Practically everyone I knew who voted for Trump would say something like, "Yeah, I'm going to hold my nose and vote for the guy."
In fact, I know very few people who support Trump politically but are unwilling to admit that he's a narcissistic personality. Most Trump voters will admit that he's vulgar, thin-skinned, boastful, and easily distracted.
Many will also say that they wish he'd put away his Twitter button, or be more diplomatic, or just hold his tongue more and not get in spats with the likes of Rosie O'Donnell.
This presents a striking contrast to Democrats, who rarely if ever admitted that there was anything wrong with Hillary, or Obama, even as both of them exhibited obvious personality syndromes.
I'll usually say something to the effect of, "Yes, he's a 'hole, but I agree with him on the issues." I might even volunteer that he's a narcissistic personality with ADHD." But then I'll add, "But Hillary is an outright sociopath. You do know she's totally corrupt, don't you?"
At this juncture I'm usually given a look of disbelief and a quick, dismissive shake of the head.
If I ever say, "Are you aware that she sold 20% of all the North American uranium rights to Russia in exchange for a contribution to the Clinton Foundation," I'm greeted by a blank stare and then a dismissive wave of the hand, as if what I was suggesting was too preposterous to be true.
Or, they might respond, "If that's true, then why have I never heard about that?"
When I explain that it's because they only read the mainstream media, which prefers to gloss over her sins, they will shake their heads contemptuously, as if the very thought of Hillary doing anything like that was too ridiculous to be true.
I might say, "What do you make of the fact that Hillary now says that all women who claim to be rape victims deserve to be heard, but that she was in charge of the so called 'bimbo eruptions' caused by her husband Bill? And she did her best to insult and even intimidate the women. Not only that, but earlier in her career she defended a 44-year-old man against charges that he had raped a 12-year-old girl, got him off on an apparently erroneous lie detector test result, and then joked about it afterwards."
At that point I will be given a disbelieving look, as if I'm full of crazy ideas that aren't even worth discussing, and the liberal might say, in an incredulous tone of voice, "Uh, what's your source on that?" Then they might add, sarcastically, "Faux News?"
If I ever say, "You know, Hillary's the type of person who yells and screams at her personal security details and in general treats them like personal servants. The Arkansas State Troopers hated her, Secret Service personnel considered working for her hardship duty, and her State Department security detail actually celebrated when she broke her arm," I'm usually given a look indicating that I'm hopelessly naive to believe such obviously untrue rumors.
If I say something like, "You do realize that Hillary's basically a functional alcoholic, right?" I might be told, "Oh please, everybody drinks. It doesn't mean they're all alcoholics" -- as if I can't tell the difference between little social drinking and full blown alcoholism.
And in all these cases, nobody wants to hear any of the evidence. I always wanted to say, "Hey, here, read this!" But of course I can't just pull out a blog post in the course of conversation and force someone to read it. And even if I were somehow able to, they wouldn't believe any of it anyway, or would dismiss it with a pish-posh gesture.
This isn't true of every last liberal; and certainly every last conservative isn't willing to be critical of Trump. But as a rule, it's true. Many on the Left seem to lack whatever element it is in the personality that allows for sheepishness.
What does it say about the Left that it's composed mostly of people who can never, ever admit fault with their own side?
Posts
13 comments:
About his time two years ago. Iheard a very liberal friend of my wife who was a Bernie babe all the way say, “You know, I support Bernie Sanders, but I doubt that he’ll get the nomination. He comes off like your cranky grandpa who complains about the food at the Last Supper. I can’t understand why he’s gotten this far in politics. Plus, a lot of his ideas are popular with the people, but not the special interests who really pull the strings in Washington.”
“Even if he gets the nomination and wins the White House, he’ll have a really hard time getting them through Congress, and the Supreme Court. He’s just not that persuasive with the power brokers in DC.”
Bryce Walat --
I haven't heard that line of talk from Democrats before, but good for that friend of your wife's. I sort of liked Bernie myself, and while I didn't agree with him politically for the most part, I had to admire his integrity. He was the Democrats' anti-Hillary, but your wife's friend was right, he didn't have the proper connections with the powers that be.
I'd also point out that Hillary supporters were in spirit a different group, in general, than Bernie supporters. A lot of the Hillary supporters I've dealt seem to be middle-aged housewives who've gotten to the point where they have a generalized resentment of men, and just wanted to see a woman in the WH. That desire seemed to override any willingness to take a clear-eyed, hard look at their own candidate. Bernie supporters tended in general to be younger, more enthusiastic, and more idealistic.
Hillary supporters did indeed share some of their heroine's craziness, and there was definitely a cadre of mad-as-wet-hens Boomer women who formed the core of her constituency. These women hate men, as a general rule, and see Hillary's travails as analogous to theirs.
As to your larger point, it seems true, doesn't it? Oh, you might hear a little criticism here and there, but these people really don't break ranks. We're see a lot of this in play with the FISA stuff, only the person to be protected at the greatest cost is not Hillary, but Obama.
Pangur --
Well put: they don't break ranks. And yes, the Left doesn't want to hear a bad word about the sainted Obama. He was never anything but a con man, and they just didn't see it, because he was on their side. And largely because the media didn't focus on these things, and because his administration just stonewalled, he got away with Fast and Furious, the IRS targeting of conservative organizations, Benghazi, etc. And yes, now the FISA stuff: what will come of that, and will it be traced to Obama? Not if the media can help it.
I heard Trump has granted approval to fastract development of a drug for autism made by Roche, a Swiss company. It's a vasopressin agonist (i googled vasopression, it's complicated to explain, but an agonist is a blocker to keep more of something inside or from touching something, like dopamine agonists (antipsychotics) for schizophrenia).
Aims at improving social adaptation and from what I gather, it may be the first drug to directly target a core symptom of Aspergers/Autism, that is what Kanner and Asperger called: "autismus", the "aut(o)ism" defining the condition.
He's won more of my support if this one succeeds. It's already halfway through the trials, other companies made similar attempts, but all failed to pass due to terrible side effects. However, it's just a drug. The social problems in autism disorder are a result of deeper problems with cognition, by boosting this substance vasopressin above normal levels, they found they can ease social problems but don't know why it does, it's indirect, so what are the long term effects?
I would rather magnetic stimulation or something similar which goes straight for the brain's wiring, yet the guy behind it, Manuel Casanova, is paying for it out of his own pocket since he refuses to patent it or let any business invest and profit from it. It's in development hell.
-Ga
Ga --
Good luck with that. Trump seems to favor commonsensical policies all around.
When you said "good luck with that" what do you mean? (I am not good on pragmatics)
On topic, Trump being a jerkass is exactly why we can feel safe with him and not the Clintons.
My uncle said "He is an obnoxious and gigantic asshole who can't keep his mouth shut, but that's exactly why we don't have to worry, we know he isn't one of THEM (the Cabal)."
"The Clintons, the Bushes, all part of the Cabal, Hilary is a horrible person. The sick depraved things these elites do, feeding off negative energy and suffering"
And he means that literally, he believes they engage in "dark practices" which require fuel. Leningrad, Verdun, Stalingrad, the Somme, Iwo Jima, Nanking, Pizzagate, Syria, Slavery, more, all sources of their power.
The Cabal are agents he says of a dark force from another realm who have already devoured other planes of existence dry, but they are being beaten back now in this one. Other lifeforms, aliens from other planets also are fighting back too.
So uh....yeah.
Trump is according to him, part of the light. So is Putin and Elon Musk. They are unaware of their roles but are part of the master plan for the demise of the "dark forces" by forces of the light.
He has a ton of youtube channels and videos talking about this stuff saved on playlists.
I admit, I enjoyed watching some of them and talking to him about this stuff for the entertainment value.
-Ga
Ga --
Good luck with that, meaning, I hope Roche's drug gets approved and I hope it works.
I"m not the conspiracy theorist your uncle is but I agree with him about Trump, Trump's sin as far as the media is concerned is that he's too honest, and spells things out that they don't want spelled out. Yes, he does exaggerate his own prowess at various things, and yes, he's an egotistical bumpkin, but he wants what's best for America, which is a far cry from what the Left is pushing for.
I agree with Ga's uncle. As far as Trump, I believe divine intervention established Trump as President. Look up a man by the name of Mark Taylor, a retired fire fighter who received prophecies about Trump becoming President, starting in 2011. Somehow, I heard about Mark Taylor when Trump was running for President. When Trump won, I then believed that Mark Taylor heard clearly from the Lord. Hillary Clinton was flabbergasted that she lost the election. She's aligned herself with the dark forces. Her reaction was priceless.
- birdie
It seems most liberals who act as you've described have a parallel to the majority of county inmates I came in contact with for several years: they don't accept personal responsibility. It's always an outside force. Man is inherently good, it's the alcohol that made them a drunk or the gun that made them murder.
It's a denial of reality. Its childish and also hero worship. Their feelings cannot be impugned, its their religion and they're fanatical to protect it.
Not all, mind you, but the ones that can't ever see there's another side.
Dave
Dave --
Yes, never being able to admit one's wrong is a huge character flaw. It is, as you say, a denial of reality.
I try not to talk politics with others because I seem to be in the minority. I'm not a bleeding heart liberal, never have been, never will be. In the past, I have told liberal relatives about HRC and Obama, but what I said to them seemed to fall on deaf ears. They still voted for HRC.
- birdie
Birdie --
I've had that deaf ears experience way more times than I can count, too.
Post a Comment