Is Donald Trump a sociopath?

[JWeinCom]

fatslob-:O said:

You don't get it, do you ? 

You don't argue the absolute if you don't have any evidence to back that claim up, what you get is an asspull on your part ... 

No we don't need the literal meaning of everything and you're right about that but it becomes a problem when you invent things up with gaps in logic so at that point your interpretation is no different than a lie. I assure you that I'm not playing these petty word games but you on the other hand is playing the backtracking game ...

I am not that interested in defending Donald Drumpf, what I'm interested in is preserving the TRUTH, big difference there ... 

People voting for him or not is an OPINION! I'm not interested in aruging against your opinion of Donald Drumpf and if changing goalposts isn't making up two lies on the fly to suit your argument then I don't know what is ...  

I don't even want or need prove that Drumpf is a worthwhile candidate since that's ALL BASED ON OPINIONS! The one university level math course that I attended to hit home the point VERY STRONGLY is that YOU CANNOT MAKE PROOFS BASED OFF OF OPINIONS. I'm just here to bust all the myths regarding Drumpf and me poking at your logic with a stick is just on the side ... 

Don't pity me by giving me a chance, I'm the one pitying you by giving the benefit of the doubt that you were open minded ... 

You don't get it, do you ? 

You don't argue the absolute if you don't have any evidence to back that claim up, what you get is an asspull on your part ... 

No we don't need the literal meaning of everything and you're right about that but it becomes a problem when you invent things up with gaps in logic so at that point your interpretation is no different than a lie. I assure you that I'm not playing these petty word games but you on the other hand is playing the backtracking game ...

Actually, I don't think I get it.  I really can't entirely understand what you're saying.  There are literally 39 consecutive words without any sort of punctuation.  

Nobody is arguing about absolutes.  I'm arguing my opinion.  While I feel it is very well supported, I never claimed to be infallible.  

Since you need to have evidence to back things up as you just said, can you show the evidence that I'm backtracking? Or "inventing things up with gaps in logic so at that point your interpretation is no different than a lie"?  Please provide direct quotes or the like.  And, keep your sentences short.

I am not that interested in defending Donald Drumpf, what I'm interested in is preserving the TRUTH, big difference there ... 

And you've done neither.  You've addressed next to nothing I or anyone else has said about Drumpf.

I'm not interested in aruging against your opinion of Donald Drumpf and if changing goalposts isn't making up two lies on the fly to suit your argument then I don't know what is ...  

I literally have no idea what this means.  When you (again) have 30 + word sentences with no punctuation, it becomes very hard to understand you.  That's why I keep saying you're incoherent.  

Changing goalposts is making up two lies? Those are two different things.  What lies?  What goalposts?  You said you needed to back things up with evidence, so please do so.  I can't address anything if you don't give specifics.  

I don't even want or need prove that Drumpf is a worthwhile candidate since that's ALL BASED ON OPINIONS! The one university level math course that I attended to hit home the point VERY STRONGLY is that YOU CANNOT MAKE PROOFS BASED OFF OF OPINIONS. I'm just here to bust all the myths regarding Drumpf and me poking at your logic with a stick is just on the side ... 

Opinions may not be able to be proven (some can and some can't), but we have to choose between opinions all the time.  For example, if you and your girlfriend or boyfriend are choosing a location for a vacation, it's an opinion based question.  There is no definitively right or wrong answer as to which vacation will be better.  That doesn't mean you can't evaluate the two locations and what they offer to decide which one is more likely to be enjoyable.  Just like we can try to decide which candidate will more likely make a better president.  This isn't math, and we can't make proofs.  What we can do is try to make sure our opinions are as informed and valid as possible.

As for busting myths, the only "myth" you addressed, was the myth that we can't ban immigration based on religion, which is something nobody brought up but you.

But hey, if you want to bust some myths go for it.  I'm all ears, and I'd hate to be spreading misinformation.  Please be specific, provide sources, and don't try and don't dispute something that Drumpf himself expects.

As for poking at my logic, repeatedly calling me close minded does not qualify.  Nor does pretending you don't understand what the word need means.