Unfortunately, I know from experience, that this is not the way narcissistic personalities work. — swstephe

Look, Trump is a businessman. He got some very complex building projects completed without losing all his money - that's quite an achievement in itself - an achievement that is impossible if his narcissism was wholley unrestrained. This shows that he has intelligence, and he is able to collaborate with others to get things done. He is narcissistic, but not to the point where this would outright harm himself. You mistake pathological narcissism - which actually harms the one who is narcissistic - with Trump's narcissism, which doesn't harm him directly because he knows when he has to hold it back. He just knows how to work with others to get things done. One cannot easily flip-flop on deals without losing his reputation (and his money) in business.

Trump is actually a (ba)boon — Baden

>:O
(Brackets mine)

Bullshit; all it shows is that he had half-decent project managers. :-}

That's certainly what I took from the latest debate. :D

That was actually a fairly convincing defense of Trump's crude sexual remarks, specifically regarding the fringe benefits celebrities (and people with power more generally) often receive in the form of sexual favors from their fans. Sad IMO but true. I also think you're right about the many tacit non-verbal 'cues' people give off that let another know they're interested, and how far they'd be willing to go. You can 'feel' when someone is interested by many subtle (and not-so-subtle) gestures which emit that interest and openness. And let's be honest, there are many women who chase after money and fame and have no problem at all objectifying themselves for men in order to gain these things. Again sad but true. That's our culture and those are the values which drive much behavior. I'm not suggesting they deserve to be disrespected, but it's a nuanced position that's hard to articulate without falling into disfavor with acceptable opinion on the issue.

The lady who rejected Trump's advances is the redeeming aspect of his 'banter'--although I do wonder what a married woman was doing going furniture shopping with another man, especially one with Trump's reputation as a womanizer. Her husband should have set some boundaries with that type of stuff, as it could be taken once again as tacit consent - at the very least - of an interest in the man (ostensibly) spending time and money on her. I'm guessing he wasn't aware it happened, which would be a betrayal of the trust which binds the partners in a marriage. I'm sounding like a prude here but that's totally unacceptable behavior in a committed and monogamous relationship as I see it.

Anyhow I still think married woman (or man) = show some respect and move along. There are lots of unmarried people to engage in these types of 'conquests' with, and unlike Agustino I don't have much of a problem with it as long as it's done between two consenting adults. It's not ideal (in this I do agree with Agustino) but it's also not THAT bad. Ideally you find someone you connect with on much more than a physical level, but having pre-marital sexual relationships does not preclude that 'deeper' relationship from happening in a person's life somewhere down the line once they meet the right one for them. I like to think I speak from experience on the matter.

Haha - you try doing that, let's see you succeeding ;)

No problem; not that big of a deal. It's commonplace for extreme narcissism to cause people to temper the expression of it; so what? :-d

So that means that he will not betray the social conservative agenda which he is sorrounded by currently.

So you didn't enjoy Trump trashing the place with Clinton? :P This debate was a clear Trump victory (last one, as I have admitted before, was a clear Clinton win). But he finally attacked her on all the issues he should have, including emails, Bill, etc.

And by the way Baden - did you see Bill's face during the debate? Priceless ;)

This debate was a clear Trump victory — Agustino

That's just factually incorrect. The only scientific poll (i.e. based on a random sampling etc) that I've seen gave the debate to Clinton.

"CNN's poll found that by 57-34%, a majority of voters watching them thought she got the best of him."

Simply attacking someone doesn't win a debate. You have to come across as at least somewhat likeable. Trump played to his base, who love everything he does anyway, but made no inroads with any other demographics. Not a winning strategy.

And by the way Baden - did you see Bill's face during the debate? Priceless — Agustino

No, but I have no more pity for him than I will have for Trump when he loses.

That's just factually incorrect. The only scientific poll (i.e. based on a random sampling etc) I've seen gave the debate to Clinton.

" CNN's poll found that by 57-34%, a majority of voters watching them thought she got the best of him."

Simply attacking someone doesn't win a debate. You have to come across as at least somewhat likeable. Trump played to his base, which love everything he does anyway, but made no inroads with any other demographics. Not a winning strategy. — Baden

I told you my analysis, which is supported by many other people, who also think that Trump won the debate. I have no bias in this - I freely admitted Trump lost the first one. But this time, when Clinton couldn't answer even a single issue that Trump brought up - this was shameful for her.

It is interesting that we generally see what we want to see, and that our personal stake in an issue largely determines our perception of it. We fit facts into a particular narrative that we find edifying. Many of the same people who were up in arms over Bill Clinton's sexual deviance, for instance, are justifying or trivializing Trump's abhorrent behavior. On the flipside, many Clinton supporters find her email issue to be an irrelevant diversion but view Trump's failure to disclose his taxes as a betrayal of the public trust and the need for transparency.

I wonder if most people are even aware of their biases and the blatant double standards they hold. Myself included! It's as if the ego gets in the way of truth, or at least clearer perception. Apologies for stating this most obvious point.

I have no bias in this. — Agustino

It wouldn't matter anyway; neither your opinion nor mine alone doth a debate win make, and the general public by a large margin gave it to Clinton. The consensus among the media as a whole seems to be that Trump did better than last time (he had more energy and a few good lines) but still lost. I was working, so I can't give much of an informed opinion except to say that she seemed rather robotic and lifeless and he overly aggressive and uninformed. Neither of them have much charisma or are very likeable but she has a better grasp on the issues and seems better at obscuring the less pleasant aspects of her persona, while he's better at firing people up with off-the-cuff one-liners.

Come on Agustino! You have no bias in this?! Sure you're not a US citizen, but that doesn't mean your vehement dislike (hatred?) of Clinton - as the representative of the liberal progressives you detest - does not affect your judgement. I say this with all due respect and as someone who admires many of your socially conservative views a great deal. Don't go losing credibility with us! Please. You can grudgingly acknowledge that Clinton won the first debate and still harbor some biases. I don't think anyone thought Trump took that first one.

Yes, Trump boasted about sexually assaulting woman. And most Trump supporters apparently think that's normal behaviour, which speaks volumes about their values or lack thereof. In this sense, Trump is actually a boon - not only is he destroying one of America's political hegemonies, he's very effectively highlighting the hypocrisy of so-called social conservatives*. That moral values have never been the driving force for the majority of this group is not something that surprises me. — Baden

Yes, Hillary lied about her emails and destroyed evidence and then was never prosecuted when others are prosecuted for doing less. She also used character assassination to silence her husbands accusers of sexual harassment and takes money from foreign governments who don't allow their women to drive or go to school. And most Hillary supporters apparently think that's normal behavior which speaks volumes about their values or lack thereof. she's effectively highlighting the hypocrisy of the so-called social liberals. That rights for women and a fair justice system have never been the driving force for the majority of this group is not something that surprises me.

>:O

You can highlight Clinton's faults all you want and you won't get any arguments from me. I'm not one of her supporters.

Come on Agustino! You have no bias in this?! — Erik

I have no bias in saying who won the debate(s) not in who I'd want to win the election.

Sure you're not a US citizen, but that doesn't mean your vehement dislike (hatred?) of Clinton - as the representative of the liberal progressives you detest - does not affect your judgement. — Erik

Of course it does. As we all have something to gain or lose from this. The social conservative agenda has a lot to lose if Clinton or the liberal progressives win this election. Do you not think so?

I haven't watched any of the debates, but from what I've read it seems that all they do is insult one another. Aren't they supposed to be explaining their policies and why they're the right ones to pursue?

U.S. politics sure is weird.

I cited a book and a study, I may as well go forth and cite Things Hidden Since the Foundation of the World which explains the theory behind mimesis. — Agustino

There's a difference between an argument and a citation.

What's the argument?

I mean, heck. I can shoot a search on google to find something that vaguely seems to support what I'm saying any day of the week. But, at the end of the day, if I don't have an argument then I'm just appealing to authority.

And the idea that it had no effect on what people thought of adultery is equally laughable. It certainly influenced what some folks thought about it, and it would be quite extreme to deny that. Do you not see so many 10-12 year olds do exactly what they see Kim Kardashian and other celebrities do? The same pattern of miming behaviour that is perceived as cool, either because it comes from a well-known leader, or otherwise, exists in adults.

Are adults the same as 10-12 year olds? No.

Is Bill Clinton the same as a pop celebrity? Also no.

Surely you're not positing that some adults think Bill Clinton is cool and his cool-factor influenced them to think that adultery might be OK.

Although, hey, maybe you are. Let's just say exactly that.

Where are these adults who mime the coolness of Bill Clinton and become swayed and tempted to commit adultery because of them trying to mime that hip papa?

And by the way Baden - did you see Bill's face during the debate? Priceless — — Augustino

No, but I have no more pity for him than I will have for Trump when he loses. — Baden

Baden, are you of the mindset that words spoken are equal to actions taken? Mr. Clinton not only disrespected the highest office of my country but he allowed his wife Hillary, to go on national media and say that the women accusing Bill Clinton are a part of some right wing conspiracy.
Gosh, golly gee, I wonder if Hillary would feel the same, if it was Chelsea that was being portrayed not as a victim but rather as a master manipulator. :s

Baden, are you of the mindset that words spoken are equal to actions taken? — ArguingWAristotleTiff

So.. Tiff. Reality check. You know as well as I do what kind of man Trump is. You know as well as I do that trying to make this about Bill Clinton is a diversion.

Are there any decent conservative men? Absolutely. Prime example: David Brooks. Months ago he publicly stated that he couldn't vote for Trump because of matter of decency.

So.. Tiff. Reality check. You know as well as I do what kind of man Trump is. You know as well as I do that trying to make this about Bill Clinton is a diversion. — Mongrel

As long as Hillary is sending out Bill to campaign for her, then "diversion" or not, it makes his prior behavior or lack of judgement, while occupying the same office, fair game.
Decency is another term for moral fortitude, to which I suggest that NO one in this race has an ounce of.

Baden, are you of the mindset that words spoken are equal to actions taken? — ArguingWAristotleTiff

It depends on the words, and the actions, and the actions the words describe.

Mr. Clinton not only disrespected the highest office of my country but he allowed his wife Hillary, to go on national media and say that the women accusing Bill Clinton are a part of some right wing conspiracy. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

He's done far far worse things than that (in terms of foreign policy in particular).

Gosh, golly gee, I wonder if Hillary would feel the same, if it was Chelsea that was being portrayed not as a victim but rather as a master manipulator. :s — ArguingWAristotleTiff

I don't defend any of the reprehensible things the Clintons have done, Tiff. But none of them redeems Trump in any way.

Europe probably has very few social conservatives. — Agustino

Such a shame.

Look, Trump is a businessman. He got some very complex building projects completed without losing all his money - that's quite an achievement in itself - an achievement that is impossible if his narcissism was wholley unrestrained. This shows that he has intelligence, and he is able to collaborate with others to get things done. He is narcissistic, but not to the point where this would outright harm himself. You mistake pathological narcissism - which actually harms the one who is narcissistic - with Trump's narcissism, which doesn't harm him directly because he knows when he has to hold it back. He just knows how to work with others to get things done. One cannot easily flip-flop on deals without losing his reputation (and his money) in business. — Agustino

The game that narcissists play is to make themselves look great on the surface. If you dig past the surface and uncover failures and harm, they are quick to shift blame onto others. They don't need to restrain themselves up front, they thrive off the initial attention and admiration. It is only when you get into personal relationships that all the flaws come out. Then you are stuck -- it is either "my way or the highway". You either give into their demands or they will destroy you. It isn't too hard to tell if they are pathological up front. Do they blow up at the slightest negative comment and start coming out with threats of physical violence or legal threats? Does their comments of past failures and rivalries border on conspiracy theory? They manage to get through life because they are skilled at appealing to the narcissism in others.

Sure, he will play nice with conservatives, evangelicals and even white supremacists as long as they support him, while barely containing his brutal personal attacks on everyone else. Once the paper is signed, though, you have to keep playing the game or get run over. There have been dozens of reports from people that actually worked with Trump. He is obsessive, micro-managing every detail, and doesn't give an inch on anything. Nobody will be able to control him, not conservatives or Republicans. They have basically lost this election already.

But don't take my opinion. What about the Koch brothers? They usually spend billions on their conservative candidate. They have decided to sit this election out because they don't believe Trump or Clinton is going to do what they want -- and have instead focused on house and senate races. They join a long list of billionaires who won't have anything to do with Trump, even his friends.

But Trump was saying the truth. Some women do let you do that if you are rich and powerful. Just ask Bill Clinton. That's a big problem we have in our society, and this progressive media that you so love seems to be totally unconcerned with it. That, for them, is normal. They're only making a fuss about it because it's Donald Trump who said it, who is the Republican candidate. If it was Bill Clinton, they would have been entirely silent. Hell - they're entirely silent about his rape accusations, which are much worse than merely saying how you grab women.

You know as well as I do that trying to make this about Bill Clinton is a diversion. — Mongrel

It doesn't matter if it's a diversion - it's the truth. Who cares why Trump is doing it? It's all true. That's what really matters. Not that Trump is trying to divert attention from the comments that he's made - that is true - but irrelevant to the discussion we have about Bill.

Trumps not a narcissist, I'm one of those, they're sycophants, people pleasers, constantly worried about being right and good, or appearing to be, at the very least. Trump is clearly more like a megalomaniac, worried about being perceived as competent and powerful rather than lovable.

The game that narcissists play is to make themselves look great on the surface. If you dig past the surface and uncover failures and harm, they are quick to shift blame onto others. They don't need to restrain themselves up front, they thrive off the initial attention and admiration. It is only when you get into personal relationships that all the flaws come out. Then you are stuck -- it is either "my way or the highway". — swstephe

What is this, some quotes from Robert Greene's 48 Laws of Power and other silly writings like that? Machiavelli's Prince? These things have no place in this world.

You either give into their demands or they will destroy you. It isn't too hard to tell if they are pathological up front. Do they blow up at the slightest negative comment and start coming out with threats of physical violence or legal threats? Does their comments of past failures and rivalries border on conspiracy theory? They manage to get through life because they are skilled at appealing to the narcissism in others. — swstephe

I so disagree with this. If you have that attitude in business you won't survive much - you'll be gone in no time. First, you will easily find people who worship you on the surface so they can dig you. If you're a narcissist, you're a weak target for such folk - especially, I should say, women who seek to seduce you and later use this against you. Second, you will alienate people, and you will develop a reputation for alienating people - soon very few are going to want to work with you, and some of those who do want to work with you will actually want to hurt you rather than help you. The big secret is that Trump doesn't blow up at the slightest negative comment, nor does he come up with threats. I've watched him. When he's talking with someone who is in a superior position to him, or someone whom he needs, he's very respectful, and he always bows down - he's almost servile. That's how he is when he talks with bankers for example. Now - he does create this persona of greatness and superiority with folks whom he has control over - this explosive, and uncontrollable persona. But this is only helpful to him - because when he actually talks with a banker, and he is servile, it gives off the impression "Oh this guy is really much nicer than I thought he is. He must be quite a nice man afterall!"

Now there's a very big difference between this that I described above and a narcissist. This is just someone who is adept at using others, and very pragmatic. Has very little heart, and probably thinks that he is a special human being. But there is NOTHING clinically wrong with them. From a medical point of view, they're highly capable of functioning in society. The narcissist on the other hand is self-obsessed in a pathological sense - you find him in the doctor's office - he's unable to form relationships, has few friends/aquaintances, and in other words behaves in the same self-centered way with everyone - a way which alienates him from others. Trump isn't a narcissist - he's entirely rational. He behaves as he does because this is what it takes to win. He doesn't behave in such a way because he is compelled to, and can't control it. He's totally in control of it.

It's like running the mafia - the mafia boss isn't someone lacking any or all moral qualities and who is a narcissist. He's a very rational person, who understands the needs of others, and who is capable to build a community around himself - who is capable to extract loyalty out of others. The only difference is that his sense of morality is built around an "us vs them" mentality - highly focused on in-group loyalty, and in-group benefits to the negligence of anyone else.

Trump threatens to sue those he has control over - Rosie O'Donnell - she's a nobody to him. Of course he makes a big show and threatens to sue her. It teaches other similar people to be careful with him - not necessarily because he can do anything to them, but simply because they don't want to go through all the fuss with him. Secondly, all his life he has guarded the idea that he is rich, and has always inflated his wealth. Why? Because others want to work with rich people - others respect rich people much more. And respect is one of the necessary things in order to be able to make money and make others work for you. If you want to start your own shoe making business who's gonna want to work for you? Assuming you have little money, and no experience in such a business nobody! You're not going to have people to put to work. But on the other hand, if they think you're a big designer, they will all rush to work with you, even for free. If your name is Elon Musk, investors will easily give you billions to start your spaceship program - because your name is big. Doesn't matter how crazy your idea is - just your name.

Sure, he will play nice with conservatives, evangelicals and even white supremacists as long as they support him, while barely containing his brutal personal attacks on everyone else. — swstephe

Trump is a snake. But because he is a snake, he is very rational and he is controllable. I know for certain that he cannot betray the social conservatives without ruining his presidency, probably even risking losing his seat due to Congress. He will satisfy social conservative agendas so long as he is permitted to satisfy his own agenda - which in this case is an economical one. Trump is a man who makes compromises - he's a man who is rational - you can strike a deal with him, even if he doesn't agree with you. That's very good - many people aren't like that. Hillary on abortion for example - that's my way or the highway. Furthermore Trump wants to be known as great - people who want to be known as great aren't narcissists - because it takes a great deal more than self-love to be known as great. You have to actually do something good - at least for some people - to be known as great. Alexander the Great for example - not a narcissist - if he had been one, he wouldn't have managed to do anything.

But don't take my opinion. What about the Koch brothers? They usually spend billions on their conservative candidate. They have decided to sit this election out because they don't believe Trump or Clinton is going to do what they want -- and have instead focused on house and senate races. They join a long list of billionaires who won't have anything to do with Trump, even his friends. — swstephe

The Koch brothers have primarily ECONOMIC interests, not social conservative ones.

In this line of thought - Bill Clinton is much more of a narcissist, because he's actually engaged in a lot of non-rational activities which have sabotaged him and his family - such as rape. Why did he need to rape anyone? He was already getting quite a lot of women willingly.

There have been dozens of reports from people that actually worked with Trump. He is obsessive, micro-managing every detail, and doesn't give an inch on anything. — swstephe

This is just nonsensical drivel - they say that about everyone. The same was said about Steve Jobs, or Bill Gates for example. But it's just not true. If someone is obsessive and micro-managing every little detail (like me quite frequently) - they're very slow. They don't do a lot of things. They're always stuck on some small thing. They're not working on the big picture. Furthermore, they risk annoying people to the extent that they stop working for them - or if they keep working for them, they become very uninterested and produce low quality work. You see Steve Jobs bully employees once he's rich and powerful. Why? Because for people to be willing to work for you and to do what you want (along general lines, because at micro-level they still need freedom, simply because you yourself will lack the expertise) they have to either be given sufficient freedom and status in the company, OR they have to think that you are great, a different sort of human being. The bullying helps prove that. But Steve Jobs didn't get there by bullying people - quite the contrary, he got there by being servile, and like Trump, a snake. He sold the first computer that Wozniack built and gave him only one tenth of the money - he lied about the selling price. Clearly he didn't go around being like "Oh Woz, now you have to do X, I don't care what the fuck you think about it, just do it because I know better" - if he had done that, he would have been a loser. Instead he was like "Oh yeah Woz, this what you're doing is truly great! Maybe you should add XYZ, I was looking at it before, I think it would look great! What do you think?". So he clearly wasn't busy micro-managing anything - he was busy keeping people happy, and looking at the big picture, what has to be done in order to get an advantage. So he was quite the opposite from obsessive and micro-managing. He became that much more once he became powerful simply because he had to in order to get folk to work for him.