Trump: "President Obama founded ISIS"

[kenny]

EXTRA! EXTRA! READ ALL ABOUT IT!

... You heard it here first, folks!

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/trump-calls-obama-founder-isis-over-anti-terror-strategy-n628096

" ... In many respects, you know, they honor President Obama," Trump said at a rally in Florida. "He's the founder of ISIS. He's the founder of ISIS. He's the founder. He founded ISIS. ... "

Trump continued: "I would say the co-founder would be crooked Hillary Clinton."

 

[redwood66]

He is certainly brash in his rhetoric.

I found this part of the article interesting. Too bad Trump can't make this point without his usual ridiculousness.

Michael Hayden, former director of the CIA and NSA, said on MSNBC's "Morning Joe" on Thursday that Trump could have made a valid point for connecting Obama and ISIS.

"The actions of the Obama administration in withdrawing from Iraq … actually set the conditions for the recovery of al Qaeda in Iraq, which then became ISIS," Hayden said. "So there's a very powerful case to be made."

But Hayden, who co-signed an open letter this week with other foreign policy and security experts saying they won't back the real estate mogul, said Trump's comments were far too inflammatory.

 

[VRBeauty]

I know that there are, within the Trump supporters, a core group of people who will continue to support him no matter what he says - for many of the reasons siv1 listed in her thread yesterday. (https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/a-new-view-on-trump.224803/) People who, basically, think the country is a mess and want it to go back to some mythical earlier time an view Trump as a savior. People who probably do believe that Obama is secretly a Muslim, and don't even blink at this sort of rhetoric.

I think there are also people who believe in the Republican ideals, see that Trump is a very, very flawed candidate, but hope that some mysterious force will keep him on line and in check while he implements the Republican platform as President. People who might recognize that statements like this are more than just "a bit of a stretch," and might be starting to worry how this sort of rhetoric and inflammatory talk might play out, both nationally and internationally, if Trump were elected president.

It's the latter group that's beginning to erode and causing Trump's poll numbers to slip.

I hope "The Donald" keeps speaking his mind and revealing his ignorance and bigotry, because I do think it's that truth that's going to save us in this election.

 

[ksinger]

I know that there are, within the Trump supporters, a core group of people who will continue to support him no matter what he says - for many of the reasons siv1 listed in her thread yesterday. (https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/a-new-view-on-trump.224803/) People who, basically, think the country is a mess and want it to go back to some mythical earlier time an view Trump as a savior. People who probably do believe that Obama is secretly a Muslim, and don't even blink at this sort of rhetoric.

I think there are also people who believe in the Republican ideals, see that Trump is a very, very flawed candidate, but hope that some mysterious force will keep him on line and in check while he implements the Republican platform as President. People who might recognize that statements like this are more than just "a bit of a stretch," and might be starting to worry how this sort of rhetoric and inflammatory talk might play out, both nationally and internationally, if Trump were elected president.

It's the latter group that's beginning to erode and causing Trump's poll numbers to slip.

I hope "The Donald" keeps speaking his mind and revealing his ignorance and bigotry, because I do think it's that truth that's going to save us in this election.

This should warm your heart then - a rather long list of high-profile Republicans who are going to vote for Clinton. People like Dick Armitage, Brent Scowcroft, and Henry Paulson, to name but a very few.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/08/09/all-of-the-top-republicans-voting-for-hillary-clinton-instead-of-donald-trump.html

 

[kenny]

http://www.vox.com/2016/8/11/12438744/obama-founded-isis-trump

Excerpt:
"All of these comments are wrong, however — in two distinct and equally damaging ways.
First, Trump completely botches the history of ISIS: The group was founded in 1999 and really grew up after the US invasion of Iraq.

If any US president could be blamed for ISIS’s "founding," it would be George W. Bush, not Barack Obama."

 

[Tekate]

He is certainly brash in his rhetoric.

I found this part of the article interesting. Too bad Trump can't make this point without his usual ridiculousness.

Michael Hayden, former director of the CIA and NSA, said on MSNBC's "Morning Joe" on Thursday that Trump could have made a valid point for connecting Obama and ISIS.

"The actions of the Obama administration in withdrawing from Iraq … actually set the conditions for the recovery of al Qaeda in Iraq, which then became ISIS," Hayden said. "So there's a very powerful case to be made."

But Hayden, who co-signed an open letter this week with other foreign policy and security experts saying they won't back the real estate mogul, said Trump's comments were far too inflammatory.

some truth and some BS.

http://www.npr.org/2015/12/19/459850716/fact-check-did-obama-withdraw-from-iraq-too-soon-allowing-isis-to-grow

 

[E B]

Uh oh. Look who actively supported the "founding of ISIS"... (even writing that out hurt because it's so d*mn stupid.)

http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0703/16/sitroom.03.html

BLITZER: How does the United States get out of this situation? Is there a way ...
TRUMP: You know how they get out? They get out. That's how they get out. Declare victory and leave, because I'll tell you, this country is just going to get further bogged down. They're in a civil war over there, Wolf. There's nothing that we're going to be able to do with a civil war. They are in a major civil war.

And from his interview with Hugh Hewitt:

HH: But by using the term founder, they’re hitting with you on this again. Mistake?
DT: No, it’s no mistake. Everyone’s liking it. I think they’re liking it. I give him the most valuable player award. And I give it to him, and I give it to, I gave the co-founder to Hillary. I don’t know if you heard that.

He knew he was wrong from the second he flirted with the idea in one of his advisor meetings, or after one of his rallies sitting down with the advisors, but he doesn't care, because he/they know his diehard supporters will believe anything he says. And if they LIKE it? That's all that matters. The attention. I think he's a stunning case of NPD for all to see.

 

[ksinger]

What I don't understand, (or rather I do have a pretty good idea, but have nothing but scorn for what I suspect is the real rationale) is how the overwhelming public support for complete withdrawal of troops in 2011, became the Trumpian crapsome of today.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/150497/three-four-americans-back-obama-iraq-withdrawal.aspx

There is also this, that in 2008, that Bush signed an agreement with the Iraqi government, to be out by Jan 1 of 2012. Unless Obama wanted to pull a Trump and act as if agreements between nations are meaningless, he had little choice but to abide by the agreement of his predecessor.

http://world.time.com/2011/10/21/iraq-not-obama-called-time-on-the-u-s-troop-presence/

"In one of his final acts in office, President Bush in December of 2008 had signed a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) with the Iraqi government that set the clock ticking on ending the war he’d launched in March of 2003. The SOFA provided a legal basis for the presence of U.S. forces in Iraq after the United Nations Security Council mandate for the occupation mission expired at the end of 2008. But it required that all U.S. forces be gone from Iraq by January 1, 2012, unless the Iraqi government was willing to negotiate a new agreement that would extend their mandate. And as Middle East historian Juan Cole has noted, “Bush had to sign what the [Iraqi] parliament gave him or face the prospect that U.S. troops would have to leave by 31 December, 2008, something that would have been interpreted as a defeat… Bush and his generals clearly expected, however, that over time Washington would be able to wriggle out of the treaty and would find a way to keep a division or so in Iraq past that deadline.”

But ending the U.S. troop presence in Iraq was an overwhelmingly popular demand among Iraqis, and Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki appears to have been unwilling to take the political risk of extending it. While he was inclined to see a small number of American soldiers stay behind to continue mentoring Iraqi forces, the likes of Shi’ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, on whose support Maliki’s ruling coalition depends, were having none of it. Even the Obama Administration’s plan to keep some 3,000 trainers behind failed because the Iraqis were unwilling to grant them the legal immunity from local prosecution that is common to SOF agreements in most countries where U.S. forces are based."

 

[Madam Bijoux]

Did Obama do that before or after he couldn't provide proof that he was born in the USA?

 

[kenny]

We should not have invaded Iraq in the first place.

GWB and Cheney's fault.

 

[mco312]

On the other hand, loving this list of republicans voting for Hillary.

 

[Dancing Fire]

We should not have invaded Iraq in the first place.

GWB and Cheney's fault.

I'd agree with you.

 

[mrs-b]

He is certainly brash in his rhetoric.

I found this part of the article interesting. Too bad Trump can't make this point without his usual ridiculousness.

Michael Hayden, former director of the CIA and NSA, said on MSNBC's "Morning Joe" on Thursday that Trump could have made a valid point for connecting Obama and ISIS.

"The actions of the Obama administration in withdrawing from Iraq … actually set the conditions for the recovery of al Qaeda in Iraq, which then became ISIS," Hayden said. "So there's a very powerful case to be made."

But Hayden, who co-signed an open letter this week with other foreign policy and security experts saying they won't back the real estate mogul, said Trump's comments were far too inflammatory.

It wasn't rhetoric. Hugh Hewitt gave him an out on this - to frame it as rhetoric and to make a more modest point; to portray it as a way of describing an overall political failing by President Obama. Trump refused to take that option, doubling down as always. Here's the quote from his interview:

“ISIS is honoring President Obama,” Trump said Wednesday night. “He is the founder of ISIS … and I would say the co-founder is crooked Hillary Clinton.”

In an interview with conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt, the real estate mogul was given the chance to clarify his remarks.

“I know what you meant,” Hewitt said. “You meant that he created a vacuum, he lost the peace.”

“No, I meant he’s the founder of ISIS,” Trump responded. “I do.”

I think Max Boot, senior fellow for national security studies at the Council on Foreign Relations, said it best:

“What Trump is saying is not a legitimate criticism. What he is saying is just plain nuts.”

 

[MissGotRocks]

We should not have invaded Iraq in the first place.

GWB and Cheney's fault.

Exactly. I said this from day one. Remember Bush's 'shock and awe' campaign? We would be in and out. What a crock of crap that was that he sold to the American people.

 

[redwood66]

It wasn't rhetoric.

It is if he believes the bolded part of this definition. He truly does and he is speaking to those people in that audience at that moment. One of his many problems is that he cannot get past the applause and fervor he creates in the moment to realize that there are also millions of conservatives who aren't those people. Although you certainly can't call him eloquent.


rhet·o·ric
ˈredərik/
noun
the art of effective or persuasive speaking or writing, especially the use of figures of speech and other compositional techniques.
synonyms: oratory, eloquence, command of language, way with words
"a form of rhetoric"
language designed to have a persuasive or impressive effect on its audience, but often regarded as lacking in sincerity or meaningful content.

 

[chrono]

One of his many problems is that he cannot get past the applause and fervor he creates in the moment to realize that there are also millions of conservatives who aren't those people. Although you certainly can't call him eloquent.

I think so too, and I believe this is due to his narcissism.

 

[redwood66]

One of his many problems is that he cannot get past the applause and fervor he creates in the moment to realize that there are also millions of conservatives who aren't those people. Although you certainly can't call him eloquent.

I think so too, and I believe this is due to his narcissism.

Absolutely.

 

[AGBF]

This new thread I started should have really been a continuation of this thread so I am linking it:

[URL='https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/an-even-stranger-donald-trump.224844/']https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/an-even-stranger-donald-trump.224844/[/URL]

 

[Tekate]

We should not have invaded Iraq in the first place.

GWB and Cheney's fault.

THIS!

 

[Calliecake]

Now Trump is on Twitter saying he was being sarcastic when he repeatedly made statements saying Obama is the founder of ISIS.

How can any person listening to this ass think he is fit to be President is beyond me. It's easy to see why the US is becoming a laughing stock to other countries. We look like a country of idiots.

 

[AnnaH]

Not going to defend Trump or anyone else's hyperbole (although most of us are also occasionally guilty.) However, both the President and Clinton made unfounded statements against Trump and the growth of ISIS before Trump's recent statements. Obama blamed Trump for the growth of ISIS. Clinton called Trump their best recruiter, saying he was in ISIS videos. At the time, the last three Presidents were in a video. After HRC's suggestion, a couple of weeks later, Trump was used in a video, I think.

 

[AGBF]

Not going to defend Trump ... However, both the President and Clinton made unfounded statements against Trump and the growth of ISIS before Trump's recent statements. Obama blamed Trump for the growth of ISIS. Clinton called Trump their best recruiter, saying he was in ISIS videos.

If you're not posting to defend Trump, what's your point? I mean, the President was right. Trump has sought to make make the US look like a country that hates all Muslims, which makes it easier for ISIS to recruit. Trump's antics are indefensible since they help ISIS, therefore Secretary Clinton was correct.

 

[kenny]

Not going to defend Trump or anyone else's hyperbole (although most of us are also occasionally guilty.) However, both the President and Clinton made unfounded statements against Trump and the growth of ISIS before Trump's recent statements. Obama blamed Trump for the growth of ISIS. Clinton called Trump their best recruiter, saying he was in ISIS videos. At the time, the last three Presidents were in a video. After HRC's suggestion, a couple of weeks later, Trump was used in a video, I think.

Yeah, Right, Clinton and Trump are exactly the same ...

Excellent reasoning there.

 

[redwood66]

Not going to defend Trump ... However, both the President and Clinton made unfounded statements against Trump and the growth of ISIS before Trump's recent statements. Obama blamed Trump for the growth of ISIS. Clinton called Trump their best recruiter, saying he was in ISIS videos.

If you're not posting to defend Trump, what's your point? I mean, the President was right. Trump has sought to make make the US look like a country that hates all Muslims, which makes it easier for ISIS to recruit. Trump's antics are indefensible since they help ISIS, therefore Secretary Clinton was correct.

I believe her point is that the president and Clinton are not above scrutiny when it comes to ISIS or making inflammatory statements for effect. This is not the Hillary Clinton Cheerleader Forum. Or maybe it mostly is but not all of us are on the squad or want to be.
Just because Trump is an idiot does not make her or the president infallible or above reproach.

This that I posted above came out of the linked article.

Posting again.

Michael Hayden, former director of the CIA and NSA, said on MSNBC's "Morning Joe" on Thursday that Trump could have made a valid point for connecting Obama and ISIS.

"The actions of the Obama administration in withdrawing from Iraq … actually set the conditions for the recovery of al Qaeda in Iraq, which then became ISIS," Hayden said. "So there's a very powerful case to be made."

But Hayden, who co-signed an open letter this week with other foreign policy and security experts saying they won't back the real estate mogul, said Trump's comments were far too inflammatory.

 

[Gypsy]

No I agree. All politicians make statements that are incredibly 'generous' or even completely irresponsible with the truth. It's our fault. We don't fact check them. We don't hold them accountable for it. There are no negative consequences. And every President makes errors. Huge ones sometimes. Regan had the Iran Contra scandal. And that was HUGE.

That said Trump is particularly flagrant in his disregard for any kind of relationship with truth-telling and he has no sense of civic responsibility to filter him. He acts like this is a reality show and all that matters is the amount of cheering and approval he gets. And he does not understand in any way that there are dangerously unstable people that will listen to him believe him, ESPECIALLY because he is an 'outsider' thinking he KNOWS something as a result of not being gagged by the 'system' like the rest of the politicians. And he has no care that he is inflaming what is an explosive situation with his words.


His response to this was (I am paraphrasing) 'they loved it, did you hear them, they loved it.'

He's just. Words fail me. I am genuinely afraid of the fall out from his candidacy. And I'm not talking about him as a President. That is a horror that I cannot imagine. But even if he is defeated, there WILL be some consequence to his 'rhetoric'. And I am fearful it will be in the form of some violent act by a group of dangerously unstable supporters of his.

I am NOT a Hilary cheerleader. I fully admit I am voting for her. And I have my reasons and they are good ones. But by no means am I blind to her flaws, her lies, or her character deficits. I have never voted for her in any primary. I didn't want her as my candidate 8 years ago. And I don't want her as my candidate now. That said, she is no worse than any other politician we have, and is about 'average' in terms of her deficits in my opinion. I DO expect better than that for a Presidential Candidate.

And honestly, if she wasn't up against Trump, I wouldn't vote for her now. But Trump is such a huge threat. He CANNOT be allowed to have nuclear launch codes and command of the military of his own. The BEST thing that could come out of his candidacy is that he is a 'face' and some one else, someone qualified, does the actual work. But EVEN THAT is a 'pipe dream' because as the elected President he will have access to stuff NO ONE else will. And HIS authority will ultimately HAVE to be invoked for worst case senario that is the way the Constitution is written. There is no getting around it.

I fully believe that George W Bush was largely a puppet for Cheney and others. And I thought he was the most incompetent President we've had. But I would vote for him NOW if it meant to Trump. That's how much Trump scares me.

 

[Gypsy]

I'm not done: Presidents are not perfect. That have had REALLY bad blunders. Examples below from just Regan.

One of Regan's most famous assertions was, “Trees cause more pollution than automobiles do,” and he maintained, wrongly, that sulfur dioxide emitted from Mount St. Helens was greater than that emitted by cars over a 10-year period. (In one day, cars emit 40 times what Mount St. Helens released in a day even at its peak activity.)

In 1985, Reagan praised the P.W. Botha’s apartheid regime of South Africa for eliminating segregation, a blunder then-Press Secretary Larry Speakes had to correct a few days later.

During a 1983 Congressional Medal of Honor ceremony Reagan told a story about military heroism that New York Daily News columnist Lars-Erik Nelson wrote never happened. Nelson had checked the citations on all 434 Congressional Medals of Honor awarded during WWII.

The Regan administration were responsible for blunders in Grenada, in Beirut and a respectful visit to the Nazi cemetery in Bitburg

Regan compared the Nicaraguan Contras, to the Founding Fathers and gave them aid!

And just for those who don't remember the specifics: Iran-Contra–the secret and illegal selling of weapons to our sworn enemy, Iran, to then fund the Contras–was both a constitutional disaster and a foreign policy blunder about which we were asked to believe Reagan knew nothing. His administration was also thoroughly corrupt: Eight senior officials in his administration were indicted. Can you IMAGINE if Obama had done this???

So. Yeah. Presidents make mistakes. BIG ONES sometimes.

But I have to believe that those mistakes, NONE OF THEM, are malicious and flagrant in their utter disregard for consequences or civil responsibility and were ultimately result of poor judgement and bad advisors. I have to believe that they were capable of empathy. That they were faithful civil servants the majority of the time, at least in their intent.

But Trump. Trump is nothing like we've ever seen before in terms of the potential for the complete and utter damage he would cause.

I am the child of two narcissists and I know a malignant narcissistic when I see one. And I know you've heard the term before. But many of you have not LIVED it, seen the inside of it, see what it TRULY means. I do. It means a complete and utter lack of empathy. A BASIC AND FUNDAMENTAL INABILITY to be empathetic.

You know what that means, really? They have NO ability to see ANYTHING from ANYONE else's point of view. They view being wrong to be such a scary thing that they CANNOT admit to it. It threatens them on a visceral level and when they were threatened they react with emotional (and sometimes physical) violence. When they are challenged they hate it, and seek to cut people who challenge them out of their lives. They surround themselves with only people who praise them or enable them (great for a Cabinet), and tell themselves lies ALL THE TIME to reinforce their positive self image. Because they are a black hole (in their tiny frightened souls) of self confidence. And they KNOW deep down that they are fundamentally unlovable and hate and blame the the world around them for it.

They cannot "step in someone else's shoes." To do so would be a betrayal of self. I MEAN THAT. They CANNOT do it. They FEAR losing themselves so much that they cannot be empathetic. It's like asking a man to voluntary maim his genitalia without aesthetic for kicks. NO ONE is as important as they are to themselves. They CANNOT put other's needs ahead of their own. They CANNOT be selfless.

They just CAN'T. I know you are reading this thinking I am exaggerating. I am not. And you can SEE IT when you watch Trump.

And you have no idea how BAD that is in a parent. But that parent (even two of them) only has the ability to ruin a minimal amount of lives.

A President has the unique ability to ruin millions of lives. And Trump is that man. And America is truly as defenseless as a baby against this threat if he is elected President.

 

[ksinger]

I'm not done: Presidents are not perfect. That have had REALLY bad blunders. Examples below from just Regan.

One of Regan's most famous assertions was, “Trees cause more pollution than automobiles do,” and he maintained, wrongly, that sulfur dioxide emitted from Mount St. Helens was greater than that emitted by cars over a 10-year period. (In one day, cars emit 40 times what Mount St. Helens released in a day even at its peak activity.)

In 1985, Reagan praised the P.W. Botha’s apartheid regime of South Africa for eliminating segregation, a blunder then-Press Secretary Larry Speakes had to correct a few days later.

During a 1983 Congressional Medal of Honor ceremony Reagan told a story about military heroism that New York Daily News columnist Lars-Erik Nelson wrote never happened. Nelson had checked the citations on all 434 Congressional Medals of Honor awarded during WWII.

The Regan administration were responsible for blunders in Grenada, in Beirut and a respectful visit to the Nazi cemetery in Bitburg

Regan compared the Nicaraguan Contras, to the Founding Fathers and gave them aid!

And just for those who don't remember the specifics: Iran-Contra–the secret and illegal selling of weapons to our sworn enemy, Iran, to then fund the Contras–was both a constitutional disaster and a foreign policy blunder about which we were asked to believe Reagan knew nothing. His administration was also thoroughly corrupt: Eight senior officials in his administration were indicted. Can you IMAGINE if Obama had done this???

So. Yeah. Presidents make mistakes. BIG ONES sometimes.

But I have to believe that those mistakes, NONE OF THEM, are malicious and flagrant in their utter disregard for consequences or civil responsibility and were ultimately result of poor judgement and bad advisors. I have to believe that they were capable of empathy. That they were faithful civil servants the majority of the time, at least in their intent.

But Trump. Trump is nothing like we've ever seen before in terms of the potential for the complete and utter damage he would cause.

I am the child of two narcissists and I know a malignant narcissistic when I see one. And I know you've heard the term before. But many of you have not LIVED it, seen the inside of it, see what it TRULY means. I do. It means a complete and utter lack of empathy. A BASIC AND FUNDAMENTAL INABILITY to be empathetic.

You know what that means, really? They have NO ability to see ANYTHING from ANYONE else's point of view. They view being wrong to be such a scary thing that they CANNOT admit to it. It threatens them on a visceral level and when they were threatened they react with emotional (and sometimes physical) violence. When they are challenged they hate it, and seek to cut people who challenge them out of their lives. They surround themselves with only people who praise them or enable them (great for a Cabinet), and tell themselves lies ALL THE TIME to reinforce their positive self image. Because they are a black hole (in their tiny frightened souls) of self confidence. And they KNOW deep down that they are fundamentally unlovable and hate and blame the the world around them for it.

They cannot "step in someone else's shoes." To do so would be a betrayal of self. I MEAN THAT. They CANNOT do it. They FEAR losing themselves so much that they cannot be empathetic. It's like asking a man to voluntary maim his genitalia without aesthetic for kicks. NO ONE is as important as they are to themselves. They CANNOT put other's needs ahead of their own. They CANNOT be selfless.

They just CAN'T. I know you are reading this thinking I am exaggerating. I am not. And you can SEE IT when you watch Trump.

And you have no idea how BAD that is in a parent. But that parent (even two of them) only has the ability to ruin a minimal amount of lives.

A President has the unique ability to ruin millions of lives. And Trump is that man. And America is truly as defenseless as a baby against this threat if he is elected President.

Gypsy, I get it. While I did not live it, my mother did. Not a parent, but one of her sisters - an older one - was a narcissist, and left a trail of emotional destruction in my mom's family, from all the usual inexplicable and petty stuff that makes you feel like you're going mad, up to cursing their father as he lay dying in the hospital, and a few worse things I won't go into. She also had a daughter of her own who finally did get away from her mom - by putting 13 years of therapy and half a continent between them. My mother broke off all contact and refused to speak to her for 20 years, and kept me from having any contact with my aunt (and my cousin, sadly) from about age 4 - when auntie started trying her emotional abuse shenanigans on me. My mom was having none of that.

My mother, a very sensitive soul, grappled her whole life with the fallout of her sister, until the day (in her 60s) she finally read a description of a narcissist. It was an aha! moment and a final release for her. It is truly a pity she did not have that knowledge much sooner in her life, it would have staved off so much pain and anguish, and would have given my mom some strategies to cope with her sister. Of course, she finally did the one thing that is guaranteed - she got AWAY from her sister, which as you know better than anyone, is the only way to save yourself. From the family lore, and the horror stories of not only my mother, but my other aunts and uncle, I can't even begin to fathom having both parents be narcissists. My hat's off to you for surviving and thriving.

So yes, I'll add to that, there is a huge difference between being narcissistic to some degree or in certain circumstances, and having a narcissistic personality. Those two situations - having self-confidence that others consider too much, versus having that personality type - are not even on the same planet. Trump is clearly the latter, or clearly to anyone who has been touched by a real narcissist. People who have not, often roll their eyes and think that calling him a narcissist is hyperbole or sour grapes or insist that all politicians are narcissists. It's NOT, and no they are not. He IS unique in our history, certainly in living memory, and probably historically. And it's the most dreadful prospect imaginable to have a person devoid of human empathy and who stopped his emotional development at about age 6, running a country as powerful as ours. There is nothing more important than keeping him out of office. NOTHING. It isn't political, it's not about him versus another flawed candidate. It's about someone with NO self-control and zero capacity for understanding others' pain, hell, for even understanding that others exist outside of being there to reflect him back to him, being in control.

 

[Gypsy]

Ksimger, I was very lucky. My father abandoned us when I was 4. He was found when I was 14. I kicked him out of my life permanently when I was 30. He was the malignant one and so manipulative I am to this day shocked when I realize or figure out something he did that I did not identify or recognize as manipulation at the time. My mother is not as bad as him in severity at all. There are degrees of the disorder. My mother has moments where she can put others ahead of herself. They are not common, except with me, and often you have to remind her of her duty instead of appealing to non-existent empathy, but she does have break throughs. And I was raised in large part by my grandparents and aunts and uncles. And I found my husband who helped me see what was wrong by teaching me to trust my gut more. And my MIL was a huge help too. She's the opposite of a narcisist. And living with her for four years really opened my eyes. My mother largely harms herself and my step dad these days. I am not completely immune but I have strong boundaries she had finally learned to respect and she really does love me more than anything in the world so that goes a long way.

But yes, because of the lamentable common usage of the word, people do not understand what it means to have a narcisistic personality disorder.

Because of the black hole they have inside them they need constant reinforcement that they are wonderful (if you wonder why Teump is always saying how great he is this is why, he is COMPELLED to self validate because he is an addict basically) because of how worthless they feel they need comstant validation, and often just like addicts they need bigger and bigger doses of validation. This is a PROBLEM because just like an addict they will do ANYTHING for validation.

Trumps response to the claims about ISIS show this perfectly. He didn't CARE about anything but the fact that his audience "loved it" and in his mind... Loved him. Validated him. He's an addict and will do anything for that validation.

It's truly terrifying to watch.

 

[AGBF]

Thank you Gypsy and ksinger for your personal examples. I think that they will help people to understand Donald Trump more than anything else. I am attaching a link to an old article from "The New York Times" that may also be useful, since it is brief and not too filled with jargon.

Link...http://www.nytimes.com/1982/03/16/science/new-focus-on-narcissism-offers-analysts-insight-into-grandiosity-and.html?pagewanted=all

Deb/AGBF

 

[Gypsy]

Thank you Gypsy and ksinger for your personal examples. I think that they will help people to understand Donald Trump more than anything else. I am attaching a link to an old article from "The New York Times" that may also be useful, since it is brief and not too filled with jargon.

Link...http://www.nytimes.com/1982/03/16/science/new-focus-on-narcissism-offers-analysts-insight-into-grandiosity-and.html?pagewanted=all

Deb/AGBF

That was a little unrelatable for me as the focus was on treatment methods. This is a very straight forward and still comprehensive summary: http://outofthefog.website/personality-disorders-1/2015/12/6/narcissistic-personality-disorder-npd



Please note diagnosis criteria is 5 out of 9 of the criteria. Trump has all 9.