A Very POTUS Narcissist – The Threat of Impeachment

Add a heading

Donald Trump is the subject of an impeachment inquiry over allegations that he improperly sought help from Ukraine to boost his chances of re-election. This article examines POTUS´response in the context of activity surrounding the impeachment inquiry for the purposes of highlighting the behaviour of a narcissist. For the hard of understanding, this is not an article espousing the merits of President Trump or otherwise, this is a blog about narcissism and POTUS provides a prime example of one in action, a very powerful one. It is therefore for the purposes of wider understanding and education that this recent episode is used for the purpose of explaining what is actually at work. 

The reportage is taken from BBC News. The highlighted comments are mine only.

What is the issue that is the focus of the impeachment inquiry?

Mr Trump is accused of breaking the law by pressuring Ukraine’s leader to dig up damaging information on a political rival.

In July, he urged his Ukrainian counterpart to investigate one of the frontrunners to take him on in next year’s presidential election. This matters because it is illegal to ask foreign entities for help in winning a US election.

An impeachment inquiry that could see the president eventually removed from office is under way.

But there is a fierce debate about whether Mr Trump broke the law or committed an impeachable offence – he himself says he has done nothing wrong.

It was supposed to be the kind of call a president makes multiple times a year.

Mr Trump says he called his Ukrainian counterpart Volodymyr Zelensky on 25 July to congratulate him on his recent election victory. Mr Zelensky, a former TV star with no political experience, was elected president in a landslide win in April.

But an anonymous whistleblower, reported to be a CIA official, felt there was something more serious in their exchange. They filed a formal complaint on 12 August explaining why they were so concerned.

In their letter, the whistleblower admitted that they did not directly witness the call but said accounts shared by other officials had painted a consistent picture.

For context, about a dozen people are reported to have listened in on the conversation, including Secretary of State Mike Pompeo.

It’s important to note that the call occurred days after Mr Trump blocked about $391m (£316m) in military aid to Ukraine. Democrats argue this aid was used as a bargaining chip to pressure the new government in Kiev, but Mr Trump denies this.

The whistleblower’s complaint alleges that the president used “the power of his office to solicit interference from a foreign country” in next year’s presidential election (more on this later). They also alleged that White House officials had been “deeply disturbed” by the call and acted to “lock down” all details of it.

Amid the growing controversy, Mr Trump promised to release a “complete, fully declassified and unredacted transcript” he said would prove the call had been “totally appropriate”.

But the details disclosed by the White House were notes of the conversation. It was not a full, verbatim, account and it did little to quell the spiralling controversy. The whisteblower’s complaint was made public shortly after.

The transcript of the call showed that Mr Trump had urged Mr Zelensky to investigate discredited corruption allegations against former Vice-President Joe Biden, a 2020 Democratic frontrunner, as well as Mr Biden’s son.

Mr Trump and his allies have been suggesting that Mr Biden, as Barack Obama’s vice-president, encouraged the firing of Ukraine’s top prosecutor in 2015 because he had been investigating an energy company which employed Hunter Biden.

At the time, by working closely with foreign-owned entities while his father was in the White House, Hunter Biden was criticised for leaving his father exposed to suggestions of a possible conflict of interest. But no evidence has emerged that Mr Biden took any action to intentionally benefit his son.

The Ukrainian prosecutor who replaced the one who was fired told the BBC there was no reason for Ukraine to investigate the Bidens and that any corruption with the company happened before Hunter Biden joined.

Mr Trump has pointed to a boast Mr Biden made in 2018 about how as vice-president he had threatened to withhold a billion dollars in aid from Ukraine unless the prosecutor was fired.

But motivation is key here. Mr Biden wanted him removed precisely because he was failing to crack down on corruption. And the vice-president was not acting alone, but rather as the focal point of a wider anti-corruption drive in Ukraine backed by the US government, European allies and the International Monetary Fund.

Mr Trump pressing a foreign leader to investigate the discredited allegations against Mr Biden is significant. This is because Mr Biden is the current favourite to win the Democratic nomination and, if chosen, he would be the man facing off against Mr Trump for the presidency in November 2020.

As Mr Biden is his biggest rival for the presidency, it opens Mr Trump up to claims he was working with a foreign power to influence the election. This – crucially – is against the law.

This is not the first time Mr Trump has been scrutinised over his foreign connections. His 2016 election campaign was investigated over its alleged ties to Russia. The inquiry did not establish a criminal conspiracy to influence the election, but it also did not exonerate the president.

The Democrats have launched a formal impeachment inquiry and have spared no time in getting to work. House Democrats demanded that five department officials – including the former US ambassador to Ukraine – appear for depositions in October.

The president’s personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, was subpoenaed for documents relating to Ukraine. Mr Giuliani has been central in pushing the allegations against the Bidens. Secretary Pompeo was also served with a subpoena.

So, this is the background to the impeachment inquiry against President Trump. Is the action credible? It remains to be seen, it is of course entirely feasible that a narcissist would take such steps by involving a third party (including the leader of another country) to obtain damaging information against a political rival to prevent that rival running against him. The narcissist functions through requiring absolute control at all times. This is our viewpoint and must be maintained. This is achieved through the application of manipulations – some blunt and obvious and some virtually undetectable. 

The type of manipulation we use depends upon the relevant school of narcissist (Lesser, Mid-Range or Greater) , the level of threat to our control caused by the appliance (person) and how in control we already feel (unconsciously) prior to the threat arising. We require control and fuel, fuel denoting that we have control and enabling us to feel powerful.

Everything revolves around this. 

Accordingly, recognising that a political rival might unseat him, President Trump feels that his control is threatened. He therefore must assert control and one way of doing so would be to remove the threat to his control posed by his opponent. One way of doing this would be to damage that opponent´s campaign and credibility, by digging up information to be used against that opponent. This allows control to be asserted. 

If (and this has yet to be established) President Trump took this step of seeking damaging information from the leader of the Ukraine, he did do in order to assert control over Mr Biden.

The ongoing actions of the Democrats will also threaten President Trump´s sense of control. Thus, as a narcissist, he is duty-bound to reject these threats to his control. A narcissist might do this by smearing or by giving a person a silent treatment or by issuing an insult. There are hundreds of different ways that control is sought. The majority of narcissists are unaware that this is what they are doing, they have a conscious belief that they are only acting this way because, usually, it is the fault of the person who is causing the unconscious threat to their control.

Thus, the wife of a narcissist asks “Where have you been? It is 2am in the morning and you said you would be home at 8pm.” From her position, she is not being unreasonable in demanding to know where he has been.

Her husband, a narcissist, does not hear what she says and thinks

“She is right. I said I would be home by 8pm and I have just wandered in at 2am smelling of alcohol and perfume. No wonder she is angry. I will explain and apologise.”

The husbands narcissism, at an unconscious level, if it could speak would say

This appliance is trying to control us by limiting our sense of entitlement to do what we want. It is also trying to blame us and therefore make us accountable. We also have no emotional empathy for her anger, upset and concern. Accordingly, this means she is trying to control us and make us feel powerless. This must be stopped by all and any means possible.”

Understand this is an unconscious response. The narcissist is not thinking this, his narcissism instead “lets” him think

“Jesus, she is such a nag. All I did was hang out at the bar for a while, why is she getting on my case. No wonder I go there to escape this harridan. Who does she think she is telling me what to do, she is out of order, I am going to put her in her place.” He then argues with her going round and round, shouting at her, labelling her controlling and a killjoy. He is manipulating her (although he does not see this), in his mind he is defending himself and pointing out her failings. He is using provocation, blame shifting, verbal insult, circular conversations as manipulations until tired and frustrated she gives in and tells him to “forget it, she is just a horrible cow.” The narcissist now has control and he halts the argument because in his world, he now has won.

With that comparison in a domestic setting involving a narcissist, how does this play out with regard to The President of the United States and his need for control at all times, when this control is threatened by the actions of the Democrats? Let’s see.

US President Donald Trump has lashed out at congressional Democrats after they vowed to summons the White House to produce documents this week. (The lashing out is the response to the threat to control. It is instinctive (in this case) and has to be visceral and immediate)

Committees are demanding documents relating to the administration’s dealings with Ukraine, which is now at the heart of an impeachment inquiry.

The president accused Democratic leaders of dishonesty and even treason. (Provocation. It may be the case that the allegations against President Trump are baseless. A more evolved narcissist would state as such, issuing a bare denial, use words such as “without foundation”, “baseless” or “unproven”. Such pejorative language evidences the heated response arising from the ignition of fury caused by these acts threatening President Trump´s control. At this point in time, it does not matter if the allegations are correct or not, what matters is that the very fact of merely STATING them threatens control and results in this response.)

Democrats have defended the inquiry – which focuses on a phone call between Mr Trump’s and the Ukrainian president.

During a joint news conference with Finnish President Sauli Niinistö, Mr Trump called Mr Biden and his son, Hunter, “stone-cold corrupt”. (Again Provocation through a pejorative comment. Even if Biden and his son turn about to be corrupt (so far there is no legal action against them with regard to corruption) the use of this language in such a forceful manner by someone who is supposedly a statesman demonstrates the rudimentary response to asserting control. If President Obama (also a narcissist but of a different school) faced this scenario, his response would have used completely different language if the allegations had even seen the light of day).

Mr Trump directed much of his anger towards House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, calling him “shifty Schiff, “a lowlife” and saying he “should resign from office in disgrace”. (Further response to the need for control – again using Insulting Labels as a form provocation. This haughty response is also indicative of his narcissism).

He added: “Frankly, they should look at him for treason.” (Provocation)

Mr Trump also stated that he believed Mr Schiff had “helped write” a complaint about the call filed by a whistleblower, without offering evidence. (Evidence of paranoia, the failure to offer evidence is a common response of President Trump´s school, this is because (a) his word and belief is his evidence (grandiosity and his narcissistic perspective) and (b) he does not actually need “evidence” (in the sense as understood by non-narcissists) to assert control in this particular instance. All he needs to do is declare that there is a conspiracy against him and that enables him (absent any immediate response which was the case here) to assert control.

The US president told reporters that only “legitimate” whistleblowers should be protected. (This splitting of the type of whistleblower essentially states “Anybody who whistle blows in relation to me and my regime has no legitimacy and they are wrong (in my universe) 

“This country has to find out who this person was, because that person’s a spy, in my opinion,” Mr Trump said. (Absolutely the case – a spy against the United State of Donald Trump, a treacherous, disloyal and untrustworthy individual, the view that narcissists take of those who threaten our control.)

He labelled the entire inquiry a “hoax” and a “fraudulent crime on the American people” while maintaining he would “always co-operate” with Congress. (More labelling in order to assert control and to reduce the credibility of the enquiry. Note the worldview of other people being an extension of the narcissist – Trump sees the American people as part of him and therefore the crime against him is also a crime against the American people. This is also grandiosity.)

The US president also sparred at the White House with a Reuters correspondent, who asked him what he considered treasonous. (Although The BBC report does not state the exact words used in this exchange with the Reuters correspondent, it is described as sparring (not a discussion or a debate but the more pugilistic sparring which demonstrates a back and forth between President Trump and the correspondent. The correspondent doubtless was disagreeing with President Trump and providing him with Challenge Fuel, this would threaten Trump´s perception of control leading him to respond in his usual robust and direct style by arguing to put down the “act of rebellion” which manifests in the correspondents attempt to reject control.

As the Finnish leader looked on, Mr Trump said “there are those who think I’m a very stable genius” and said he “probably will be bringing a lot of litigation” against those who participated in the Russia investigation. (Grandiosity – note it is not stated who has actually referred to him as a very stable genius. This comment also appears to be something of a non sequitur in the press conference which shows how Trump has a differing perception of the world to the others there. In his world, it was necessary to assert his status as a very stable genius in order to get control. Furthermore, the comment about litigation is the Use of Threat, again to gain control in the moment. If he gains it, he will not embark on litigation however, should the allegations persists (which they most likely will) litigation will follow.

When the reporter pressed Mr Trump, the US president cut him off, saying: “Don’t be rude.” (Haughtiness, Interruption, Projection.)

 

Earlier, Mr Trump raged at the most powerful elected Democrat, House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and Mr Schiff on Twitter, accusing Democrats of focusing on “BULLSHIT”.

He tweeted

The Do Nothing Democrats should be focused on building up our Country, not wasting everyone’s time and energy on BULLSHIT, which is what they have been doing ever since I got overwhelmingly elected in 2016, 223-306. Get a better candidate this time, you’ll need it!

(President Trump´s use of Twitter is notorious as an outlet by which he seeks to gain control over people. He is in effect hoovering those who read his tweets and those he believes will read his tweets (which will be a large number given his status) and in so doing this act of hoovering is to assert control. In this instance, Nancy Pelosi as a Democrat challenges Trump´s control because of the existence of the impeachment inquiry. Trump must respond and he does so with this tweet, this is done because 

1. He needs a swift response and an electronic hoover through Twitter enables this,

2. It is easy to do – he just types and sends. This ease caters both to speed and also the economy of effort beloved of Lazy Lessers and Minimum Effort Mid Range Narcissists)

3. He is haughty, dismissive and insulting, using a profanity (hardly the language of diplomacy or statesmanship) but entirely in keeping with his school of narcissism

4. He attacks his opponents, rather than the argument, the typical ad hominem response of his school of narcissist.

5. More grandiosity as he reminds everybody of his “overwhelming election” win (it is unnecessary for this reminder to be issued, people know he won, that is why he is President, but it is part of his grandiosity which is used to assert control)

Mr Trump said Mrs Pelosi should focus on her own city, San Francisco, which he described as a “tent city” of homeless people. (Homelessness is an issue in San Francisco (like many cities) but a homeless population of 9 784 out of a population of 884 367 does not equate to a tent city. That of course does not matter, what matters is the need for control and this is sought by an exaggerated insult towards the individual threatening control, Mrs Pelosi and her city.)

Democrats have accused the White House of blocking congressional inquiries and refusing to respond to record requests, which has prompted the subpoena threat this week.

House oversight committee chairman Elijah Cummings said in a memo: “I do not take this step lightly.

“Over the past several weeks, the committees tried several times to obtain voluntary compliance with our requests for documents, but the White House has refused to engage with – or even respond to – the committees.” (Note the refusal to engage or respond to the committees demonstrates a sense of entitlement, a haughtiness, a lack of accountability and is all done to assert control. The failure to respond is a giant Silent Treatment, another manipulation.)

The subpoena will request documents on Mr Trump’s call with Ukraine and any related items from acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney.

Mrs Pelosi and Mr Schiff held a joint news conference on Wednesday, defending the impeachment proceedings.

“We’re not fooling around here,” Mr Schiff said, adding that Democrats did not want the inquiry to “drag on”.

He also criticised the president’s comments against the whistleblower as “a blatant effort to intimidate witnesses” and “an incitement of violence”. (This is what it appears to be, but it is actually all about seeking to assert and maintain control, to counter threats to control, control and fuel being the very things all narcissists must have – to learn more about why read To Control Is To Cope

Mr Schiff has also issued a statement saying his committee never reviewed or received the whistleblower’s complaint in advance, as Mr Trump claimed.

Accordingly, this latest episode in the Trump Administration once again shows A Very POTUS Narcissist at work and providing clear examples of how President Trump´s narcissism operates.

Will he be impeached? Firstly, Congress has to pass articles of impeachment and if that passes then the Senate must hold a trial. The Senate vote requires a two-thirds majority to convict and since President Trump´s party controls the chamber, it is unlikely he will be impeached. You might think he would sit tight and ignore the process or co-operate, content in the knowledge that his party will ensure he is not impeached, but he cannot do this. Why? Firstly, he does not, like Mid Range or Greater Narcissists operate a facade, what you see is direct, robust and in your face (part of his voter appeal also) therefore he sees no need to be the statesman (something evidence repeatedly in his interactions and comments with other world leaders and politicians). Secondly, if there is an impeachment trial, that is some way off and it is the process and allegations NOW which he must respond to in order to assert control, hence the various (base) manipulations that were witnessed above.

Trump will fight to remain in situ and in power. His narcissism dictates that must be the case and by any means possible. The manipulations will continue and will in all likelihood increase in size, intensity and scope.

 

 

500 thoughts on “A Very POTUS Narcissist – The Threat of Impeachment

  1. Lin May says:

    HG, would you consider writing an article on Boris Johnson, particularly with a view to how he is guiding Brexit please? I constantly try to figure him out but he confuses me. Thank you!

    1. HG Tudor says:

      What? Do you mean like this one! From over 6 months ago.
      https://narcsite.com/2019/07/22/a-very-political-narcissist-2/

      1. Lin May says:

        Yay! Somehow I missed it. Thank you HG, you are hero!

        1. HG Tudor says:

          You are welcome.

  2. MommyPino says:

    HG,

    Since you have identified Hillary Clinton as a narcissist, I find it fascinating to observe her recent narcissistic behaviors toward a Democrat presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard. Hillary lied by saying in an interview that Tulsi is a Russian spy. A lot of people have said that this is because Tulsi didn’t support Hillary when she ran and instead supported Bernie Sanders. The lack of support from Tulsi must have wounded Hillary and now it’s payback time. Tutsi sure Hillary for $50 million dollar defamation but the server couldn’t serve the lawsuit to Hillary because Hillary’s Secret Service wouldn’t let the server serve it at Hillary’s house. The server have also tried to serve the lawsuit to Hillary’s attorney but her attorney refused to accept it and said that she couldn’t accept it on Hillary’s behalf. It’s just incredible entitlement for someone to lie and smear and use her Secret Service to obstruct justice. So I totally believe that you are correct to say that Hillary is a narcissist. She is actually a really good case study for narcissism as well. Especially the self righteous unaware Mid Range kind.

    https://nypost.com/2020/01/29/hillary-clinton-refuses-to-be-served-tulsi-gabbards-defamation-lawsuit/

    1. Ashley says:

      Mommypino, super interesting! I have heard Hillary is cruel to her SS and now it makes sense why. I think Hillary was also like that to Tulsi because Tulsi is beautiful. Bitter women cannot resist being nasty towards a younger beauty with differing opinions.

      1. mommypino says:

        I totally agree Ashley. And I actually think that Tulsi is an empath too. I really like her and I would want to vote for her if not for her policies. But I really like Tulsi as a person. She’s beautiful, brave and authentic.

        1. Ashley says:

          Same 😊 a breath of fresh air. She is stunning!

  3. kel says:

    Trump gives nicknames to everyone like playground bullies do. He calls Adam Schiff, Shifty, because it’s a play on his name. Like, Resident Rump, for example. Schiff’s eyes look crazy because that’s what dealing with narcissists does to us, and it’s anger too.

    Clinton was impeached for having an affair because that’s somehow a danger to the country. Give me that in the Oval Office any day over Trump entertaining Russian officials in the Oval Office and not allowing any American officials to sit in or journalists- including his pet Fox. That was after they’d been ordered to leave the country by the previous administration, and after it became a known FACT that the Russians had meddled in our election.

    Our elections is what makes us a democracy. The Ukrainian withholding aid for election dirt is a violation of our Constitution. He did it in 2016, he’s doing it in 2020. If you don’t care about the integrity of our elections, then go take residence somewhere where you don’t get them, like Russia or North Korea with Trumps best pals.

    Healthcare: Republicans had eight years during Obama to come up with the better healthcare system they were touting they could do – but they never did. Republicans had the majority House in the first two years of Trump’s presidency- but still failed to come up with a healthcare system. The problem with future faking is that we eventually catch up to the future and it becomes the present. They seem to have dropped the whole idea completely.

    The Wall: The House had a Republican majority the first two years of Trump’s presidency, but even they would not pass a bill to fund the wall. The wall is Trump’s legacy, it’s useless, expensive, and a recent report on 48 Hours showed security cameras work better- cover a wider area and are hidden in areas people can’t detect, and they are inexpensive. Newly constructed wall panel recently blew over from strong winds and fell over flat onto the Mexican side- um, awkward. Mexico was supposed to pay for it (for some unknown reason), but instead, Trump stole it from the Pentagon’s budget meant to build things for our soldiers and troops.

    The market was doing well since the previous administration got it up and growing after the disastrous Bush depression ruined it. The market now is teetering with signs of trouble ahead. What Trump can take credit for is tariffs that hurt Americans more than it hurts China. For the long government shutdown he did to our Federal workers, a couple of years ago. For creating even more havoc in the Middle East, our gas prices were lower under Obama.

    Nuclear threat: North Korea and the Middle East had some semblance of a nuclear agreement with the US under the previous administration. Trump removed it all, he has played with the hornets nests, and threatened the world with new dangers of obliteration. The world doomsday clock added nuclear threat countdown here lately.

    Environment: Maybe you’ve noticed the seasons are changing, or all the catastrophes lately, if you’re too hard of hearing to listen to scientists warnings. Trump has pulled the US out of every environmental protection initiative, and gone backwards to promote coal. How convenient for Mitch McConnell as his state is full of coal mines, however, it actually has not done anything to help the coal industry to survive.

    Jobs: Environmental jobs could be ours if we had leaders with any foresight. Meanwhile retailers such as Macy’s and Penny’s are crumbling along with Sears due to online cutthroats like Trump’s nemesis Amazon. What’s the Trump administration going to do to balance it out when he has no vision, and can only move backwards?

    You keep saying he’s doing a good job, but whenever you’re asked about Trump, you always revert backwards too, trying to put a finger on someone else and what they did. Clinton had a surplus of funds in Social Security to get the baby boomers through retirement because there aren’t as many people in the younger generations to fund it and keep it going- smart! Except Bush came along and gave the surplus back to the people in $300 and $500 increments in their taxes- dumb and useless.

    So, without veering off to anyone else, what is it that Trump has done that’s good? He never ever seems to do ‘what Jesus would do’ – maybe we should get him a bracelet to remind him. But even if you dismissed his narcissism (which would be impossible as that’s all that he is), he is as Rex Tillerson said, “a moron”, who doesn’t read and is always trying to do illegal things, and as John Kelly said, “he’s an idiot”. Do you really think all those books are about bitterness or making money, and that it’s everyone else that’s bad, not Trump?

    So without veering off to sidetrack to anyone else, what has Trump done that is good?

    1. mommypino says:

      Hi Kel, I have only read the first two paragraphs of what you wrote and I just want to correct an inaccuracy that I saw.

      Bill Clinton was not impeached because he had an affair. Bill Clinton was impeached because he lied under oath which is an actual law that he violated and also for obstruction of justice for trying to cover up the facts in Paula Jones’ accusation. Bill Clinton lies under oath and it was proven beyond reasonable doubt, in fact, he lost his law license because of it. But even though he was really guilty of lying 🤥 under oath, they voted to keep him in office during the impeachment be they didn’t think that it rose to the level of where the votes of the people who voted for him should be disregarded. Trump was never proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt of a specific law violation. They charged him with abuse of power which is highly subjective. And a lot of lawmakers also have said that they don’t believe that it rose to the level where he should loose his position and have the voters’ choice disregarded. In short, you can’t remove a duly elected president just because you don’t like him. There has to be substantial grounds for it and not just because of fears arising from Emotional Thinking.

      1. kel says:

        MP
        How convenient for you to have read only the first paragraph of my post, so that you could sidestep from Trump to someone else. So I’ve returned the gesture, and only read the first part of your post to, but also the last line with all caps on emotional thinking. Lol, commenters reverting to accusing others of having ET, when they themselves usually are the ones feeling emotional at the time. I hope you will now read the last sentence of my post too, and stop veering off and sidestepping to other people. It’s a simple question, with apparently no answer. What has Trump done that is good- without mentioning comparisons to anyone else. What has he done that has been good that hasn’t had consequences? Don’t answer, I don’t want to cause anyone to have emotional thinking.

        1. Hope says:

          They claim he’s good for the economy and good for jobs but that’s not descript and glosses over.

          In business courses we learn Trump is bad for business. Nationalism stifles trade and reduces efficiency of trade. What this means is that I can pay China to do what is less cost effective for me to do myself such as manufacturing and China can pay me to do what is less cost efficient for them to do such as engineering and design work or building airplanes. Both countries get more for their money through trade. Forcing companies to hold low paying unskilled labor jobs in America isn’t good for America. America is beyond the manufacturing age and can do better with R&D, financial commodities, advanced technologies Artificial Intelligence, etc. People will do better to train in fields that America is competitive in rather than settle for unskilled labor outsourcing would be more efficient with.

          Trump is not only nationalistic and exercising protectionism in trade, he’s also isolating us from our Allies and degrading those relationships giving Russia and China more relational influence.

          China is the covert threat we need to be more concerned with. Iran uses brute force to intimidate but China is the silent killer. China is using money and technology to slowly control the world. They are payday loaning strategic countries to legally possess land when those countries inevitably default on the loan. They can build bases there without the political battle now. They can control countries financially. China also is developing technology and infecting the world with its surveillance. They have proven they can’t be trusted and they lie about Huewei being safe. Now they are in the social media market with Tiktok and no one is feeling threatened when they should. We are so distracted by the Lesser countries we fail to brace against or protect ourselves from the Greaters like China and Midrange Russia.

          My retirement account is not doing well with Trump. That would be the only sugar coating but I don’t even get that. Not sure what these people who say it’s good are into. Also you can’t assume Trump is the reason a market is performing. It can perform despite him not because of him.

          1. kel says:

            Hope

            Well stated and factual.

          2. SMH says:

            My retirement accounts are doing very well under Trump, Hope, and I hate him anyway. They also did well under Obama, I might add, and I did not much like Obama towards the end either. In any case, I think it’s disgraceful that so many people will overlook the dissolution of our democracy because their bottom line is improving. I am hoping for a huge market crash and a recession because that is the only thing that will shake the cultists out of their stupor.

          3. HG Tudor says:

            Until the next opportunist narcissist seizes the recession to his or her advantage, SMH.

          4. SMH says:

            Some narcissists are worse than others, HG. This isn’t about all narcs. This is about Trump.

          5. HG Tudor says:

            “Worse than others”

            Question of perspective.

            You say Trump is bad. Others says he is good. Why? Question of perspective.

            We have done this dance before and you lost.

          6. SMH says:

            I did not lose. I stopped bothering with it. There is a difference.

          7. HG Tudor says:

            You did and you continue to bother with it, hence your earlier comment.

          8. SMH says:

            I understood you to be referring to a previous conversation, the one in which someone pointed out that yes, colors can be objectively measured. That is when I quit arguing with you about it.

          9. HG Tudor says:

            Against what? A scale, which is a subjective method used for measurement. Yes, a standard has been adopted by the majority, but that does not mean that it is objective. Someone with an alternative perspective may use a different scale entirely and/or perceive the measurements in a different manner.

            Take for example a car registration plate. It contains letters of the alphabet, but even the alphabet is not objective, but subjective as is the reading of that car registration plate.

            1. An English speaker would read the letters on that registration plate in a subjective manner.
            2. Someone who speaks a Romance language would pronounce some of those letters in a different, subjective manner.
            3. Someone who speaks a Germanic language would pronounce some of those letters in a different, subjective manner, which is further interesting because English stems from a Germanic language.
            4. A schizophrenic may see a different message conveyed from the letters beyond a simple registration system.

            Why? Different perspectives.

            The pertinent point is that this is a place about narcissism where different perspectives between narcissist and non-narcissist (and differing schools of narcissist) are prevalent and indeed central to allowing people to understand what has happened/is happening to them. Central to that is that there is no objective standard of “good” and “evil” because it is based on differing perspectives. People are repeatedly stuck because they think “Surely he knows what he is doing and knows it is wrong” to which the answer may be “he does not know in the manner you think he knows” or “he knows what he is doing but does not see it as wrong because he has different perspective to you which causes an alternative view of what amounts to right or wrong, good or evil.” That is what matters.

          10. SMH says:

            Yes I understand all that, HG, and that is a good example of how we are arguing about two different things. The letters are symbols that refer to the thing they symbolize – in this case, a car registration plate (or the registration itself, tucked away in a computer somewhere). But the car registration plate would exist no matter how people sound out its letters. Things can and do exist independently of how individuals apprehend them. That is all I am saying. I completely understand the perspective issue. I am just on about something beyond that. We are talking about two different levels of reality. Both exist in their own way, but they are distinct and have no necessary connection to each other. I think it is important to grasp that distinction but for you what matters in your teaching is how things are apprehended, not the things in and of themselves.

          11. SMH says:

            Plus my Kantian philosophy is a bit rusty so getting into categorical and hypothetical imperatives would be over my head right now.

          12. MommyPino says:

            Hope, those are all theories. It remains to be seen if you are indeed correct. Time will tell.

        2. mommypino says:

          I didn’t read the rest of what you wrote because I can already see that it will be full of inaccuracies just like what you wrongfully wrote about why Bill Clinton was impeached. It was already obvious to me what the rest of what you wrote would be so I didn’t bother. I just wanted to correct that inaccuracy and I don’t see a point in debating with you because no matter what I say you will never listen because you don’t want to hear. No emotional thinking at all. I see all kinds of great things that he has done and I am more aligned with his policies than the policies of the liberals. 👍

          1. kel says:

            MP
            It is really lousy of you that you decide- that I am wrong and inaccurate and dismiss me- because what I say disagrees with what you want to believe. You have crowned yourself the expert in politics, and you remind me of my sister who believes she is the expert on the Church- except that she is kinder and has better manners. She is also a Republican. A party that should change it’s name to the Hypocrites. They gasp and clutch their pearls as NA would say over the Dems, and then overlook worse in themselves. Only one in your party had a conscience and believed in God, and had respect for the oath he took and for the Constitution. You are too emotional and wound up over Potus to discuss it. I only wanted to point out your Smearing of Adam Schiff over Trump’s childish nicknames.

          2. mommypino says:

            You’re too emotional that you have to make it personal. You don’t have to like me. I just corrected one of your inaccuracies. I had no idea it would ignite such a fury from you. I have allowed people to correct my inaccuracies here and was graceful about it. Me reminding you of your sister is irrelevant. If that is bad then it is your issue and not mine. Your opinions of me has as much value as a rat poop 💩.

          3. kel says:

            Mommypino
            Rat poop 💩?!? That is you being emotional, not me. You are accusing everyone on this thread of having emotional thinking if they don’t agree with you. I said it was lousy of you to read only the first part of my post, and dismiss the rest without reading it as inaccurate. That wasn’t meant to wound you and wasn’t stated emotionally, but factually. Now I am rat poop? That’s emotional, childish, gross, rude, and very telling about you. I’m not stating that emotionally, I mean it completely factually. I won’t engage with you that way, the subject has gone off topic, and “discussion” is done between us.

          4. mommypino says:

            Disengaging…..

          5. kel says:

            MP
            If Bill Clinton wasn’t impeached for having an affair, it was because he lied about not having an affair. Lol.
            1. He did not have sexual intercoarse with her- fact.
            2. His affair is none of your or anyone’s damn business, except his wife’s.
            3. The Republican’s made an embarrassing spectacle of us by parading the affair out to the public, and other countries across the sea couldn’t understand why.
            4. Trump is the most vial womanizer of them all, but that’s ok, you overlook it. Hey, like your man says, he could get a gun and shoot people down, and you would still love him.

          6. mommypino says:

            His affair is indeed none of our business but when he lied under oath he broke the law.

            Trump is a womanizer like Bill Clinton but he did not lie under oath about it. It was the lying under oath that is illegal not the affairs. It’s not that hard to understand Kel.

          7. kel says:

            Mommypino
            Don’t ever compare Trump to Clinton. Trump lies everyday for the record on the news, and on Twitter. Pure and utter BS. Enough.

          8. kel says:

            Those were very vague accomplishments, but we will leave it at that.

          9. mommypino says:

            That is just your opinion. A lot of people do not hold the same opinion.

          10. kel says:

            MP
            It wasn’t an opinion, it is a fact that you did not name anything specifically that he has done, hence it is vague. Personally though I’m not interested in interacting with you over it any longer. That’s not emotional, it’s just I’m bored spinning tires in the mud as it’s getting nowhere. My aim wasn’t to fight with you.

          11. mommypino says:

            Your aim wasn’t to fight with me and yet you went personal triangulating me against you sister and saying that I am not kind and I don’t have manners? You attack and then you deny. That is very coward of you. It’s good that you are disengaging from me. Please do as I don’t have time for you. You have implied strongly before that NA is a Mid Ranger and now you are triangulating me with her by quoting her to criticize me. Whatever your issues are, I don’t need to know. It’s not important for me. You can have the last word, I don’t care.

          12. kel says:

            No triangulating whatsoever. Be assured I love my sister, crack up with her over her corny jokes, and have a strong bond despite our differences. I believe in God and the church, but I don’t crown myself the expert of it. I gave NA credit for her phrase, ‘gasp and clutch their pearls’, because how could I not?, it’s a perfect phrase and she said it. You have gone completely off topic of Trump because something happens to you when you come to the POTUS thread, you get emotional, and you start attacking other politicians and other commenters. When you first came here and got on this thread, you would always say “we” think this or “we” like that and would always mention your husband. It sounded like you had taken your husband’s opinions and embraced them and defended them staunchly.

            If you like Trump so heartedly, then talking about him should be a breeze, what you like about him, what he’s done, you could have enlightened us. Instead you’re always on the defense and lashing out and accusing others.

            I don’t have issues. As a fellow victim, I don’t appreciate you saying that or trying to put me down to make yourself feel better. I do not need the last word, but I do need to clear your insinuations and smears.

            Mommypino, on other threads you are a different person than you are on this one. I did not want to through mud and fight, I wanted to bring up real concerns I have about our country and the narcissist calling the shots. I don’t want to revert to anything else. I opened the floor on why you say he’s so good, and got insults instead of answers. As you and I have said on this thread before, Trump isn’t worth us arguing, and peace.

          13. kel says:

            I want to clarify one thing regarding NA and me, since Mommypino so graciously brought it up, and I hope this comment lands under my first reply to MP, as it’s in moderation right now. That debacle was born from another heated thread. My use of the word mid’s was the highest rank I could give as greaters require self awareness, it was also for me merely an adjective to substitute for the dreaded word narcissist- as went with our bickering at the time- and if I were to rewrite it now, I would not think of the group as narcissists, as I did then. Mid’s was plural as in a group and I was not picturing any particular person – as I stated at the time in my answers. I was thinking of it as a group of no one in particular. I answered straight on and honestly, to the last comment. I think it is rude to bring this up again instead of putting the misunderstanding behind us, and yes, I do believe it was a misunderstanding that required cooling off. I answered honestly then, and I will add now, that I respect NA and appreciate her logic and comments.

          14. kel says:

            MP, I am surprised at your behavior and perceptions. It’s like you change when you’re on POTUS, and you become very defensive, narrow minded, and you lash out. Look at all of the things you’ve said to me- now I’m a coward? – I do not ever imply and then backdown, I always stand behind everything I’ve said- if I didn’t, then I wouldn’t be in any confrontations like this one.

            Absolutely no triangulation, against my sister?, that doesn’t even make sense. You don’t seem to take into account that dismissing me as inaccurate, chastising me, is not overflowing with kindness or manners. Giving NA credit for her marvelous quote “gasp and clutch their pearls “ was nothing against you, but of course I wouldn’t want anyone to think I was acting as if I had thought it up especially when she just recently said it.

            I have very serious concerns about our country, and the lesser narcissist that is calling the shots. I opened the floor to ask what was something good he had done, and got back insults instead of answers.

            We have time and again made our peace on this potus thread, but this is the first that you’ve resorted to immature insults of rat poop and cowardice. I don’t need the last word, but I did need to clear away those things.

          15. mommypino says:

            Kel, I apologize for hurting your feelings. I can understand how my original response to you of correcting your inaccuracy and saying that I didn’t read the whole post caused you to say that I remind you of your sister except that she is kind and has manners.

            I did not say that you are rat poop, I said that your opinion of me is as valuable as a rat’s poop. I was referring to your opinion of me that I am not kind, I have no manners, or that I have crowned myself as an expert. I don’t even see myself as an expert on anything. My tone can be softened and I will admit some ET there as my tone and delivery of opinions were affected by the other opinions that felt provocative in my perspective. I will stay away from your comments now and give you that space. However I reserve the right to keep voicing out my opinions and beliefs and responding to the commenters that you are having a discussion with if I felt that I need to express my opinion to them. And I cannot guarantee that there will be no more times that my delivery will not be provocative to some people.

          16. kel says:

            Mommypino, Thank you. I appreciate this comment from you.

          17. Natalie says:

            Kel, Mommypino corrected your comment about why Clinton was impeached and you are the one who got defensive saying that it was lousy of her to ‘dismiss’ you. It’s perfectly reasonable for someone to start reading something, realise that the first ‘fact’ is not actually true, and then decide not to waste time reading the rest. And just because someone doesn’t jump on the Hate Trump Train, doesn’t mean that they are obsessed or emotional over him. You then tell MP, someone you’ve never met, that they are like your sister. Hence why your opinion was described as ‘as much value as rat poop’. MP obviously doesn’t care about a strangers comparison of her to another stranger. Also it’s funny how you say that Clinton’s affair was nobodies business and yet in the same comment call Trump the most vile womaniser. Firstly that is your opinion and secondly, his sexual activities before he became president are none of ‘anyone’s damn business’ (your words). You sound very emotional and defensive yourself when you say ‘don’t ever compare Trump to Clinton’ – who are you to say that to anyone?

            It’s unfair of you to accuse MP of bringing up other politicians when the topic is Trump. You were the one who brought up Clinton, and furthermore, it is necessary to compare other politicians and presidents when discussing Trump, in order to highlight the absolute hypocrisy spouted by people such as yourself. Such as the big uproar about ‘ripping children from their parents’ at the border when the Obama Administration did the exact same but nobody cared about that at the time. Or like when Joe Biden admitted to an ACTUAL quid pro quo when he was Vice President but that’s also ok.

            Bottom line is, MP fact checked your statement about Clinton’s impeachment and instead of admitting you were wrong you accuse MP of getting emotional over Trump, that’s a cop-out.

            Just to add as well, I’ve noticed that a lot of commenters on here use inaccuracies to ‘prove’ aspects of Trumps narcissistic traits. And then when they are challenged on those inaccuracies they then say ‘well I’m only here to discuss narcissism, not politics’. It’s difficult to discuss narcissism when the premise of some of these comments are not factual.

          18. HG Tudor says:

            Nobody needs to prove aspects of Trump´s narcissistic traits. His narcissism has been confirmed through detailed analysis and is repeatedly reinforced through his ongoing behaviour.

            People repeatedly make the mistake of debating whether President Trump is a “good thing” or a “bad thing”. As has been made repeatedly clear, not only are those subjective matters but that is not the purpose of the analysis. If people wish to debate whether Trump is a good or bad President, they can go ahead but we have seen what that results in.

          19. mommypino says:

            I agree HG, that is why I didn’t see a reason to elaborate that much on Trump’s achievements. Achievements is very subjective. To Republicans, Trump appointing a lot of Republican judges all over the country is an achievement but to Democrats that can be a nightmare. This is not a place to debate about policies because a good policy to some is bad for others.

            There is no doubt that Trump is a narcissist just like Obama and Hillary etc. But I am fascinated at how they function and the advantages and disadvantages of their schools. Trump is obviously an Upper Lesser but many people find him much more charismatic than the sulky and self righteous Mid Rangers who appear more phony. And although I understand that all narcissists are technically phony, Trump appears less phony because he is an Upper Lesser.

          20. kel says:

            Wrong. You need a fact checking!
            MP Said Herself that she only read the first paragraph of my post, because she assumed the rest of my post was inaccurate- thus she dismissed my post as inaccurate without even reading it.
            I returned her gesture, and have extended it to yours too.
            And I also invited her to read my last sentence, that I had opened the floor and asked her to tell me something good Trump had done – without sidetracking to anyone else. She proceeded to sidetrack to other people instead of staying on the subject. She did give me a vague answer as to general sort of things he had done which I acknowledged. I myself added something good about him- which was bringing awareness to narcissism.
            My comments are factual, perhaps it’s yours that are blindly opinionated.
            Anyway, please refrain from commenting insults and put downs at me – this was about Trump – not accusing me of being rat poop, cowardice, triangulating or having issues- I’m pretty confident those things that MP said to me were factually inaccurate, unkind, and emotional.
            As I told MP, I’m not interested in fighting, the same goes to you. Enough.

          21. kel says:

            HG , my Wrong! comment was my reply to Natalie, and I forgot to put her name on it to address it to her. My reply to her landed underneath your comment, and I definitely want to clarify that I was not saying that to you.

          22. HG Tudor says:

            Noted.

          23. joyascending says:

            Thank you Natalie. I liked your comment about fact checking. I have not been responding to this thread but watching the comments. I am mainly intrigued by the visceral responses of many who dislike Trump. I liked what you had to say because I do believe there is a bias against him through the media, and no one wants to talk about the other side doing the same things. I feel there are many other anti-trump officials in government who are equally narcissists. I really enjoy HG’s analysis on Trump. So my next response / reply is to HG. Mr. Tudor, on reading all of these comments in this thread. What do you think about the narcissist effects on the masses? Does the narcissist divide people in this manner? It seems a lot of passionate posts going on here, and I am mostly curious on the broad spectrum of the effects of the narcissist we have in office, or any official office, both now and int the future.

          24. HG Tudor says:

            What do you think about the narcissist effects on the masses? – Depends on your perspective. There are favourable and unfavourable outcomes.

            Does the narcissist divide people in this manner? – Are you asking whether narcissists cause division by virtue of who they are? If so, yes. If you are asking, do narcissists purposefully divide people in this manner? The answer is yes although for many it is not a conscious decision.

          25. mommypino says:

            Thank you Natalie. You are correct, I never accused Kel of being a rat poop (how ridiculous) but I have stated that her opinion of me which was a personal attack against me has as much value as a rat poop. There is a clear separation between the person and her opinion. I did not call the person a rat poop but I have compared her prejudice opinion of me to a rat poop. This is like when HG was accused of calling someone an idiot when he called certain behaviors of empaths idiotic. Her opinion of me has no value because she doesn’t know me and I don’t know her. I don’t even know for sure if she really has a sister or that her sister is really kind and has manners. And many people who know me that are not narcissists say that I am kind and has never told me that I do not have manners. My children that I am raising are often complimented for having amazing manners and being so sweet at such a young age and they often joke that they got it from me and not my husband. Their opinions of me have value and validity while Kel’s does not. This is an open forum blog and people are free to comment anywhere they want to and we are encouraged to have honest discussions and we are not forbidden to correct someone’s inaccuracies. That is not lacking in manners or kindness. However, I felt bad for the direction that the discussion went and for possibly hurting Kel’s feelings so I apologized and decided to refrain from directly commenting on her comments anymore.

        3. mommypino says:

          Also Kel, I had to double check if I wrote Emotional Thinking in all caps and I didn’t. I capitalized them but not all caps. I capitalized them because that’s how I remember HG write Emotional Thinking in his articles.

          About Trump’s accomplishments, he has done so much it’s incredible. But what I think are his accomplishments you and others here who do not like him will probably disagree with. For example, Trump has appointed all kinds of Republican judges all over the country. Another accomplishment is the unemployment rate is historically low including that of African Americans. That in itself is how you improve the lives of minorities. By opening doors for them to be self sufficient and thrive. You will probably disagree with me so I wouldn’t waste a lot of time writing his accomplishments here but he really has accomplished a lot in just one term.

      2. kel says:

        MP
        By the way, Trump is a compulsive liar, is commonly known and often stated. That is why he had to reply to Mueller in written form- because his lawyers couldn’t trust him to sit in for a verbal interview.

        1. mommypino says:

          I didn’t say that Trump isn’t a liar. I just corrected the inaccuracy of your info on why Bill Clinton was impeached. You were wrong, Bill Clinton was impeached because he lied under oath, not because he had an affair.

          1. kel says:

            MP
            You conveniently miss the point.
            Trump would’ve Lied Under Oath – that’s why his lawyers demanded he answer Mueller’s questions in written form- to keep him from getting into trouble and to control what the pres answered. Can you ever just discuss Trump without dodging to someone else instead?!

    2. mommypino says:

      I want to correct my own inaccuracy about Bill Clinton losing his license to practice law. I double checked it and the facts are that he faced disbarment but he opted to resign from practice instead of going through the disbarment trial. But your statement about Clinton being impeached for having an affair is still inaccurate.

    3. Lorelei says:

      Can someone please help rescue Melania.

      1. Mercy says:

        Lorelei, Im with you. Can you imagine her life? Poor girl. Shes trying to arrange an Easter egg hunt at the White House while her husband is bombing other countries and facing impeachment.

        1. Lorelei says:

          I don’t think Melania had any idea she was going to be wife of a president. She likely wanted money, who wouldn’t but she isn’t comfortable in the spotlight. I’d love HG’s analysis. She doesn’t deserve mistreatment despite maybe latching on for gains of her own. She may also have really fallen for him and not the gains..

          1. Mercy says:

            Lorelei, I don’t know much about her to form an opinion. In some way I wish she was a narc herself. I feel like that would be the only way to stay sane through all of this. Narc or not I feel sadness for her and her son. I hope she writes a book someday. Id love to know her experience.

          2. Hope says:

            I’m inclined to think he’s really not rich like people think. He went bankrupt many times and had all these failed schemes/scams like Trump University. His wealth is a facade. It’s smoke and mirrors and not really stable. He doesn’t appear to make money honestly and so it’s been short-lived. He inherited wealth but he’s blown most of it—from what I remember in the news. This was news to me as I thought he was a good business man not knowing him and then I feared if he squandered his own inheritance what will he do with our national deficit? I’m guessing Melania is an empath who fell for the golden period and remains addicted and clouded by emotional thinking preventing her from attempting escape.

          3. SMH says:

            She is certainly repulsed by him now, Lorelei. You can see it in her body language. I would also like to see an HG analysis of her.

            By the way, HG, what’s the deal with Harry discussing his 7 years of therapy in front of a bunch of billionaires? Did MM manipulate him into doing it? Is she using him for the $$ he can bring in?

          4. HG Tudor says:

            Hoover by Proxy utilising Pity Play.

          5. SMH says:

            You mean MM is hoovering the audience using Harry’s pity play as a proxy? That’s mind blowing.

          6. HG Tudor says:

            Indeed. Prince Harry is an extension of herself.

          7. SMH says:

            By the way, HG, I listened to Part I last night. Your description of your study is so good that I could feel myself in there. I am also jealous that you have so much room. I have other comments/questions but will finish it all first and then post in the appropriate places.

          8. HG Tudor says:

            Thank you SMH, I look forward to your questions.

          9. kel says:

            Newsweek article from April 2019- a year ago, said that Trump’s golfing had cost taxpayers $102 Million, just $12 Million short of Obama’s traveling expenses for his entire eight years. Trump’s 2016 campaign speech was that he would be too busy to golf if he was elected.

            And then what about the expenses it cost when Melania stayed in New York when he was first elected until their son finished his school year.

            First thing Melania did is she plagiarized Michelle Obama’s speech. Then she wore a jacket that said “I really don’t care. Do u?” on her visit to refugee children detained at the boarder. I’m not sure what happened to Michelle’s Victory Garden at the White House which children used to help tend to, but she did nothing to stop Trump from removing the healthy meals instead of junk food to fight child obesity that Michelle and Bill Clinton accomplished. She’s the First Lady, but always wears her hair in her face and five inch heels, and once wore nude leggings that made even Cosmopolitan gasp that it looked like she wasn’t wearing any pants. Maybe she’s just a victim, maybe she was lured by the money, and, after all, they do sleep in separate bedrooms, but still could you marry Donald Trump? Maybe she figured there would be a quickie divorce like with the others, or did she do a narcissist thing and get pregnant the first year of their marriage? She certainly brought her parents over and made them US citizens using the Chain Migration before Trump could end it.

          10. Lorelei says:

            I think Melania kept her son in his school to positively aid his emotional adjustment and maybe hers too. I don’t believe she knowingly copied a speech. I do believe she may have truly been charmed by him and that she is unhappy. I’d love HG’s analysis though.

          11. NarcAngel says:

            Meh. I think Melania had her aims and he had his. Both victim to them and each other. Neither satisfied.

          12. Hope says:

            They say who you lie with says a lot about yourself. She’s acting pretty slow, but not stupid I don’t think. More lazy or had different priorities. Maybe she’s just nonchalant, doesn’t think critically about much, loose ethics/morals, and ignorant? I don’t get the vibe that she’s narcy. Maybe she’s a normal? A lot of normals don’t care about the immigrant children or refugees either, sadly. I really know almost nothing. Just fun to speculate. I like that she wears what she likes. It’s pretty weird she would take a speech without asking first and assume people wouldn’t notice. That’s odd. Others have noted they didn’t think they’d win, so maybe they were unprepared and just thought f it? Why not? I liked her speech and I agree. Who knows.

          13. mommypino says:

            I think that Melania is a Co-D and she genuinely wants her marriage to last just like how her parents’ marriage has lasted. I have seen her speak proudly of her parents’ marriage. Her dad seems to be a narc from the stories that I have read about his personality and how he treats his child from an affair. Melania’s mom seems to be a Co-D too. People who know Melania including Jenny Bush have said that she doesn’t have a mean bone.

          14. mommypino says:

            *Jebb Bush

          15. Hope says:

            This makes sense! I think I may have had a slight co-d. Can co-d be cured? I don’t know much about it but I can hang on emotionally for sure. If I didn’t discover this I’m sure I could set a record for keeping my ET tub full the longest post contact. I wanted my marriage to last forever like my grandparents and took a long time to realize that was impossible. Maybe I’m not empath and co-d? LOL. I’m likely both. These emotions I used to love in starting to understand this year just how pesky they are! They infect everything. I used to be proud of this. Now I’m aware they need to be managed! No small task.

          16. mommypino says:

            Hi Hope, you can find out through an Empath Detector if you are partly Co-D. I used to believe that I have Co-D in me but my ED results say I do not. A Co-D is an Empath too. The four schools of empaths are: Co-D, Standard, Super and Contagion. All schools of empaths are drawn to narcissists. I think that there are factors that make a person a Co-D versus the other schools and one of the factors is that the narcissist becomes a vital part of the Co-D’s identity. Whereas the other schools of Empaths may be addicted to the narcissist as well and their dynamic with them but they are able to leave when a certain threshold is reached because they have their own separate identity still that is not attached to the narcissist. A Co-D is someone who would start having troubles finding purpose for themselves as an individual after the narcissist is removed from their lives. Chained is a good book to understand Co-Ds.

          17. Hope says:

            Thank you for the thought and care you put into your response! It is most helpful and I’m most grateful! I can identify with contagion and co-D. But not to an extreme with either. I very much took pride in being married and in love when it happened the first time. I felt so fulfilled having a greater purpose to serve (my family) while serving at work. It made the harder days feel sweeter knowing if I felt no purpose at work at least my purpose for working remained (to better the lives of my newly created family). It was immensely hard to lose and I felt less than in a way that hasn’t recovered. I feel innately selfish as a single person in a way that leaves me unfulfilled and slightly guilty. It’s just much emptier. It is hard to trust. When I love, as I had, it’s so complete. I trusted blinded by my love save devotion. So in that respect, being single is never the same. In the contagion respect, negative people drain me. Narcs at work drain me the most. People in need compel me to the point I overextend myself as well. Or avoid them because I’m tired or have other things I need to do I require energy for (selfish and know my limits). I’m not sure what the other two are. I can also be quite narcissistic owing to my lack of trust and sought paranoia in self-defense/self-protection. I don’t have great boundaries so I can either come off too blunt and dismissive or too passionate and overpowering.

          18. Hope says:

            I’m also quite shy (INFP) and not in crisis mode and so I hesitate to do any sort of consultation. Is there any other articlea or book that I could self-diagnose my empathic or narcissistic tendencies with you can recommend? I’ll look into Chained when I’m through with college classes for this year. Thank you. I like the written stuff the most. I’m also ADD, so listening is difficult. I miss a lot and have to re-play several times and force my attention to focus to gather all the morsels of knowledge.

          19. mommypino says:

            Hope, I could totally relate to a lot of what you have said as you described yourself. When you feel ready you should do the Empath Detector as I remember some questions there describe what you have said about yourself. It would be very interesting to find out your composition as an Empath. An Empath can be a totality if partial Super Empath, Standard, Co-D and Contagion or you can have only a few of those or even just one. You will also find out your cadre/s (Magnet, Carrier, Geyser and Saviour). The cadres also affect who you are.

            Here are the articles that describe the schools of the Empaths:

            https://narcsite.com/2019/08/14/the-super-empath-12/

            https://narcsite.com/2016/12/13/the-empathic-supernova/

            And Chained is an excellent book as well that talks about Co-Dependents.

            For the cadres:

            https://narcsite.com/2016/11/09/the-magnet-empath/

            https://narcsite.com/2016/11/08/the-carrier-empath/

            https://narcsite.com/2016/11/15/the-geyser-empath/

            https://narcsite.com/2019/05/16/the-saviour-empath-8/

            If you watch Big Little Lies, HG has classified Reese Witherspoon’s character as a Super Empath, Nicole Kidman’s character as a Co-D, Shailene Woodley’s character as a Standard Empath and Zoe Kravitz character as a Contagion.

            HG’s “The three that Got Away” also describes the schools and cadres of three of his ex girlfriends with the descriptions of their personalities.

            Also the “Why Am I Drawn to Toxic Behaviors” excellently outlines the radius and strength of the empathic and narcissistic traits of Empaths versus Normals that are empathic and narcissistic and versus Narcissists. But it is audio so you will probably listen to it in installments.

            I am an ENFP so I can relate to a lot of what you have said. I am slightly recluse but I enjoy interacting with people so that made me an E. Introverts get drained from interacting with people while Extroverts get energized. However narcissistic women tend to drain my energy.

          20. Hope says:

            Thank you!!! I’ll get in this homework with enthusiasm! If you don’t mind—what type are you? Did you agree at first or require warming up to the idea? What type do you attract? Had it helped you build your defenses? Or see things before they become problems?

          21. mommypino says:

            Hi Hope,

            According the my ED results, I am a Standard Geyser Empath. I have a minority Super Empath and Carrier, Savior and Martyr. I have always believed that I would have Geyser in me but I didn’t know that it is my most prominent cadre. I thought that my prominent cadre was Magnet but I didn’t even have any Magnet in my cadres. The reason that I thought I was a Magnet is because of the way it was described where strangers feel at ease to tell me their stories and because I tend to be likable (until they find out that I’m a Trump supporter 😜). But I can also see why I am not a Magnet. I am never miss popular and even though a lot of people like me, I have very few friends.

            With the school, I thought that I have some Co-D because of how my dynamic with my narcissist mom was and how strong my addiction tendency to a narcissist is. I was thankful to find out that I’m not a Co-D because I believe that it is hardest to be a Co-D and if I was a Co-D then I would have to do a lot more inner work for myself.

            I tend to attract narcissist female friends and when I am in a position of threat to them they also hate me. All of them have been Mid Rangers. With men, I have attracted an Upper MR (or maybe a Greater) when I was in my early twenties. He was about a couple of years younger than me. And a Lower MR handyman here in the US who worked at our house. I almost had an affair with him but thankfully I was able to control my Emotional Thinking so nothing really happened except for me being obsessed. But the ED results said that I will usually attract the lower echelon narcissists.

            Everything on Narcsite is helping me build my defenses. The Geyser article is helping me understand my weaknesses and my strengths.

            Good luck with your learning!

          22. mommypino says:

            I saw an analysis of Melania by “fashion psychologists” on why she kept on wearing sunglasses and hats even at night when it’s dark and they said that it’s because she wants to hide herself. They said that people who are bullied tend to do that. So I really don’t think that she’s a narc. She might actually be a really sensitive person who is just trying to make the best of her situation. I do believe that she has gold digger narcissistic traits and also vanity but it doesn’t make her a narcissist. I remember reading at Sitting Target that being a gold digger is actually one of the traits that attracts narcissists to seduce that empath.

          23. Violetta says:

            I can understand why his first two wives may have been sincerely attracted to him, but the way he looks and acts now, I’d rather clean public toilets than shag him. Erg.

        2. Lorelei says:

          I want Charlie Sheen to run for president.

          1. HG Tudor says:

            Well he is the man, after all he is win here, win there, win every where, winning, absolute victory, banging 7 gramme rocks that’s how he rolls, he’s a total rock star from Mars and has tiger blood. He the man!

          2. Lorelei says:

            Charlie would be a good time. He’s a hilarious idiot.

          3. Whitney says:

            Hahahahaha HG- Charlie Sheen. I loved when he was saying that stuff.

  4. Ashley says:

    I love Trump 😍😍😍 winning, winning, winning

    1. mommypino says:

      Trump and HG are my two favorite narcs. 🥰🥰

      1. HG Tudor says:

        Er, excuse me, you got us the wrong way around there!

        1. mommypino says:

          Lol HG you are definitely numero uno although I have to say Trump is closely following behind. You give me peace, closure, acceptance and improve my mental health and Trump makes my family’s mutual fund increase. 💕

          1. HG Tudor says:

            You are welcome.

      2. Ashley says:

        Same, mommypino 😊

  5. mommypino says:

    HG have you analyzed what kind of narcissist Nancy Pelosi is? It was funny to watch her ignites fury after Trump ignored or didn’t see her offered handshake. She was like a toddler tearing up the SOTU speech. Talk about entitlement to behave like that and grandiosity to think that her poor behavior is vindicated. I had lunch with my former boss and she was laughing about it as well. US politics has indeed become a reality show since Trump and the other narcissist career politicians like Pelosi want some of the spotlight too.

    HG, my second question, for Trump, does going through the impeachment and coming out as the victor give him more fuel than if the impeachment didn’t happen?

    1. HG Tudor says:

      1. No.
      2. Difficult to measure, it is not the fact he “won” that is relevant to the amount of fuel but the level of interaction he has. I suspect the amount of fuel provided BECAUSE the impeachment took place would likely be higher than the same period for POTUS with no impeachment, but as POTUS he receives vast amounts of fuel anyway, so the difference may be more but not to any significant level.

      1. mommypino says:

        Thank you HG. It is so fascinating. Years ago I, along with so many people I know were baffled as to why Trump would enter the race with how vicious the media are to Republicans and especially to him. When he announced his candidacy and the media and career politicians misrepresented what he said about illegal immigrants and even resulted to a lot of boycotts against his businesses and even his daughter Ivanka’s brand I was shocked that he still persisted. I was wondering what could be more valuable that all of the losses that he was having and more to have with all of the hatred against him. And now I know that the reason is fuel and control. So much stuff in my world which didn’t make sense before finally makes sense because I have read your work. It’s amazing.

  6. kel says:

    pResident tRump is clearly a lesser, he is always having knee-jerk reactions, it’s widely commented that he’s a compulsive liar. His scheming and planning is obvious and not well thought out such as with Ukraine and that he believes Giuliani is a masterminded tank. It’s been commented that several Republican senators talk him down behind his back and don’t like him or agree with him- but still the Republican Party backs him up and supports him. Resident Rump has been impeached. The next step, removing him from office, would remove whatever threat he is to a senator’s career, but keeping him in office keeps the threat there. But rather than go against him, several senators have stepped down instead and he has essentially ruined their political careers- such as former House leader Paul Ryan.

    There is something else and someone else behind the whole trump presidency. He appears to be a dictator already in the Republican Party, but evidence and observing him and all the stupid, literally, things that come out of his mouth, shows him to be too incompetent and inferior to scare anyone into submission for very long. But then again, Hitler was a nut case too. I really don’t get it. Putin definitely has his hands in it, is that who everyone is afraid of? Mitch McConnell and his wife have questionable things going on in their home state, and he seems to have the power and no conscience in his actions.

    1. Mercy says:

      Kel,

      I don’t know. A month ago I probably would have agreed with you about him being incompetent and inferior. Maybe even a few weeks ago I would have agreed. I know HG said that even if he was impeached the Senate would acquit him. I knew it was coming but look at what has happened since HG wrote this article. The guy started a war during his impeachment and congress still has no idea what the immediate danger to the US was. Why is nobody demanding answers? His lawyers cannot even come up with a legal defense for all the things hes done so they take the stance that he can do whatever he wants as long as HE, The President, thinks that its in the best interest of the country. Talk about a narcissist mind fuck. The fact that they have overlooked his defiance through this whole process has threatened their own constitutional power. There are many of them up for reelection and Trump has the resources to back their campaigns. They may not agree or even like him but they will not defy him. How sad is it that our leaders have sacrificed the integrity of our constitution in order to stay in power. The senators job created by the framers of the constitution “first to protect the people against their rulers [and] secondly to protect the people against the transient impressions into which they themselves might be led.” They should have allowed a fair trial. They failed us and because of that, the narcissist in power CAN do anything he wants.

      I’m not even a political person. I cant take a stand when I believe both side are equally corrupt. My opinion is based on my fear of this man in power. We haven’t seen anything yet.

      1. kel says:

        Well said! It’s scary, and for Trump it’s a TV reality show. He really doesn’t know the difference. All he is doing is building his legacy with the wall and a space force. I don’t understand the mentality of the Republican Party, and how they could feel their loyalty is to a raunchy narcissist instead of to their country. This isn’t like other narcissist politicians, this is about democracy and dictatorship in real life. We’re all sitting back watching it on the news- I guess it actually is a reality TV show after all.

        1. NarcAngel says:

          We can’t really be shocked can we? All parties are well represented with narcissists. A lot of them unaware. They are loyal (until they’re not) to whatever benefits themselves in the here and now. They are not worried about the future of the country save for their place in it and in history.

          We make the mistake once again of thinking that they think like us and want what is best for us all and for country.

          They are there for themselves and in great numbers.

          1. HG Tudor says:

            Correct.

          2. Mercy says:

            NA, I’m not shocked. I’m sad, ashamed and scared and this is my outlet. I know from what I’ve learned here that this isn’t about Trump. It’s a battle between narcissist to gain power. It puts us all in danger.

          3. NarcAngel says:

            Hi Mercy
            I wanted to let you know that mine was a comment about politics in general and not in direct response to yours. It was thinking out loud and there was a reply button handy. I certainly understand your concerns.

          4. Mercy says:

            NarcAngel, I understand. No problems on my side. Speaking of WordPress and reply buttons, I’m now getting notifications that I’m replying to my own post. It’s a bummer thinking I have a new notification from someone only to find out it’s myself. Puts a new twist on talking to yourself.

          5. kel says:

            Thanks for pointing that out NA, that explains it – that they only think about the here and now, and what best benefits them.

      2. Violetta says:

        Mercy: people on news sites are comparing Trump, unfavorably, to Nixon. Just as amoral, but Nixon was an experienced, skilled sonofabitch who knew exactly which laws he was breaking. He also understood foreign policy, which Trump does not.

        1. Mercy says:

          Violetta, I wonder if Nixon would have resigned if his presidency was today and he had twitter and hourly news updates to manipulate public opinion. My thoughts are he wouldn’t have lost the support of his party if he had the support of the people.

      3. kel says:

        Question is, how do we get rid of and defeat a narcissist, because it isn’t so much trump we’re dealing with here, as it is his narcissism. That’s how we have to handle this. Have we been taught how to do that on narcsite?

        1. Violetta says:

          All we can do is vote the Narcissists out. In the case of multiple Narcissists (which is the usual case), figure out which Narcissist is likely to do the least amount of damage if elected.

          Pestering your Senator and Congress-critters is another option: i.e., if you do X, you lose my vote. The most prominent narcs in both major parties have the loudest constituents, so if you want them to know there are plenty of people in the party who think Y rather than X, you will have to counter the protests, the rallies, the petitions, etc. with messages of your own, even if they are politely phrased emails rather than the latest newsworthy riot between the extremists-of-the-week.

          Politicians figure, correctly, that most people don’t pay attention to how they vote, so if we don’t counteract the messages of the ideological loudmouths, those are all they will hear.

          That said, I wouldn’t follow my own advice. I research legislative history when I choose candidates during an election, but I’m damned if I want anyone in power knowing where I am and what I think on any point. All those years of Mid-rAngels “trying to understand” me has made me very wary of being “understood”–it’s often a synonym for “getting fucked over.”

          1. HG Tudor says:

            Your first sentence encapsulates the issue.

          2. MommyPino says:

            HG, you said vote the narcissist out encapsulates the issue. But how can we do that when both parties choose narcissists to run. For the Republican Party the Empaths who ran didn’t win in the primaries. Ben Carson for example, such a good person was so disgusted and affected when the narcissist Ted Cruz cheated him by lying to his voters that he dropped out of the race and requests them to vote for Ted Cruz instead. When Carson lost that primary his ranking started to go down as he looked un winnable. How is it even possible to vote for an empath when majority of the population want narcissists? And would an empath automatically be a better President than a narcissist?

          3. HG Tudor says:

            No, I said that the first sentence of what Violetta encapsulates the issue namely that if you do not vote for Narcissist A, you vote for Narcissist B. Most, not all, political positions of power are occupied by our kind. This, put simply is because

            1. Non-narcissists are less interested in acquiring such positions,
            2. The non-narcissists who are interested are outnumbered by incumbent narcissists in that sphere,
            3. The non-narcissists find it harder to reach and stay in the positions to being with because of (2) and because their character constitution is less suited to the rigours of the position.

            Whether it is a dictator or elected leader, whether left or right, most positions are occupied by our kind.

          4. Lorelei says:

            This is why Carter did not stick his head into politics much after his time in office. The drive to stay in the public eye wasn’t there. What about the Bush family? Immersed in mid-ranger’ism? I loved Barbara!

          5. mommypino says:

            Thank you for explaining HG. I understand what you were saying now. You are correct.

      4. SMH says:

        Well said, Mercy. I don’t have anything to add except to say that we would have little to fear from the man in power if Republicans would do their job. They are the ones who scare the shit out of me.

        1. Mercy says:

          SMH, I understand your pov but do you think if the Democrats had the majority, they would vote to impeach their president and risk handing the power over to Republicans? We know the Dems are narcissist too.

          1. mommypino says:

            Hi Mercy, good point. Dems would have behaved the same way. In fact that is how politicians have always behaved. No Democrat Senator has voted guilty against Bill Clinton during the impeachment. In fact Mitt Romney is the only Senator in history ever to ever vote against his party’s president. So actually at least there is a Republican who voted against the party while there has never been a Democrat who has done that. Democrats are narcissists too.

          2. Hope says:

            This is useful info. I was not aware Democrats also only recognize duty and law when it serves them. I intellectually are all politicians, or nearly all successful ones, are narcs as HG alluded to such. I wouldn’t have guessed it on my own. I thought politicians who fight for issues that require empathy to identify and relate to were evidence of character. I thought politicians became politicians out of integrity. I thought you become a politician when you tire of complaining out things and decide to stop being lazy and actually impact change, as your duty and as a steward for society.

          3. HG Tudor says:

            An understandable view but a naive one, as you in effect admit, Hope, before you made the realisation.

            Imagine if you did not know what I am, I did not tell you that I am a narcissistic psychopath and you read my work, the testimonials and the comments. And let us say, I allow my cognitive empathy free reign (I deliberately restrain it so as to not confuse people) what would people think of me? A mysterious man who is very kind, helpful and assists so many people, he must be a good guy, yes?

            Then I reveal to you what I am. I can only do that because you do not know who I am, otherwise I would never have told you all.

            This is what happens in real life. You are not told, because

            1. Most narcissists cannot tell you because they do not know themselves. That is part of the self-defence mechanism which is narcissism, and
            2. My kind will not tell because to do so transfers power and that would be idiocy.

          4. HG Tudor says:

            An understandable view but a naive one, as you in effect admit, Hope, before you made the realisation.

            Imagine if you did not know what I am, I did not tell you that I am a narcissistic psychopath and you read my work, the testimonials and the comments. And let us say, I allow my cognitive empathy free reign (I deliberately restrain it so as to not confuse people) what would people think of me? A mysterious man who is very kind, helpful and assists so many people, he must be a good guy, yes?

            Then I reveal to you what I am. I can only do that because you do not know who I am, otherwise I would never have told you all.

            This is what happens in real life. You are not told, because

            1. Most narcissists cannot tell you because they do not know themselves. That is part of the self-defence mechanism which is narcissism, and
            2. My kind (Greater)will not tell because to do so transfers power and that would be idiocy.

          5. SMH says:

            It doesn’t really matter, HG. It’s in the doing not in the being. You could sit in a dark room and be a narcissistic psychopath all by yourself and it wouldn’t affect anyone. Out there in the world you make decisions about how to present yourself because you have awareness and self-control and are able to do that. Other narcs do not and therefore cannot, as you point out. But again it is the doing rather than the being. Who cares if you are a narcissistic psychopath if the information you deliver is helpful? Obviously you can deliver it because of what you are but it is the delivering that matters, not what you are that matters.

          6. HG Tudor says:

            I agree with you about the delivery. Of course the relevance of what I am is key to the credibility of my information, but ultimately it is what I am telling you that is the most important factor.

          7. SMH says:

            Exactly, and if you make sense, which you do, and if the information fits the “facts” as I see them, which they do, then you are at least a useful narc! :)

          8. SMH says:

            Hope, I am not convinced that ALL politicians are narcs but even if they are, it is quite possible to be a narc and and to do good things for society if it reflects well on the narc. It is more the kind of narc someone is.

          9. SMH says:

            No Mercy, I do not, but Democrats are not psychopaths. Republicans are. I am repulsed by them.

          10. Mercy says:

            SMH,

            Hahaha I cant even take you seriously, this cracked me up. Im pretty sure psychopathy does not discriminate.

          11. SMH says:

            I do have a visceral reaction to Republicans. I’ve never voted for one in my life and I don’t have any friends or family members who are Republicans. But I am not interested – I understand their perspective well enough. I just think they are all mentally ill (jk).

          12. Mercy says:

            SMH, and again can’t take you seriously haha. You realize you’ve just offended 50% of HGs readers here.

          13. SMH says:

            Mercy, Luckily they cannot reach me.

          14. mommypino says:

            Emotional Thinking.

          15. Violetta says:

            SMH: do you seriously believe Democrats don’t have psychopaths among them? All political parties have psychopaths! Even if the people who founded them were sincere, sooner or later, a psychopath is going to get in and try to take over. Marx may have been sincere: Stalin, Castro, and Chairman Mao were murderous psychopaths. John and Bobby Kennedy were charming, sexually exploitive Democratic narcs; Donald Trump was a narc in all of his party affiliations.

            The NIMBY nature of Republican policies may be more attractive to psychopaths, but there are plenty of Democrats who use the benevolence of others to line their own pockets–look at the Clintons. Flaming liberal Meghan Markle is exactly this kind of con artist.

          16. HG Tudor says:

            Correct.

          17. SMH says:

            Violetta, Maybe I am using psychopath in the wrong way but not all narcs are psychopaths. I fully agree that the most progressive person can be a narc (lots of people say that Sanders is a narc, for instance) but that doesn’t mean they are psychopaths. Stalin, Castro and Mao were not Democrats, last I looked!

          18. kel says:

            Democratic Senator Al Franken stepped down from office over allegations arising from the start of the #MeToo movement. It is a prime example of the difference between Democrats and Republicans regarding ethics and not having hypocrisy. A quality often taken advantage of by the Republicans against the Democrats. Al should never have stepped down for a silly photo prank done when he was a comedian. But at the time, Trump was in a legal suit for paying off Stormy Daniels so that she wouldn’t expose their sexual romp during his election.

            Since he won the election despite his sexual escapades, despite his illegal payoffs of strippers and the National Enquirer, despite not showing his taxes- he feels he’s been given clearance and the things he did are okay.

            Likewise, getting away with Ukraine means to him that it’s okay for him to ask foreign governments to interfere with our elections. Besides no one can tell him what to do, he’s above the law – no he is the law. After all, asking Ukraine for campaign dirt was to help him get elected- which was good for the country – his lawyers actually said that. America, it’s like living in an insane asylum the past three years.

        2. Hope7 says:

          Everyone needs to do their job! Their sworn duty! I can’t believe this is a thing! I thought good people were motivated to “serve”. It’s crazy what you learn when you grow up! In grade school it made perfect sense!

      5. Hope7 says:

        The senators should be screened and there should be diversity quotas for empaths, normals, narcs, and others to have fair representation for all of society’s needs. It’s hard to cause a stir in someone’s conscience if they don’t have one..

        I agree:
        If there was an “imminent” threat everyone would know, without question, who, what, when, where and likely why.

        It’s insane everything he consistently gets away with. It’s one mind-blowing thing after another beginning with the tax evasion, hypocrisy with Trump businesses sourcing China steel and employing undocumented labor while fighting both politically, “locker room talk”, the list goes on and on. Trump is bad with money and likely doesn’t have the financial resources to assist or back people unless he manages to con people into loaning him. He has gone bankrupt many times as I learned in my college business courses. He grossly overvalues his “intellectual property” that is his “Trump” brand. He may have resources via influence using fear/charm/bribes to control, exploit, and manipulate people.

        1. Violetta says:

          Hope7:

          They’d just rig the test results so their crony got in.

      6. Natalie Cunningham says:

        What do you mean, he started a war? Because he killed a terrorist? He literally cannot do anything right. If he had left Soleimani to kill more innocent people he would be vilified for that.

        Did you watch the senate trial? His lawyers did not say that he can do whatever he wants because he is the President. The mainstream media have been reporting that, but that is not what was said – I watched every second. What WAS said, is that inevitably, any actions a President takes in the best interests of the country – there will be an element within that action which will possibly help towards him being re-elected, if the action creates good results. As in – if a President does something which makes the country a better place, that action is obviously going to encourage the citizens to vote for that leader again! Therefore, one cannot simply impeach a President for taking an action that he believes is for the good of the country, just because it may also help him be re-elected. Because unless you are a mind-reader – no one can say that the action was PURELY to be re-elected, and zero per cent for the good of the country.

        It’s so tiring hearing all the lies.

        1. Mercy says:

          Natalie, I’m not going to argue politics when we are here to discuss narcissist. The decision to strike was made without congressional approval or debate. Trump is within his rights to make that decision if there is imminent threat. There lies the problem. . What was the imminent threat? His lack of accountability, blame shifting and gaslighting has gotten him out of answering hard questions. I won’t debate my views. We can both throw facts back and forth at each other and never get anywhere. Where do the fact come from? From all of the narcissist in power manipulating our thoughts in order to gain control.

          1. Mercy says:

            I just want to add that’s it’s very hard to talk about a narcissist in power without projecting your own opinions. I see that my original comment could be taken that way. I have nothing against anyone who’s views don’t align with mine.

            I also don’t think a narcissist in power is always bad. I think a narcissist with no control or awareness is dangerous because there’s no thought of consequences.

          2. Hope says:

            Agreed. I have strong opinions and barf at some comments, namely the heart eyes in relation to Trump, but I do respect and admire all commented underneath the differing perspectives and opinions. I don’t despise anyone I don’t agree with.

          3. Hope says:

            All the more reason to keep reminding them of the facts! Facts are indisputable and undeniable. Yet the harder they try the more obvious it appears where the substance lies.

          4. mommypino says:

            Hope, Facts are open to different interpretations as I have seen from a lot of comments here. Just like the old saying about people looking at the same glass half full or half empty. A lot of what was shared here are opinions and not facts. Trump being a threat to our country is not a fact, it is an opinion. The killing of Soleimani being good or bad are opinions. The only fact is that Soleimani was killed under Trump’s approval. Another fact is that Soleimani was designated both by Bush and Obama as a terrorist before Trump was elected. It is a matter of opinion if Soleimani was indeed dangerous but it is also a fact that there have been intelligence of Soleimani being involved in activities that caused the death of many Americans. The number of Americans killed due to Soleimani’s activities can be debated or disputed but it remains a fact that there were valid pieces of evidence of Soleimani’s machinations that caused the deaths of Americans. It is my personal opinion that when I look at Soleimani’s pictures, his eyes with the way his expression was, is a total red flag for a murderous psychopath.

        2. mommypino says:

          Natalie I couldn’t agree more. There is a lot of emotional thinking when opinions are called “facts” and real facts are ignored or spun to fit their opinions. There are obviously smart enough people to recognize that hasty generalizations are a logical fallacy and yet because of emotional thinking they state it like it is an unequivocal truth. I don’t think that there is any reason to continue to debate. Regardless of how some people at the blog feel or believe, Trump is still the president and the impeachment was a huge failure. His approval ratings are also at its highest and he is managing the economy really well. They can be as unhappy as they want but they will have to deal with Trump as president.

          1. Mercy says:

            MommyPino, I don’t think anyone is disputing Soleimani was a dangerous terrorist who killed many peoole. In your many list of facts you forget the one fact that makes it legal for a president to strike against another nation without congress approval. Imminent danger. There was none. And the fact that there was none makes many wonder “why now?” Why not when Bush or Obama was in office? Two Presidents that proved they would do what’s necessary to protect against terrorism. So why now? Maybe to deflect against his pending impeachment? Seems likely. You will say that last statement is emotional thinking but I say it’s a logical conclusion based on facts

            As far as emotional thinking, let’s not forget the 176 innocent people that got shot down and killed as a result of this impulsive decision to gain control. While America’s took a collective sign because the retaliation wasn’t as bad as what we were bracing for, 176 people lost their lives for doing nothing but boarding a plane to go home.

          2. SMH says:

            Yes, Mercy, and that plane crash can be laid at Trump’s feet. He does not give two shits about other people, or animals and the environment for that matter. By the way, did everyone see the photo where his mask come off? Where the orange makeup covered only part of his face? Must be a metaphor.

          3. Mercy says:

            SMH, I hadn’t but I just looked. Thanks for the laugh!! I’ve noticed he’s starting to look older too. In a few pics I saw his white hair. Maybe he’s finally giving up the bad blond dye.

          4. SMH says:

            Mercy, I don’t think he’ll ever give it up. He has SUCH a distorted view of himself. I guess some would say he was handsome when he was younger, so a typical aging narc. If only he would go the route of Rush Limbaugh, another disgusting excuse for a human being.

          5. Mercy says:

            “Some would say he was handsome when he was younger” ok I just threw up a little in my mouth. Blah…yack ick.

            Did you ever see the naked pic the artist drew of him. “Making America great again”. If you haven’t you’ve got to look it up. When I looked up the orange mask I ran into that one again. So funny.

          6. SMH says:

            Hahahaha no, Mercy, I hadn’t seen that before. Just looked it up and can’t unsee it now. He is a caricaturist’s dream.

          7. mommypino says:

            And a lot of people believe that the 9/11 can be laid at Bill Clinton’s feet.

          8. mommypino says:

            Mercy,

            The Emotional Thinking that I was talking about are statements like Republicans are psychopaths while Democrats are only narcissists or that Trump has started a war by killing Soleimani. If the arguments are not off the deep end I don’t think that it is ET, I think that it’s just a difference in opinions.

            Look at your logic Mercy, you place the blame on Trump for the 176 people that were killed because Trump killed a killer who has been killing a lot more people than that. If Trump didn’t kill Soleimani. Soleimani just keeps on killing. The terrorists retaliated and somehow it’s Trump’s fault and not the terrorists? Do you also blame rape victims for being raped? Managing terrorists is just as easy as managing narcissists Mercy. You will never manage them. You will never control them. You will never be able to pacify them or make them like you unless it’s on their terms.

          9. Mercy says:

            MommyPino, you’ve twisted my words or maybe I’m having trouble communicating my thoughts. I said that the facts you listed in your previous comment was missing the one fact that makes it legal to do what he did. Imminent danger. There are no facts to prove that there was any imminent danger. 

            As far as emotional thinking, I think you can see from my previous comments that I’m well aware that there is ET on both sides. 

            What confuses me about your reply is that I specifically stated that it is my emotional thinking that puts blame on Trump for the people that died in the plane. I said the words “speaking of emotional thinking” but you twisted it to say that’s my idea of logic.  

            “Do you also blame rape victims for being raped” I am going to pretend you are smarter than this. Trump is not a victim (although he thinks he is). But since you brought it up, if a rape victim was in imminent danger and she killed her assailant she is well within law to protect herself. If a rape victim plots and plans to murder her assailant, and then carries out that act,  I would say she murdered someone and should face legal consequences. (even if my emotional thinking understands why she did it). The laws were created for a reason and Trump is not above the law. 

          10. mommypino says:

            Mercy, from what I have read, Pompeo claims that Soleimani was actively planning a big attack that would kill a lot of American diplomats. I am honestly not sure on what power the laws exactly give the president. I have read that Reagan, Clinton and Obama all have authorized strikes citing that power without providing clear reasons or evidence of the basis of the strikes either. I believe that Clinton’s strike was to prevent a genocide (which I think was good) but law experts say that the laws do not provide the president power to strike because of humanitarian reason so they argue that what Clinton did was also unlawful. If people want more accountability then Congress needs to do their job and put more checks and balance in place to make presidents more accountable.

            “ The problem with the War Powers Act? Multiple presidents have virtually ignored it or bent these rules, with no consequences. In 1986, Ronald Reagan attacked sites in Libya in retaliation for a bombing which injured Americans, but did not have congressional approval. In 1999, Bill Clinton launched airstrikes in Yugoslavia, aimed at preventing genocide, without giving proper notice to Congress or consulting lawmakers. In 2011, Barack Obama authorized military strikes in Libya, and argued that the War Powers Act simply didn’t apply.”
            https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/when-can-a-president-use-military-force-the-answer-is-complicated

            It sounds like none of the presidents who did that were forced to explain their actions. So it sounds like right now it rests on the president’s opinion based on the evidence presented to him if the threat is imminent or not. In this case, the evidence that Pompeo said they have is that Soleimani was plotting an attack to kill Americans and he has already been involved in several attacks in the past.

          11. mommypino says:

            Here’s an article about the drone air strikes that Obama did to kill terrorists.
            https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jul/01/obama-drones-strikes-civilian-deaths

          12. mommypino says:

            This is what an Obama senior official has said about the imminent threat:

            “We continue to reserve the right to take action not just against individual terrorist targets but when we believe we have, for instance, a force protection issue or information to suggest a continued imminent threat,” a senior official said when asked about signature strikes.

            It sounds like they didn’t have to explain what imminent threat was exactly. So it looks like Trump didn’t violate any law; he was doing the same thing that his predecessors have been doing. This is just politics where his detractors are making a big issue out of something that they didn’t make an issue of from the previous administration that they align with.

          13. Mercy says:

            MommyPino, I was wondering when you were going to get there. So because it was “ok” for his predecessors to go against the Constitution it’s ok for him? What happens when the next president isn’t someone you support? Will you be ok with one person in power dictating the fate of our country? This is why I said our leaders are failing us. No one person should have that much power. Especially when there is a lesser in control that is only concerned for his “now fuel” with no thought about the consequences.

          14. mommypino says:

            Mercy, I have an older comment under moderation where I said that if this is a concern that people have then Congress should do something about it.

          15. mommypino says:

            I didn’t say it was morally ok Mercy. You said that Trump was above the law so I showed you that actually he is interpreting the law the same way that his predecessors were interpreting it. I showed you that from the point of view of previous presidents, that action follows the law, that presidents of the US indeed have the right to strike at who they believe poses danger to us. And the definition of imminent threat seems very subjective. And all that I have said is that if that is a problem then Congress should change the law. If the president vetoes the law that Congress makes then challenge it to the courts and let the Supreme Court decide if it is indeed unconstitutional. I am not aware of these steps have already been done but those are just ideas. Our government has so many checks and balances so I personally am not worried. So many people advice the president and even though he is a Lesser, he is not retarded to not have some insight on which advice makes sense or doesn’t make sense. He is an Upper Lesser and a lot of Upper Lessers are smart enough to be doctors and professors etc. I know an Upper Lesser here who is a doctor of internal medicine. He hasn’t damaged a patient because the patient pissed him off. Biden seems to be an Upper Lesser as well and he has been a politician forever. There are many people advising the president and a lot of them are used to dealing with people like Trump (narcissists) because if you work in that kind of environment, most likely you would be dealing with narcissists everyday. That is my opinion.

          16. Mercy says:

            MommyPino, As I read your response I’ll admit that it riled my ET a little because it immediately made me want to fire back facts and inconsistencies that I see in your answer. I won’t because my original intent was never to change your mind or opinion, I was just wanting you to view the situation from another person’s perspective. I don’t have the ability to take a stand based on blind Faith when I can see what’s happening around me. This conversation is becoming circular and I’m going to end it on my side with no hard feelings. 

          17. mommypino says:

            Mercy, I don’t have the ability to take a blind stand either and I have provided to you articles from mainstream media (The Guardian and PBS). If the conversation is becoming circular it is not coming from my end as I have done my best to provide those articles to back up my opinions. We are both very staunch in our opinions and none of us have to convert. That was not my intention either. No hard feelings indeed.

          18. Mercy says:

            MommyPino, I just don’t want to cross the line of a political debate vs a discussion about narcissism. I actually love a good debate but I don’t want to be disrespectful to those that are not interested in my political views. Thank you for the discussion. I’m sure we will bump heads in the future because you and I seem to do that but at least we know we can disagree without insult to each other.

          19. Mercy says:

            MommyPino, I just don’t want to cross the line of a political debate vs a discussion about narcissism. I actually love a good debate but I don’t want to be disrespectful to those that are not interested in my political views. Thank you for the discussion. I’m sure we will bump heads in the future because you and I seem to do that but at least we know we can disagree without insult to each other. 

          20. SMH says:

            Mercy, MP has problems with comprehension, logic and facts. You can state the same thing three different ways and she still will not get it. Sorry MP, but it is true, and it is why you constantly get into endless and circular arguments with no resolution.

          21. Violetta says:

            SMH and Mercy:

            I saw him coming down the steps of a building on S. Park Ave. in the ’80s, and as billionaires go, he looked pretty good.

            The fact that he doesn’t seem to put much effort into his appearance, or doesn’t know where the effort should be directed–the extra-long ties, the orange Jello hair color, the eye circles left by the protective goggles used with the tanning bed–I think are part of Lesser insignia. I forget if there are Lesser somatics, but someone who could afford better tailoring and a personal trainer, and doesn’t get either one, likely isn’t one.

            I suspect he’s one of those Lessers who has no clue that any physical appeal he had is long gone. He expects women to look good for him, partly as visible trophies to be envied by others, but probably hasn’t formed the concept that he might return the favor to the extent necessary even to reject it.

          22. SMH says:

            Violetta, You are probably correct that he isn’t a somatic, though that doesn’t really fit with the ‘playboy’ image he had in his youth. Did you see the whole thing with the picture this morning? And then the naked portrait that Mercy directed me to? No wonder Melania turns her head away. Trump has such a distorted view of himself. Reminds me of Weinstein. Blech. The only thing these men have going for them is power. I would like to see Trump in the place that Weinstein is in now.

          23. Mercy says:

            Violetta, This was his response to the pic.

            “More Fake News. This was photoshopped, obviously, but the wind was strong and the hair looks good? Anything to demean!”

            I think you nailed it. Hes clueless.

          24. HG Tudor says:

            Lessers are oblivious as explained previously.

          25. SMH says:

            It’s astonishing how very oblivious he is.

          26. Mercy says:

            SMH, You are welcome my dear. I had to share my pain of seeing that with someone haha. For a minute I thought I was going to lose my sight.

          27. Violetta says:

            Mercy:

            Is that the by Illma Gore?

          28. Mercy says:

            Violetta, it is.

        3. mommypino says:

          I also wonder Natalie, since we learned at Narcsite that Psychopaths do not change their ways unless it serves them, (and to be clear I am not saying that all Psychopaths are murderous since we also now know with HG and James Fallon for example that a lot of psychopaths blend among us and never kill anybody) wouldn’t they have preferred to have Clinton kill Bin Laden when he had a chance before the 9/11 happened? Bin Laden, just like Soleimani, at that time have already been involved in terroristic activities that caused lives although not as massive as the 9/11.

          I tell you the difference Natalie,

          If Clinton killed Bin Laden before the 9/11, it would have saved lives but it would not have been as politically rewarding for Clinton in fact, he could have opened himself up to criticisms that Trump is now facing for killing Soleimani. However, Soleimani being killed under Obama’s leadership after so many lives have been lost was much more politically rewarding for Obama. People gathered on the streets to celebrate the successful murder of a horrible murderer and there was no political risk whatsoever. However, many lives are now gone.

          I would very much prefer that a psychopathic terrorist be killed before his machinations and network increases to a level where they can do massive murder of innocent people.

          1. mommypino says:

            *correction I meant Bin Laden being killed under Obama.

  7. Dorion says:

    Related question: do you think Joe Biden is a Greater? Please don’t ask back what I think, I am posing the question.

    1. HG Tudor says:

      I have not analysed him.

    2. MommyPino says:

      Hi Dorion, In my opinion Joe Biden is either an Upper Lesser or an Upper MR and his son Hunter Biden is an Upper Lesser like Trump for sure. 😊

    3. Hope7 says:

      Definitely not!! LOL He doesn’t have the social and racial sensitivity to not say things that are absolutely ridiculous!! Did you hear the thing he said comparing “poor kids” to “whites kids”?!! Insane! A greaser has more intelligence, social awareness, Facade awareness/management, and cognitive empathy than that. They think before they speak. This man is losing it or never had it to begin with.

      1. mommypino says:

        I agree Hope. And I still remember the so many times that he was caught lying about being heroic etc. He is not as sharp as he pretends to be. Also when Biden said that he would beat the hell out of Trump if they were in high school sounds like an Upper Lesser remark for me personally. If he gets chosen it will be an interesting reality show and the media would love it although they would pretend to be outraged.

        1. Hope says:

          LOL. Trump could use a little street justice as it appears he can’t be held down with true justice. It’s funny maybe Biden was appealing to the desire for Trump to be held to account in any way possible. It’s fun to think about. In the same way it’s fun to think about your friends beating down your ex, although it’s fantasy you only entertain and wouldn’t actually do.

          I agree physical aggression to resolve is less evolved as other strategies of enforcing accountability are too difficult for them. I am of this sort. I can’t manipulate to get what I want and instead fantasize of physical violence but can’t resort to it as I’m also inept in that realm as well. I often feel this way when I’m being taken advantage of and no sanctioned avenues of reproach are effective. If I were a narc I would be a lesser. Understanding I’m not, and I still would want to resort to violence for justice, it’s possible Biden is thinking the same way. I think he’s dumb. I used to think it was cute when he was under Obama and fiercely loyal to him. Note that his true character has shown itself with his unconscious racial remarks I don’t think he’s harmless. I think he’s less harmful than Trump in that he won’t start a nuclear war and destroy the entire planet and damage the ecosystem of the universe, but I still think he’s highly unsuitable for making decisions on the future of our country. If he was willing to listen to counsel and had good counsel I would fear less, as he’s just the spokesperson at that point and the collective intelligence and expertise of those appointed would prevail. He appears content as a follower as he never tried to overshadow the President in the past, to my knowledge, nor got upset about his opinion or way not being followed.

          I think it’s funny you agree that Biden has missteps as small as the one I mentioned but you appear blinded by your devotion to Trump. He has done, said, and continues to stand by and pursue far worse. Things that come to the forefront are is racial biases: Hispanic, middle eastern, black, etc. As well as his treatment and beliefs about women as a whole. It continues to shock me how women so minorities support him but then I remember I, too, was ignorant. I used to take pride in being “honorary male” or “the exception” while hating and criticizing women myself in a male dominated field. I was essentially a tool for them to use. I’m ashamed I was so ignorant. I learned of this dynamic in college and I’ll never unlearn it. I am a work in progress. Mainstream media isn’t sensitive or aware of a lot. If there’s no commercial for it, most people remain ignorant. I have to remember not to be so harsh as most people don’t hold beliefs intentionally, it’s more passively as a result of not seeking out and not realizing they need to seek out objective information.

          1. mommypino says:

            I do respect your opinions but we have very different POV regarding Trump and what the facts are. I can show you statistics on the economy and you would probably don’t see them as facts and have ways to refute them. I don’t have a blind devotion to him. I just don’t see things the way that you do. And I do not think that Trump is more racist or dangerous than the Democrats.

          2. SMH says:

            MP, Obama inherited a disaster. Trump inherited “Obama’s” economy. Yet Obama’s last three years of job growth all beat Trump’s best year – Forbes. Trump’s economic growth is slower than Obama’s last three years – Forbes. It isn’t that hard to find the facts. Most economists would agree anyway that the economy is not completely influenced by Presidents, even though they tend to get credit when things go well and be blamed when they do not.

          3. mommypino says:

            SMH, you probably studied some economics too so you would know that it’s not fair to compare growth from an abnormal recession versus growth from a normal economy. You can probably remember that before the elections liberal “economic experts “ were saying that the market would crash if Trump wins. Has happened. Why? Because that was just emotional thinking.

          4. SMH says:

            MP, Facts are facts, not speculation or opinion. No one said that the economy has not done well under Trump (if you own stocks, that is – half of Americans do not). All I said ( as far as I can tell – I cannot see my whole comment) was that a lot of what Trump takes credit for is either not exceptional or not connected to his policies.

          5. mommypino says:

            SMH, a lot of people who do not own stocks are also doing well because they are now working. We had historically low unemployment rate under Trump.

            “ a lot of what Trump takes credit for is either not exceptional or not connected to his policies.”

            Obama ended the recession and has brought the economy back to normal. If Trump is really as horrible as liberals claim to be then our economy could have gone down again just like the market crash that they have predicted would happen if Trump wins (which never happened). Instead, under Trump, our economy continues to improve and Trump and his policies absolutely deserve credit for that.

            Also, I can have challenges with comprehension occasionally because English is not my first language. But I can comprehend English enough to be able to have a successful discussion with people who are willing to listen and doesn’t get offended if I don’t see things the way that they do.

          6. mommypino says:

            I just saw my typo. The market crash the the liberal economic experts warned us about if Trump wins hasn’t happened.

          7. SMH says:

            MP, And? So? That has nothing to do with what I wrote. It’s almost impossible to have a conversation with you because your comment comprehension is problematic. I am too tired to continue this line of conversation. Your opinion doesn’t matter to me. Only the facts, please. I gave you some but even those you do not understand.

      2. Violetta says:

        Biden said Obama was the “first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy.”

        Kinda hard to shut one’s mouth when one’s foot is in it.

        1. Hope says:

          LOL! He doesn’t even realize what is wrong with his statements! If he’s a narc, he is a lesser if lessers are unaware and slow.

  8. Dorion says:

    HG – I am putting my question here because I can’t easily find a better place. (When will you incorporate an option for readers to start their own threads/discussion topic?) I would be surprised if my question hadn’t been asked before. It is very obvious, but I am still quite new and also don’t read everything. So…

    Are you following the current US “rat race” now with enough depth to provide analyses, and do you have the interest to share? In case yes, are you planning to share your views and predictions on the US presidential candidates/elections at some point, ideas as to how everything might turn out? A public election race like this is kinda the ultimate example for “when narcissists collide”, multiples of them, and how the “evolution” of high-functioning narcs progresses over a relatively short time. I find observing all this fascinating even with the behaviorist’s eye, regardless of political opinions and orientations.

    1. HG Tudor says:

      Hello Dorion, you comments and observations are always well articulated and therefore appreciated.

      1. Own threads? There is no functionality for that presently. The purpose is to discuss the content of articles and matters arising to them. For instance, you have raised a question about other politicians on article about a political narcissist, which is fine. I do not want threads about handbags all over the blog because it is about narcissism. A little light relief is one thing, but not to the extent that it obscures the purpose of this blog. I am considering the options with regard to a forum.
      2. I am following what is occurring in the US and may write about this in the future, time allowing.

  9. alexissmith2016 says:

    So bloody annoying when yku hold back half the comments so they make no sense.

    1. alexissmith2016 says:

      Lucky I can’t be confused

    2. HG Tudor says:

      I hold nothing back. The process of moderation does. I let them through as I get to them.

      1. alexissmith2016 says:

        Blameshift

        1. Hope7 says:

          LOL 😂

  10. I do rather hope that you fingers are moving quickly on your laptop at the moment HG.

    1. alexissmith2016 says:

      HG did he kill Soliemani because he felt out of control due to the unfuelled critisism caused by his impeachment?

      1. HG Tudor says:

        You may find a forthcoming article of interest in relation to this AS2016.

        1. alexissmith2016 says:

          Oh god! Hurry please hurry HG. I’ll be at by my phone, looking at the clock…watching…waiting…

          1. HG Tudor says:

            I am slow-roasting a minion first, then I have an interior designer coming to flounce around me to discuss the new colour scheme for The Dungeon and after that I have a border dispute to ignite. It is all work, work, work for your humble narrator.

          2. alexissmith2016 says:

            Multi-task HG. I’ll do anything…

          3. HG Tudor says:

            So I have heard.

          4. alexissmith2016 says:

            Hahahahaha that made me laugh a lot

          5. HG Tudor says:

            So I see!

          6. alexissmith2016 says:

            Oh god literally don’t creep me out now

          7. Violetta says:

            I admire your thoroughness, HG. So many Evil Overlords nuke their minions in the microwave, which may save time, but I’m told it negatively affects both texture and flavor.

        2. alexissmith2016 says:

          HG my watch has stopped ticking? any ideas???

          1. HG Tudor says:

            Wind it up.

          2. alexissmith2016 says:

            So damn rude! Just start typing before I begin zapping away at your fuel sources

          3. alexissmith2016 says:

            Or

          4. alexissmith2016 says:

            Cause you to experience joy

          5. And empathy

          6. alexissmith2016 says:

            I can do this

          7. alexissmith2016 says:

            Just in case you were in any doubt at all

      2. Hope7 says:

        He’s trying to win an election. He’s seen how it worked for Obama with Osama Bin Ladin and he’s still trying to out do him. He’s not acting responsibly and out of motivation for America’s best interest—merely of his own interest. Ironic for him to do this—use his position in attempt to earn political favor— while on trial for doing this.

        1. alexissmith2016 says:

          When you break down the behaviours of Ns Hope it becomes more and more apparent why they behave as they do. I don’t think Trump will have given any strategical thought to it at all. He did it because he had been critisised due to the impeachment. As you say, all out of his own interest. He needed seek to be in control in another way because he was unable to control an unrelated matter.

          1. Hope says:

            Valid points. But I don’t know. They have stunted ability to think ahead at all? I can see past my nose and I’m not chock full of narcissism. I would consider manipulation and planning a narcissistic trait or a trait that can be used for narcissistic purposes in myself. Are you trying to say a narcissist has zero abilities to strategize? If that’s the case why is he Commander In Chief? It’s hard to fathom.

          2. alexissmith2016 says:

            Ns are capable of planning and scheming at varying levels according to their school.

            Lessers and to some extent mids need control in the now and cannot wait one day or one week to acheive this, they need to do it right now! Greaters can plan. Trump is an ULN
            In a comment which probably only K can find, HG did allude to the fact that whilst some behaviour of Ns appears to be planned by the individual when in fact it is their narcissism as an unconscious defense mechanism which has planned it out. But either way only greaters are capable of true calculation. I think (this is my thoughts not HGs, so don’t read too much into it) that UMRNs can plot and scheme a bit (my sister certainly did and does) but she leaves a trail for me to see. Not always, but I can now (with the knowledge I have learned here) usually work out what she has been up to or may be planning. e.g. when she is trying to salami slice me into doing something, she will take some weeks over doing this but it is all too obvious now. Pre knowledge I would have thought that she was genuinely stressed about xyz, or that abc was causing her problems. I now realise its all lies building up to her wanting a huuuuuge life changing favour from me. A normal or empath wouldn’t build up to it in this way, they’d have a frank conversation and ask for the help in one go.
            It’s all about them feeling the need to be in control and need to win above all else. so they enjoy the quasi scheming.

            A lesser on the other hand wouldn’t be capable of that. Trump’s success comes from him bulldozing his way through anything and everything.

          3. Hope says:

            He’s talking about wounding or challenge to control. You can handle a wounding or challenge and on unrelated notes have a capacity for intellectual strategy. For example you ignore a narc and he instinctively smears you to his colleague but the same time he’s in a meeting and devising a strategy to increase the firm’s reputation with millenials. He’s capable of strategizing. He can have foresight in business and in personal life. He can say: I want a house let me save money. He can say: I want the presidency another four years let me copy Obama and sensationalize myself by killing a bad guy. It doesn’t have to be a reaction to an event for every decision ever made. That would be unsustainable and no leader can be effective in that way. It makes no sense that someone can lack cognitive abilities and not appear retarded.

          4. alexissmith2016 says:

            I understand what you’re saying to a point Hope. Trump can and has achieved success but his strategising is very simplistic.
            From my perspective, whilst incredibly successful as a business man, he does appear stupid?

            I know several upper lessers that are incredibly financially successful. before I understood about Ns, I literally could not fathom at all how they could achieve all they have whilst significantly lacking in cognitive ability.

            It is their belief in their own hype, the ability to convince others of this too, trample over anyone who gets in their way without a second glance, lack of regret, thriving on risk taking amongst other traits which actually takes them to where they want to be.
            The fact lessers do not care for the facade can make them (sometimes) far more successful than many mids who surpass them on intelligence. The mids are too bothered about having the approval of others. Lessers thrive on the hatred and jealousy others afford them, there will be an equal amount haters and admirers. Mids can’t handle too much dislike, they want and need the majority of people to admire them or in the case of victim Ns, pity them.

          5. Violetta says:

            Hope:
            The Uppers can plan. They can even opt for delayed gratification and a better payoff. If they came up with a high-sounding excuse, it’s for your sake, not theirs.

            The Mid-rangers come up with some high-sounding excuse and believe it.

            The Lessers don’t think about it at all.

          6. Hope says:

            I don’t agree. I think they all can plan. It’s a basic function and without it they would be very dysfunctional. I do agree the narcissism is instinctual or planned to varying degrees but everyone has the capacity to think ahead: set an objective: and take steps to reach it using their rational minds. This may be separate from innate narcissism but it’s impossible to live without this ability. How would they feed and clothe themselves if they can’t think ahead to acquire money and ration it? If anyone can’t think ahead they would achieve nothing and die quickly. Natural selection.

          7. HG Tudor says:

            Eating and clothing oneself are invariably unrelated to the issue of control and therefore not governed by the narcissism. The relevance here, is the issue of planning within narcissism (not outside of that).

          8. MommyPino says:

            HG,

            “ The relevance here, is the issue of planning within narcissism (not outside of that).”

            Do you think that there are aspects of Trump’s responsibility and capacity as president where his planning involves outside of narcissism.

            Also, am I correct to think that just because a decision was made as a narcissistic response that it doesn’t necessarily mean that it will make him unsuccessful in the eyes of those who voted for him and even other people who benefited from the results of those decisions. For example if a political enemy is pushing for a policy that Republican voters who voted from Trump do not want and Trump imposes control by not allowing those liberal policies or agendas to be passed or take effect then wouldn’t that be a success in the point of view of his voters? Moreover, if those liberal policies that he rejects to assert control happens to be harmful for the country, he actually ends up benefiting the country even if his motivation was to assert control. I am asking this because Trump is actually viewed as a very successful president by majority of Republicans. He is extremely popular in the Republican Party right now. I also remember that you have told me that an Upper Lesser can be a successful POTUS.

          9. HG Tudor says:

            The response of the narcissist which is a manipulation, may be viewed as a “good” decision by some and the same response as a “bad” decision by others, it depends on their perspective.

            As has been rather tediously exhibited in this thread, there are some who like Trump and believe him to be a “good thing” and there are others who dislike him and believe him to be a “bad thing”.

        2. MommyPino says:

          HG,

          I would like to ask for clarification if you care to answer. In your responses regarding an Upper Lesser’s inability to plan ahead within the narcissism and your other responses, are you telling or implying that Trump will not be a good president and that we shouldn’t vote for Trump? I do remember that you said that an Upper Lesser can be a successful president, do you still hold the same view?

          1. HG Tudor says:

            The “A Very…” series is a series focussed on analysing prominent and/or newsworthy individuals to ascertain whether the individual is a narcissist or not. It is not about whether the person is “good” or “bad”. Those are subjective matters of opinion dependent on personal perspective. This is purely about whether the individual is a narcissist or not. I make this point clear for the hard of understanding. If you want to argue about whether the person is “good” or “bad” you have chosen the wrong forum. If you want to learn about narcissism and whether it is applicable or not to the relevant individual, you ARE in the correct forum and do read on…..

            This is a forum for discussing narcissism. As I have made it REPEATEDLY clear in the articles about famous individuals it is not about whether they are a good thing or a bad thing – it is about narcissism.

            Take Brazilian President Jair Messias Bolsonaro. His supporters regard his actions as a “good thing” he is putting their interests first by allowing the Amazon to be cleared to support industries reliant on it. His detractors regard his actions as a “bad thing” because of environmental concerns. Is he bad? Is he good? Depends who you ask. Just like President Trump.

            I am not here to judge the actions. I am not here to tell you who to vote for. I am here to educate you about narcissism.

          2. SMH says:

            Bolsonaro is bad too. There. Helped you out!

          3. HG Tudor says:

            And to others he is good.

            There. Gave you accuracy.

          4. SMH says:

            Well, we have different views on good and evil. There. Gave you more accuracy.

          5. HG Tudor says:

            You just reinforced and agreed with what I stated.

            What is a different view? A different perspective.

            I suggest you stopped bothering, before you continue to lose.

          6. SMH says:

            You don’t have to respond, you know. I believe there are truths and then there are falsehoods. You believe that every truth is a falsehood from someone’s else’s perspective. So yeah, we have different views or beliefs or perspectives or whatever you want to call them. You won’t convince me that everything is a matter of perspective, however. In fact, you don’t even believe that yourself because if you did, you would not be able to teach us that narcissism is “evil” (your words, not mine). So you’d have to admit that there is a truth to narcissism and that truth consists of different perspectives on what is rational behavior and what is not. Right there we have an example of different perspectives as a truth. The truth is, there are different perspectives, which means there does exist a truth.

          7. HG Tudor says:

            Incorrect. I describe it as “evil” for the purposes of communicating it in a manner which the intended audience will understand, the key to being a good communicator. I describe it from the audience’s perspective because I have sufficient ability to recognise how others see it from their perspective. I have long maintained that from our perspective, what we do is not evil, but necessary, if others wish to call it evil, so be it. Given that I am speaking and writing to an audience which will label our behaviour as “evil” I would not get very far in delivering my material and finding a receptive audience if I wrote narcissism is goodness personified, would I.

            Your final sentence is incorrect because an individual may not see that there are other perspectives and therefore reject that suggestion. They will be of the view that their view is the only view. My truth is that there are different perspectives (which you are now accepting from your final sentence). Another person´s truth (remember as they view it, not as you or I view it) is there is only one view and one perspective.

            The matter rests.

          8. SMH says:

            Good, because this conversation goes nowhere, as we know. Evil or necessary, same to me. Both presented as truths.

          9. mommypino says:

            Thank you HG!

        3. Mercy says:

          Hope this one is a really good one about Lessors

          https://narcsite.com/2017/01/10/the-lesser-narcissist-five-facts/

  11. Cold Hard Truth says:

    Nevertheless

    To the real HG. I did miss you and I hope you have a great Christmas.

  12. ANM says:

    HG,
    Also, out of curiosity, is there a particular reason you always choose to commentate on BBC News, other than being from the UK? I follow their news stories as well, but I was wondering if you believe they are the most accurate news source, neutral/non-biased, or if you have a favorite journalist from the BBC.

    1. HG Tudor says:

      I take my news from a variety of sources however I comment on BBC News because of the high standard of journalism that is used and lack of sensationalism. I have a number of journalists from the BBC who I rate.

      1. Natalie says:

        This BBC report is very biased. I love reading your opinions but I can’t take this one seriously. The examples of provocation are insinuating that Trump is starting these disagreements with everyone. For example, he calls Adam Schiff ‘shifty Schiff’ because Schiff blatantly lied to the public, multiple times about what was said on the Ukraine phone call. Schiff didn’t expect Trump to release the transcript so took it upon himself to fabricate the whole conversation, in order to convince the public that Trump had committed a crime. Then when the transcript was released, Schiff had the cheek to say it was only intended as a parody. He’d been caught in a huge lie! This is just one example of where Trump is fighting back against the dishonesty. I don’t know if Trump is a narcissist or not but to judge him based partly on this biased article means I can’t take this particular opinion seriously. Trump is provoked constantly, by the democrats and the media, however it seems when it’s reported on, the first part of the story is missed out and it begins where Trump is defending himself. Making him look like the instigator all the time.

        1. HG Tudor says:

          He is provoked and it threatens his control. Hence the responses. Read the first POTUS article and his narcissism is glaringly clear. Further, more than one narcissist can collide.

        2. mommypino says:

          Hi Natalie, Schiff has crazy eyes 👀 and so does AOC. They are obviously narcissists. Mid-Rangers to be more specific.

          1. Natalie Cunningham says:

            Having just watched the entire senate trial, Schiff is a massive narc. But yes I think most of them in Washington are.

          2. mommypino says:

            Schiff totally is a massive narc. But he’s not as high functioning as Trump. He looks like a Lower or Middle Mid Ranger to me. Schiff isn’t even good at lying. The only reason that people pay attention to him is because they hate Trump. If not for Trump nobody would care about Schiff. Trump May be an Upper Lesser but he has so much charisma and energy that a lot of Mod Rangers wish they have. He may be only acting on instincts but his instincts so far are much sharper or better than the plotting that a lot of his slow poke jealous Mid Ranger enemies in politics have. Their plotting and conniving backfired while Trump always come out on top and victorious. Trump is doing a marvelous job with our country’s economy and unlike Bill Clinton who folded when he had a chance to kill Bin Laden, Trump got the job done with Soleimani before Soleimani (who was obviously a psychopath by just looking at his pictures and facial expressions) could do something similar to a 9/11. Bill Clinton may have been an amazing political maneuverer but Trump had good instincts to just end an evil killer and not give him a chance to kill more innocent people.

          3. Hope says:

            Wow! If you could take an objectivity pill and re-read what you wrote you would be amused and embarrassed.

          4. SMH says:

            lmao Hope. Don’t even bother. MP is drunk on the Trump kool-aid.

          5. mommypino says:

            None of us are fully objective. What exactly is the standard of objectivity? Objectivity in what respect. We have different perspectives on what is good for our country and in my perspective his policies are serving our country well and much better than Hillary could have had if she won instead of Trump.

          6. mommypino says:

            Also Hope, you seem to have a hard time when it comes to perspectives that you don’t agree with. You don’t need to read all of the comments if they make you barf. It’s much more embarrassing to be rude than to have an opinion that not everybody agrees with. I don’t read all of the comments and maybe you shouldn’t read mine if my opinions offend you.

  13. ANM says:

    Oh, yeah, and also, Vice President Mike Pense would not make a better President than Donald Trump. Mike Pense is one of those calm Psychopaths who hate everyone. Atleast we know what Donald Trump is up to. His ego tells on himself, and I think you were right with your first essay on him, I think he honestly wants to go down in history as the Best President of the USA, and will try to do that. I don’t like Trump, but I don’t think he wants to destroy a particular group of people in the USA or hurt anyone.

    1. Jennifer from Los Angeles says:

      Think again ANM.

    2. Hope7 says:

      Except the illegal immigrants/asylum seekers/refugees… 🥶

      1. Natalie Cunningham says:

        You honestly think Trump is trying to destroy illegal immigrants etc?

  14. ANM says:

    Good article. Yes, as an US citizen, my opinion is, that Trump would have been re-elected anyways. The Democratic Party did not have anyone strong enough running this election. The hardcore Democrats would disagree with me, but that is because those running, were all far Left Wing runners, that would get the panties of a socialist wet, but nothing more. No one in the US really like Joe Biden, but he was just next in line. Trump is obviously an Upper Lesser, like my ex, who is extremely paranoid, and will target someone out of obsession, like he did with Hillary Clinton even after the election was over. The only time I was ever amused by Trumps shenanigans, was his bromance relationship with Jim Acosta. They actually had chemistry when they fought, and they were both obsessed with eachother.

    1. PrincessSuperEmpath says:

      ANM: Trump admires Hillary Clinton in real life. That is a political show. He has no animosity against Hillary. Once he is out of office either next year, or in 5 years from now, you will see Hillary and Donald socializing together once again.

      1. Cold Hard Truth says:

        Hillary Clinton is a dying dinosaur.

      2. ANM says:

        PrincessSuperEmpath,
        I don’t know about the word admire. I think anytime narcissist are threatened enough by someone where they become obsessed, there is an inner part of them that has to look over all of the qualities they admire about this person to see if they can outdo them. I think Trump knew the Clintons well enough to know they are a powerful, intelligent, and rotten family. During the debates, he knew she was more intelligent and educated, so he didn’t hold back on bringing up that her husband is a pedophile to deflect and project. I don’t think Hilary admires Trump one bit, and was very wounded from losing to Trump. I don’t see her as even wanting to shake his hand again.

        1. Michelle Clark says:

          ANM. They both will do what is expedient according to their fuel needs, we both know, of course. If united they stand, in the future, they will unite. However, Anm, I think you may be right in that Hillary may feel more wounded by Trump verses how he feels regarding her, though. She could be a bit miffed by Donald, even if his political repartee regarding her were not done in real Malice, but rather politically expedient. A women scorned and all that. And it is often said, now that I come to think of it, and it is said pretty openly, that Hillary has an incredibly bad temper and vicious streak, if she believes that she has been crossed beyond repair. I do not think that Donald has crossed that line. For his own sake.

    2. Cold Hard Truth says:

      What I want to say is not necessarily that Trump is a narcissist or that Pelosi is a narcissist.

      But that our US government is setup to minimize any one person seeking irrational power through their position. Thus we have checks and balances.

      James Madison, everyone. He’s the true genius behind our constitution. He denarced the government back in the past.

  15. alexissmith2016 says:

    Great article HG! Do you think that behind the scenes Boris could have had a hand in this at all? By getting Trump out of the way via someone else it will make his negotiations easier? Or is that giving Boris a little too much credit?

    1. HG Tudor says:

      BJ has no link to this. POTUS being in place will be deemed beneficial by BJ at the current time.

      1. alexissmith2016 says:

        Helpful. Thanks HG

      2. Cold Hard Truth says:

        Hello Harvey

        1. HG Tudor says:

          Ha ha and there we have it. Harvey is reminded of your failed lawsuit against him.

          1. Cold Hard Truth says:

            He keeps losing.
            Bwhaha
            He has to pretend to be other men to talk to women.
            Bwhahaha

          2. HG Tudor says:

            Not with you he does not. Your claim against him was dismissed at first instance, prior to trial as your case was so weak. I have read the case.

            Bwahahaha!

          3. NarcAngel says:

            There is always the moment when it tips to delusion and exposure if you wait for it (and it’s not a long wait). Poor things can’t hold on.

          4. HG Tudor says:

            Indeed NA.

          5. Cold Hard Truth says:

            Maybe you are right.

            Poor me.

            Sigh.

          6. Cold Hard Truth says:

            And……

            Now I have proof of Harvey hijacking narcsite.com

            Whoops.

            Sweetheart, you should never turn your back on me.

    2. Hope7 says:

      LOL 😆 Boris seems like such a fool. I’m largely ignorant but I saw him offering tea to reporters after an indiscretion and could never take him seriously since. It was a show about news but delivered in a comedic way. John Oliver’s show.

      1. alexissmith2016 says:

        He does appear to be a fool Hope, I couldn’t agree more. But he is incredibly intelligent and knows exactly what he is doing at all times. HG has confirmed he is a greater and very dangerous. I believe him.

      2. Violetta says:

        Hope7:

        That might actually have been a rather clever move. There was a politician who was embroiled in a number of scandals, including repeatedly cheating on his wife. When the wife saw reporters camped outside the house in bad weather, she went out and offered them tea. No, she didn’t poison it or even put laxatives in it.

        In some parts of the world, accepting tea from someone is like accepting the Mead cup in Anglo-Saxon literature: it’s a pledge of loyalty. Violating the hospitality you’ve accepted would make you the scum of the earth. The sacred loyalty between host and guest is a theme in both Beowulf and the Scottish Play.

        1. Hope says:

          Interesting. I do agree it’s hard to be critical when a favor has been done. I read a Psychology trick that you should ask for a small favor such as to borrow a pen from someone who doesn’t like you. This small favor is hard to deny and ends up making the person favor you as a result of them helping you. They are more inclined to act favorably in the future. Sort of similar to salami slicing HG explains, if you ask for a small favor first there is less resistance to further favors of a bigger nature.

          Boris behaves like a complete idiot to an ignorant stranger. It’s hard for me to understand how a narcissist can accept people thinking they are stupid with how big their egos are, just to manipulate. If they need external validation so bad how can they accept so many people dismissing them as imbecile even if it achieves their intended purpose to weasel their way into a position of power? I can set my ego aside to achieve a goal, but I wouldn’t think a narc has the tolerance for that.

          1. Violetta says:

            And yet that is part of the thrill for some of them. I suspect a lot of gold-diggers not only rely on being dismissed as a Dumb Blonde With Big Boobs, knowing they are going to clean out some guy’s wallet, but get an extra kick out of fooling him. Pretty sure Amber Heard pulled this on Johnny Depp; in a recorded phone call, he admitted that he thought he loved her for years, and now recognized that he didn’t even know her.

            Read the chapter in Gone With the Wind in which Scarlett steals unappealing but prosperous Frank Kennedy away from her sister. It may be Reconstruction, and Scarlett may be financially desperate, but she’s also enjoying flexing her Scatterbrained Brunette muscles, which she hasn’t had the opportunity to use as much as she’d like since war and widowhood.

            Mind you, Scarlett is highly Narcissistic, but not a full Narcissist: she feels occasional pangs of guilt, tries to protect her son by her first husband even though she feels little affection for him, even keeps her promise to Ashley to keep Melanie safe through childbirth, although nothing would suit her better than having Ashley become a widower.

            Can you imagine how someone without even minimal conscience would act?

  16. NarcAngel says:

    HG
    Does the impeachment present to Trump as a challenge and not wounding because there is so much fuel still attached to all of the discussion about him?

    1. HG Tudor says:

      The act of impeaching wounds.
      The reportage, speeches, comments about him are either Pure Fuel or Challenge Fuel.

      1. PrincessSuperEmpath says:

        Dearest HG: I was watching Donald and listening to him at his visit to his supporters last night. He sounded incredibly wounded to me. Do you know why the Dems are playing the impeachment card, even though it is pretty much guaranteed to fail? Is it their plan, for some reason to increase the polarization in this Country, amongst other things, as some long term goal?

        1. HG Tudor says:

          They would be criticised by their supporters if they did not and there is an election on the horizon.

          1. PrincessSuperEmpath says:

            Dearest HG: Thank you so very much. You have saved me from a lot of stress. Whew! Yes, like you say, `they would be criticized by their supporters if they did not and there is an election on the horizon.` Of course. So clear. You fell the trees, of what appeared like a jungle of madness to me, in one concise sentence. Bravo. I know that you know that I know that you know that I know that you are a behavioral genius.

          2. Cold Hard Truth says:

            Is mob rule inherently narcissistic?
            Hm.

          3. Michelle Clark says:

            Dearest HG: I remembered your words today, when I asked you for a reason for the impeachment fracas against the POTUS. In like manner, when asked why so swift an attack by Iran against the U.S., a Syrian reporter/journalist today almost quoted you word for word and said that: Iran officials had to retaliate swiftly, `because their people would have criticized them, if they did not.` HG, regarding the headlines today: `NEW YORK (1010 WINS News) — Iran launched a missile attack on Iraq’s Ain Assad air base, which houses U.S. troops, early Wednesday morning. Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps took credit for the attack, which Iranian TV said was a revenge attack over the killing of Revolutionary Guard Gen. Qassem Soleimani. `

          4. HG Tudor says:

            And now you, and my readers, start to understand what really drives conflict around the world.

          5. SMH says:

            It’s a pissing contest and the rest of us have to worry about whether the narcs and men will kill us all.

          6. PrincessSuperEmpath says:

            Dearest HG: I am currently listening to Bloomberg Business News on the Radio, and they are TODAY saying that Pelosi was under great pressure from her base to pursue the impeachment of Donald Trump!

            HG, Just like you told me in December, when I asked you what was this impeachment really all about, and I asked you: `Do you know why the Dems are playing the impeachment card, even though it is pretty much guaranteed to fail?`

            And, you answered my question, saying `They would be criticized by their supporters if they did not and there is an election on the horizon.` ~~HG Tudor, December 20, 2019.

            And I thanked you saying, `Of course. So clear. You fell the trees, of what appeared like a jungle of madness to me, in one concise sentence.` etc. etc.

            Thank you for saving me from a lot of stress and confusion and worry, from December 20, 2019 until today, January 31, 2020, wondering and worrying and wanting to know what all this impeachment was really about.

            HG, you told me this on Narcsite December 20, 2019, when I was STRESSING OUT over here in NYC, and your response called me down. All the news I heard, other than what you told me, made it appear to me that the Democratic Leadership were impeaching on their own volition, only, and TODAY only did I hear what what you told me, already, last month: that the Dem`s supporters were pushing for the impeachment process all along, as well.

            Like I said to you after your explanation to me, in December: `Thank you so very much. You have saved me from a lot of stress. Whew!` ~~PSE December 20, 2019

        2. Hope7 says:

          What?! How is this even a question! It’s about integrity!! What is America without accountability?!

      2. PrincessSuperEmpath says:

        cont.) I mean are the Democrats actually being foolish and are in a NOW moment situation and they are passengers on a runaway train, so to speak, or do they have an actual sensible endgame, and if this is so, what in the world could this end game possibly be??

        1. Cold Hard Truth says:

          The dems were forced to do this nonsense cause they are slaves to stupid illiterate men who exert power over them. Not one of them have the backbone to stand up to micropenile men who blackmail their will on politicians.

          1. HG Tudor says:

            Hello again Pamela.

          2. Cold Hard Truth says:

            Hello dear. I missed you.

          3. PrincessSuperEmpath says:

            Cold Hard Truth: HG Tudor hit the nail on the head. HG Tudor is right. The Dems` constituents desire to see this: This `roasting` of Donald Trump. I overlooked this fact, because the Dems never mentioned this important fact, but I believe HG. And there is the election coming in around a year. What HG says makes all the sense in the world. I was so lost in the `noise` from the forest of this impeachment debacle, that I could not see the trees: The Dem`s constituents.

          4. Cold Hard Truth says:

            I missed HG. Not an American.

            HG is British not American. You need to realize this. I see right through the nonsense.

            Trump got shit done while being impeached for moronic reasons. He knows to look PRODUCTIVE. Not MANIPULATIVE.

            People like Hillary Clinton and her supporters are aged narcissists who play both sides for control. They are failing very hard.

        2. Hope7 says:

          PSE: What?! Are you kidding me?!! Have you no moral compass? Have you no desire for our society and government to function as designed? What the hell? Do you propose we say fuck the constitution and let the President do whatever they want? What kind of world do you want to live in? Why do you pay taxes? What do you expect from your relationship with your government? What motivates you? Are you insane?

      3. NarcAngel says:

        HG
        My first thought was wounding, but then I thought: wounding is challenge without fuel and there is plenty of fuel surrounding it. Thus my confusion. Thank you for your reply.

      4. zwartbolleke says:

        Mr Tudor,

        The wounding is because of the threat of control?
        Because there is no ignoring in the act of impeachment, to the contrary.

        1. HG Tudor says:

          The act of impeaching wounds. It wounds ignoring his position of superiority. It has no fuel.
          The discussion, reportage and allegations issued around the impeaching are Challenge Fuel.

          1. Cold Hard Truth says:

            Nope. Now it’s a badge of honor.
            It’s now behavioral proof advocating Trump’s assertion of a petty narcissistic government swamp in Washington DC. Pelosi looks and feels like a fool.

            She got played. You all got played right by your falacious opinion ego unsupported by the actual reality of the situation and appropriate evidence.

            This is the weakness of narcissists and their harems.

  17. L says:

    HG,

    Why do you predict that Trump will not be impeached due to his party controlling the Senate? I came to the same conclusion because I was thinking it would be because he has gaslighted them. Is this correct? If there is enough evidence to show that he is guilty, then I assume that the gaslighting would prevent the republicans in the Senate to see the truth, correct?

    1. HG Tudor says:

      The necessity of the preservation of power means that the evidence is addressed in such a way to preserve that power.

      1. L says:

        Oh ok. I see. Yeah, that makes sense. It all comes down to power.

        Thanks, HG!

        1. mommypino says:

          The same way that Bill Clinton’s power was preserved even though he was really guilty of lying under oath. This is how politicians behave. Romney who is the only Senator in history who voted to impeach his own party’s president have just committed political suicide. I highly doubt they will ever let him lead a committee or cooperate with any bills that he wants to get passed going forward.

    1. Hope7 says:

      Maybe he took on the character trait of Hillary in the Epstein case. Did the banker “kill himself”?? If so, what pressured him to? Scary indeed.

  18. SMH says:

    HG, Some people think that Trump has the early signs of Alzheimer’s in addition to his narcissism. Any thoughts on that?

    1. HG Tudor says:

      He has not. It is an understabale, albeit erroneous assessment as a consequence of failing to recognise his narcissism.

      1. SMH says:

        I’m really asking about co-morbidity. His father had Alzheimer’s at about the same age as Trump. I just wonder what a malignant narcissist with Alzheimer’s looks like… (rhetorical question).

  19. MommyPino says:

    Hi HG,

    This question is actually related to the Lesser articles that came out today. I’m just posting it here because you categorized Trump as an Upper Lesser.

    How was Trump able to have such a strong emotional connection with a lot of people who support him if he doesn’t have cognitive empathy? In fact, it is my perception that he is much more skilled at this than Mid Ranger Hillary. Is it because of his authenticity (as a Lesser) that people are able to feel more connected with him unlike Hillary who was often described as lacking in authenticity even by Democrats. Or does an Upper Lesser have some cognitive empathy because they have higher cognitive abilities than the lower echelon Lesser?

    1. HG Tudor says:

      It is nothing to do with cognitive empathy.

      Trump does and says whatever he wants. As I have already explained, his directness resonates with a certain section of the electorate who felt disenfranchised with the technocratic elite, or as Michael Gove (British Politician) when referring to Brexit stated “People have had enough of experts.”

      Trump is showing what he is, because he can do nothing else. That resonates with certain people. He has no masterplan caused by cognitive empathy which causes it.

      Your own ET on this matter is getting in the way. You support Trump, we get it.

      1. Cold Hard Truth says:

        I support the intelligent appropriate use of government, not petty narcissist politics. The dems are fools and may have lost the election listening to bloated delusional fools who register low on the IQ while obsessed with themselves and their male organs.

        1. HG Tudor says:

          Hello Pamela, thanks for that.

    2. SMH says:

      MP, Funny but I responded to your last comment before I saw this one. In that other response, I addressed the issue of Trump’s and Hillary’s emotional appeal. I think there might be something to it – Trump is an emotional person in the sense that he has negative emotions (anger, jealousy, hatred, resentment etc). Because he has no filters, those emotions were easily conveyed to the populace, who shared some of the emotions because they were angry themselves (and maybe jealous and full of hate, though I am not accusing you of any of this). Why is Trump such a hateful person? Partly because he was long frozen out of the elite of New York and DC high society, where Obama was suddenly welcomed. There’s lots more to it but I think that about captures the gist of it. Not sure what HG will say but it seems to me that even if Trump has no cognitive empathy, he could still emotionally connect to a certain segment of the population.

      1. AnneB says:

        The way I see this is that the Narc (Trump) causes others (normals, empaths) to attach to him/his presidency through the extraction of both positive/negative -depending on context- fuel from them. He needs no cognitive empathy to achieve this, the attachment or ‘connection’ that his supporters feel is their attachment not his. He doesn’t connect if that implies attachment because of what he is. As for the many other Ns who likely support him, they are not connected/attached, but support for entirely for their own purposes.

  20. Kate says:

    It may be “up to old New York” (thinking of a line in the Frank Sinatra song “New York, New York”..

    The State of New York has ongoing investigations into Trump’s taxes and some other things, too (I think).

    Perhaps New York will succeed in taking down a criminal!

  21. Michelle says:

    I wholeheartedly agree with your assessment of him as a narcissist, and lost a little faith in humanity when I saw the responses to your post on Facebook. Those are, in the broadest sense, my friends and neighbors, maybe family too . . . frightening. Brainwashing is real.

    So here’s the looming question I have. Should he be impeached by the House, what kind of reaction might ensue? With that degree of public narcissistic damage, what does he do next?

    1. HG Tudor says:

      He will denounce the impeachment, launch legal action, attack those who have instigated the impeachment and fight this threat to his control.

      1. Cold Hard Truth says:

        Actually no. The Senate is in control of a trial. No one takes the dems seriously.

        They’ve damaged their party and their credibility severely. May be irreparably.

  22. Bibi says:

    Trump is not an attractive man. Even if you squint.

    1. HG Tudor says:

      I was squinting when I read your comment Bibi and your last word read as something else. I opened my eyes fully thereafter.

      1. Bibi says:

        Haha HG.

    2. AnneB says:

      Bibi, yes, even if you put a paper bag over your head.

      1. NarcAngel says:

        AnneB
        Your empath is showing. The paper bag should be on his head lol.

        1. AnneB says:

          Narc Angel, I meant the general ‘your’, following on from Bibi’s comment about Trump being an eye sore even when one is squinting .I would put a paper bag over my own head if it ever became necessary, rather than look at him.;-] (and realised after submitting comment that I’m in an old comment section!)

  23. NarcAngel says:

    HG

    The way that you explain what we are witnessing in news and social media, followed by your breakdown of the corresponding behaviours as relating to narcissism, allows almost everyone a general understanding of what is happening in that arena. It also creates interest and may encourage some to participate in political discussion that they might not otherwise attempt. I really enjoyed this piece.

    1. HG Tudor says:

      Thank you NA.

  24. lisa says:

    Hi HG, with a very obvious Narc as president and now Boris (the rules don’t apply to him ) Johnson. Documentaries on R Kelly and Harvey Weinstein and that other guy that ran the Fox Network I can’t think of his name despite recently watching it ? Do you think anyone out there is seeing or thinking These people are Narcissists and making a link to the behaviour ? I never hear the word used ? In your opion is that good or bad ? My thoughts are it’s frustrating that this isn’t being outed , but then again it might make it more confusing if people think narcissists are all ambitious , famous , successful people and then less likely to spot the everyday narcissist that is non of those things , like the idiot I had a relationship with…. What do you think ?

    1. HG Tudor says:

      Hello Lisa, it is hardly ever pointed out as I repeatedly highlight. It is incumbent on readers to ensure this alters.

      1. Better Call HG says:

        Lisa, people associate narcissism with vanity and do not understand that it’s a self-defense mechanism designed to create control. I never understood that until reading HG’s works, which is why we need to spread the word.

        HG, shall you fly the flags that say, “HG expects that every appliance will do their duty.”

        1. HG Tudor says:

          I already have been and no they’re not red!!

          1. Better Call HG says:

            Well said, HG!

  25. Nina says:

    Regarding world leaders, can we assume that Justin Trudeau is NOT a Narcissist?

    The narc I’m currently engaging with absolutely detests Trudeau, and it’s quite interesting how he is able to contain his disdain when I compare and contrast Trudeau and Trump.

    1. PrincessSuperEmpath says:

      The only story that I hear repeated about Trudeau is that he wore blackface a few times when he was younger. His country is normal. They just keep their head down and pretty much allow the U.S. to do the work and make the money and call the shots. The story about the blackface was practically on repeat, but I do not know why. Who benefits from the blackface story? Otherwise, I never hear about most of these leaders on the news in NYC. Why does your acquaintance detest Trudeau. It surely is not because of his hair. Trudeau does come from privilege. But that is nothing new. I am curious to know the reason that the 2 are being compared or contrasted.

  26. ANM says:

    Trump is disgusting, Biden is disgusting. We don’t need them as our President.

    1. mommypino says:

      Hi Anm, I believe that they are both Narcissists. I also believe that both Hunter and Donald Trump Jr. are narcissists. But I’m almost pretty sure that Eric Trump is an empath. I am unsure with Ivanka. I have always admired her although I have only seen one season of The Apprentice and got tired of the negativity from the show, I thought that she was nice and polite with the way she interacted with the contestants. Sometimes I think she might be a narcissist, sometimes a Super Empath. Just my personal opinion. Biden’s son that passed away was an Empath and there was a gossip where Hunter dated or is dating his widowed sister in law. Joe Biden is totally ok with it. Hunter’s ex wife have accused him of infidelity and that Hunter have been really stingy with financial support towards her and their kids. Hunter’s lawyer responded to her allegations saying that she should provide documents regarding all of the men that she slept with aside from Hunter.

    2. mommypino says:

      Anm, I looked it up, Hunter Biden is not dating his widowed sister in law anymore. In 2017, he filed for divorce against his ex wife because of his affair with his widowed sister in law but in May this year they had broken up and then mid-May he had a secret wedding with a beautiful blonde Melissa Cohen. Only narcs can be on marriage mode that within days or a week after a split!

  27. Nina says:

    Excellent article, you always manage to summarize so succinctly.

    Also wow, re comments on your FB post. It’s hilarious how some are “accusing” you of being a narcissist.

    I can’t comprehend how anyone can still defend Trump. I have several close friends who still support him and they are of a higher cognitive function. Why do you suppose they are still supportive despite the mounting evidence?

    1. HG Tudor says:

      Mounting evidence of what? Narcissism or something else, Nina?

      1. nfl3 says:

        Not just his narcissism, HG. Yet some even deny that. And as you stated most POTUS were narcissistic. There is a daily debacle from the White House, a new scandal, most of the free press dislike him and CNN has become a 24 hour source of Trump bashing, yet his base continue to be supportive. How is he able to achieve this?

        He doesn’t seem particularly intelligent yet he’s one of the most powerful men in the world. Is his narcissism the driving force behind his “success”?

        1. HG Tudor says:

          In a word, yes.

        2. PrincessSuperEmpath says:

          Dearest HG: I find Donald Trump to be intelligent. There are many forms and variations and complexities of intelligence, I have encountered. I find that he has high practical intelligence. Not so much theoretically inclined intelligence. Practical as defined as: He acts insteads of mostly theorizing and philosophizing. And he can turn action on, on all fronts. When it is practical for him to do so. From screaming to begging to threatening. Whatever would be practical. And it works better than most sophisticated persons think, because the majority of people are not sophisticated. This is one of the reasons that sophisticated people do not understand him and his influence. They are out of touch with the practical, when the practical is not performed in a sophisticated manner. And they are nonplussed when the action happens quickly instead of happening after first being analyzed to death and often too late. He is the secret man of practical action that has been beaten down inside of most people that do not have much power. That is why so many people went into those booths and secretly and furtively voted for him. They quietly took action.

          1. Lorelei says:

            Interesting view Princess regarding Trump having a variation of intelligence. I frankly always think of him as a moron but this comment certainly reflects how there are many forms of intelligence. Practical–it makes more sense that he relates to a certain majority. They see him as a take charge sort and wouldn’t have any embarrassment taking him to dinner. You or I would probably be rolling our eyes and HG would simply be amused taking him out for golf! He appeals to and appears a different way to different people. I much prefer Obama’s polish–but that is off-putting to some.

          2. Lorelei: These politicians are often some level of charismatic. They are fun to hang out with. They are known for wearing many hats and speaking with many accents. Whatever their team tells them. However, many are very intuitive and know how to behave with people of all walks of life when it benefits them, without being prepped first. So, invite them over for golf or whatever. I am sure a fun time would be had. Just hide your checkbooks and all of your personal secrets from all of them.

          3. Hope7 says:

            Wow. So lacking in logic. He doesn’t listen to intelligence briefings or his military or cabinet counsel. He listens to his own narcissism as to what actions to take. You trust this upper lesser’s self-serving narcissism with your life and country? I suppose you’ve also bought into a pyramid scheme or two? LOL 😂

  28. Julie Holloway says:

    Hi HG,

    If we finally vote this jackass out of office, how big of a fight are we looking at? I’ve spoken with people who whole-heartedly believe he would refuse to leave the White House or participate in any peaceful exchange of power. Thoughts?

    1. HG Tudor says:

      He would denounce the outcome, claim there has been vote-rigging and launch legal action alongside a Twitter frenzy.

      1. Julie Holloway says:

        This is all so interesting. The differences in schools of narcissism, and the behaviors that accompany them, really do determine whether a leader is deemed “presidential” by the people he/she leads. It’s especially fascinating to see how Trump’s lack of facade both appeals to and repulses many, depending on perception of how a leader should conduct him/herself and his/her business. I’m so very curious as to what this next election has in store for our country. There is a palpable anxiety among many…it’s going to be ugly. But hey, what’s new?

        1. HG Tudor says:

          Yes, his lack of facade is a strength (no spin, he calls it as it is, he is to the point) and a weakness (volatile, not statesmanlike, diminishes the high office he holds).

      2. santaann1964 says:

        Of course he will, if he loses but he won’t! He is a winner and will always be! It’s in his vortex…….

      3. SMH says:

        HG, Do you think there is any chance of Trump resigning a la Nixon to save face? Maybe to start his own media empire for the ‘true’ facts and ‘real’ news? Or is he too scared that he will be indicted if he resigns? I must say I am enjoying watching him fall all over himself.

        Oh and did you read the George Conway article in The Atlantic Monthly? I mentioned it to you on another post but you might not have noticed. I think it is a must read for you.

        For the rest of you, New Yorkers hate him and always have. If his own home town won’t vote for him, don’t you think there is a reason?

        1. HG Tudor says:

          I would be very surprised if Trump resigned. He is a pugilist, an Upper Lesser and therefore he will fight rather than slink away.

          I have not had chance to read your recommendation yet, but thank you for doing so.

          1. alexissmith2016 says:

            Is it only mids who slink HG?

          2. HG Tudor says:

            Yes. I float.

          3. alexissmith2016 says:

            Ah like Jesus? Or better than that…

          4. SMH says:

            Pugilist! Yes, clearly. Won’t go down without a tko.

            I only mentioned the Conway piece to you because Conway (who is Kellyanne Conway’s husband and a constitutional lawyer) analyzes Trump’s psychopathy/narcissism in the piece so I thought it would be right up your alley.

          5. HG Tudor says:

            Thank you SMH.

        2. MommyPino says:

          Please don’t be so patronizing to Trump supporters. Of course we are aware that New York doesn’t like him. But New York doesn’t represent the whole country. Where I live for example doesn’t come close with your lifestyle in New York. We don’t fully rely on cops like New Yorkers do. We live in the country where cops responding and reaching our house will take a while so we have our guns to protect us. And guess what, we don’t even lock our doors because intruders are afraid because we have guns. We don’t have traffic. People are nice and polite to each other. My husband comes home to have lunch with me on his lunch breaks. We are totally different from New York. And majority of the country is unlike New York. And we vote for the person that we think will benefit our interest, not New York’s interest.
          Regarding your question about ET, don’t you think that the people who support Obama and Hillary over Trump has the same amount of ET as Trump supporters do? If you can’t recognize that then you are ensnared as well (by different narcs) and has ET as well. Trump voters are actually very logical because a lot of us actually do not like him as a person but voted for him based on his policies. I feel that ‘ET’ has now become a convenient way to minimize and invalidate someone else’s views and perspectives that do not align with us.

          1. HG Tudor says:

            You are wrong about ET. Understanding ET is not a convenient way to minimise and invalidate someone else’s views. ET is a problem across many, many areas.

          2. MommyPino says:

            HG, Understanding our own ET is important to get weaponized against narcissists. But there is also this thing when someone has a different perspective and those perspectives are conveniently categorized as ET to invalidate them and assert superiority against their perspectives instead of having a sincere willingness to hear the other side and acknowledge that there are actually legitimate reasons for such perspective even though it doesn’t align with ours. In the second scenario, we fail to recognize our own ET but are very focused on the other person’s ET because we disagree with them.

          3. HG Tudor says:

            Define “legitimate”. You fall into the trap once again. What you think is legitimate to YOU, is not legitimate to someone else. As stated to Pati, your worldview is not the sole worldview. There are others. You will regard the as wrong, but it is only wrong from your perspective.

          4. MommyPino says:

            HG I understand that, those reasons (Trump’s policies vs Hillary’s) are legitimate ‘to the people who voted for Trump’. I understand that they are not legitimate to people who do not want Trump as president owing to the difference in perspectives. But the reason for my reaction here is because there is a narrative that a lot of Democrats have perpetuated and still do that Trump supporters are stupid, ignorant, racist, uneducated etc. Hence Hillary have called us a basket of deplorables. I don’t wish to upset either of you or SMH and I am just defending the Trump ‘cheerleaders’ because just because they voted for Trump, doesn’t mean that they didn’t use their heads and are unaware of what is going on. They just happened to have a different perspective. Hillary Clinton is a narcissist and I have read so many things about her and even her dismissive and reflective “What difference does it make?” comment during the Benghazi investigation, the way she dismissed Bill Clinton’s rape victim and sexual assault victims and shamed them for being unattractive and poor and the way she defended a child rapist and proudly chuckled about it because she won the case makes me think that Trump is absolutely better than her. Now people who do not like Trump will look the other way and not want to know about all of these ‘inconvenient facts’ about Hillary because they have high ET as well. And I don’t mean that to attack anyone but just to point out a double standard.

          5. HG Tudor says:

            The mud gets thrown in both directions, you know that.

          6. NarcAngel says:

            Most politicians are narcs so I don’t know why people get so invested. It’s like choosing between Dumb or Dumber for your date to prom. It’s gonna be ugly either way and life goes on.

          7. MommyPino says:

            I recognize that HG. You are right. But it is frustrating.

          8. SMH says:

            MP, As I said already, I am not a cheerleader for Hillary and nor was I for Obama, especially during his 2nd term. By ET I mean not looking at the facts and then basing your assessment of Trump on logic. You have all the tools you need right here!

            We all live on this planet, whether we are New Yorkers or not. My point about that was what other hometown can you name where the populace did not vote for ‘one of their own’ during a presidential election? And what do you mean by relying on the cops? For what? NYC is a very safe place if you look at the facts. Its crime rate is lower than even the national average, which would include rural areas too. But again, I didn’t chime in to get into a political discussion so that is all from me! Hugs!

          9. MommyPino says:

            “By ET I mean not looking at the facts and then basing your assessment of Trump on logic. You have all the tools you need right here!”

            SMH, you have completely missed my point. And I think that HG missed it as well. What I was trying to say is that what is logical to your perspective is not logical to the people who voted for Trump. Just because someone thinks differently than you, doesn’t mean you can throw the ‘they just have ET’ dismissive claim against them. HG talks about the difference in perspectives and even corrects me that what may be legitimate to me may not be legitimate to others. I am pointing out that it should apply both ways. I have never called you a Hillary cheerleader. I have never referred to anyone who do not like Trump as someone else’s cheerleader as best as I can recall. I do understand that there is validity to everyone’s opinions and I respect that and that’s why I respect the results of elections and the choices that people made. Thank you for responding SMH. I’m just glad that I didn’t get you upset.

          10. SMH says:

            MP, Why would I be upset? I don’t believe in opinions, however. I believe in facts.

          11. SMH says:

            MP, I know I said I was done. Haha. But I just wanted to add that I do not have Trump Derangement Syndrome. I am not foaming at the mouth and was not freaked out when Trump was elected. I have lived in rural America (many years, in fact). I find Republicans overall to be more of a problem than Trump per se, and Mitch McConnell heads that list.

            But I do look at what Trump says and does (or tries to do) – tax cuts for billionaires, rising deficit, increasing inequality, removal of environmental protections, incitement to violence, profiting personally off of the presidency, lack of empathy, vendetta against Obama, pussy grabber, etc – need I go on? I base my opinions on that, helped immensely by HG’s brilliant work here. For all I know, HG LOVES Trump, though I doubt it as he has no respect for Upper Lessers :).

          12. MommyPino says:

            HG, I want to clarify that I believe that understanding and mastering to control our ET is extremely important. I am not against what you are teaching us. It is a genius way to help empaths separate decisions that are based on emotions and addictions to the narcissist from the logical and wise decisions that will set us free. I was commenting on what’s i have seen done by some commenters where they just dismiss someone else’s perspective as coming from ET while claim to have the logical (and therefore good or superior) perspective. I have seen it in the Bare Necessities thread and I see it here as well. All that I am saying is that, when someone is too emotional that they cannot even see any validity in the other person’s perspective then that person himself/herself has very high ET as well. That is what I was criticizing. I was not criticizing the concept of ET. The concept of ET is amazingly helpful to us and that is probably why a lot of your readers make the most recovery and improvement from their addiction and ensnarement.

            And SMH, I just want to make it clear I like you a lot as a commenter and a person, I just disagree with what you said. 💕

  29. santaann1964 says:

    You are correct he sees the American people as one in him. He holds the most powerful position. Although there are many narcissist in power, he will always have competition but not from the ones who are running against him ! He will serve his term , blow up all the swamp people and they go back to his life!

  30. santaann1964 says:

    Bravo! Excellent article. Donald J Trump will be the President of the USA for the term as well. He’s doing a good job and knows how to keep his base. And it’s growing!!!! Powerful….

    1. mommypino says:

      High fives sister!! I’m actually glad that Trump is a narcissist because it enabled him to survive the hostility that Republicans usually get from the press who tend to be very staunch liberals and also from the Mid Ranger Democrats (I’m not saying that all Democrats are Mid Rangers but from my experience MR seem to join the Democratic ‘I’m such a good and smart person and Republicans are stupid and bad’ bandwagon lol. My MRE sister did that although she didn’t bother to drive to the local precinct and vote for Hillary.

  31. PrincessSuperEmpath says:

    Dearest HG: I never understood if The Donald were an insider or not. I do not understand all the political animosity regarding him. He hung out with these politicians all his life. Is he not posh enough or something? Did he at some point mistakenly `wear brown shoes to town,` so to speak? I just do not get where the hostile political vitriol against him is coming from, if it were real. It all seems to have a life of its own, and it seems to have nothing to do with the American people, at all. However, most politicians are not in touch with the American people, anyway, despite their well written and well proofread and well focus-grouped-to-death homely political platforms So, that is not saying much And many politicians are Narcissists and Narcissistic, and that fact is not new, so what is the problem? When Narcs collide? If so, which ones are colliding. And so hard. It is all so very curious. And unwise. When Political Narcs Collide, is my best guess. What a smashup.

    1. Hope7 says:

      Wow. Have you watched only national Fox News? Even if you did—you would still be aware as they are constantly defending him against the latest scandal. It’s been nonstop!? Where have you been?? How can you not know?

    2. Violetta says:

      PSE: he is New Money Trash, so the Old (and less) Money Trash resent him.

      You’re in NYC, so you know all about the charity circuit. Cancer is top status, arts foundations somewhat lower. They needed his money, so they couldn’t tell him to bugger off.

      If you read WWD, you know these people give each other subtle disses with place settings or fundraiser themes. Dominick Dunne’s books from decades ago are still relevant, although the players and the unwritten codes have changed. Actually, Edith Wharton’s are still relevant.

      Of course Trump is a narcissist, but that’s not why they can’t stand him.

  32. seballerina says:

    While I’ve no doubt he is a narc, President Trump is also the highest law of the land currently, and it is his job to expose criminals who have acted against the American people and abused their power. Only a narc could survive the 24/7 attacks–it is fuel to him, right? I can tell you intuitively that he was not worried about Biden winning the 2020 election–none of us were worried about that. The Dems don’t have a candidate who can beat Trump, and the Republicans aren’t even trying. I think at this point, he just stirs them up on purpose. They are all such easy targets.

    They are upset that he is exposing them. It is much, much worse than most people know. Much worse than their fleecing taxpayers for their own benefit. They HAVE to stop Trump. But they won’t. It will all be known. What remains to be seen is what people will do with it once it is known.

  33. BonnieLou says:

    HG Did you see Rosie Duffield’s speech in Parliament today? (If not, it’s on Youtube) What are your thoughts?

    1. HG Tudor says:

      No, but I know what she spoke about. What are your thoughts about it BonnieLou?

      1. BonnieLou says:

        It’s on YouTube. Brave lady! Shows there Is definitely a pattern…but a lot of people who don’t understand or have not been through it (or are controlling in their own personalities!) are criticising her for “airing her dirty laundry in public”. I hope she finds support from her Chamber friends and heals quickly from her ordeal

  34. Joy Ascending says:

    Excellent article, BTW, thank you HG. best analysis I have read about Trump, based on actual observation and fact.

    1. HG Tudor says:

      You’re welcome

  35. Joy Ascending says:

    Regarding the comments about Trump winning the election, I must point out the obvious: Hillary Clinton. Her nomination sent many screaming into the wilderness. Perhaps HG can do an analysis on her as well. I believe she is also a narcissist.

    1. HG Tudor says:

      I have already confirmed that she is.

      1. PrincessSuperEmpath says:

        Dearest HG. Regarding the Donald and The Wall: I have no idea what is currently being written or rewritten in the history, but Donald Trump never expected to win the Presidency. So there was to be no wall built. He said a lot of things, including the wall, not expecting to win. Running for U.S. president was just to be another notch in his CV. Even at the last moment, he did not expect to win. His own people told him he would probably not win. HG, I had insomnia the night of the election. My next door neighbor was going to the Javits center near to where I live in NYC for the Hillary Camp. I saw her dressed up and I was surprised and I told her to not go. I told her she was not an insider, and that she would be standing and would be squashed and sweaty with throngs of people acting weird and uncomfortable, and that she was just filler. And, to not be used like that She still went. she had a glow in her eyes. She looked so happy. Anyway, The Donald and his family were still at Trump Tower. The election ended very very late in the wee hours and the news anchors refused to believe the results. Some channels said he won, and some would not say so. It was so weird to watch the anchors. That Donald had won. They were practically hysterical, getting updates on their news wires. Some anchors were saying that some States would have to do a recount. Taking weeks to obtain the result of the election. I thought to myself, No! This is been building up for years! End it! It was so late in the early morning. Incredibly confusing. I am a Major League Baseball Enthusiast and I was posting with some of them late as we watched the debacle, and me and this other person posted until 5 or so in the morning over what we were witnessing. Some people were saying that the world was watching the example set by the U.S. and that the results had to be respected quickly as an example of Democracy working well. And that the U.S. was looking bad and Hillary had to concede in good form, which she was refusing to do. It went on and on and on. Then, just like in the movies where a Red Phone rings and the power person speaks, the madness was put to an end. BOOM! No more talk about recounts, no more talk about Hillary refusing to say anything. HIllary was forced to announce defeat. News Anchors had to stiffen up and take it, and the madness was shut down, and Donald won. It was almost dawn. Hillary still refused to go to the Javits center. She refused to even call those people and dignify them in any manner. At some point one of her men, I think it was Podesta, gave her camp at the Javitz center a phone call. The Donald was still at Trump Tower. He had to be rushed over to the Waldorf Astoria, if I recall the location correctly, to give his acceptance speech. He and his family were flustered as they went with security coverage over to the space, not far away. They did not expect to win. A fair showing would have sufficed. He had only rented a tiny space just in case. In Case happened. He was shocked and Hillary was shocked and the Media was shocked and The American people were shocked, mostly the following morning. I Remember. I didn’t sleep that night. My neighbor told me a couple of days later that I was right and she should not have gone to the Javits Center. I was embarrased to see her knowing that she had been disrespected like that at the Javitz Center. That people were crying and almost passing out that not only did Hillary lose, but she would not even come over or call over to the reception at the Javitz center. Many were all so confused and embarrassed is an understatement. Many Americans went to sleep and only found out the next day that Donald had won. It was a shock. Especially the political prognosticators. They missed the boat. The people that were glad, held it in a bit. This is my first hand account. I remember. Living memory. I stayed up with the drama. All Night Long.

        1. mommypino says:

          I remember that night PSE. I didn’t expect Trump to win either. Hillary was winning all of the surveys. I remember some people in the media made fun of Barron Trump’s sleepy expression. A lot of people in the media were so upset at the results and were finding scapegoats to be mean at. I remember the hatred against blue collar workers who switched and voted for him instead of the Democrats even though they used to vote for Democrats for so many years. They blamed so many groups and citing reasons why somebody would vote for Trump and I remember thinking, they just really don’t get it. That’s why they lost.

          1. MommyPino: And at first they blamed themselves for losing, which was probably accurate in some ways, in that they surely could have campaigned better. But then they blame shifted and blamed Trump for their loss. Brilliant. lol. It seems to be a tactic that his political opponents have solidified on. with accusation after accusation over this or over that. I have no idea if the blame shifting is working on the American people, because the media were upset with Trump as well, because he destroyed their predictions and they were mocked and scorned for being wrong, when they said he could not win. So he could be in trouble in that he embarrassed a lot of his cronies and the pundits and the media etc, by actually winning. More so than by any of his policies. So many promises were made before the election by the incumbents to their supporters and donors. So many positions dangled to the aspiring political climbers. So many people in line for positions for their professional future, whispered promises, backroom deals and then….. They were defeated. Oh no! Trump won. Many people at those high levels and their embarrassed and dismayed minions had to unexpectedly pack up and get out of Dodge. For at least 4 years. Oooops! Beware of the scorned??? Hell has no fury like the scorned??? So, I have no idea how the voting people are feeling behind closed doors about the Donald. The media controls the narrative still. If I were to guess, I would say that those that liked him, still do, even if secretly, and those that did not like him, dislike him even more so now. And, there is power in hate. I guess we all will have to stay tuned. I have no intuition, nor gut feeling about how it all will play out. I will say, beware of the scorned.

          2. mommypino says:

            I agree PSE. I don’t know what will happen. I am afraid to make a guess. My best guess last election was completely wrong and even though I voted for him, I was very shocked as well and had a hard time believing that it was really happening. Almost everyone that I knew voted for Trump but I still believed that Hillary would win because that’s what I heard on the news all the time. This time I just don’t even want to look at any polls. Whatever will be will be lol.

  36. Just Me says:

    The Dems don’t have a candidate who can beat Trump… they are throwing Joe under the bus (where he belongs) and will try to run another clone of Hillary or possibly Michelle (waiting to see if she starts a book tour too.) Ginsberg will pass and this is about control… control of the Supreme Court. Just my $.02. They are all narcs and this is a show… both a tragedy and a comedy.

  37. Florencia says:

    We’ve had our share of narc presidents here in Argentina. Cristina Fernández de Kirchner is as narc as it gets. You probably don’t give a sh*t as nobody knows or cares about this psyquiatric country, but still…she’s a “fun” subject to analize. She has like 20 trials going on for being a corrupt politician, she’s thrown her own children under the bus in orden to be able to steal from the taxpayers, she would talk for hours and hours live on tv every single day, and the list goes on and on and on.

    1. HG Tudor says:

      Most world leaders belong to our club. Thank you for the suggestion

  38. Chihuahuamum says:

    Great article! Im really enjoying the new material on the blog! Great work HG! :)

    1. HG Tudor says:

      Thank you.

    2. MB says:

      Me too Chimum! I especially like it when it’s a surprise.

  39. Bibi says:

    Excellent analysis, as usual. You do a great job of tailoring this to fit the General Reader, who we hope won’t be a member of the Hard of Understanding.

    Trump is amazing to watch as a study in narcissism. ‘Don’t be rude!’ The reporter was just trying to ask a question and he kept speaking over the Finnish President. I was agog.

    I will say that Trump’s outright haughtiness will cause certain Mid Rangers to not believe they are narcissists. ‘I don’t behave that badly!’ They will use his behaviour as a means to justify themselves as ‘good people’.

    I know that my Mid Range Experience thought Trump was a ‘horrible man’ yet he could not see his own actions as callous and hypocritical.

    1. HG Tudor says:

      Good points

    2. SMH says:

      Bibi, I had to laugh because the last straw between me and MRN was when I teased him that he just wanted attention and sent him a gif of Trump in a baby bonnet. It is exactly as you say, MRN hated Trump and didn’t think he was anything like him, even then they are quite the same underneath it all. Obviously I wounded him by laughing at him but I think using Trump as a vehicle to tease him was what really sent him over the edge.

  40. lisk says:

    Classic Narcs vs. Narcs.

    Nothing new under the sun.

  41. arcola6035 says:

    HG sorry but I have one more question. You days Barack Obama is also a narcissist. I really didn’t think that because of all his displays of empathy during his terms in office. What kind of narcissist is he?

    1. HG Tudor says:

      Wait and see

      1. Joanne says:

        I would love to see a narc analysis on Barack Obama. IMO Trump is a completely overt and obvious narc whereas BO is such an expert at facade management – never a crack – projecting that “regular good guy” image. Please add him to your list!

  42. arcola6035 says:

    I’m so glad you wrote this post. I’ve hated him with an intensity I’ve never felt towards anyone. Probably because he reminds me of my narc. Who was a big supporter of his. It definitely caused problems for us. Anyway I still have so many questions. What kind of narc is he? How can you explain Pompeo and bar doing all his dirty work? Are they lieutenants? I also honestly would like to know what life must be like for his wife right now. Considering the paranoia that nurses just feel I’d like to know what happens that paranoia when people really are after him?

  43. Bibi says:

    Also, the shitstorm of FB comments are amusing. I’m unfollowing! You sound narcissistic yourself! LOLZ!

    1. HG Tudor says:

      There are a number of Hard of Understandings on FB. They appeared the last time a POTUS article was published.

      1. kaydiva3 says:

        I noticed that too, ROFL to the FB comments!! Several people commented that this site is supposed to focus on “healing”, and you ruined it by dragging politics into it and showing your true agenda which is apparently hatred of America (their words not mine). If they had actually explored this site they would know that 1) you have never claimed to heal, and 2) you hate everyone equally :)

        1. HG Tudor says:

          Yes, The Hard of Understandings came out with the last POTUS article. Funny hot they don’t complain when it’s Pistorius, Watts, Spacey etc – I even explain it’s about narcissism not politics in the article and they get it wrong.

          1. Joanne says:

            The Hard of Understandings make me want to delete the internet.

          2. HG Tudor says:

            Ha ha

          3. santaann1964 says:

            You certainly did explain Mr.H and you explained clearly. It’s not about politics it’s about narcissists at their best. Unfortunately this is a very touchy subject! You had to do it sooner or later. I applaud you

        2. HG Tudor says:

          Also I am a big fan of the US and it’s citizens, in there several times a year

          1. MB says:

            Merica!

        3. PrincessSuperEmpath says:

          KayDiva3. Wow. I do not see any indication of HG having a particular hatred of America. In fact, I appreciate tremendously the time and work and thought he has taken to analyze both the incoming and now duly elected POTUS. And HG has been elegantly even-handed in his treatment of the matter, and I find HG`s overall masterful analytical assessment, and of course with the main focus being Narcissism, very wise, and thought provoking, and amazingly accurate regarding this entire Presidency. And, I live in the United States.

      2. Yolo says:

        Wow, did they. Although, I was lead by my emotional thinking when commenting on the first Potus blog. I am happy to say I learned so much from it. So as I watch him deflecting, denying, lying and rewriting history is funny but sad. The white house released parts of the call record and he said its beautiful. I understand him thanks to you HG. But, I don’t understand how others can read the document and know that it’s an illegal act and call it a hoax. At 60% of his campaign staff received convictions and several are in prison are waiting to go to prison. Sadly, most people are turning their heads and hiding behind Religion. A narcissist doesn’t discriminate in the same way as others. HG you were so right about the Wall being an extension of him. He doesn’t care about immigration, abortion, guns , or any of those issues he ran on. He has thrown people under the bus so fast to maintain control and power. All but one person, I think that person may be holding the percieved kryptonite in his hands.

        1. HG Tudor says:

          I know my kind. That is what I write about. Thank you YOLO

  44. Bibi says:

    Looking forward to reading this! HG, yesterday I saw Trump erupt on the news twice. They were even calling him a ‘crazy man’. I kept thinking of you. OMG it is an HG article playing out in real time!

    1. HG Tudor says:

      Thank you.

  45. Cindy says:

    The day after election day 2016, I woke up and got the shock of my life. I sobbed for 20 minutes, unable to comprehend what had just occurred. My America will be lead by a dangerous narcissist. As students of Mr. Tudor, all of us could pretty much tell you exactly what will happen in the next four years (1 term for US pres.). I immediately joined an impeachment campaign and hoped for the best.
    What surprises me most about these last 3 years is the fact that the terms ‘mentally ill’ or ‘narcissist’ are rarely used when reporting on the latest news regarding our POTUS. I long to hear our Speaker of the House tell the American people that we are dealing with someone who can not, will not, be dealt with. Someone who will only get more dangerous as we try to put a leash on this maniacal ape.
    When mental illness, or highly incurable mental disorders are involved with regard to the executive branch of our government, then it is the responsibility of our judiciary and legal leaders to have this person fully evaluated and removed from office as mentally incompetent. Wait…what am I saying? Our Secretary of State, Vice President, and the Chairman of the Justice Department are protecting and working with this mentally deranged individual. Our only hope is Speaker Nancy Pelosi (#3 in charge). However, we are depending on someone who doesn’t even mention the term we long to hear; Narcissistic Personality Disorder.
    We are frightened not only for our country, but the rest of the world. Please forgive us.

    1. arcola6035 says:

      I believe he would even start a war to distract. I know I’ll be doing all I can not to have him reelected. One thing I did was join the resistance on Twitter. It may not help much but it’s nice to be with like minded people that really have good ideas on what more I can do to help. Without a doubt he cannot have another 4 yes. We won’t have a country left.

    2. Caron says:

      Some people like to wax dramatic. Every president has been a narc. Obama is a narc skilled at NLP. Pelosi is a narc. Most of them are. But this one is the one you fear? I’ll bet you believe AOC when she says the world is going to end in 12 years, too. Or Greta, their latest pawn.

      You cried for 20 minutes for a man who saved you from the scorched earth Clinton had planned for us.

      Please develop some common sense.

      1. Cindy says:

        Yes, I believe in climate change. Yes, I cried for 20 minutes because I knew that trump would only make racism, sexism, and the very air we breathe much, much worse.
        If being a narcissist is a prerequisite to hold the office of president; fine. Just make sure they actually have a brain.

        1. santaann1964 says:

          The USA is not divided by race or racist! It’s division stems from politics, not anything else. DJT is a force of power! As you can see he has the ears and eyes of the whole nation! Everyone in power or wealth that is in this hatred mode now once adored him. Hmmmmm, we shall see what comes from this Political arena.

        2. SMH says:

          Cindy, I’m with you. Trump cheerleaders are few and far between on here, but they exist. I guess their ET is very high and they have become ensnared? How that can be the case after reading HG’s work on Trump and seeing Trump in action is beyond me, but maybe HG can explain it.

          1. HG Tudor says:

            Hello SMH, their high ET means they read what I explain but they are unable to apply it. Not because they are stupid, but because the ET blocks the application of the knowledge. It is digested but it fails to be applied so it has a meaningful impact. That is why ET must be drained as part of a no contact regime. There is also the effect that much of what Trump is and does appeals to a section of the electorate, they also recognise he has some faults (they do not recognise the narcissism) but they evaluate it this way

            1. Sure he has some faults, but who does not? There is more about him which appeals than does not, so I support him. You never find perfection. (Now think about how often that is applied to similar thinking in a relationship with a narcissist).
            2. Sure he has some faults but he is better than the other option (Crooked Hillary at the time). (Now apply that to a similar thinking in a relationship, “something is better than nothing”, “it is better than being alone”, “I am too old to find out who else is out there” etc)

          2. mommypino says:

            HG, in this instance, SMH opened the discussion on Trump supporters having high ET as if it is the only reason why we support him and as if Trump-badgers here do not have ET. Cindy said she cried for 20 minutes because we are being led by a narcissist. Both of them high on ET and failing to recognize that the other option (Hillary) is a narc as well and has policies that majority of the electoral college do not want. And yet SMH was focused on Trump supporters’ ET failing to see Cindy’s high ET. This is what I am saying when somebody points a finger conveniently on the other person that they disagree with for having high ET while failing to see that they have it too. As if the only logical perspective is theirs.

          3. SMH says:

            MP, I never said I was a Hillary supporter. I’m a democratic socialist, not a neocon. But in any case, leaping on this and including some whataboutery to boot shows some very high ET, IMHO. But I am not here to argue politics. I am here to learn about narcissism.

          4. HG Tudor says:

            Bravo.

          5. SMH says:

            Ta!

          6. MommyPino says:

            SMH, I never said that you are a Hillary Cheerleader. I was pointing out your double standards by not recognizing Cindy’s ET which you said you are in agreement with what she said while pointing out he high ET on the people that you named as ‘Trump cheerleaders’. You’re the first one who took it personal against people that support us which shows your high ET. It isn’t whataboutery as you called it, it is expressing my perspective which you completely dismissed. I’m also here to learn about narcissism and not to assert my political opinions as better than others. A lot of the environmental controls that Obama has implemented bankrupted a lot of farmers here because of being extreme and unreasonable. Yours is not the only valid perspective SMH and your generalization of Republicans is also evident of your high ET. And your view that an upper echelon narcissist is better than a Lesser is also high ET. They are all narcissists. Bill Clinton is a Greater but if you listen to Juanita Broderick’s account of him raping her, biting her upper lip and have it bleed as he was raping her, and he raped her twice on that bed, and then he got up and fixed himself as she was crying and told her to put ice on her lip, do you really think that Bill Clinton is a better person than Trump? A lot of Trump voters actually couldn’t stand him as a person. I know some church members crying about having to vote for him. But we made a logical decision to vote for him because his policies were better than Hillary’s. Anyway, I didn’t come here to argue about politics either. Your perspective of good policies are different from mine and we can leave it at that. But your judgment of Trump supporters is ill founded and full of emotional thinking as well.

          7. SMH says:

            MP,

            “Both of them high on ET and failing to recognize that the other option (Hillary) is a narc as well and has policies that the majority of the electoral college do not want.” – I believe I was part of that “both” (and will also add that Hillary won the popular vote, lest we forget). I asked an honest question – how can anyone on a site about narcissism with a master narcissist who has written extensively about the kind of narcissist that Trump is continue to support him? HG laid out very clearly why that is the case (though a majority of Republicans at least support an impeachment inquiry now). Let’s remember that even a pro-social do-gooder can be a narc. It is not that Trump is a narc. As many here have pointed out, most of them are. It is the kind of narc that Trump is.

            The comment about Lessers and Greaters was a joke about HG and his attitude towards Lessers! And bankrupting farmers? Don’t get me started. You reap what you sow. Bye bye soybeans, bye bye pigs, bye bye farm.

            My opinions of Republicans come from observations of many behaviors, values, legislation and hypocrisy that are the antithesis of the ‘freedoms’ that Americans hold so dear as well as clear violations of the Constitution (e.g. America is a ‘Christian’ country my ass; let’s take away their health insurance so they do not have the freedom to move from job to job – want to be an entrepreneur? Tough luck; anti-gay Republican? More than likely a closeted homosexual, and so on and so forth…). They also come from watching Congress during Obama’s time in office and now. Those opinions are not based on ET. If they are, then there is no such thing as logical thinking, a position with which HG would heartily disagree. Your attachment to Trump is a narc addiction and I am shocked that you cannot see it. Stop watching and listening to him. Let your ET lower and maybe you will then be able to see him for the malignancy that he is.

          8. MommyPino says:

            Lol SMH, Clearly you have no insight on why people voted for Trump. It is a waste of time to have any discussion with you. It amazes me that HG didn’t ‘remind’ you as he did with me that what may be legitimate to you may not be legitimate to others. HG used to say that this blog is not about bashing people with different political opinions and yet he allowed you to do just that and even seem to support you. The problem with your comments which is why I only responded to you and not to other Trump badgers is that you are not just bashing Trump, you are bashing us, his supporters. The things that you said especially in this last comment are so laughable and just even highlights your high ET. Funny how the tolerance police are often the most intolerant. It’s quite obvious that you are heavily ensnared by the left ideology. That’s fine, live in your make believe reality about us. I do not wish to interact with you again. Let’s just agree to disagree. I would not have even responded to you if you didn’t invite ‘the rest of us’. Don’t preach about other people’s ensnarement and ET because you have no moral high ground.

          9. HG Tudor says:

            It is tiresome having to repeat myself and I have limited time to do so.

            I did not “seem to support SMH”, I allowed a right of reply. Your perception is colouring your response.

            If you articulate an opinion, expect other people to disagree and do not then complain about it.

          10. MommyPino says:

            I don’t have a problem with people expressing a different opinion than mine. That’s not what made me feel uncomfortable. Anyway, my perception of you favoring her is as valid as any other perceptions. Isn’t that what you we’re saying? That there is no objective truth? How can my perception be ET and yet yours not? How come you have pointed out my ET several times but never pointed out SMH’s? Does SMH not have ET regarding the things that she said about Trump supporters? How come you pointed out to me about what is legitimate to me may not be legitimate to others and yet never pointed out the same thing to her?

          11. HG Tudor says:

            She is not favoured. Your perception is valid, but it is incorrect. I refer you to the example I provided in respect of the skinhead and the old woman in the street. I am not repeating it again.

            You do have a difficulty with other people expressing a contrary opinion to yours, because you keep complaining about what other people are stating.

            I just stated earlier that I did not state again about legitimacy/ET etc because it is tiresome repeating myself. Please READ the comment before responding.

          12. MommyPino says:

            Anyway, I have said my piece and I don’t wish to go on. I will not respond anymore.

          13. HG Tudor says:

            We shall see.

          14. SMH says:

            MP, If you think it is a waste of time you can just stop responding, you know. It is only a blog. It might be that because you think HG is favoring my position, your ET is way too high to have a calm discussion. It is not just about Trump and his supporters in your mind. It is also about HG. So you are correct. There is no space for a conversation!

          15. SMH says:

            Those are really excellent examples/parallels, HG. Thank you for the explanation.

          16. HG Tudor says:

            You are welcome.

          17. alexissmith2016 says:

            I’d rather be alone all the way.

          18. MommyPino says:

            “their high ET means they read what I explain but they are unable to apply it. Not because they are stupid, but because the ET blocks the application of the knowledge. It is digested but it fails to be applied so it has a meaningful impact. ”

            HG, Did the people who casted their votes for Hillary had less ET than the Trump voters? Is a Hillary Clinton vote more logical?

            Are you saying that each vote casted for Trump was based on pure ET and not logic?

            Would it have been more logical for us as voters to abstain from voting when two narcissists are competing closely to win even if one of the narcissists have policies that align with what we perceive to be the best interest of the country? Are we supposed to refrain from voting a narcissist just on the basis of his narcissism even if that narcissist has the policies that we agree with?

            I would really want to know your answers and I am sure that the Trump cheerleaders who support you would like to find out as well.

          19. HG Tudor says:

            The opening paragraph applies to my work re narcissism , not politics. You’re taking it out of context.

          20. MommyPino says:

            I’m sorry HG if I took it out of context although I don’t understand how. I am just bothered at the ‘failure to apply your teachings’ and would like to know how is it possible to do that in the circumstances of the last election. How can we apply logical thinking if two narcissists are running to be POTUS and we agree with the policies of one of them. I voted for the narcissist that have the policies that I agreed with and I casted my vote in a thoughtful manner and I would like to know if you agree with SMH that Trump supporters do not look at facts and did not base our support for him in logic. I don’t understand why you answered SMH’s questions but would not consider mine. Anyway, nobody is entitled to get answers from you and I always appreciate when you give answers. My questions are as political and as relevant to narcissism as SMH’s.

          21. SMH says:

            MP, I don’t have the answer but I believe politics is partly about appealing to people’s emotional side and partly about appealing to their logical side. Trump appealed emotionally to a lot of people (do not ask me how because I do not know) whereas Hillary, likely because she is female but not feminine, came across as cold. I think Trump played on his emotional appeal to win votes, including from people who are otherwise empathic (at rallies, for instance, which produced an intoxicating collective effervescence for those who were there and scared the shit out of the rest of us). Don’t forget that Trump is a mobster, a carnival barker and the man behind the curtain all wrapped up in one. He would just as soon stab you in the back, as he has done to his appointees, to political allies and to people who voted for him.

          22. MommyPino says:

            Anyway you don’t need to answer my questions or agree with me. I just want to thank you for letting them go through.

      2. Hope7 says:

        Did you forget the provocation of North Korea? Do you forget the nuclear escalation? This one is closer to destroying the world than any other in recent history. You should be scared.

  46. FoolMe1Time says:

    Omg HG!! This is absolutely the best!! We have been talking about this, and even just now Trump was being interviewed again and is going off calling everyone but himself guilty! I of course ( because of your brilliance and knowledge) am the only one not surprised by what he is saying or doing! At times I can also tell them what he will do next! Haha! Thank you HG for all of your wisdom!!

    1. HG Tudor says:

      You are welcome.

  47. Better Call HG says:

    Excellent and engaging analysis as always, HG.

    Do you believe any of the Democratic players in the proceedings are aware/understand the narcissistic dynamic that is taking place? And do you think this POTUS’ narcissism will allow a peaceful transition of power whether it’s the result of impeachment or losing in the 2020 election?

    1. HG Tudor says:

      Thank you BCHG.

      No, I do not believe that they do and of course, there are plenty of narcissists amongst the Democrats, including the one Trump beat to become President.

      I do not see him being successfully impeached. If he loses the 2020 election he will call foul, not that it will help.

      1. Bibi says:

        Biden sucks. If he gets elected as the candidate there is a very high possibility that Trump will be reelected b/c I know many will not vote for Biden or Trump.

        1. HG Tudor says:

          Vote Tudor.

          1. Bibi says:

            Yes, HG! Haha. I am glad your level headed-ness (is that a word? Yes, I will make it so) allows you to see that not everyone in the US is an addle minded moronic douche.

            Believe me, there are lots here, but I can understand how other countries hate Americans for their many flaws. I have often felt that I should be French instead. Oh and look, I even have a Bardot pic.

            Her bored expressions represent much of what I feel for American culture most of the time.

          2. HG Tudor says:

            There’s more good about the US than bad.

          3. santaann1964 says:

            Bravo again

          4. HG Tudor says:

            Thank you.

          5. Lorelei says:

            I wonder what Southpark’s creators are doing with all of this? It’s an odd pleasure to watch, although I’ve not wasted my mind on such a time warp in a long while.

          6. Stella SHELF Unmaskers says:

            Gladly, if you are a candidate…

          7. Violetta says:

            HG: “There’s more good about the US than bad.”

            Tell that to people who want to send Meghan Markle back here, forgetting that Grace Kelly, Jennie Jerome, and other Americans who married men with titles adapted quite well. They think we’re all that pushy or given to conspicuous consumption.

            You’ve already written on her probable narcissism, but did you stipulate her level? She tells lies that are easily checked, or that flatly contradict the last set of lies, or she tries to create a deceptive impression with carefully crafted images, but forgets to maintain it. Is she really that stupid, or does she think the public and press are that stupid?

      2. Cindy says:

        I don’t think the Senate will impeach either HG.
        Very scary times.

      3. Bibi says:

        Does anyone else here see a future Oliver Stone film in the works? Hmmm….

  48. Kel2day says:

    As a means of control, he could find a good reason to step out of office, that makes him look good. Nixon did that and was pardoned. But trumps mind could fabricate a lofty reason, something better to do than being a president, that makes it look like a positive reason for leaving. What is scary though is that he could unleash some treacherous distractions upon the world if he stays in. Mitch McConnell is his staunch supporter and who holds the thumb on the Senate, but he is also the one who encouraged trump to release the Ukrainian transcript. He also said the senate will have no choice but to review the impeachment if the house passes it.

    1. HG Tudor says:

      Well observed.

  49. Stella SHELF Unmaskers says:

    Excellent!!! What do you mean exactly with the word POTUS, HG?
    Moreover, I’d like you to put some Italian politician under the Tudor-Scope. Surely you won’t be interested to do so, but I’m trying. After all, as we say in Italy “To ask is permissible, to answer is courtesy”

    1. HG Tudor says:

      President of The United States.

      You are always welcome to ask.

      1. Stella SHELF Unmaskers says:

        Ok thank you! You know I’m very passionate about your work 😊

        1. HG Tudor says:

          Indeed.

      2. Yolo says:

        H.G. I know you have said in the past that Obama is a narc. Can you think of any POTUS that is not a narc?
        Thank you 😊♥️

        1. HG Tudor says:

          Not immediately

          1. Lorelei says:

            Jimmy Carter?

          2. Violetta says:

            Ronald Reagan, Harry Truman, Abe Lincoln, John Adams.

            They may have had some narc tendencies, but they were not full-on narcs.

            JFK was a full-on narc. Mocked his own idealistic speeches offstage. His aides were terrified he’d slip up and do the parody version in front of the voters, but he never did.

            George W. Bush, a man of no discernible charisma, won a second term mostly because John Kerry’s narcissism was impossible to disguise, let alone hide completely.

            Trump was tolerated in NY because the other leading real estate narcissist, Leona Helmsley, couldn’t even hide her malice under a thin veneer of charm, as Trump was then capable of doing.

          3. PrincessSuperEmpath says:

            Violetta: And do not forget Trump’s father. And all that real estate he worked out with the govt with housing for the poor. And all the cheap $1 dollar buildings they were awarded and on and on. The Trumps made a fortune that way. They did not feel it was beneath them to go through the govt. Well, if they did feel that way, they did it that way, nevertheless. His children can be clean now. If they want to be, and if they can manage their egos. The money is largely made. The banks coddled The Donald and he made his mark. He accepted the dirty reality of the real estate business and was very practical about taking what was offered to him. Why not? And the strong quiet wealthy German contingent in New York worked with them, as well, since the Trumps are German. They are very intelligent and practical and smart, in general. Trump grew up with all that intelligence from his own family. That overt side he uses a lot, but he knows the quiet smart practical side from his German heritage, that people often forget about. Or for some reason it is rarely discussed. Anyway, he knows where the bodies are buried on all his cronies and political opponents. They keep files on one another. Trump knows all about keeping files on his competition. One had to in real estate, with all the contracts and old bonds and old relationships always fighting for preeminence. It is a battlefield. A constant turf war. Incestuous, with the govt and the IRS and the courts working together. All working together and Donald’s father was right in the middle. Trump knows where the bodies are buried on these people in politics, If he ever felt safe enough to secretly take off the kid gloves. He is sort of an outsider type of insider. He is smarter than he lets on. And, that is smart. But, his opposing Narcissists do seem to be uniting against him. I am reminded of JFK. in that JFK had so many opposing Narcissists uniting against him. And they fell him.

          4. Bibi says:

            Jimmy is an empath. That is why we love him and also why he sucked as a Pres. He is a great humanitarian. He even writes bad poetry!

            Love Jimmy Carter.

          5. Violetta says:

            PrincessSuperEmpath:
            You don’t get a building up or renovated in NY without mob connections.

            In addition, there’s Atlantic City. Used Eminent Domain to raze homes families had lived in for generations and build casinos, many of which went under after gambling became legal in other states, despite efforts to lure customers with high profile acts from Petula Clark to Green Day.

            Same scenario as Kelo vs City of New London.

            I think many prominent realtors have a whiff of narcissism, if not always malignant. See “American Beauty,” in which Annette Bening’s character takes failure to sell a house as a personal, not professional or financial setback. She sees the local realty king (whom she winds up having an affair with) as an ideal: he doesn’t Win Friends and Influence People in order to sell houses; selling houses merely proves that he’s the kind of guy who knows how to Win Friends and Influence People! It’s practically a religion. Salvation through Dale Carnegie!

        2. PrincessSuperEmpath says:

          Violetta: Yeah…I intentionally left out the various Gangs/mobs, the investment banks` favoritism, the bribes, the extortions, the lotto money, the promises, the Private money, the Dirty money…same old story, so I just left it out, by basically saying , his children can be clean now if they so desire, because a lot of the money has already been made for them. Leona Helmsley was not big like all of this. Anyway, like the old saying goes, behind every fortune is a great crime. Nothing new.

          1. Violetta says:

            The Robber Barons of the 1870s had a similar routine. Made dirty money, then their childrrn were on the Social Register and some of the daughters even married English aristocrats (see non-fiction “To Marry an English Lord” or Wharton’s novel “The Buccaneers,” both of which give a less rosy perspective on such unions than “Downton Abbey”).

          2. Violetta. I loved the Buccaneers, but I slightly remember it being emotionally strong in some parts, so I never rewatched it But, I think I will watch it again soon. Such a beautifully filmed and costumed work. Here is part one of the 5 episodes of the incredibly well done and expensive adaptation (1956 Version) that I watched and all five episodes are on youtube: https://youtu.be/_k2jO5p0zOc . The historical drama film version. I did not read the book, though. I am sure it is in much more detail. I loved Downton Abbey until they killed off the Blonde guy. I do not say his name because I have not forgiven him for abruptly leaving the show the way he did. Bad form. I would say there were hints of the dirty underneath the rosiness on Downton. Plus, we already know a lot of that money is made from the investment in slavery and the colonization of the Caribbean, etc.: Impolite subject matter, I am sure. I will look for: To Marry and English Lord. Perhaps I can find it on audiobook. Thank you.

          3. Violetta: What a small entangled world. That book you are telling me about, To Marry an English Lord, must be some piece a work. I looked into it just now on the internet, and that very book influenced Julian Fellowes to write Downton Abbey, per blogger Carol Wallace: `Gail MacColl sent me an article from the UK Daily Telegraph’s Sunday magazine, in which Julian Fellowes, … well, just let me quote it. When he was originally approached about writing the script for this as-yet-unnamed TV series

            Fellowes was reading a book called To Marry an English Lord, about American girls who had come over to England in the late 19th century and had married into the English aristocracy.

            “It occurred to me that while it must have been wonderful for these girls to begin with,” he says, “what happened 25 years later when they were freezing in a house in Cheshire, aching for Long Island? That was where it all started — with the idea of a woman bringing up her children in a culture different to hers.’

          4. PrincessSuperEmpath says:

            Cont.) from Carol Wallace; I posted recently about an article in the New York Times that discussed a current publishing craze for “Downton Abbey”-themed books. My brilliant and loyal friend Fred Bernstein got incensed that To Marry an English Lord wasn’t on the list, since Julian Fellowes had publicly said that it was one of his influences for “Downton.” Fred actually wrote a letter, a piece of paper onto which he slapped a bunch of stamps, and tossed it into a mailbox in Brooklyn. His letter suggested that Fellowes might care to mention To Marry in connection with “Downton.” And faster than you could imagine possible, Lord Fellowes (yes, he’s a lord) wrote a lovely, lovely letter back. Which the New York Times obligingly published this morning. Wheee!

            To the Editor: RE: “If You’re Mad for ‘Downton,’ Publishers Have Reading Lists” (front page, Jan. 12):

            In your very flattering article about books that might please fans of “Downton Abbey,” I was sorry that one title was missing: “To Marry an English Lord,” by Gail MacColl and Carol McD. Wallace.

            It is a marvelous and entertaining study of the American girls who came over to England, mostly between 1890 and 1914, to marry into the British aristocracy.

            I cite it because I was