CDZ Trump and Narcissism...How is it we've not heard much about this in the news???

[jillian]

Several leading psychologists have asserted that Donald Trump is a narcissist.

• Basic explanation of what narcissism is.
• Discussion of what to expect from a narcissist.

It comes as no surprise to me to read that Mr. Trump is a narcissist; just listen to him. It's also not difficult to understand the broad appeal of narcissists. I have no problem with them as entertainers. The question in my mind is this. Would I willfully vote for one to be President of the United States? In a word, NO! Why wold anyone?

The use of the word narcissist when referring to politicians is redundant.

not necessarily.

 

[jillian]

Broderick followed the exact pattern of a woman attacked by a politically powerful and protected sexual predator.......

...

Would that be the same pattern that the 2300 rape convictions of 2013 followed? No.

Would that be the same pattern that the 3784 rape prosecutions followed in 2013? No.

In what system of jurisprudence that operates on the principle of "innocent until proven guilty" would a person by some random individual like you or me be legitimately called a rapist for having allegedly committed the act in a state that has no statute of limitations, and at no point in time has the Attorney General of the state seen fit to prosecute the alleged rapist?

You mean the Attorney General he controlled? Or the Attorney General in Arkansas..who was the rapist...? Or the Governor...perhaps he could have pushed for charges being filed...except he was the rapist...........see how he works.....

yes, why rely on reality when you can hang your hat on rumor and innuendo.

hint: you idiots spent 70 million dollars hunting down the clintons. didn't net you much aside from spending our tax money.

 

[2aguy]

Broderick followed the exact pattern of a woman attacked by a politically powerful and protected sexual predator.......

...

Would that be the same pattern that the 2300 rape convictions of 2013 followed? No.

Would that be the same pattern that the 3784 rape prosecutions followed in 2013? No.

In what system of jurisprudence that operates on the principle of "innocent until proven guilty" would a person by some random individual like you or me be legitimately called a rapist for having allegedly committed the act in a state that has no statute of limitations, and at no point in time has the Attorney General of the state seen fit to prosecute the alleged rapist?

You mean the Attorney General he controlled? Or the Attorney General in Arkansas..who was the rapist...? Or the Governor...perhaps he could have pushed for charges being filed...except he was the rapist...........see how he works.....

yes, why rely on reality when you can hang your hat on rumor and innuendo.

hint: you idiots spent 70 million dollars hunting down the clintons. didn't net you much aside from spending our tax money.

Yes.....a sitting President with an entire governemnt bureaucracy to protect him......and the power of Presidential pardons to keep people lying........

 

[320 Years of History]

You want to get lost in often un-determinable or otherwise disputed matters. Do you deny the reality that Bill Clinton is a womanizer at a minimum?

I agree that in his younger days, Mr. Clinton was a womanizer. I have no idea if he still is.

On the matter of his being a womanizer, I think it'd be safe to say a great many men are just as women are seductresses, or "man-izers" if one wants to eschew the pejorative gender-based connotations of "seductress." Let's face it, pursuing frequent and casual relationships with members of the opposite sex (or same sex if one is gay) is pretty much what most young to middle aged single folks do. I don't think there's anything inherently negative about their doing so.

Doing the same thing while one is married may even not be so terrible as it really comes down to one's spouse's willingness to tolerate it; it's not really anyone else's place to make a judgement call about it. I think it's fine to say that "I won't tolerate it in my relationships," but whether I should or should not, whether I'm a "doormat" or she a "whore," whether it's right or wrong for me and my partner(s), etc. really isn't anyone else's place to say. Why? Because such relationships are consensual.

Rape, on the other hand, is not consensual. It's expressly illegal whereas "sleeping around" isn't at all illegal, other than to the extent it can and is prosecuted as adultery.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Just because you found a quack trying to make a name for himself by introducing oxymoronic doctrines like so-called healthy narcissism, doesn't mean it has "verity" or that it is not nonsense.

And why would I present an "uncredible and devoid of Intellectual rigor" argument? Seriously, dude, give it up. You're not even trying to argue something at this point besides an obscure item that's not even in your OP.

On what grounds have you to stand in support of your claiming the man is a quack?

Red:
I can't say why you would. You'll have to tell us when it comes to pass that you do so. So far, you've not even bothered to present anything other than empty assertions. Why would you do that? Presenting empty assertions is only slightly worse than presenting poor arguments, but worse it is, and it's exactly what you persist in doing.

My "grounds" have been clear. Give up the ghost, man.

Re red: It must've went over your head that you suggest I present a "uncredible and devoid of intellectual rigor argument" and that the question was thusly rhetorical.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

You want to get lost in often un-determinable or otherwise disputed matters. Do you deny the reality that Bill Clinton is a womanizer at a minimum?

I agree that in his younger days, Mr. Clinton was a womanizer. I have no idea if he still is.

On the matter of his being a womanizer, I think it'd be safe to say a great many men are just as women are seductresses, or "man-izers" if one wants to eschew the pejorative gender-based connotations of "seductress." Let's face it, pursuing frequent and casual relationships with members of the opposite sex (or same sex if one is gay) is pretty much what most young to middle aged single folks do. I don't think there's anything inherently negative about their doing so.

Doing the same thing while one is married may even not be so terrible as it really comes down to one's spouse's willingness to tolerate it; it's not really anyone else's place to make a judgement call about it. I think it's fine to say that "I won't tolerate it in my relationships," but whether I should or should not, whether I'm a "doormat" or she a "whore," whether it's right or wrong for me and my partner(s), etc. really isn't anyone else's place to say. Why? Because such relationships are consensual.

Rape, on the other hand, is not consensual. It's expressly illegal whereas "sleeping around" isn't at all illegal, other than to the extent it can and is prosecuted as adultery.

Okay, it's a fair distinction that many are philanderers and that womanizing and raping are two entirely different matters. I think the only thing I was getting at is that Clinton has had a pattern of significant sexual misdeeds and that disputing the nitty gritty is not going to erase that. Personally, I tend to believe his past is very dark and filled with high crimes such as rape and murder. But I know it's a waste of time turning this thread into a court room; it won't accomplish anything.

 

[jillian]

Broderick followed the exact pattern of a woman attacked by a politically powerful and protected sexual predator.......

...

Would that be the same pattern that the 2300 rape convictions of 2013 followed? No.

Would that be the same pattern that the 3784 rape prosecutions followed in 2013? No.

In what system of jurisprudence that operates on the principle of "innocent until proven guilty" would a person by some random individual like you or me be legitimately called a rapist for having allegedly committed the act in a state that has no statute of limitations, and at no point in time has the Attorney General of the state seen fit to prosecute the alleged rapist?

You mean the Attorney General he controlled? Or the Attorney General in Arkansas..who was the rapist...? Or the Governor...perhaps he could have pushed for charges being filed...except he was the rapist...........see how he works.....

yes, why rely on reality when you can hang your hat on rumor and innuendo.

hint: you idiots spent 70 million dollars hunting down the clintons. didn't net you much aside from spending our tax money.

Yes.....a sitting President with an entire governemnt bureaucracy to protect him......and the power of Presidential pardons to keep people lying........

What a bunch of nonsense. The government never protected them.

More delusion from the right

 

[Mac1958]

Several leading psychologists have asserted that Donald Trump is a narcissist.

• Basic explanation of what narcissism is.
• Discussion of what to expect from a narcissist.

It comes as no surprise to me to read that Mr. Trump is a narcissist; just listen to him. It's also not difficult to understand the broad appeal of narcissists. I have no problem with them as entertainers. The question in my mind is this. Would I willfully vote for one to be President of the United States? In a word, NO! Why wold anyone?

The use of the word narcissist when referring to politicians is redundant.

These people have egos that most people can only imagine.

Regarding Trump, though, I don't know for sure that this is actually narcissism. It may be just the opposite - some kind of self esteem issue that makes him overcompensate. Maybe he couldn't get Daddy's respect or something. This unrelenting hyperbole of his is just too over the top.
.

 

[2aguy]

You want to get lost in often un-determinable or otherwise disputed matters. Do you deny the reality that Bill Clinton is a womanizer at a minimum?

I agree that in his younger days, Mr. Clinton was a womanizer. I have no idea if he still is.

On the matter of his being a womanizer, I think it'd be safe to say a great many men are just as women are seductresses, or "man-izers" if one wants to eschew the pejorative gender-based connotations of "seductress." Let's face it, pursuing frequent and casual relationships with members of the opposite sex (or same sex if one is gay) is pretty much what most young to middle aged single folks do. I don't think there's anything inherently negative about their doing so.

Doing the same thing while one is married may even not be so terrible as it really comes down to one's spouse's willingness to tolerate it; it's not really anyone else's place to make a judgement call about it. I think it's fine to say that "I won't tolerate it in my relationships," but whether I should or should not, whether I'm a "doormat" or she a "whore," whether it's right or wrong for me and my partner(s), etc. really isn't anyone else's place to say. Why? Because such relationships are consensual.

Rape, on the other hand, is not consensual. It's expressly illegal whereas "sleeping around" isn't at all illegal, other than to the extent it can and is prosecuted as adultery.

He is a rapist. He is a sexual predator many times over. And those are just the ones we have some idea about, think of all the women too terrified to come forward at all......

And all of those women have to be lying and clinton has to be the one telling the truth for your fantasy world to exist....

 

[TeaBagger]

NARCISSISTIC PERSONALITY DISORDER
Grew up feeling superior, having grandiose fantasies, needing to be admired, and lacking empathy. Is unkind, greedy, arrogant, and callously exploits others. Not due to a medical or substance use disorder.

Trump is everything he claims to be. He's wildly successful and is admired. Trump is philanthropic. He's a hard-nosed business man in a tough business and he's dealing with some ruthless people who may deserve to be exploited.

Cruz clearly is an arrogant bastard. He's hated by every Republican senator. Cruz was willing the shut down the government to fulfill his own ego. Cruz has never in his life done anything for anyone but Ted Cruz whereas Trump has created many jobs and his dream is for a great America. Cruz is the most insincere low life in the GOP.

Predictions:
Lasts For Years/Lifetime
Occupational-Economic:

• Works poorly with others (self-centered, can't tolerate criticism or defeat)

Trump works well with others because if he couldn't he would not have the success he's had. Sure he hates losing but so do most competitive people.

Cruz is the most hated man in Washington. He's loves creating train wrecks and then denying he caused them. Cruz in unable to work with members of his own party. Hopefully when Cruz loses he'll eat a gun.


Cooperation (Antagonistic, Suspicious):

• 
  False Sense Of Superiority:

• Arrogant; feels superior to others; has snobbish or patronizing attitudes
• Has a grandiose sense of self-importance
• Is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love.
• Believes that he or she is "special" and should associate with other high-status people
• Requires excessive admiration
• Has a sense of entitlement
• Is often envious of others

Trump gets stuff done and he has his entire adult life. Trump is a winner. Trump worked smart and hard for everything he has. While he get admiration and why wouldn't he? He built a real estate empire by working hard working smart and working well with others.

Cruz is very Hitleresque much like that douchebag Huckabee and that other liar Ben Carson. Trump's book, The Art of the Deal was not an auto biography like Huckabee's and Carson's or Cruz's modern day Mien Kampf.

Cruz has done nothing. Cruz is a career politician.

Cruz just beams when he thinks he's made some point like when he put down New Yorkers. Trump was genuinely hurt having been there during 911 and seeing and admiring the bravery of New Yorkers. Only a POS narcissist would insult the brave and decent people on NYC. Cruz would not run into the WTC but guys like Trump would.

Justice (Careless, Irresponsible):

• 
  Irresponsibility:
  
  Trump takes a great deal of responsibility and his successful proves it.

• Cruz shut down the government and refused to cooperate even with members of his own party. That is the epitome of careless and irresponsible
• Is interpersonally exploitative
• Lacks empathy

I don't know where you came up with the above, but the the American Psychiatric Association's criteria for diagnosing narcissism are found in the second column of pages 1 - 4 and the second column of pages 9 & 10 here: DSM-IV and DSM-5 Criteria for the Personality Disorders.

Taking just two dimensions of narcissism, here are some specific examples that portend what we can expect were he to become President:

Lack of Empathy

• Trump’s shortage of empathy can be seen clearly by his stances on topics like immigration. Instead of recognizing that the data shows that most Mexican immigrants are not violent, but instead people simply looking for a place where actual opportunity exists, with a broad brush he claims that they are “criminals, drug dealers, rapists, etc.”
• Trump has vowed to ban all Muslims from entering the country should he be elected. It appears that his lack of empathy has distorted his mind’s ability to grasp the fact that the refugees he speaks of are actually seeking safety from the same murderous maniacs that he wants to keep out.

Self Esteem

• We have all seen Trump unjustifiably lash out at a number of people with harsh and often extremely odd personal attacks. When he thought he had been treated unfairly by Fox News host and Republican debate moderator Megyn Kelly, he responded by calling her a “bimbo” and later saying that she had “blood coming out of her eyes, blood coming out of her wherever.”

What happens when another world leader who is a loose cannon doesn’t give Trump the admiration that he feels he deserves? We can be sure that notoriously anti-American dictators like Kim Jong-un of North Korea or Iran’s Supreme Leader Khamenei aren’t going to give him any respect, let alone praise. How would a President Trump react when he feels he is being put down or undermined? Will we see the start of World War III because the leader of the most important nation in the world doesn’t feel that others are kissing his ass as much as they should be? Narcissistic personality disorder is known to have strong negative effects on relationships, and when it comes to being an effective and responsible world leader, diplomacy is everything.

Prior to this presidential race, most of us knew Donald Trump as a charismatic, cheeky, highly entertaining figure that seemed like anything but a bigot. Mayor Bill de Blasio of New York told CNN that the Trump he knew, and the Trump New York knew, was nothing like the intolerant xenophobe he appears to be today. It is a well-known fact that in the past Trump was a registered democrat who was in favor of liberal causes like abortion rights and pals with the Clintons. But since the promise of power has consumed him, he has become the poster boy for ultra-right wing intolerance. This change in personality and core values illustrates how the promise of power can transform narcissists. As the race for the Republican nominee progresses, it has become increasingly obvious that Trump’s yearning to rule greatly exceeds his desire to “Make America Great Again,” as his slogan says


Just the above, forget whether it's got anything to do with narcissism. The prospect of a person displaying those traits becoming President should terrify anyone enough that they wouldn't vote for them.

Megyn Kelly is a a mega narcissist not Trump/

If you want to use the DSM criteria I'll explain how Trump is not a Narcissist using DSM criteria.

A pervasive pattern of grandiosity (in fantasy or behavior), need for admiration, and lack of empathy, beginning by early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts, as indicated by five (or more) of the following:

(1) has a grandiose sense of self-importance (e.g., exaggerates achievements and talents, expects to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements)

Trump's achievements are spectacular and speak for themselves whereas Cruz has nothing to crow about other than shutting down the government and being the most hated man in congress. His own senators hate his guts.

(2) is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love

There is a video of Cruz saying he wants to dominate the world whereas Trump has shared his wealth and good fortune.

(3) believes that he or she is "special" and unique and can only be understood by, or should associate with, other special or high-status people (or institutions)

Cruz has criticized Trump for saying he will work with Democrats. Narcissists are inflexible and that is why Cruz can't even get along with members of his own party. Richard Burr says he'll vote for Sanders before he will vote for Cruz and he means it. Trump wants to make America great. Whether you agree with his policies Trump's love for this country is undeniable.



(4) requires excessive admiration

(5) has a sense of entitlement, i.e., unreasonable expectations of especially favorable treatment or automatic compliance with his or her expectations

Trump has earned his wealth through hard work and working well with others. Cruz's shutdown of the government show he has unreasonable expectations of the world. Cruz's blanket statement about New Yorkers show what a total asshole he is and Trump's anger regarding Cruz's smearing of Trump's friends and his city was genuine. His passion and love for his city and friends came through loud and clear. Trump has many friends who love and admire him. Nobody likes Cruz, not even his fellow Republicans. In fact they cannot even pretend to like him. Some of the most honest things Republicans say are harsh criticisms of Cruz/Crud and you can bet if Cruz gets the nomination Trump and many other Republicans will not support him or give him lukewarm support.

(6) is interpersonally exploitative, i.e., takes advantage of others to achieve his or her own ends

(7) lacks empathy: is unwilling to recognize or identify with the feelings and needs of others

Trump donates to the poor all the time whereas Cruz didn't care about all the Americans he would harm when he shut down the government. Trump is willing to work with others for the betterment of others. Cruz/Crud just wants to win in order to feed his ego.

(8) is often envious of others or believes that others are envious of him or her

(9) shows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes

 

[peach174]

Several leading psychologists have asserted that Donald Trump is a narcissist.

• Basic explanation of what narcissism is.
• Discussion of what to expect from a narcissist.

It comes as no surprise to me to read that Mr. Trump is a narcissist; just listen to him. It's also not difficult to understand the broad appeal of narcissists. I have no problem with them as entertainers. The question in my mind is this. Would I willfully vote for one to be President of the United States? In a word, NO! Why wold anyone?

The use of the word narcissist when referring to politicians is redundant.

These people have egos that most people can only imagine.

Regarding Trump, though, I don't know for sure that this is actually narcissism. It may be just the opposite - some kind of self esteem issue that makes him overcompensate. Maybe he couldn't get Daddy's respect or something. This unrelenting hyperbole of his is just too over the top.
.

I agree, way over the top.
It isn't ,you are correct.
He does have a self esteem issue but he is definitely not a narcissist.
How do I know?
I was married to a Psychologist for 10 years and I know all of the metal illnesses.

 

[midcan5]

America is a narcissistic nation today so asking why Trump is, is like asking why is America narcissistic? Are we not the greatest? Are we not always right? Are we not perfect? Come on folks, even our youth today know more than their teachers or elders. Every republican candidate wishes the greatness were even more and better greatness. No time now, but consider the revisionist history of a nation that can't face its own problems past and present and it should occur to you that narcissism defines America.

Why is America becoming the nation of the best and brightest and alternately the nation of the dumbest. What is in our individualism and narcissistic society that creates a situation in which Rush Limbaugh represents the republican party? Sarah Palin could have been VP, and Glenn Beck gives a vision of history, politics, and reality so distorted only the uneducated could even listen?

This piece is about Trump but misses. lol http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/06/opinion/the-narcissist-in-chief.html

Narcissistic Personality Inventory - Psych Central
Narcissistic Personality Inventory - Psych Central

Your Total: 9

Between 12 and 15 is average.
Celebrities often score closer to 18.
Narcissists score over 20.

Fame! I Wanna Live Forever: How Narcissism Conquered Reality

"In the so-called age of narcissism, it's been said that empathy is declining - and some research has shown that social media is causing us to become more self-obsessed than ever before. But whether or not selfishness is actually on the rise, it's safe to say that we need compassion more than ever." If We Could All Tap Into This Quality (Which We Can), The World Would Be A Better Place

 

[320 Years of History]

America is a narcissistic nation today so asking why Trump is, is like asking why is America narcissistic? Are we not the greatest? Are we not always right? Are we not perfect? Come on folks, even our youth today know more than their teachers or elders. Every republican candidate wishes the greatness were even more and better greatness. No time now, but consider the revisionist history of a nation that can't face its own problems past and present and it should occur to you that narcissism defines America.

Why is America becoming the nation of the best and brightest and alternately the nation of the dumbest. What is in our individualism and narcissistic society that creates a situation in which Rush Limbaugh represents the republican party? Sarah Palin could have been VP, and Glenn Beck gives a vision of history, politics, and reality so distorted only the uneducated could even listen?

This piece is about Trump but misses. lol http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/06/opinion/the-narcissist-in-chief.html

Narcissistic Personality Inventory - Psych Central
Narcissistic Personality Inventory - Psych Central

Your Total: 9

Between 12 and 15 is average.
Celebrities often score closer to 18.
Narcissists score over 20.

Fame! I Wanna Live Forever: How Narcissism Conquered Reality

"In the so-called age of narcissism, it's been said that empathy is declining - and some research has shown that social media is causing us to become more self-obsessed than ever before. But whether or not selfishness is actually on the rise, it's safe to say that we need compassion more than ever." If We Could All Tap Into This Quality (Which We Can), The World Would Be A Better Place

I don't necessarily agree with all the points and perspectives in your post, but I want to thank you for presenting your ideas in a mature manner. That alone seems quite rare around here, although a handful of other members do so as well. At the very least, I can tell you are another grown up. (notwithstanding however much more kids know than do their elders. <winks>)

 

[Boss]

That's all you have to offer when asked to expressly show evidence in support of your assertion that Mr. Clinton is a rapist?

*Sigh* We've been going through this same monologue for, what... 20 years now?

If you are looking for someone to prove to you that Bill Clinton was charged and convicted of rape... that's not going to happen because he wasn't. So it's real easy to sit back and demand someone prove he was ever charged and/or convicted of rape.

The allegation was, that he was a rapist. Not that he was ever charged or convicted of rape. Being that you just laid claim to your mature adult-like status here, you certainly must understand the difference. People can believe O.J. Simpson was a murderer or Micheal Jackson was a pedophile... and they have a legitimate reason to believe this because of the overwhelming physical evidence. That is not the claim they were convicted. Two entirely different things.

Bill Clinton has a long and storied list of sexual misconduct. If you are oblivious to that it simply doesn't change the facts. If you want to deny it, you make yourself look like a hack who needs to be wearing Monica's knee pads. Is he a rapist? According to some depositions, yes he is. Was he ever convicted? No, he wasn't.

 

[320 Years of History]

That's all you have to offer when asked to expressly show evidence in support of your assertion that Mr. Clinton is a rapist?

*Sigh* We've been going through this same monologue for, what... 20 years now?

If you are looking for someone to prove to you that Bill Clinton was charged and convicted of rape... that's not going to happen because he wasn't. So it's real easy to sit back and demand someone prove he was ever charged and/or convicted of rape.

The allegation was, that he was a rapist. Not that he was ever charged or convicted of rape. Being that you just laid claim to your mature adult-like status here, you certainly must understand the difference. People can believe O.J. Simpson was a murderer or Micheal Jackson was a pedophile... and they have a legitimate reason to believe this because of the overwhelming physical evidence. That is not the claim they were convicted. Two entirely different things.

Bill Clinton has a long and storied list of sexual misconduct. If you are oblivious to that it simply doesn't change the facts. If you want to deny it, you make yourself look like a hack who needs to be wearing Monica's knee pads. Is he a rapist? According to some depositions, yes he is. Was he ever convicted? No, he wasn't.

I do understand the difference, and the difference is that of what is and is not libelous speech. I understand also that we live in an "innocent until proven guilty" society. Now that doesn't mean that one cannot in one's gut believe O.J. is a murderer or that Mr. Clinton is a rapist. It doesn't mean that O.J. didn't kill Mrs. Simpson or that Mr. Clinton didn't rape a woman. It does, however, mean that it's libelous to assert in writing that the one's attribution of causality for it to a given person is a point of fact. (It'd be slander were the remarks uttered verbally rather than in writing.)

• Not libelous:
  • I believe O.J. murdered Nicole Brown Simpson.
  • In spite of what the jury concluded, I still think O.J. Simpson murdered Nicole Brown Simpson.
• Libelous:
  • O.J. is a murderer.
  • O.J. murdered Nicole Brown Simpson.

My maturity is why I realize the first set of statements don't need to be proven for they are merely statements of one's beliefs, and one is entitled to believe as such or not; moreover, averring that one believes it is presumed to be a statement of fact, unless one is perhaps a known liar. The latter two must be proven for they are attestations of fact, and as murder is a crime, we use the trial process for establishing not whether the crime occurred, but whether a specific individual committed it. Thus, if one is found not guilty of any murder, one is not a murderer. In Mr. Simpson's case, one can say he's "responsible" for (not perpetrator of) Nicole Brown Simpson's murders because he was found guilty of that in the wrongful death civil suit/case brought by the Goldman and Brown families. (Wrongful death vs. murder.)

Does being found not guilty in a criminal murder trial mean the person didn't "do it?" No, it only means that we cannot prove they did, and accordingly, they cannot legitimately, non-libelously, be called a murderer because in that regard, they are entitled to the benefit of the reasonable doubt the jury found exists. Might the jury have decided differently were you or I on it? Perhaps, but the fact is that we weren't, and that's that.

I doubt I'm the only one who understands the distinction between . You'll notice that the posts in which the assertions of Mr. Clinton's being a rapist have been deleted (#s 46, 48, 49, 52, 53 and 55). I suspect that someone in the management of USMB recognizes the libelous character of the other member's remarks and deleted them to ensure that USMB isn't sued for being a party to publishing them.

 

[Boss]

That's all you have to offer when asked to expressly show evidence in support of your assertion that Mr. Clinton is a rapist?

*Sigh* We've been going through this same monologue for, what... 20 years now?

If you are looking for someone to prove to you that Bill Clinton was charged and convicted of rape... that's not going to happen because he wasn't. So it's real easy to sit back and demand someone prove he was ever charged and/or convicted of rape.

The allegation was, that he was a rapist. Not that he was ever charged or convicted of rape. Being that you just laid claim to your mature adult-like status here, you certainly must understand the difference. People can believe O.J. Simpson was a murderer or Micheal Jackson was a pedophile... and they have a legitimate reason to believe this because of the overwhelming physical evidence. That is not the claim they were convicted. Two entirely different things.

Bill Clinton has a long and storied list of sexual misconduct. If you are oblivious to that it simply doesn't change the facts. If you want to deny it, you make yourself look like a hack who needs to be wearing Monica's knee pads. Is he a rapist? According to some depositions, yes he is. Was he ever convicted? No, he wasn't.

I do understand the difference, and the difference is that of what is and is not libelous speech. I understand also that we live in an "innocent until proven guilty" society. Now that doesn't mean that one cannot in one's gut believe O.J. is a murderer or that Mr. Clinton is a rapist. It doesn't mean that O.J. didn't kill Mrs. Simpson or that Mr. Clinton didn't rape a woman. It does, however, mean that it's libelous to assert in writing that the one's attribution of causality for it to a given person is a point of fact. (It'd be slander were the remarks uttered verbally rather than in writing.)

• Not libelous:
  • I believe O.J. murdered Nicole Brown Simpson.
  • In spite of what the jury concluded, I still think O.J. Simpson murdered Nicole Brown Simpson.
• Libelous:
  • O.J. is a murderer.
  • O.J. murdered Nicole Brown Simpson.

My maturity is why I realize the first set of statements don't need to be proven for they are merely statements of one's beliefs, and one is entitled to believe as such or not; moreover, averring that one believes it is presumed to be a statement of fact, unless one is perhaps a known liar. The latter two must be proven for they are attestations of fact, and as murder is a crime, we use the trial process for establishing not whether the crime occurred, but whether a specific individual committed it. Thus, if one is found not guilty of any murder, one is not a murderer. In Mr. Simpson's case, one can say he's "responsible" for (not perpetrator of) Nicole Brown Simpson's murders because he was found guilty of that in the wrongful death civil suit/case brought by the Goldman and Brown families. (Wrongful death vs. murder.)

Does being found not guilty in a criminal murder trial mean the person didn't "do it?" No, it only means that we cannot prove they did, and accordingly, they cannot legitimately, non-libelously, be called a murderer because in that regard, they are entitled to the benefit of the reasonable doubt the jury found exists. Might the jury have decided differently were you or I on it? Perhaps, but the fact is that we weren't, and that's that.

I doubt I'm the only one who understands the distinction between . You'll notice that the posts in which the assertions of Mr. Clinton's being a rapist have been deleted (#s 46, 48, 49, 52, 53 and 55). I suspect that someone in the management of USMB recognizes the libelous character of the other member's remarks and deleted them to ensure that USMB isn't sued for being a party to publishing them.

The deletions probably have more to do with the Zone rules for this forum and nothing more. USMB is not liable for any content posted here as it is a forum with public access. Furthermore, ex-presidents and public figures are not subject to the same protective laws regarding libel and slander. I worked in the journalism field for a while and I know this is a fact. The threshold for Bill Clinton to sue someone for slander or libel is so high that he would never be able to meet it... especially on something like this.

 

[Boss]

You'll notice that the posts in which the assertions of Mr. Clinton's being a rapist have been deleted (#s 46, 48, 49, 52, 53 and 55).

All those posts are still showing up on my screen.

 

[peach174]

You'll notice that the posts in which the assertions of Mr. Clinton's being a rapist have been deleted (#s 46, 48, 49, 52, 53 and 55).

All those posts are still showing up on my screen.

Mine too.

 

[peach174]

That's all you have to offer when asked to expressly show evidence in support of your assertion that Mr. Clinton is a rapist?

*Sigh* We've been going through this same monologue for, what... 20 years now?

If you are looking for someone to prove to you that Bill Clinton was charged and convicted of rape... that's not going to happen because he wasn't. So it's real easy to sit back and demand someone prove he was ever charged and/or convicted of rape.

The allegation was, that he was a rapist. Not that he was ever charged or convicted of rape. Being that you just laid claim to your mature adult-like status here, you certainly must understand the difference. People can believe O.J. Simpson was a murderer or Micheal Jackson was a pedophile... and they have a legitimate reason to believe this because of the overwhelming physical evidence. That is not the claim they were convicted. Two entirely different things.

Bill Clinton has a long and storied list of sexual misconduct. If you are oblivious to that it simply doesn't change the facts. If you want to deny it, you make yourself look like a hack who needs to be wearing Monica's knee pads. Is he a rapist? According to some depositions, yes he is. Was he ever convicted? No, he wasn't.

I do understand the difference, and the difference is that of what is and is not libelous speech. I understand also that we live in an "innocent until proven guilty" society. Now that doesn't mean that one cannot in one's gut believe O.J. is a murderer or that Mr. Clinton is a rapist. It doesn't mean that O.J. didn't kill Mrs. Simpson or that Mr. Clinton didn't rape a woman. It does, however, mean that it's libelous to assert in writing that the one's attribution of causality for it to a given person is a point of fact. (It'd be slander were the remarks uttered verbally rather than in writing.)

• Not libelous:
  • I believe O.J. murdered Nicole Brown Simpson.
  • In spite of what the jury concluded, I still think O.J. Simpson murdered Nicole Brown Simpson.
• Libelous:
  • O.J. is a murderer.
  • O.J. murdered Nicole Brown Simpson.

My maturity is why I realize the first set of statements don't need to be proven for they are merely statements of one's beliefs, and one is entitled to believe as such or not; moreover, averring that one believes it is presumed to be a statement of fact, unless one is perhaps a known liar. The latter two must be proven for they are attestations of fact, and as murder is a crime, we use the trial process for establishing not whether the crime occurred, but whether a specific individual committed it. Thus, if one is found not guilty of any murder, one is not a murderer. In Mr. Simpson's case, one can say he's "responsible" for (not perpetrator of) Nicole Brown Simpson's murders because he was found guilty of that in the wrongful death civil suit/case brought by the Goldman and Brown families. (Wrongful death vs. murder.)

Does being found not guilty in a criminal murder trial mean the person didn't "do it?" No, it only means that we cannot prove they did, and accordingly, they cannot legitimately, non-libelously, be called a murderer because in that regard, they are entitled to the benefit of the reasonable doubt the jury found exists. Might the jury have decided differently were you or I on it? Perhaps, but the fact is that we weren't, and that's that.

I doubt I'm the only one who understands the distinction between . You'll notice that the posts in which the assertions of Mr. Clinton's being a rapist have been deleted (#s 46, 48, 49, 52, 53 and 55). I suspect that someone in the management of USMB recognizes the libelous character of the other member's remarks and deleted them to ensure that USMB isn't sued for being a party to publishing them.

They have not been deleted.

 

[320 Years of History]

The number of women speaks to the truth of the allegations....

Argumentum ad numeram

The number of women making the claim says nothing about the veracity or potential veracity of the claim. A million women could make the claim and even that would not ensure its verity.