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. — Agustino

No, that drivel is off the top of my head from personal experience dealing with narcissists, (for some reason, I attract narcissists like a magnet).

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. — Agustino

Okay, I think I see the problem here. You seem to think a bunch of politicians in congress and the house are going to be able to get their way with Mr. "Art of the Deal", while I think he is a really smart negotiator who is going to run rings around politicians. I don't have many doubts that if Trump gets elected, he would repeatedly risk impeachment or government shutdowns for his agenda -- which is probably personal, (he even said he doesn't deal for money because he is already rich, he does it just to win).

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. — Agustino

Like I said, I got my information about narcissistic personalities from experience. I live near Silicon Valley. I worked in Larry Ellison's company for 15 years, even his biography retold a popular joke the difference between God and Larry Ellison. Yes, he micromanaged everything. I remember when he personally rejected the look of the icons for our software package because they were to "cartoony". His exploits were legendary. I was there when he drove 150 mph through residential areas, being chased by police, locked the windows and called his lawyers down from his building before even stepping out of this custom Maserati. Also when he got into a fight with the San Jose Airport over the right to land his personal Mig-20, (he used to buzz our buildings). I saw him in person twice that whole time, but both times he was surrounded by all his keepers and followers. He rose to become the second richest man in the world, but mostly through dirty tricks and surrounding himself by people who were either yes-men or were terrified of him. But he burned himself a few times, the short marriage and expensive divorce, and getting caught when salespeople manipulated the books at his command.

I never met Steve Jobs, Larry's next door neighbor, but had met a few people who worked on the original Mac. They told me they had to hide a Japanese engineer in the closet whenever he came around so he didn't find out that they went against him and were installing a 3 1/2" floppy instead of the more popular 5 1/4" floppy. A few friends went off to work on the NeXT computer. He was so obsessed over every little detail, he even oversaw the placement of the sprinklers in the landscaping. I don't watch those movies or read those books because I suspect they are either going to be overly positive or critical. Also, he seemed to have reformed quite a bit after he came back to Apple ... These days, I really wish someone would point out, in one of those debates, that Steve Jobs was a Syrian refugee. He was also the kind of guy that required fierce loyalty, (the phrase Apple employees use "bleed 5-color blood"), or at least fearful compliance.

I don't know anything first hand about Bill Gates, (that's in Washington state), but I'm supposed to go up and visit Jeff Bezos territory next week. I've heard he made micromanagement one of his "10 rules for leaders". His company is very competitive and the average length of employment is only 2 years.

Customers stick with you if they come to the expectation that you are the only real choice, (not unlike Trump and Hillary). Your outrageous aggressiveness attracts people looking for strength. Your employees don't leave because despite the abuse, the pay is good and the job experience will carry you to better jobs. People partner with them for their own credentials.

So it is possible to be somewhat successful in business while being a micromanaging jerk. Sometimes it is an advantage. There are stories that Trump's obsession over the railing on balconies at one construction uncovered a dangerous flaw. But that micromanagement can also lead to disaster, like Trump Air, which he micromanaged into the ground.

Oh, and before I forget, in the post before last, I said that conservatives have already lost the election -- but I have to admit that liberals have lost the election, too. We are probably going to end up with Clinton, who will probably never get around to liberal social or economic issues.

Okay, I think I see the problem here. You seem to think a bunch of politicians in congress and the house are going to be able to get their way with Mr. "Art of the Deal", while I think he is a really smart negotiator who is going to run rings around politicians. I don't have many doubts that if Trump gets elected, he would repeatedly risk impeachment or government shutdowns for his agenda -- which is probably personal, (he even said he doesn't deal for money because he is already rich, he does it just to win). — swstephe

Okay, I understand your point.

Like I said, I got my information about narcissistic personalities from experience. I live near Silicon Valley. I worked in Larry Ellison's company for 15 years, even his biography retold a popular joke [url=The Difference Between God and Larry Ellison: *God Doesn't Think He's Larry Ellison]the difference between God and Larry Ellison[/url]. Yes, he micromanaged everything. I remember when he personally rejected the look of the icons for our software package because they were to "cartoony". His exploits were legendary. — swstephe

This seems to be already after he became rich and powerful. I doubt he got in that position this way. As I said, once people become rich and powerful, what it takes to keep succeeding is different than what gets you there in the first place. I have a family friend who is now a very rich real estate developer in my country. He's very arrogant now, does very little work, and always disciplines his employees and checks over everything. But he didn't get there doing any of this. He became like this once he was already big. He started out by selling flowers in the street - and he used to be very servile with everyone, even his first employees, many of whom still work with him and he treats them differently from anyone else (probably because they stuck with him for so long).

As you say, you met with him only a few times. His company was already quite big, I must assume, by this point.

I remember when he personally rejected the look of the icons for our software package because they were to "cartoony". — swstephe

That's not really micromanagement - micromanagement would be to tell you how to draw it / code it. This is really attention to detail - but not actually getting involved in your job. It's still up to you how to get it done, he simply doesn't like the way you've done it.

You have managed to convince yourself that you know what Trump will do if elected. I'm not convinced; if anything I think swstephe's analysis is probably closer to the mark than yours. Wait and see; he probably won't be elected in any case. Clinton's not much better either; what a low point has been reached in politics! I think the increasingly superficial nature of politics is a general trend worldwide; but it's writ large on the American stage.

I am somewhat interested in US politics. I have been appalled since Day 1 that Trump could even be considered for high office, his entire campaign is fueled by narcissism ('I alone can solve'). Whilst I can understand some scepticism about Hillary Clinton, she has served as an elected official and has a solid legislative record. A great deal of the hostility directed towards her is misogynist in my view; if (hopefully, when) she wins, it will mean the UK, the USA, and Germany will all be lead by women.

But Trump is an unmitigated disaster, a two-bit huckster, carpet-bagger, no-nothing loudmouth, an empty suit with his hands up skirts and in tills. The fact that he has gotten thus far is an indictment of American society.

The fact that he has gotten thus far is an indictment of American society. — Wayfarer

More like an indictment of the current state of the Republican Party, which is hardly all of American society. There were somewhat better Republican candidates, though none of them were A+, and Trump accumulated more national delegate votes than the other candidates, and that settled it.

The vitriol directed at Hillary Clinton is misogynism and more. Republicans hate Obama and Hillary Clinton with about equal passion, it seems like. She has become the symbol for all the perceived insults to American prestige in places like Libya, Syria, Iraq, etc. The super hawks had their feathers badly ruffled by the Iran agreement on nuclear weapons. The hawks probably wanted an attack on Iran's bomb-hardened labs and were disappointed The missing emails smell like subterfuge -- and probably were.

Bernie Sanders might have been a more effective candidate, a better person, and a greater challenge to Trump. Alas, vote counts determined the outcome in the Democratic Party too. Sanders came close, but close doesn't count.

We have a winner-take-all system; a proportional system might be better. Far off fat chance that will happen.

You know, people criticize America (Americans among the critics) for a low voter turnout. In some ways, low voter turn out is not all bad. The negative spin is that non-voters don't care, are too lazy, are too stupid, etc. I don't believe it. A positive spin is that a large number of the nonvoters have rejected the political system of electing candidates who don't represent the rank and file of the people. Trump is not a friend of the common man, and neither is Hillary Clinton. Neither was George Bush; in some ways, Bill Clinton wasn't either; neither was Bush I and his wretched predecessor, Ronald Reagan. And so on. Go back before... 1952 say, and there were a lot more decisions made in "smoke filled rooms" by power brokers.

But Trump was saying the truth — Agustino

What's true is that he boasted about sexually assaulting women. He boasted about doing it himself. You can continue to try to blame that on Hollywood, the media, and progressives etc. but no one here is going to take you seriously; and the fact that you continue to try to excuse him while complaining about how the media excuses the Clintons highlights again the hypocrisy that you are so steeped in.

I agree the Republican party has some culpability for the Trump fiasco, but at the end of the day, it is incumbent on the electorate to make a responsible decision. Saying that they're 'annoyed with the establishment' or 'disillusioned with politicians' ought not to be an excuse for turning a blind eye to Trump's obvious, glaring, ENORMOUS deficiencies. (There was some 'Women for Trump' rep busily excusing him on the news last night.) It's reckless in the extreme.

I am fairly sure the electorate will do the right thing and reject Donald Trump. If we elect him, then do you have any contacts in Canada who could put me up for maybe 8 years? "Oh, yoo hoo, Wosret? You've been bragging about that big house and your copious income." Montreal or Toronto would be nice; I've been to Winnipeg and it's just a colder Minneapolis. Vancouver costs too much. Yellow Knife is too remote. I could practice my French in Montreal.

Lol, well Wayne Gretzky, the greatest athlete that ever lived comes from Edmonton! Got that west edmonton mall (which I've driven right by like five thousand times but never been into, my sister is bugging me to take her sometime.).

I get to brag brah, it's thanksgiving, loophole.

The offended should vote for somebody else--like Hilary or Jill. — Bitter Crank

They ought not vote at all, then.

If Donald Trump should get elected, then impeachment proceedings should begin immediately after his swearing in ceremony. His impeachable high crimes and misdemeanors relate to his extreme obtuseness, his imbecility, his crooked business dealings, tax avoidance, and general intelligence-insulting utterances. — Bitter Crank

The same could be said of Hillary.

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. — Baden

Yet you use the same selective outrage that most liberals are known for. You attack Trump and his supporters over something Trump said as opposed to what Hillary did. Last I checked, everyone had the right to free speech, and Trump exercised his rights. Hillary, on the other hand, engaged in criminal behavior. Which is worse? Obviously what Clinton did yet you aren't consistent in holding both accountable. You are only interested in holding one accountable - the one that didn't do the worse thing - a criminal act. Your bias is obvious.

If using "locker room talk" is a disqualification for being President, then everyone is disqualified as everyone has engaged in it and laughed at it at some point in their life.

It comes down to who would you want as a friend - someone who is brutally honest and may offend you with what they say, but you know that they are just being honest, or the one that will smile and shake your hand yet lie to your face and tell you what you want to hear?

Yet you use the same selective outrage that most liberals are known for. You attack Trump and his supporters over something Trump said as opposed to what Hillary did. Last I checked, everyone had the right to free speech, and Trump exercised his rights. Hillary, on the other hand, engaged in criminal behavior. Which is worse? Obviously what Clinton did yet you aren't consistent in holding both accountable. You are only interested in holding one accountable - the one that didn't do the worse thing - a criminal act. Your bias is obvious. — Harry Hindu

This is the last time I am going to explain that I am not a Hillary Clinton supporter, that I don't like her in the slightest, and I would never vote for her. Am I expressing myself in simple enough terms? But this discussion is about Trump. It's called "Latest Trump Is No Worse Than Earlier Trump". Hillary Clinton is not the topic here. If you want to start a new discussion about her, go ahead. I've criticized her very heavily in other discussions and I'm likely to do so again..

Hillary, on the other hand, engaged in criminal behavior. — Harry Hindu

Trump, as a disgusting old lech, boasted about sexually assaulting younger women. Sexual assault is criminal behaviour. It was not just talk. It was talk about his actions. And to dismiss it as just talk is an egregious insult to every victim of this crime. So, this insipid parroting of the idea that it's just words, which are not as bad as actions, is not going to fly anywhere outside moronic media environments like Breitbart and Fox News. And nothing Hillary Clinton has done mitigates its seriousness.

But this is the whole conservative argument: "They said my friend is naughty but their friend is naughtier!" It's almost beyond belief that we have to listen to this childish rubbish on a philosophy forum.

As I'm not convinced that even the above will be enough to penetrate the solid wood that is the Trump supporter's brain, here is a quote from me about Hillary from a previous discussion:

Hillary doesn't get a pass on being a liar, corporate shill and lover of war criminals because she's a woman. Arguably, her husband is worse (in my view at least) but he's not running for office this time. — Baden

Now, back to Trump.

Yet you use the same selective outrage that most liberals are known for. You attack Trump and his supporters over something Trump said as opposed to what Hillary did. — Harry Hindu

Why would we attack Trump and his supporters over something Hillary did?

Last I checked, everyone had the right to free speech, and Trump exercised his rights. — Harry Hindu

You have that right up until you've slandered someone. It's remarkable that Trump's entire campaign has run on denying facts and truths, in the hope that if Trump denies what is reality, enough stupid people will actually grow to think he's right because they're too lazy and dumb to inform themselves. Alas, this strategy seems to have worked quite well...

If using "locker room talk" is a disqualification for being President, then everyone is disqualified as everyone has engaged in it and laughed at it at some point in their life. — Harry Hindu

There's a great difference between merely talking about sex, and actually discussing how you sexually assault, and in some cases rape, another person. I'm sorry, and perhaps I'm a solitary exception to your rule, but I've never joked about sexually assaulting or raping someone. If you have, and in fact think that everyone else does, then I think this tells me and others quite a bit about your own character, in addition to Trump's. To be honest, it's rather revolting to see how many people use the, "but I do it, too!" card as some perceived defense for reprehensible behavior and attitudes. No, Trump is disgusting, and so are any who defend him.

It comes down to who would you want as a friend — Harry Hindu

You're kidding, surely? If I had to vote based on which candidate I thought could be my friend, I'd never vote. Politicians are built on secrecy and deception, even those of good character, so the idea that I'd ever be able to trust their word as a friend is...perplexing.

It comes down to who would you want as a friend — Harry Hindu

There's an insightful comment today from David Brooks saying that Trump has no friends, because he has a narcissistic personality disorder which prevents any kind of real relationships with people: 'alexithymia':

a personality construct characterized by the subclinical inability to identify and describe emotions in the self. The core characteristics of alexithymia are marked dysfunction in emotional awareness, social attachment, and interpersonal relating.

Brooks goes on to say:

Imagine you are Trump. You are trying to bluff your way through a debate. You’re running for an office you’re completely unqualified for. You are chasing some glimmer of validation that recedes ever further from view.

Your only rest comes when you are insulting somebody, when you are threatening to throw your opponent in jail, when you are looming over her menacingly like a mafioso thug on the precipice of a hit, when you are bellowing that she has “tremendous hate in her heart” when it is clear to everyone you are only projecting what is in your own.

Trump’s emotional makeup means he can hit only a few notes: fury and aggression. In some ways, his debate performances look like primate dominance displays — filled with chest beating and looming growls. But at least primates have bands to connect with, whereas Trump is so alone, if a tree fell in his emotional forest, it would not make a sound.

It’s all so pathetic.

David Brooks, NY Times, Donald Trump's Sad, Lonely Life.

There's an insightful comment today from David Brooks saying that Trump has no friends, because he has a narcissistic personality disorder which prevents any kind of real relationships with people: 'alexithymia': — Wayfarer

Oh give me a break lol. Trump is very adequate at being emotionally aware. He does those things on purpose. Someone with no emotional awareness isn't a good manipulator as Trump is. He wouldn't be a good deal maker.

I don't think Trump is competent at anything. It's just that he has sorrounded himself with people that are easily gamed. He knows how to game them, but he's obviously incompetent emotionally, as well as in numerous other ways.

I don't think Trump is competent at anything. It's just that he has sorrounded himself with people that are easily gamed. He knows how to game them, but he's obviously incompetent emotionally, as well as in numerous other ways. — Wayfarer

Do you know what kind of people's skills someone working in construction needs? Construction projects are so complicated, you have to deal with varying people (from architects, to managers, to bankers, to suppliers, to engineers, to workers, to government officials etc. etc.), all with different kinds of personalities - some who you need to be a bully with, others you need to be servile with, and so forth. If you think Trump is emotionally incompetent, then probably all you've seen of him is his public appearance. He's clearly very smart emotionally - this doesn't mean he's a nice person - he's not. But he does understand how people feel and how to use that. He knows when to be a nice guy - for example when he speaks with people he needs and people on whom he depends. And he knows when to be a bully - in public, and when he deals with those he has control over.

If he really was incompetent he would have lost all his wealth. Forget performing well - to be involved in the construction industry and survive - that alone is a big achievement.

His 1995 bankruptcy was nearly a billion dollars. He was left quite a few hundred million by his father, I wonder if he would ever have made anything without that. We'll never know, but I very much doubt it.

If someone gives you 1 billion today, you'll find that it's not so easy to keep it, especially if you're playing it as he has been. It's very difficult not to lose it if you don't know what you're doing. It's true that it takes a different sort of skill set to make more money or maintain it once you're already rich than it does to become rich starting from nothing. Fact of the matter is that Trump didn't lose any of his wealth, while he was actively involved in playing it. That in itself is no easy feat.

Also, as I mentioned before - people before they become rich are different from people after they become rich - two different sorts of skill sets are needed. When you're a nobody you can't afford to bully everyone - you need others. When you're a big name, others need you.

I've stood in the foyer of Trump Tower Chicago. It is an amazing building, (right near the Magic Mile, which is also amazing). I can't say that it's not a great building, but it's both perplexing and saddening that someone like Trump can be behind it. (But then, I could never understand why Reagan was held in such esteem, he seemed like an amiable dunce to me. Although at least he had principles.)

I've stood in the foyer of Trump Tower Chicago. It is an amazing building, (right near the Magic Mile, which is also amazing). I can't say that it's not a great building, but it's both perplexing and saddening that someone like Trump can be behind it. — Wayfarer

Why is it perplexing? When you're rich and powerful you have to be a bully to keep going - it's the most effective way to move forward, since others need you, and your need of any particular individual is much smaller. The fact that you're a bully merely exacerbates their need for you, which makes them work harder to please you. But if you're a nobody and you're a bully - people isolate you. They don't need you that much - they can do without you. But if you're rich, you are a big opportunity for them. Most people just want jobs which are high-paying and where they don't have to work that much. But to get those jobs, they must first get a reputation. If they claim they worked for you and were very succesful - a lot of doors will open up for them. That's why many folks become mean and arrogant once they become rich. It's a way to control your workers - fear. Plus you see all the common folk abusing you as well - you see your key employees leaving to join a bigger company. You see people being leeches. So you get sick and tired of this - you crack the whip on them - you treat them as expendables as well, because you know that if you don't, sooner or later they themselves will betray you and screw you up.

I've been in the foyer too. I think security identified me as someone who probably wasn't a resident of the floors above -- they started following me around. It is a fine looking sky scraping building, but then Trump didn't design it, Adrian Smith did. Smith has done a number of big international projects (like the Burj tower).

How much Trump had to do with the design, don't know. I would be very surprised if he had much at all to do with it. The tastes of the people who buy architect's services is often very at odds with the much more refined tastes of the designer. I doubt if most rich people could come up with a good building design if their lives depended on it. It isn't that they are untalented, it's just that most of them have pedestrian, bourgeois sensibilities suitable for the business world--that's how they got rich (if they didn't inherit it) and that's why they hire inspired architects.

Yes, it's a phallic object. It's taller than it's wide. Virtually all tall buildings are phallic. They can't help it. The pentagon isn't phallic. Buckingham Palace isn't phallic. Tiananmen Square isn't phallic.

It's perplexing because of the disconnect between what seems like such a high-achieving life, and the reality of Trump's personality as revealed in this last excruciating twelve months

I watched a documentary on Henry Ford recently - he too had his faults but he was also a genuine visionary, he basically invented modern mass-production (actually based on a method he observed in abattoirs, I learned). There was talk above about Steve Jobs and Larry Ellison earlier in this thread - they too have perceived flaws but also genuine ability (especially Jobs, who is really like a modern-day Ford and arguably the most successful businessman of modern times.)

But I just don't see anything whatever about Donald Trump which indicates anything other than mediocrity.

If using "locker room talk" is a disqualification for being President, then everyone is disqualified as everyone has engaged in it and laughed at it at some point in their life. — Harry Hindu

Speak for yourself, lecher.

You have that right up until you've slandered someone. It's remarkable that Trump's entire campaign has run on denying facts and truths, in the hope that if Trump denies what is reality, enough stupid people will actually grow to think he's right because they're too lazy and dumb to inform themselves. Alas, this strategy seems to have worked quite well... — Heister Eggcart

So then to be consistent, you must also say the same thing about Hillary. To rail against Trump for being dishonest and not say the same thing about Hillary is to be intellectually dishonest.

There's a great difference between merely talking about sex, and actually discussing how you sexually assault, and in some cases rape, another person. I'm sorry, and perhaps I'm a solitary exception to your rule, but I've never joked about sexually assaulting or raping someone. If you have, and in fact think that everyone else does, then I think this tells me and others quite a bit about your own character, in addition to Trump's. To be honest, it's rather revolting to see how many people use the, "but I do it, too!" card as some perceived defense for reprehensible behavior and attitudes. No, Trump is disgusting, and so are any who defend him. — Heister Eggcart

Again, Hillary and her husband are no different. Bill has assaulted women and Hillary has attacked his accusers. The reason Bill and Hillary stay married isn't simply because of power. It's because of immunity. A husband and wife can't testify against each other. Trump's "victims" never came forward. Bill's have. Trump's groping of willing women never threatened our national security like Hillary's e-mail server. The selective outrage by the left and the inability to prioritize their outrage based on the act is clear evidence that the left is the side made mostly of sheep.

Hillary has even defended a child rapist - accusing the 12-year old victim of encouraging the attack on her and laughing at her clients ability to pass a lie detector test saying that her faith in lie detector test is diminished because she knew he was guilty. Even the DNA said so, but she got him off after "time served" while the girl was beaten within an inch of her life and can't have any children.

To talk about Trump and ignore deplorable acts of Hillary is hypocritical. If both candidates have the same problems then there is no point in bringing up those issues as they cancel each other out. What is the point in talking about qualities and views of candidates that are the same? Shouldn't we be spending our time talking about their differences? If you bring it up and talk about it like you aren't guilty of the same thing - like Hillary and her supporters do - then there is no better term for you than, "hypocrite".

But this discussion is about Trump. It's called "Latest Trump Is No Worse Than Earlier Trump". Hillary Clinton is not the topic here. If you want to start a new discussion about her, go ahead. I've criticized her very heavily in other discussions and I'm likely to do so again.. — Baden

But that the thing: Context. In order to talk objectively about Trump's behavior, you'd have to take into account other people's behavior that are also running for President. To talk about one without talking about the other doing the same (or worse), is to cause confusion and isn't being objective.

Trump's "victims" never came forward — Harry Hindu

Actually, that's not true. He has been involved in 3500 lawsuits to date. Even if he becomes president, he will still have to deal with accusations of raping a 13-year-old girl in 1994 with Jeffery Epstein, all the accusations of outright fraud from Trump University, and on and on. That doesn't include all the election laws he violated during this campaign funneling money between his companies and campaign donations, unlicensed non-profit organization, requesting donations from foreign officials and even state laws, like talking to voters waiting in line in Wisconsin.

The very idea that this "pussygate" scandal is what outrages people makes me think the whole thing is orchestrated to keep Trump running for some ulterior purpose. I can easily imagine Hillary going over the polling numbers, wondering how she can get elected despite being so universally unlikable -- then comes up with the genius idea of forcing people to vote for her by helping the "greater evil" get in place. I know many liberals who had to take back their "never vote for Hillary" stance solely because the threat of Trump's claims of how he is going to gut the constitution is a greater threat.