Donald Trump: Sociopath?

Forum Sponsor
ZX600 said:
Oh man, this is too much.

Do you not agree that by hacking the emails of a secretary of state with information on matters of government business that could be secret and confidential does compromise the nations security? Regardless of who houses the emails?

Or do you think those emails only contain recipes and grand children pictures?

Asking Russia to hack emails from an official could be constituted as treason, regardless of where those emails were kept, or deleted from or regardless if the said secretary of state did the wrong thing by housing them on a private server.

Guy is a class act, accepting a purple heart and saying "I always wanted to get a purple heart, this is much easier" when a supporter gave him the one he got while injured in combat.

This is crazy town - anyways, I am going to really try and stay away from this unholy thread
Click to expand...
Again, the e-mails have been (illegally) deleted (by Clinton) so the only thing Trump is implying is that someone may have hacked her highly unsecure server over the years it was in use, and that those people should now turn that data over if it still exists.

Do I think they should be leaked? FUUUUCK yes, are you kidding me?? It'd be wonderful to have a trove of new data to further paint the US government (and Hillary) for the slime that they are. Assange and Snowden did right.
 
Blackfin said:
Got a source to back up your claim: "Time Warner giving Hillary millions of dollars"?

As you saw if you read my post the source I found shows significantly fewer dollars and not from Time Warner itself. As corroboration, a post on Politifact from over a year ago (Jul 7th, 2015) shows that "Time Warner" had donated $411,296 "over the course of /Clinton's/ political career". How do you get to "millions"?

If you don't have an answer that strikes me as a false and sensationalist claim...
Click to expand...
I'm crafty like them. 700k becomes millions. I thought that's how this whole thing worked.

Back to reality: Time Warner is one of Clintons biggest supporters. If you don't see a conflict, just tune back into CNN right now and forget our conversation.
 
mmmnaked said:
I'm crafty like them. 700k becomes millions. I thought that's how this whole thing worked.
Click to expand...

So false and sensationalist. Gotchya.
 
mmmnaked said:
I'm crafty like them. 700k becomes millions. I thought that's how this whole thing worked.

Back to reality: Time Warner is one of Clintons biggest supporters. If you don't see a conflict, just tune back into CNN right now and forget our conversation.
Click to expand...

What "conflict"? Their news coverage seems pretty even (got any evidence to the contrary?) and their editorializing is lefty. They're a publicly traded, for-profit company. They have no obligation to be absolutely unbiased in their opinions. For that matter neither does Fox or Drudge or Limbaugh or Breitbart or The New York Post.

Where have you been that you think that popular media has to be bias-free?

The fact that "mainstream" media supports centre-right or centre-left candidates more than Tea Party wackos and sociopaths strikes me as a demonstration of market forces at work. Or do you think restrictions should be placed on a free press?
 
That is not what i asked, if you are going to argue someone's point have the intelligence to at least answer a clear question.

He didn't "Imply" anything, he called Russia to find the missing emails, that means find them "magically is you don't want to call it hacking" reading them, sorting them and publish them to the media.

So answer the question I asked or stop quoting my posts unless you are trolling me to which I say well done, I will quote my question so that ou can specifically answer it:

"Do you not agree that by hacking the emails of a secretary of state with information on matters of government business that could be secret and confidential does compromise the nations security?"

mmmnaked said:
Again, the e-mails have been (illegally) deleted (by Clinton) so the only thing Trump is implying is that someone may have hacked her highly unsecure server over the years it was in use, and that those people should now turn that data over if it still exists.

Do I think they should be leaked? FUUUUCK yes, are you kidding me?? It'd be wonderful to have a trove of new data to further paint the US government (and Hillary) for the slime that they are. Assange and Snowden did right.
Click to expand...
 
ZX600 said:
That is not what i asked, if you are going to argue someone's point have the intelligence to at least answer a clear question.

He didn't "Imply" anything, he called Russia to find the missing emails, that means find them "magically is you don't want to call it hacking" reading them, sorting them and publish them to the media.

So answer the question I asked or stop quoting my posts unless you are trolling me to which I say well done, I will quote my question so that ou can specifically answer it:

"Do you not agree that by hacking the emails of a secretary of state with information on matters of government business that could be secret and confidential does compromise the nations security?"
Click to expand...
Yes. Hillary Clinton compromised national security by using an unsecured private server to conduct state communication. If a hacker gained access to her server while it was in use, national security was indeed compromised.

This hack wouldve ALREADY TAKEN PLACE long before this campaign, therefore Trump can't be asking for it as the emails have been deleted.

If you're asking whether those emails coming to public light is a national security issue I say NO, and it'd be awesome if they were leaked.
 
So if your answer is "yes" and I am now quoting you, Trump asked for the Russian government to do what you agree would compromise national security.

Only that on itself shows that he is over his head, forgetting about EVERYTHING else

Bamboozle all you want with words, I like bringing things back to the point.

There is no evidence to say that the emails were already hacked - he is saying, go and find the missing emails, he is not saying, find the hackers and get the info from them, and regardless he is asking for Russia to expose information that could be a matter of national security.

Hillary did compromise security, she did it by using the same system that Bill did, it was a mistake, a dumb move, stupidity, call it as you may but she is not asking Russia to "find" confidential information that belongs to the US
 
Last edited:
ZX600 said:
So if your answer is "yes" and I am now quoting you, Trump asked for the Russian government to do what you agree would compromise national security.

Only that on itself shows that he is over his head, forgetting about EVERYTHING else
Click to expand...
No. Read again.

It was compromising security if it happened while Hillary was sec. and actively using the server.

The emails being exposed now, many years later, would NOT be a national security threat. Quite the opposite, they would benefit the public.

Thanks for playing.
 
mmmnaked said:
No. Read again.

It was compromising security if it happened while Hillary was sec. and actively using the server.

The emails being exposed now, many years later, would NOT be a national security threat. Quite the opposite, they would benefit the public.

Thanks for playing.
Click to expand...

Not that I want to divert this thread even more, but how can you possibly know that? Some classified information remains so for decades. How can you, out of one side of your mouth, call for her head for threatening US national security and then out the other call for all the allegedly-hacked mails to be leaked for everyone to see??

To wit: "Do I think they should be leaked? FUUUUCK yes, are you kidding me?? It'd be wonderful to have a trove of new data to further paint the US government (and Hillary) for the slime that they are. Assange and Snowden did right."
 
Blackfin said:
Not that I want to divert this thread even more, but how can you possibly know that? Some classified information remains so for decades. How can you, out of one side of your mouth, call for her head for threatening US national security and then out the other call for all the allegedly-hacked mails to be leaked for everyone to see??

To wit: "Do I think they should be leaked? FUUUUCK yes, are you kidding me?? It'd be wonderful to have a trove of new data to further paint the US government (and Hillary) for the slime that they are. Assange and Snowden did right."
Click to expand...
Snowden and Assange managed to leak PILES of data and the world didn't implode.

Whatever damage can be caused, the NSA, CIA, FBI and DOJ would have to take maneuvers to lessen the risks. Kerry took Hillary's spot in early 2013. These people aren't stupid, loose ends would've been tied long ago. Just my opinion.

Hillary did what she did in order to protect herself from future congressional subpoena and FOIA requests. She has enough friends in high places that it made sense to simply delete the data knowing no repercussions would come her way.
 
ZX600 said:
"Do you not agree that by hacking the emails of a secretary of state with information on matters of government business that could be secret and confidential does compromise the nations security?"
Click to expand...

Former

mmmnaked said:
The emails being exposed now, many years later, would NOT be a national security threat. Quite the opposite, they would benefit the public.
Click to expand...

Only a threat to National image.

"National Security Threat"; easiest and possibly oldest tool to be used when a government needs to cover up their shady dealings
 
Neil_V said:
Former



Only a threat to National image.

"National Security Threat"; easiest and possibly oldest tool to be used when a government needs to cover up their shady dealings
Click to expand...
Not sure what does that mean in the context of this conversation. Sounded cool but kind of useless statement on the context of Trump calling for Russia to dig into a "former" secretary of state

Sent from my STV100-3 using Tapatalk
 
ZX600 said:
Not sure what does that mean in the context of this conversation. Sounded cool but kind of useless statement on the context of Trump calling for Russia to dig into a "former" secretary of state
Click to expand...

The argument was "National Security" no? I think mmmnaked did a fine job explaining the context (in regards to Trump) anyway..

"Again, the e-mails have been (illegally) deleted (by Clinton) so the only thing Trump is implying is that someone may have hacked her highly unsecure server over the years it was in use, and that those people should now turn that data over if it still exists."

God it pains me to agree with him haha
Anyway page 5 now, tldr all, this was the last I saw of this thread. Pg 3 :lmao:

ZX600 said:
Lol oh God I got to exit this conversation. You fellows have fun.
Click to expand...
 
Well it's pretty obvious that even with Canadians, if you try to have a rational debate over who is the best candidate it degrades into some hysterical, mal-informed finger-pointing match.

I remember the Reagan vs Carter election. Anyone remember all the hysterical lib-left media about Reagan? How "Ronald Ray-gun" is a "WARMONGER" who "can't be trusted with the NUCLEAR TRIGGER..." Reagan was going to "start World War III" and the world was going to be in peril. He and his wife were "slavish followers of the ZODIAC" leading many to question their sanity...

Then there was all the BS about Alexander Hague, one of his right-hand men.

It went on and on, but Reagan deliberately bankrupted the Soviet Union with the arms race and ended the cold war with his strategy. His economic policies ushered in the longest rise in prosperity in U.S. history. In the end there was nothing radical about him. He just did what he said he would do. So... Trump? I expect he will attempt to stop ILLEGAL Mexican immigration, like he says. I expect LEGAL immigration from Mexico to continue unabated. That's not racist and there's nothing wrong with it. I also expect that he will have a two-year moratorium on Muslim immigration until a system to filter out terrorist sympathizers is developed. That's NOT RACIST either. The job of any government is to protect the interests of the people who live within its borders. If that isn't their job then why have a country with borders? Are borders racist too?

The whole debate has been skewed by lies, misquotes, cherry-picked statements, deliberate distortions and attempts to simply bury the truth. Trump is not a career politician. He puts his foot in his mouth a lot. But I think is allure is that he runs a $3 Billion empire that he built mostly with a few million he got from his father. That is not a man who is crazy, or stupid. But there are a lot of people drinking the leftist Kool-Aid right now who are violent in their opposition to him. I think in the end Americans will tune those people out and vote for Trump.
 
it's 2016; everything's racist


On Trump foot in mouth. I agree, he's not had years of keeping his actual opinions to himself like those he's up against. Either choice has the potential for bad days, but more likely, business carries on as usual.

On a side, as Russia keeps being brought up, would working with them not be more prudent then encouraging conflict at their boarders and with their allies? The Demo's could just as easily spin us into a world conflict imo
 
Blackfin said:
Been wondering about this for a bit and did a bit of research. It certainly seems like it. Online sources list some of the traits commonly associated with sociopathy and DT certainly checks a lot of (though not all) the following boxes:


  • Glibness and Superficial Charm
  • Manipulative and Conning
  • Grandiose Sense of Self
  • Pathological Lying
  • Lack of Remorse, Shame or Guilt
  • Shallow Emotions
  • Incapacity for Love
  • Need for Stimulation
  • Callousness/Lack of Empathy
  • Poor Behavioral Controls/Impulsive Nature
  • Early Behavior Problems/Juvenile Delinquency
  • Irresponsibility/Unreliability
  • Promiscuous Sexual Behavior/Infidelity
  • Lack of Realistic Life Plan/Parasitic Lifestyle
  • Criminal or Entrepreneurial Versatility

...

  • Contemptuous of those who seek to understand them
  • Does not perceive that anything is wrong with them
  • Authoritarian
  • Secretive
  • Paranoid
  • Only rarely in difficulty with the law, but seeks out situations where their tyrannical behavior will be tolerated, condoned, or admired
  • Conventional appearance
  • Goal of enslavement of their victim(s)
  • Exercises despotic control over every aspect of the victim's life
  • Has an emotional need to justify their crimes and therefore needs their victim's affirmation (respect, gratitude and love)
  • Ultimate goal is the creation of a willing victim
  • Incapable of real human attachment to another
  • Unable to feel remorse or guilt
  • Extreme narcissism and grandiose
  • May state readily that their goal is to rule the world

I think in order to seek higher (the highest?) office you need to have certain personality traits that most people would find distasteful in an acquaintance/friend and I have no doubt many of the other candidates including Clinton are likely pathological in their own ways but I was struck by just how many of these seem to apply to Trump.
Click to expand...

I can see how some of these points could apply to Trump. I do think it's a perfect description of Bill Clinton though. There are examples of every single one of these through out his presidency. I get the feeling Hillary is exactly the same

Bill's probably salivating over the White House interns already :-)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom