Musburger1
2,500+ Posts
Both characteristics are common in politics, especially at the highest levels. I suppose either of these traits would exist on a sliding scale and its possible for an individual to possess both qualities simultaneously. This year's election features two candidates that clearly illustrate the extreme trait. Trump and Clinton are respectively the classic narcissist and sociopath.
First Trump. Its obvious to anyone paying attention that Trump craves attention and constantly wants people to recognize his accomplishments. It's all about Trump. I think Trump actually believes he can "make America great again" and will try as hard as he can to accomplish great things as President; not because he cares about the country or its people, but because if successful, Trump would be immortalized as a great person. I'm sure he envisions himself joining the other four on Mt. Rushmore.
Clinton is a classic sociopath. She has no conscience and will say whatever she needs to in order to advance her position. Lying, taking bribes, and blatantly disobeying the law means nothing to Clinton. She will take whatever action she chooses so long as there is nothing that can stop her. If there are legal restraints, then she will take whatever steps are needed to remove them. I don't see any narcissistic tendencies in Hillary. She doesn't care if she is liked or admired, she only cares about attaining power.
Obama is hard for me to peg. In his speeches, he tends to say "I" frequently. I believe he is a narcissist, but unlike Trump, Obama doesn't seem to care that much about the perception people have of him. In that respect, he is more like Clinton. Obama has climbed the ladder for the sake of attaining power. He isn't as reckless as Clinton, but like her, Obama will do whatever he can get away with regardless of legality or ethics.
Given that one of the two, Trump or Clinton, will likely become President, I least prefer Clinton. I have no illusions that Trump will make America great again, that his policy would work if they were implemented, or even that the establishment would allow them to be implemented. Although it is my opinion that Trump is in this purely for himself, at least his goals are to elevate the country in terms of status and prosperity. I'm good with that. In some ways, you may compare Trump to Ghadaffi. Ghadaffi was a narcissist who's photograph appeared everywhere in Libya (not uncommon in dictatorships), but he truly wanted to make Libya great. Prior to the NATO backed coup, Libya enjoyed the highest living standard in all of Africa. Wealth disparity was small, health care and college education was paid for by the state, and poverty level was low. Most of the country would have been classified as lower middle class by US standards. I guess my point is that if a narcissist's selfish goals align with the goals of the citizens, it isn't necessarily all bad.
The Friday release of Hillary's Wall Street speeches reveal that she advocates a "public policy and a private policy." In other words, she admits to her cronies that she misleads the public but in actuality will serve her benefactors (in this case Wall Street, but also foreign contributors). Her statements also showed she favors increased globalization and the eradication of borders. The idea is that sovereignty transitions from the people (democracy) to a governing class (people like her).
So the choices are Trump, who has a severe personality disorder but at least wishes the country be successful, and Clinton, a sociopath that merely wants to increase her power to the highest possible level.
First Trump. Its obvious to anyone paying attention that Trump craves attention and constantly wants people to recognize his accomplishments. It's all about Trump. I think Trump actually believes he can "make America great again" and will try as hard as he can to accomplish great things as President; not because he cares about the country or its people, but because if successful, Trump would be immortalized as a great person. I'm sure he envisions himself joining the other four on Mt. Rushmore.
Clinton is a classic sociopath. She has no conscience and will say whatever she needs to in order to advance her position. Lying, taking bribes, and blatantly disobeying the law means nothing to Clinton. She will take whatever action she chooses so long as there is nothing that can stop her. If there are legal restraints, then she will take whatever steps are needed to remove them. I don't see any narcissistic tendencies in Hillary. She doesn't care if she is liked or admired, she only cares about attaining power.
Obama is hard for me to peg. In his speeches, he tends to say "I" frequently. I believe he is a narcissist, but unlike Trump, Obama doesn't seem to care that much about the perception people have of him. In that respect, he is more like Clinton. Obama has climbed the ladder for the sake of attaining power. He isn't as reckless as Clinton, but like her, Obama will do whatever he can get away with regardless of legality or ethics.
Given that one of the two, Trump or Clinton, will likely become President, I least prefer Clinton. I have no illusions that Trump will make America great again, that his policy would work if they were implemented, or even that the establishment would allow them to be implemented. Although it is my opinion that Trump is in this purely for himself, at least his goals are to elevate the country in terms of status and prosperity. I'm good with that. In some ways, you may compare Trump to Ghadaffi. Ghadaffi was a narcissist who's photograph appeared everywhere in Libya (not uncommon in dictatorships), but he truly wanted to make Libya great. Prior to the NATO backed coup, Libya enjoyed the highest living standard in all of Africa. Wealth disparity was small, health care and college education was paid for by the state, and poverty level was low. Most of the country would have been classified as lower middle class by US standards. I guess my point is that if a narcissist's selfish goals align with the goals of the citizens, it isn't necessarily all bad.
The Friday release of Hillary's Wall Street speeches reveal that she advocates a "public policy and a private policy." In other words, she admits to her cronies that she misleads the public but in actuality will serve her benefactors (in this case Wall Street, but also foreign contributors). Her statements also showed she favors increased globalization and the eradication of borders. The idea is that sovereignty transitions from the people (democracy) to a governing class (people like her).
So the choices are Trump, who has a severe personality disorder but at least wishes the country be successful, and Clinton, a sociopath that merely wants to increase her power to the highest possible level.
