor's explanation of healthy narcissism, unhealthy narcissism, or whether there is such a thing as a range of narcissism. Are you?
Red:
The best I could do, and what I did, was look for scholarly research/writings that support the premise that there is such a thing.
That's the due diligence I performed before creating this thread. I'll happily read material you present that refutes the legitimacy of a scale of narcissism; however, not knowing a damn thing about you and your published works pertaining to the disorder or others, and having none of my own, I won't just accept your assertion that the idea or verity of existence of different types of narcissism is "a load of nonsense."
Boss is making the point, like someone else has, that narcissism is a trait that in some way most Presidents will have. It was in recognition of that reality that I added the "Edit" to my OP and again in post #9.
Now as to why he chose to cite Mr. Obama rather than any other recent President for whom I was eligible to vote (I was born in 1959.), well I have no idea.
Because I don't agree and that wasn't the point I made. Obama is a narcissist. Most presidents are not. Most presidents, whether they do so while in office or not, admit their errors and faults. They also credit their staff and the people around them for their success and they thank the Americans who supported them and believed in what they were doing.
Can presidents SEEM to be a bit narcissistic sometimes? Of course! I think it comes with the territory and is part of politics. But narcissism is often confused with confidence. Most presidents have a lot of self confidence, that's how they won the presidency. That does not make them narcissists.
Did you read the content found at the link in the edit I posted to my OP? If you did, you know what I think about their being or not being narcissists.
Please answer a simple direct question. I repeat; do you classify Obama and Hillary as narcissists?
I believe both of them, along with several GOP candidates, are healthy narcissists, because as Dr. Malkin points out, they "inspire without undermining; they lead with conviction not cruelty; they bring out the best, not the worst in people around them."
As I wrote in the edit to my OP, I recognize that a great many Presidential hopefuls and other leaders are narcissists; thus it's important to understand the distinction between an healthy one and an unhealthy one.
The recognition that I'd not originally articulated that distinction, engendered by the initial comments posted after my OP, made it clear to me that a meaningful share of the audience here may not be aware that there are types of narcissism. That is why I feel obliged to include the edit to my OP.
That's a load of nonsense. Narcissism by definition turns off people. It alienates. You can claim degrees of narcissism. But there's no such thing as healthy narcissism. You made a fake argument against Trump basically. You're not mad that he's a narcissist. You're mad that he isn't your narcissist.
I didn't coin the idea of healthy narcissism. I merely applied it to Mr. Trump and have attempted to bring it to the attention of others.
I'm in no position to credibly refute a medical doctor's explanation of healthy narcissism, unhealthy narcissism, or whether there is such a thing as a range of narcissism. Are you?
Red:
The best I could do, and what I did, was look for scholarly research/writings that support the premise that there is such a thing.
That's the due diligence I performed before creating this thread. I'll happily read material you present that refutes the legitimacy of a scale of narcissism; however, not knowing a damn thing about you and your published works pertaining to the disorder or others, and having none of my own, I won't just accept your assertion that the idea or verity of existence of different types of narcissism is "a load of nonsense."
Doesn't matter who "coined" the term healthy narcissism. It's oxymoronic.
Don't talk about "due dilligence" that you performed for the OP when you're throwing this stuff out there as an after thought. For f's sake on that one, guy.
And I didn't say there aren't different types of narcissism (degrees as I put it). I said that there's no such thing as healthy narcissism; not truly. Narcissism by definition is not in anyone's best interest.
NARCISSISTIC PERSONALITY DISORDER
Grew up feeling superior, having grandiose fantasies, needing to be admired, and lacking empathy. Is unkind, greedy, arrogant, and callously exploits others. Not due to a medical or substance use disorder.
Trump is everything he claims to be. He's wildly successful and is admired. Trump is philanthropic. He's a hard-nosed business man in a tough business and he's dealing with some ruthless people who may deserve to be exploited.
Cruz clearly is an arrogant bastard. He's hated by every Republican senator. Cruz was willing the shut down the government to fulfill his own ego. Cruz has never in his life done anything for anyone but Ted Cruz whereas Trump has created many jobs and his dream is for a great America. Cruz is the most insincere low life in the GOP.
Predictions:
Lasts For Years/Lifetime
Occupational-Economic:
Trump works well with others because if he couldn't he would not have the success he's had. Sure he hates losing but so do most competitive people.
- Works poorly with others (self-centered, can't tolerate criticism or defeat)
Cruz is the most hated man in Washington. He's loves creating train wrecks and then denying he caused them. Cruz in unable to work with members of his own party. Hopefully when Cruz loses he'll eat a gun.
Cooperation (Antagonistic, Suspicious):
False Sense Of Superiority:Trump gets stuff done and he has his entire adult life. Trump is a winner. Trump worked smart and hard for everything he has. While he get admiration and why wouldn't he? He built a real estate empire by working hard working smart and working well with others.
- Arrogant; feels superior to others; has snobbish or patronizing attitudes
- Has a grandiose sense of self-importance
- Is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love.
- Believes that he or she is "special" and should associate with other high-status people
- Requires excessive admiration
- Has a sense of entitlement
- Is often envious of others
Cruz is very Hitleresque much like that douchebag Huckabee and that other liar Ben Carson. Trump's book, The Art of the Deal was not an auto biography like Huckabee's and Carson's or Cruz's modern day Mien Kampf.
Cruz has done nothing. Cruz is a career politician.
Cruz just beams when he thinks he's made some point like when he put down New Yorkers. Trump was genuinely hurt having been there during 911 and seeing and admiring the bravery of New Yorkers. Only a POS narcissist would insult the brave and decent people on NYC. Cruz would not run into the WTC but guys like Trump would.
Justice (Careless, Irresponsible):
Irresponsibility:
Trump takes a great deal of responsibility and his successful proves it.
- Cruz shut down the government and refused to cooperate even with members of his own party. That is the epitome of careless and irresponsible
- Is interpersonally exploitative
- Lacks empathy
Several leading psychologists have asserted that Donald Trump is a narcissist.
It comes as no surprise to me to read that Mr. Trump is a narcissist; just listen to him. It's also not difficult to understand the broad appeal of narcissists. I have no problem with them as entertainers. The question in my mind is this. Would I willfully vote for one to be President of the United States? In a word, NO! Why wold anyone?
Edit:
I should have included above that I recognize that narcissism exists in many Presidents and candidates. It's not as much about whether they are or not as it is about whether it is a healthy narcissism. What does that seemingly oxymoronic term mean? Well for the answer to that click here.
All politicians are narcissists.......obama is one of the biggest and yet you guys never complained about him...dittos the rapist, bill clinton.......
All politicians are narcissists.......obama is one of the biggest and yet you guys never complained about him...dittos the rapist, bill clinton.......
I challenge you to find any credible evidence that Bill Clinton raped anybody. That's an incredibly ridiculous and strong accusation to make. You'll need to prove that one, and if you can, I strongly suggest you present your findings to the United States Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia, New York, or whatever jurisdiction in which the rape occurred.
All politicians are narcissists.......obama is one of the biggest and yet you guys never complained about him...dittos the rapist, bill clinton.......
I challenge you to find any credible evidence that Bill Clinton raped anybody. That's an incredibly ridiculous and strong accusation to make. You'll need to prove that one, and if you can, I strongly suggest you present your findings to the United States Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia, New York, or whatever jurisdiction in which the rape occurred.
All politicians are narcissists.......obama is one of the biggest and yet you guys never complained about him...dittos the rapist, bill clinton.......
I challenge you to find any credible evidence that Bill Clinton raped anybody. That's an incredibly ridiculous and strong accusation to make. You'll need to prove that one, and if you can, I strongly suggest you present your findings to the United States Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia, New York, or whatever jurisdiction in which the rape occurred.
All politicians are narcissists.......obama is one of the biggest and yet you guys never complained about him...dittos the rapist, bill clinton.......
I challenge you to find any credible evidence that Bill Clinton raped anybody. That's an incredibly ridiculous and strong accusation to make. You'll need to prove that one, and if you can, I strongly suggest you present your findings to the United States Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia, New York, or whatever jurisdiction in which the rape occurred.
The man is a sexual predator....a serial sexual predator...and has used his positions of power to protect himself and to attack his victims......both here and over seas....
All politicians are narcissists.......obama is one of the biggest and yet you guys never complained about him...dittos the rapist, bill clinton.......
I challenge you to find any credible evidence that Bill Clinton raped anybody. That's an incredibly ridiculous and strong accusation to make. You'll need to prove that one, and if you can, I strongly suggest you present your findings to the United States Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia, New York, or whatever jurisdiction in which the rape occurred.
The man is a sexual predator....a serial sexual predator...and has used his positions of power to protect himself and to attack his victims......both here and over seas....
Really? That's all you have to offer when asked to expressly show evidence in support of your assertion that Mr. Clinton is a rapist?
Do me a favor, stop reading my posts and put me on your ignore list.
All politicians are narcissists.......obama is one of the biggest and yet you guys never complained about him...dittos the rapist, bill clinton.......
I challenge you to find any credible evidence that Bill Clinton raped anybody. That's an incredibly ridiculous and strong accusation to make. You'll need to prove that one, and if you can, I strongly suggest you present your findings to the United States Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia, New York, or whatever jurisdiction in which the rape occurred.
The man is a sexual predator....a serial sexual predator...and has used his positions of power to protect himself and to attack his victims......both here and over seas....
Really? That's all you have to offer when asked to expressly show evidence in support of your assertion that Mr. Clinton is a rapist?
Do me a favor, stop reading my posts and put me on your ignore list.
All politicians are narcissists.......obama is one of the biggest and yet you guys never complained about him...dittos the rapist, bill clinton.......
I challenge you to find any credible evidence that Bill Clinton raped anybody. That's an incredibly ridiculous and strong accusation to make. You'll need to prove that one, and if you can, I strongly suggest you present your findings to the United States Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia, New York, or whatever jurisdiction in which the rape occurred.
The man is a sexual predator....a serial sexual predator...and has used his positions of power to protect himself and to attack his victims......both here and over seas....
Really? That's all you have to offer when asked to expressly show evidence in support of your assertion that Mr. Clinton is a rapist?
Do me a favor, stop reading my posts and put me on your ignore list.
here you go.....more truth for you to ignore......because he and his wife support your issues......who cares about the victims....
Is Juanita Broaddrick Telling the Truth?
Juanita Broaddrick says Bill Clinton raped her 21 years ago in an Arkansas hotel room. Clinton denies the charge. Is Broaddrick telling the truth? No on knows for sure, but here's the evidence uncovered so far, accompanied by dueling he's-guilty/he's-innocent interpretations:
She Changed Her Story:
In 1997, Broaddrick filed an affadavit with Paula Jones' lawyers saying Clinton did notassault her. In 1998, Broaddrick told Kenneth Starr's FBI investigators that she wasraped. Eventually, Broaddrick described the rape for several major news organizations.
Clinton Is Innocent: Broaddrick is either a liar or has an unreliable memory.
Clinton Is Guilty: Broaddrick's initial denials indicate only that she shunned publicity. That's why she never reported the rape; rebuffed advances from Clinton's political enemies who, in 1992, urged her to go public; and lied to Paula Jones' lawyers. She eventually told the FBI the truth in 1998 only because her son--a lawyer--advised her against lying to federal investigators. (At the time, it was reasonable to suspect she'd be hauled before a grand jury.) She granted media interviews only after her name was released by Paula Jones' lawyers, and after tabloids printed wildly untrue stories about her. Given her aversion to politics and celebrity, Broaddrick would seem to have little or nothing to gain by falsely accusing Clinton of rape. Clinton, on the other hand, has plenty to gain from falsely denying her charges.
She Told Friends:
Five people say Broaddrick told them about the rape immediately after it occurred. A friend and co-worker named Norma Kelsey says that, 21 years ago, she found a dazed Broaddrick with bloodied lip and torn pantyhose in their shared hotel room and Broaddrick explained that Clinton had just raped her. (Clinton is supposed to have bitten her on the lip just before raping her.) Her current husband--then her lover--says Broaddrick told him about the rape within a few days of the event. Broaddrick was, at the time, married to another man, whom she didn't tell about the assault. And three of Broaddrick's friends--one of whom is Kelsey's sister--say she told them about the rape shortly after it supposedly occurred.
Clinton Is Innocent: The friends' testimony isn't trustworthy. Kelsey and her sister have a grudge against Clinton because, as governor, he commuted the life sentence of the man who murdered their father. Broaddrick's current husband might lie on her behalf. Moreover, even if the friends are telling the truth, Broaddrick might have been lying 21 years ago. There is limited evidence that her first husband was abusive, so maybe she cooked up the story to explain a bloody lip he had given her. And if she was raped, why didn't she tell her own husband?
Clinton Is Guilty: If five friends say her story hasn't changed over 21 years, we can conclude that either that she's an unusually consistent liar or that her memory is reliable.
A Pattern of Behaviour?
Paula Jones accused Clinton of exposing himself to her in a hotel room. Kathleen Willey accused him of groping her in the Oval Office. And, by his own admission, Clinton has been dishonest with the American people before when it comes to sex.
Clinton Is Innocent: Clinton has admitted to shading the truth and to a "deeply wrong"--whatever that means--consensual affair with a young-enough-to-be-his-daughter intern. But that's a far cry from committing and lying about a violent felony. No other credible witness has ever accused him of rape.
Clinton Is Guilty: Once a liar always a liar. Groping Kathleen Willey demonstrates deep-seated misogyny. Broaddrick's story has a "wretched familiarity" (Michael Kelly, Washington Post).
All politicians are narcissists.......obama is one of the biggest and yet you guys never complained about him...dittos the rapist, bill clinton.......
I challenge you to find any credible evidence that Bill Clinton raped anybody. That's an incredibly ridiculous and strong accusation to make. You'll need to prove that one, and if you can, I strongly suggest you present your findings to the United States Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia, New York, or whatever jurisdiction in which the rape occurred.
The man is a sexual predator....a serial sexual predator...and has used his positions of power to protect himself and to attack his victims......both here and over seas....
Really? That's all you have to offer when asked to expressly show evidence in support of your assertion that Mr. Clinton is a rapist?
Do me a favor, stop reading my posts and put me on your ignore list.
here you go.....more truth for you to ignore......because he and his wife support your issues......who cares about the victims....
Is Juanita Broaddrick Telling the Truth?
Juanita Broaddrick says Bill Clinton raped her 21 years ago in an Arkansas hotel room. Clinton denies the charge. Is Broaddrick telling the truth? No on knows for sure, but here's the evidence uncovered so far, accompanied by dueling he's-guilty/he's-innocent interpretations:
She Changed Her Story:
In 1997, Broaddrick filed an affadavit with Paula Jones' lawyers saying Clinton did notassault her. In 1998, Broaddrick told Kenneth Starr's FBI investigators that she wasraped. Eventually, Broaddrick described the rape for several major news organizations.
Clinton Is Innocent: Broaddrick is either a liar or has an unreliable memory.
Clinton Is Guilty: Broaddrick's initial denials indicate only that she shunned publicity. That's why she never reported the rape; rebuffed advances from Clinton's political enemies who, in 1992, urged her to go public; and lied to Paula Jones' lawyers. She eventually told the FBI the truth in 1998 only because her son--a lawyer--advised her against lying to federal investigators. (At the time, it was reasonable to suspect she'd be hauled before a grand jury.) She granted media interviews only after her name was released by Paula Jones' lawyers, and after tabloids printed wildly untrue stories about her. Given her aversion to politics and celebrity, Broaddrick would seem to have little or nothing to gain by falsely accusing Clinton of rape. Clinton, on the other hand, has plenty to gain from falsely denying her charges.
She Told Friends:
Five people say Broaddrick told them about the rape immediately after it occurred. A friend and co-worker named Norma Kelsey says that, 21 years ago, she found a dazed Broaddrick with bloodied lip and torn pantyhose in their shared hotel room and Broaddrick explained that Clinton had just raped her. (Clinton is supposed to have bitten her on the lip just before raping her.) Her current husband--then her lover--says Broaddrick told him about the rape within a few days of the event. Broaddrick was, at the time, married to another man, whom she didn't tell about the assault. And three of Broaddrick's friends--one of whom is Kelsey's sister--say she told them about the rape shortly after it supposedly occurred.
Clinton Is Innocent: The friends' testimony isn't trustworthy. Kelsey and her sister have a grudge against Clinton because, as governor, he commuted the life sentence of the man who murdered their father. Broaddrick's current husband might lie on her behalf. Moreover, even if the friends are telling the truth, Broaddrick might have been lying 21 years ago. There is limited evidence that her first husband was abusive, so maybe she cooked up the story to explain a bloody lip he had given her. And if she was raped, why didn't she tell her own husband?
Clinton Is Guilty: If five friends say her story hasn't changed over 21 years, we can conclude that either that she's an unusually consistent liar or that her memory is reliable.
A Pattern of Behaviour?
Paula Jones accused Clinton of exposing himself to her in a hotel room. Kathleen Willey accused him of groping her in the Oval Office. And, by his own admission, Clinton has been dishonest with the American people before when it comes to sex.
Clinton Is Innocent: Clinton has admitted to shading the truth and to a "deeply wrong"--whatever that means--consensual affair with a young-enough-to-be-his-daughter intern. But that's a far cry from committing and lying about a violent felony. No other credible witness has ever accused him of rape.
Clinton Is Guilty: Once a liar always a liar. Groping Kathleen Willey demonstrates deep-seated misogyny. Broaddrick's story has a "wretched familiarity" (Michael Kelly, Washington Post).
There is no truth to ignore. Did you actually read that entire thing to which you linked and then copied and pasted? I am shocked that even you put that forth as a credible indicator of Mr. Clinton's having raped anyone.
- Was Mr. Clinton arraigned on a rape charge? No.
- Was Mr. Clinton sued on a rape charge? No.
- From the content to which you linked:
- In 1997, Broaddrick filed an affadavit [sic] with Paula Jones' lawyers saying Clinton did not assault her. In 1998, Broaddrick told Kenneth Starr's FBI investigators that she was raped.
I see, in the space of a year, some interaction she supposedly had with Mr. Clinton went from being "not an assault" to "rape." In other words, she perjured herself in 1997 and wants us to accept her 1998 account, and account that investigators found specious enough not to pursue it in court.- Broaddrick did not remember the date of the rape and indicated that Mr. Clinton raped her in, surprise of the century, Little Rock, Arkansas.
Had any prosecutor believed the allegations at any point between its occurrence and today (there is no statute of limitations on rape in Arkansas), all they need to do is subpoena the records of the Clinton gubernatorial campaign and the nursing home at which Mrs. Broderick worked. At the very least, someone could have come up with a date even if Mrs. Broderick could not have done. Did anyone? No.- Three weeks after the probable date of the rape, Broaddrick attended a Clinton fundraiser.
Really? She attended a Clinton fundraiser!?! What on Earth for? At the very least, she could have just stayed at home and watched television.
Please answer a simple direct question. I repeat; do you classify Obama and Hillary as narcissists?
I believe both of them, along with several GOP candidates, are healthy narcissists, because as Dr. Malkin points out, they "inspire without undermining; they lead with conviction not cruelty; they bring out the best, not the worst in people around them."
As I wrote in the edit to my OP, I recognize that a great many Presidential hopefuls and other leaders are narcissists; thus it's important to understand the distinction between an healthy one and an unhealthy one.
The recognition that I'd not originally articulated that distinction, engendered by the initial comments posted after my OP, made it clear to me that a meaningful share of the audience here may not be aware that there are types of narcissism. That is why I feel obliged to include the edit to my OP.
That's a load of nonsense. Narcissism by definition turns off people. It alienates. You can claim degrees of narcissism. But there's no such thing as healthy narcissism. You made a fake argument against Trump basically. You're not mad that he's a narcissist. You're mad that he isn't your narcissist.
I didn't coin the idea of healthy narcissism. I merely applied it to Mr. Trump and have attempted to bring it to the attention of others.
I'm in no position to credibly refute a medical doctor's explanation of healthy narcissism, unhealthy narcissism, or whether there is such a thing as a range of narcissism. Are you?
Red:
The best I could do, and what I did, was look for scholarly research/writings that support the premise that there is such a thing.
That's the due diligence I performed before creating this thread. I'll happily read material you present that refutes the legitimacy of a scale of narcissism; however, not knowing a damn thing about you and your published works pertaining to the disorder or others, and having none of my own, I won't just accept your assertion that the idea or verity of existence of different types of narcissism is "a load of nonsense."
Doesn't matter who "coined" the term healthy narcissism. It's oxymoronic.
Don't talk about "due dilligence" that you performed for the OP when you're throwing this stuff out there as an after thought. For f's sake on that one, guy.
And I didn't say there aren't different types of narcissism (degrees as I put it). I said that there's no such thing as healthy narcissism; not truly. Narcissism by definition is not in anyone's best interest.
I wouldn't have shared it at all had you (or someone else) not attempted to refute the verity of the idea of healthy narcissism, and in so attempting also offered literally nothing credible to back it up beyond your own assertion that it is nonsense. Indeed, not only have you done nothing but make that empty assertion, you haven't even so much as presented an argument, however uncredible and devoid of intellectual rigor it be, to support it.
All politicians are narcissists.......obama is one of the biggest and yet you guys never complained about him...dittos the rapist, bill clinton.......
I challenge you to find any credible evidence that Bill Clinton raped anybody. That's an incredibly ridiculous and strong accusation to make. You'll need to prove that one, and if you can, I strongly suggest you present your findings to the United States Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia, New York, or whatever jurisdiction in which the rape occurred.
The man is a sexual predator....a serial sexual predator...and has used his positions of power to protect himself and to attack his victims......both here and over seas....
Really? That's all you have to offer when asked to expressly show evidence in support of your assertion that Mr. Clinton is a rapist?
Do me a favor, stop reading my posts and put me on your ignore list.
here you go.....more truth for you to ignore......because he and his wife support your issues......who cares about the victims....
Is Juanita Broaddrick Telling the Truth?
Juanita Broaddrick says Bill Clinton raped her 21 years ago in an Arkansas hotel room. Clinton denies the charge. Is Broaddrick telling the truth? No on knows for sure, but here's the evidence uncovered so far, accompanied by dueling he's-guilty/he's-innocent interpretations:
She Changed Her Story:
In 1997, Broaddrick filed an affadavit with Paula Jones' lawyers saying Clinton did notassault her. In 1998, Broaddrick told Kenneth Starr's FBI investigators that she wasraped. Eventually, Broaddrick described the rape for several major news organizations.
Clinton Is Innocent: Broaddrick is either a liar or has an unreliable memory.
Clinton Is Guilty: Broaddrick's initial denials indicate only that she shunned publicity. That's why she never reported the rape; rebuffed advances from Clinton's political enemies who, in 1992, urged her to go public; and lied to Paula Jones' lawyers. She eventually told the FBI the truth in 1998 only because her son--a lawyer--advised her against lying to federal investigators. (At the time, it was reasonable to suspect she'd be hauled before a grand jury.) She granted media interviews only after her name was released by Paula Jones' lawyers, and after tabloids printed wildly untrue stories about her. Given her aversion to politics and celebrity, Broaddrick would seem to have little or nothing to gain by falsely accusing Clinton of rape. Clinton, on the other hand, has plenty to gain from falsely denying her charges.
She Told Friends:
Five people say Broaddrick told them about the rape immediately after it occurred. A friend and co-worker named Norma Kelsey says that, 21 years ago, she found a dazed Broaddrick with bloodied lip and torn pantyhose in their shared hotel room and Broaddrick explained that Clinton had just raped her. (Clinton is supposed to have bitten her on the lip just before raping her.) Her current husband--then her lover--says Broaddrick told him about the rape within a few days of the event. Broaddrick was, at the time, married to another man, whom she didn't tell about the assault. And three of Broaddrick's friends--one of whom is Kelsey's sister--say she told them about the rape shortly after it supposedly occurred.
Clinton Is Innocent: The friends' testimony isn't trustworthy. Kelsey and her sister have a grudge against Clinton because, as governor, he commuted the life sentence of the man who murdered their father. Broaddrick's current husband might lie on her behalf. Moreover, even if the friends are telling the truth, Broaddrick might have been lying 21 years ago. There is limited evidence that her first husband was abusive, so maybe she cooked up the story to explain a bloody lip he had given her. And if she was raped, why didn't she tell her own husband?
Clinton Is Guilty: If five friends say her story hasn't changed over 21 years, we can conclude that either that she's an unusually consistent liar or that her memory is reliable.
A Pattern of Behaviour?
Paula Jones accused Clinton of exposing himself to her in a hotel room. Kathleen Willey accused him of groping her in the Oval Office. And, by his own admission, Clinton has been dishonest with the American people before when it comes to sex.
Clinton Is Innocent: Clinton has admitted to shading the truth and to a "deeply wrong"--whatever that means--consensual affair with a young-enough-to-be-his-daughter intern. But that's a far cry from committing and lying about a violent felony. No other credible witness has ever accused him of rape.
Clinton Is Guilty: Once a liar always a liar. Groping Kathleen Willey demonstrates deep-seated misogyny. Broaddrick's story has a "wretched familiarity" (Michael Kelly, Washington Post).
There is no truth to ignore. Did you actually read that entire thing to which you linked and then copied and pasted? I am shocked that even you put that forth as a credible indicator of Mr. Clinton's having raped anyone.
- Was Mr. Clinton arraigned on a rape charge? No.
- Was Mr. Clinton sued on a rape charge? No.
- From the content to which you linked:
- In 1997, Broaddrick filed an affadavit [sic] with Paula Jones' lawyers saying Clinton did not assault her. In 1998, Broaddrick told Kenneth Starr's FBI investigators that she was raped.
I see, in the space of a year, some interaction she supposedly had with Mr. Clinton went from being "not an assault" to "rape." In other words, she perjured herself in 1997 and wants us to accept her 1998 account, and account that investigators found specious enough not to pursue it in court.- Broaddrick did not remember the date of the rape and indicated that Mr. Clinton raped her in, surprise of the century, Little Rock, Arkansas.
Had any prosecutor believed the allegations at any point between its occurrence and today (there is no statute of limitations on rape in Arkansas), all they need to do is subpoena the records of the Clinton gubernatorial campaign and the nursing home at which Mrs. Broderick worked. At the very least, someone could have come up with a date even if Mrs. Broderick could not have done. Did anyone? No.- Three weeks after the probable date of the rape, Broaddrick attended a Clinton fundraiser.
Really? She attended a Clinton fundraiser!?! What on Earth for? At the very least, she could have just stayed at home and watched television.
Broderick followed the exact pattern of a woman attacked by a politically powerful and protected sexual predator.......
...
Broderick followed the exact pattern of a woman attacked by a politically powerful and protected sexual predator.......
...
Would that be the same pattern that the 2300 rape convictions of 2013 followed? No.
Would that be the same pattern that the 3784 rape prosecutions followed in 2013? No.
In what system of jurisprudence that operates on the principle of "innocent until proven guilty" would a person by some random individual like you or me be legitimately called a rapist for having allegedly committed the act in a state that has no statute of limitations, and at no point in time has the Attorney General of the state seen fit to prosecute the alleged rapist?
Just because you found a quack trying to make a name for himself by introducing oxymoronic doctrines like so-called healthy narcissism, doesn't mean it has "verity" or that it is not nonsense.
And why would I present an "uncredible and devoid of Intellectual rigor" argument? Seriously, dude, give it up. You're not even trying to argue something at this point besides an obscure item that's not even in your OP.
