By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Is Donald Trump a sociopath?

 

Is Donald Trump a sociopath?

Yes 303 60.84%
 
No 195 39.16%
 
Total:498
fatslob-:O on 13 August 2016
JWeinCom said:

The president is sworn to uphold the constitution.  This is objectively necessary part of the job.  Because the constitution is the law of the United States.

Yes they must adhere to the current constitution but that DOES NOT imply that they CAN'T CHANGE IT! 

JWeinCom said:

Ok... I never said you couldn't and I clarified that I was not talking about banning immigration, so I don't know why you're still on about htis.  And no, that doesn't make Trump right because even if you can it may not be a good idea.  

I NEVER BROUGHT IN THE ARGUMENT OF WETHER THAT WAS A GOOD IDEA OR NOT! That's just a strawman on your part that you just accused me of doing ... 

I was only trying to bust the myth that you CAN'T profile according to religion ... 

JWeinCom said:

At this point I can't help but think this is trolling.  If you want to completely divorce yourself from reality, no the army never has to do anything internationally, and no the president never has to deal with other countries.  But considering this is reality, and Trump has already said he will use the military internationally, and said he would deal in international trade, then you're being intentionally obtuse.  

I don't believe for a second that you don't think the president will ever have to deal with the international community.

YOU argued NEED, I proved otherwise ... 

Heck, presidents don't even need to do anything aside from being commander in chief of an army, appointing officials, reporting to congress, paying officers and the rest is OPTIONAL ... 

Feasibility is another argument altogether ... 

JWeinCom said:

Bill O Reilly:  "You are not going to be able to deport people who have American citizenship now. And the federal courts will never allow mass deportations without due process for each and every one. And do you envision federal police kicking in the doors in barrios around the country, dragging families out?"

Donald Trump:  "Bill, I don't think that they have American citizenship.  And if you speak to some very, very good lawyers — and I know some would disagree, but many of them agree with me — you're going to find they do not have American citizenship. We have to start a process where we take back our country. Our country is going to hell."

Yes, he specifically said he would deport people born in the US.  I don't know if he's changed his stance since then, but it's right there for you.  

http://www.businessinsider.com/bill-oreilly-donald-trump-immigration-deport-birthright-2015-8

Unfortunately, that's a strawman that Bill O Reilly made as Trump has made no such statements even at his initial launch of a presidential campaign ... 

That's one lie that the media made up and you seem to have went with it unless you have another source to object. He makes it clear that he dislikes anchor babies and even says that their not citizens but he didn't outright say to deport them ... 

JWeinCom said:

I don't know where you've gotten the idea that emotional and rational are oposites or mutually exclusives.  Our thoughts are a combination of processes going on in the prefrontal cortex (what you'd probably call logic) and processes going on in the limbic system (what you'd probably call emotions).  Every thought process is a combination of these two elements, as the two systems are in constant communication..  While you may rely more heavily on one or the other at certain times, there is no shutting one or the other off.  Even when solving math problems, emotions play a rather large part.  Anger is an emotion which is the result of a thought process.  Assuming your mind is functioning correctly, that anger is rational.

The dividing line between rational and emotional does not exist in reality.

Yes you cannot seperate the two but if you aren't going to at least try to keep shit real then I won't bother when it does not make for a constructive discussion ... 

JWeinCom said:

Oh seriously, you know better than that.  Clearly when I said "the things Donald Trump says" I was referring to specific things he says, like the examples I was giving.  Obviously, I didn't mean that if you agree with Trump that the sky is blue you're an idiot.  I'm not going to insult you by pretending that you actually believe what you say.

What everyone thinks of his proposals is for themselves to figure out but feel free call out whatever erroneous statement that people believe from Trump however from time to time he does bring in a shred of truth even if it is offensive ... 

JWeinCom said:

Errrr... what specific thing did I fabricate or did I say that was misinformation?  I actually try my best to not do that.  Of course I'm not immune, so if you noticed something, tell me, provide evidence, and I'll be sure not to do so in the future.  But you're not pointing out anything specific.  

Just look at our previous posts ... 

JWeinCom said:

Yes.  I know what a president should do (to an extent) is based on what the public wants.  I assume that most of us are decent people who want what is best for ourselves and for others, and that on this basis we can have conversations to determine the best course of action.  But, maybe in your case, that's not true. 

If you think your ideals is the only one that entails "decency" among people I don't know what to say since it's too hilarious and ironic, LOL. There are many other's out there that too claim this "decency" in their own ideals even from a wahhabist, it's a bigger world than you think ... 

JWeinCom said:

I guess this is why we're having a problem understanding eachother.  I made the erroneous assumption that you were a decent and empathic human being who cared about others, even those not immediately involved in your life. I guess I was wrong in this regard.  

There is a word for people who don't care about anything but their own needs and desires.  The word is sociopath.  And while I kind of hope you are simply trolling, maybe you are one.  Maybe you legitimately don't give a shit about what happens to anyone else.  And if that's the case, then go ahead and vote for Trump I guess.  Like I said, those kinds of people really aren't worth talking to.  

If however, you actually do care about those around you, then I urge you to critically examine the candidates.

Nice ad hominem, just because I don't care about any random strangers doesn't mean you can't care about those closest to you who truly matter in your lives. I'm not blind or oblivious to the fact that humans are social creatures but what in what ways did we guarantee that we all treat each other equally again ? 

Again, neat ad hominem (sarcasm), personally those who sacrifice their own existence along with their new born just for this great so called species known as humanity are sickingly selfless to the point when they don't consider how much they'll be missed or needed by others so that's still plain selfish that you'd be the one to lightly weigh how much your life is worth since that's for everyone else to determine ... 

Humans should have an absolute right to decide based on their own feelings and those that deprive themselves of that are worse than monsters ... 



Around the Network
Soundwave on 13 August 2016

 

At this point, opponents of Trump don't even have to make the case. His very own party is burying him. This is from Ronald Reagan's political director, a life long conservative Republican:

http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/07/opinions/reagan-republican-trump-no-clothes-lavin/index.html

Trump falls short in terms of the character and behavior needed to perform as president. This defect is crippling and ensures he would fail in office. Trump is a bigot, a bully, and devoid of grace or magnanimity. His thin-skinned belligerence toward every challenge, rebuke, or criticism would promise the nation a series of a high-voltage quarrels. His casual dishonesty, his policy laziness, and his lack of self-awareness would mean four years of a careening pin-ball journey that would ricochet from missteps to crisis to misunderstandings to clarifications to retractions.

Of course you probably heard 50 other Republicans also signed a a form stating Trump would put the country at risk:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/09/us/politics/national-security-gop-donald-trump.html?_r=0

You have several Republican senators openly saying they will now vote for Hilary Clinton because they cannot in good conscience vote for Trump, and these are people who hate Clinton:

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2016/08/10/Trump-Drops-Polls-List-GOP-Defectors-Grows

Then you have previous Republican nominee for president, Mitt Romney rebuke Trump and state he will not vote for Trump. 

http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/10/politics/mitt-romney-donald-trump-racism/

You have the amazing thing no living Republican president (not Bush I or II) willing to endorse Trump. 

Ronald Reagan's son shreds Trump, calls him a scam-artist:

http://www.mediaite.com/online/ronald-reagan-jr-shreds-charlatan-trump-for-running-a-scam-campaign/

His own party are turning against him, and these people have no love for Hilary Clinton, and I'd bet a number of high ranking Republicans are biting their tounge right now, if Trump does not gain ground in the polls soon, there will be an open revolt in the Republican party as people scramble to diassociate themselves from Trump's sinking Titanic of a campaign.



Dark_Lord_2008 on 13 August 2016

1. Trump is a Capitalist.
2. Trump invented some Board game in the 1980s because he believes Monopoly is not Capitalist enough
3. Trump is a Capitalist.
4. Trump is famous for tv show the Apprentice with the phrase: "You're Fired"
5. Trump is a Capitalist.

Besides The Apprentice show and his 1980s board game. Donald Trump is just a super rich nobody. It is scary he may become the next US President.



JWeinCom on 13 August 2016
fatslob-:O said:
JWeinCom said:

The president is sworn to uphold the constitution.  This is objectively necessary part of the job.  Because the constitution is the law of the United States.

 

Yes they must adhere to the current constitution but that DOES NOT imply that they CAN'T CHANGE IT! 

In addition to not being accurate (the president actually can not change the constitution), this literally has nothing to do with anything.

I NEVER BROUGHT IN THE ARGUMENT OF WETHER THAT WAS A GOOD IDEA OR NOT! That's just a strawman on your part that you just accused me of doing ... 

I was only trying to bust the myth that you CAN'T profile according to religion ... 

My point from the beginning has  been about whether or not these policies should be supported.  I never said that you stated an opinion one way or another.  And I never disputed that you can ban immigration based on religion so I don't know what strawman you're referring to, or what myth you're trying to bust. 

YOU argued NEED, I proved otherwise ... 

Heck, presidents don't even need to do anything aside from being commander in chief of an army, appointing officials, reporting to congress, paying officers and the rest is OPTIONAL ... 

Feasibility is another argument altogether ... 

Then you are being intentionally obtuse.  I didn't think I needed to specify that we're talking about reality and the real world demands of being a president.  I thought that was a given considering we're voting for the president in reality, and not in some fantasy land where the president can sit in the oval office and jerk off 24/7 as long as he's over 35.  What you've proven is that you are not able to follow the obvious context of a conversation in a reasonable manner. 

You're like the child who sits in his bed playing video games, and when his parents say "I told you to go to sleep" he says, "No, you said go to bed!"

Unfortunately, that's a strawman that Bill O Reilly made as Drumpf has made no such statements even at his initial launch of a presidential campaign ... 

That's one lie that the media made up and you seem to have went with it unless you have another source to object. He makes it clear that he dislikes anchor babies and even says that their not citizens but he didn't outright say to deport them ... 

Errrr... that's a direct quote from Drumpf.  I'm not sure how you can call a transcript that I gave you a lie from the media.  

Drumpf said anchor babies are not citizens.  He has suggested deporting all illegal immigrants. 1+1=2.  That's why Drumpf didn't dispute it when O' Reilly challenged him.  If it was a media lie, Drumpf was right there to argue against it, and he did not.

Just look at our previous posts ... 

I did, and I can't find it.  I tried my best, but you're honestly not that coherent, and I can't figure out what you mean.  That's why I asked you to guide me to something specific.
If you think your ideals is the only one that entails "decency" among people I don't know what to say since it's too hilarious and ironic, LOL. There are many other's out there that too claim this "decency" in their own ideals even from a wahhabist, it's a bigger world than you think 

I never said that that was the only ideal that entails "decency". I don't have any clue what wahhabism has to do with anything.  Can you follow a simple train of thought?
Nice ad hominem, just because I don't care about any random strangers doesn't mean you can't care about those closest to you who truly matter in your lives. I'm not blind or oblivious to the fact that humans are social creatures but what in what ways did we guarantee that we all treat each other equally again ? 

That is not an ad hominen.  That is a trait of antisocial personality disorder.  If I say that I like to suck penis and you say that I might be gay, that's not an ad hominen.  Antisocial personality disorder means you do not consider the feelings of others, but that doesn't necessarily mean you disregard the feelings of every single person.  There are different levels of severity.  If you don't think you should care about other people that are not in your immediate life, then that is indeed a trait of sociopathy.  

I never said anything about whether we all treat each other equally.  Again, you're just kind of responding to things I never said.

Again, neat ad hominem (sarcasm), personally those who sacrifice their own existence along with their new born just for this great so called species known as humanity are sickingly selfless to the point when they don't consider how much they'll be missed or needed by others so that's still plain selfish that you'd be the one to lightly weigh how much your life is worth since that's for everyone else to determine ... 

I really don't undrstand what you're going off on.  I'm not trying to be mean or nasty, but you're being entirely incoherent.  I'm trying to talk about Drumpf's policies, and you're talking about sacrificing existence and newborns.  I have no idea how this relates to anything that we've been talking about.  It's all one big sentence bereft of punctuation,  and I'm pretty sure those aren't all actual words.  This is utterly unintelligible.

Humans should have an absolute right to decide based on their own feelings and those that deprive themselves of that are worse than monsters ... 

O...k..?  Again, I have no idea what you are responding to, or what point you're trying to make.    



IIIIITHE1IIIII on 13 August 2016
JWeinCom said:

Alright glad you're actually thinking and considering what he said instead of blindly defending a candidate.  All I ask really.  

As for why I'm calling him Drumpf, there is context for that, and it's not to mock his heritage.  First off, I actually have a plugin that changes Drumpf to Drumpf in chrome, so I honestly get confused as to which one is being used sometimes.  But, the reason the plugin came about, is that Drumpf specifically commented on Jonathan Steward not using his original last name which was kind of hypocritical seeing as he's not either.  He also routinely calls Elizabeth Warren Pochahontas.  It's about his hypocrisy, not about making fun of his heritage.  I honestly don't know what his heritage is.  I want to say Scottish.

As for the Mexican quote, he was specifically talking about one race, not all illegal immigrants.  I wouldn't say I took that out of context, but I didn't word it quite right, so I'll fix that.  He's saying that most of 28% of mexicans in this country are rapists murderers and drug dealers.  And to label any group that large like that is pretty bad, especially when the statistics don't bear him out.

Anyway it seems that besides that particular point, you're agreeing what I said was in context and generally accurate.  Whether that convinces you not to vote for him or not is up to you, but keep in mind not everything negative said about him is a matter of bias or misrepresentation.  

I wouldn't say Stewart/Warren and Trump are a good comparison. Donald had nothing to do with his ancestors changing his family name, while Stewart (assuming we're thinking about the same person, because apparently there's lots of them) was directly responsible. As for Elisabeth Warren, she is accused of feigning or greatly exaggerating her heritage. Even if it was a valid comparison though I simply can't see the Drumpf nickname turning voters away. If anything it comes off as childish name-calling.

Fair enough, thanks for fixing it.

And yeah, I never blindly supported Trump. Too many issues where we don't agree at all (a big one would be the second amendment). One key issue that we do agree on is opposition towards political correctness, but using fake statistics like in the retweet that you enlightened me about is hardly doing anyone a favor. In any event, you won't need to worry about my vote since I don't live in the US - and fortunately for me, we have better people than Donald Trump representing the anti-PC movement here.



Around the Network
JWeinCom on 13 August 2016
IIIIITHE1IIIII said:
JWeinCom said:

Alright glad you're actually thinking and considering what he said instead of blindly defending a candidate.  All I ask really.  

As for why I'm calling him Drumpf, there is context for that, and it's not to mock his heritage.  First off, I actually have a plugin that changes Drumpf to Drumpf in chrome, so I honestly get confused as to which one is being used sometimes.  But, the reason the plugin came about, is that Drumpf specifically commented on Jonathan Steward not using his original last name which was kind of hypocritical seeing as he's not either.  He also routinely calls Elizabeth Warren Pochahontas.  It's about his hypocrisy, not about making fun of his heritage.  I honestly don't know what his heritage is.  I want to say Scottish.

As for the Mexican quote, he was specifically talking about one race, not all illegal immigrants.  I wouldn't say I took that out of context, but I didn't word it quite right, so I'll fix that.  He's saying that most of 28% of mexicans in this country are rapists murderers and drug dealers.  And to label any group that large like that is pretty bad, especially when the statistics don't bear him out.

Anyway it seems that besides that particular point, you're agreeing what I said was in context and generally accurate.  Whether that convinces you not to vote for him or not is up to you, but keep in mind not everything negative said about him is a matter of bias or misrepresentation.  

I wouldn't say Stewart/Warren and Drumpf are a good comparison. Donald had nothing to do with his ancestors changing his family name, while Stewart (assuming we're thinking about the same person, because apparently there's lots of them) was directly responsible. As for Elisabeth Warren, she is accused of feigning or greatly exaggerating her heritage. Even if it was a valid comparison though I simply can't see the Drumpf nickname turning voters away. If anything it comes off as childish name-calling.

Fair enough, thanks for fixing it.

And yeah, I never blindly supported Drumpf. Too many issues where we don't agree at all (a big one would be the second amendment). One key issue that we do agree on is opposition towards political correctness, but using fake statistics like in the retweet that you enlightened me about is hardly doing anyone a favor. In any event, you won't need to worry about my vote since I don't live in the US - and fortunately for me, we have better people than Donald Drumpf representing the anti-PC movement here.

It's not a direct comparison, but it's about Trump's tendency to simply try and bully people who disagree with him.  Really, why or how Stewart changed her name, or Warren's heritage is really none of Trump's business.  He uses these attacks when one of them has said something about him that he can not actually refute with facts.  It's also a bit of mockery over how prominently Trump displays his name.  I don't expect it to turn away voters, and I would hope that their decisions are based on something more substantial.  It's mainly for my own amusement.

I just can't see political correctness as a key issue.  I understand the point people are trying to make, and there are circumstances where political correctness gets in the way of accuracy.  For example, in education you'll hear things like underpriveleged, minority, and so and so, but the truth is that the achievement gap is far more pronounced among black students than with other minority groups.  And the fear of pointing out that black kids aren't doing as well prevents us from helping them to the best of our abilities.

But with all that said, with all the problems that are facing us, political correctness is just so far down the list that I don't even really consider it.  And in some cases being "politically correct" is simply common sense and good manners.  Unless two candidates were otherwise nearly identical, I can't see their views on political correctness really being an issue for me.



Rpruett on 13 August 2016
JustcallmeRiff said:
Rpruett said:
Trump is fantastic and while some people feel he 'may' be all of these things. Clinton is factually a corrupt, fraud and has been for 30 years of her career. Scandal and Clinton are synonyms.

Ask any question you have of Trump and reflect it back onto Clinton. You'll find that Clinton is the worse of the two, consistently. Take every scandal generated by the media about Trump and you'll find similar things other politicians did that weren't considered a scandal. Take policy positions that Trump/Sanders/etc have had that people like and watch Clinton pander and suddenly pretend to start taking those same positions.

Trump is Pro-America. Hillary is Pro-Globalism. It really boils down to that.

I thought Trump would have problems garnering the Evangelical vote. How do your other parishioners feel about Trump?

I'm not religious - it's sort of a joke photograph of Tim Tebow.



JustcallmeRiff on 13 August 2016
Rpruett said:
JustcallmeRiff said:

I thought Trump would have problems garnering the Evangelical vote. How do your other parishioners feel about Trump?

I'm not religious - it's sort of a joke photograph of Tim Tebow.

Good one. I thought I was being smart by ruling out Catholic because your Jesus didn't have blonde hair.



fatslob-:O on 13 August 2016
JWeinCom said:

In addition to not being accurate (the president actually can not change the constitution), this literally has nothing to do with anything.

The president ALONE can't change it but that doesn't mean he can't influence congress or it's own citizens to support that vision ...

JWeinCom said:

My point from the beginning has  been about whether or not these policies should be supported.  I never said that you stated an opinion one way or another.  And I never disputed that you can ban immigration based on religion so I don't know what strawman you're referring to, or what myth you're trying to bust.   

Now your just lying, "But, arguing that we violate the first amendment by putting Muslims on a registry is objectively bad presidenting." ... 

LEARN WHEN TO CONCEDE! 

JWeinCom said:

Then you are being intentionally obtuse.  I didn't think I needed to specify that we're talking about reality and the real world demands of being a president.  I thought that was a given considering we're voting for the president in reality, and not in some fantasy land where the president can sit in the oval office and jerk off 24/7 as long as he's over 35.  What you've proven is that you are not able to follow the obvious context of a conversation in a reasonable manner. 

You're like the child who sits in his bed playing video games, and when his parents say "I told you to go to sleep" he says, "No, you said go to bed!"

My point still stands, " And no commanding the military does not mean you HAVE to know what the fuck is going on " ...

JWeinCom said:

Errrr... that's a direct quote from Drumpf.  I'm not sure how you can call a transcript that I gave you a lie from the media.  


Drumpf said anchor babies are not citizens.  He has suggested deporting all illegal immigrants. 1+1=2.  That's why Drumpf didn't dispute it when O' Reilly challenged him.  If it was a media lie, Drumpf was right there to argue against it, and he did not.

Again, another lie. These are the two things he's said, "End birthright citizenship", "Bill, I don't think they have American Citizenship" ... 

NOT ONCE AND I MEAN NOT ONCE did he utter these words together, "Deport ancher babies" or even "Assassinate Clinton" ... 

JWeinCom said:

I did, and I can't find it.  I tried my best, but you're honestly not that coherent, and I can't figure out what you mean.  That's why I asked you to guide me to something specific.

I'm not coherrent because your blinded in your own anger, it's as simple as that ...

I think this has gone far enough. It's pretty clear that you don't intend to keep this real looking at how you've expressed your interolance which severely affects your ability to have a nonpartisan discussion or be open to other viewpoints ... 

I quit, you win. Feel better now, buddy ? /s 



Rpruett on 13 August 2016
Soundwave said:
Rpruett said:
Trump is fantastic and while some people feel he 'may' be all of these things. Clinton is factually a corrupt, fraud and has been for 30 years of her career. Scandal and Clinton are synonyms.

Ask any question you have of Trump and reflect it back onto Clinton. You'll find that Clinton is the worse of the two, consistently. Take every scandal generated by the media about Trump and you'll find similar things other politicians did that weren't considered a scandal. Take policy positions that Trump/Sanders/etc have had that people like and watch Clinton pander and suddenly pretend to start taking those same positions.

Trump is Pro-America. Hillary is Pro-Globalism. It really boils down to that.

lol, Trump will be globalist too. Capitalism is globalism (what do you think was the point of the Cold War?), anyone who thinks a president can just engage in isolationist policy has no idea how business works in the year 2016. Half the shit Trump says, he knows is bullshit, he will bail out on those proposals (like building a wall), unfortunately for him right now he's getting his ass pretty soundly whupped by Hilary in the polls so we probably will never know. 

Capitalism isn't globalism. Maybe unfettered, absolute global capitalism would be that,  do you think that's what we have now? We as a country and as a world aren't close to that level of Capitalism. Can you just make your product in the United States and sell it on the shelves of France, with no issue?

When has anybody, I mean anybody suggested isolationist policy?  Companies existing in the United States and taking all of the benefits that being based in the United States provides and then subsequently offshoring their work and bringing your goods back into the United States isn't benefitting anybody but the companies profit margins.  There is a reason that companies keep posting record breaking profit, while the income disparity, gap and amount of available jobs continues to dwindle in the US.  

There is no reason why we should allow US companies to continue to move their operations outside the country and bring their products into the country without some form of penalty or punishment.  Ford moving to Mexico is a prime example of how utterly stupid and negative these trade agreements have become.

How much trade imbalance the United States has acquired over the past 20 years and explain to me,  how that has benefit the United States and it's citizens.   Connect the trade imbalance with Mexico and the passage of NAFTA.   Explain to me, how NAFTA has benefit anybody but the actual company moving across the border.(from a business perspective).  It hasn't,  it's hurt both countries economies in different ways.