When Conspiracists Psychoanalyze

Status
Not open for further replies.

deirdre

Senior Member.
That's a bold claim: that all the Democrats said "don't get the vaccine".
all the ones reported in the media. Kamala Harris' comments still make the rounds.
Problem is the media doesnt report on the Dems who didn't say that, so it looks like "all".

Unfortunately it was an election year, so there was spin on both sides of the aisle. Trump was claiming the FDA was dragging it's emergency use feet till after the election. Dems were claiming he was jumping too fast to push through before the election.
 

Rory

Senior Member.
Basically, the Dem talking point is to not trust the Trump administration in this because they might put propaganda above science.

Politifact took a look at claims that Biden and Harris cast doubt on the efficacy of the vaccine:

https://www.politifact.com/factchec...harris-doubted-trump-covid-19-vaccines-not-v/

I definitely see some very clumsy words that would cause people to become reluctant to trust and use the vaccine, even if taken as a whole the main thrust appears to support what Biden said on September 16, 2020: "Let me be clear: I trust vaccines, I trust scientists, but I don’t trust Donald Trump."

What he said on September 2nd though:

"Look at what’s happened. Enormous pressure put on the CDC not to put out the detailed guidelines. The enormous pressure being put on the FDA to say they’re going, that the following protocol will in fact reduce, it will have a giant impact on COVID. All these things turn out not to be true, and when a president continues to mislead and lie, when we finally do, God willing, get a vaccine, who’s going to take the shot? Who’s going to take the shot? You going to be the first one to say, ‘Put me — sign me up, they now say it’s OK’? I’m not being facetious."

will obviously be taken as massively undermining confidence in the vaccine and isn't particularly well-worded, well-thought out, or smart. So it's understandable people interpreted it as "Democrats say 'don't take the vaccine'".
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
So it's understandable people interpreted it as "Democrats say 'don't take the vaccine'".
Yes, but it's still wrong.

In typical CT fashion, they go from a preconceived notion of distrust and then cherry-pick their snippets, instead of understanding the situation as a whole. When you examine this in context, it's clear that the democrats fear that a vaccine which has been rushed (for propaganda reasons) and not properly evaluated might not be safe. But this nuance gets lost in cherry-picking: a thorough "researching" of the circumstances easily reveals that clinical trials were performed as usual, and well documented, before the vaccine was released to the public.

And in fact, today Democrats are significantly better vaccinated than Republicans.

If you search for truth, don't go for simplifications that fit your preconceived notions—understand the context!
(Which is on topic, as that "psychoanalysis" Mick talked about in the OP follows the same pattern.)
 

Ann K

Senior Member.
So it's understandable people interpreted it as "Democrats say 'don't take the vaccine'".
Which "people" interpreted it that way? That's an important question to ask. There is a whole reinterpretation industry out there doing its best to spin minor facts into major controversies. Indeed, the country is so thoroughly polarized right now that "who says so" is a question that must always be asked, as topics which generated little disagreement a generation ago are now politicized into huge issues. I never thought we'd see a day when democracy, voting, vaccines, the rights of women, science, libraries, and public education were publicly called into question and elected officials publicly praise Nazis and Hitler, but now one's stance on many questions aligns perfectly with one's political party.
 

Ann K

Senior Member.
1: Your link has an incorrect date. This happened in October of 2020, and is a sound bite cropped to twist the meaning.
https://news.yahoo.com/kamala-harri...rumps-sayso-020511962.html?fr=sycsrp_catchall


Sen. Kamala Harris of California said during Wednesday night’s vice presidential debate with Vice President Mike Pence that she does not trust the administration’s push to rush a coronavirus vaccine into production.

“If the public health professionals, if Dr. [Anthony] Fauci, if the doctors tell us that we should take it, I’ll be the first in line to take it. Absolutely,” Harris said during the live debate in Salt Lake City, when she was asked if Americans should take a vaccine, if the Trump administration were to approve one either before or after the election. “But if Donald Trump tells us that we should take it. I’m not taking it.”
Content from External Source
2: I can't find that exact comment but here is another article on Biden's comments.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/biden-speak-vaccine-politics-center-stage-process/story?id=73047767


Biden pushed back on the president's promises on a vaccine in his remarks Wednesday, comparing the talk to previous comments from Trump on testing and personal protective equipment for frontline medical workers.

"We can't allow politics to interfere with a vaccine in any way. Americans have had to endure President Trump's incompetence and dishonesty when it comes to testing and personal protective equipment.We can't afford to repeat those fiascos when it comes to a vaccine, when it occurs. The stakes are too high," Biden said.
Content from External Source
3: Your citation:
I’m in NY and Gov Cuomo said today he won’t distribute any vaccine approved by Trump until it gets green-lighted by his state health department. He doesn’t trust Trump one bit.
Content from External Source
Please note, every one of those citations were made by skeptics who were right to be skeptical at the time, because (1) Trump had already promised that COVID would disappear "like magic" in the spring, and promised that it could be cured with bleach and ivermectin, to the dismay of those in the medical profession, and (2) he had a political agenda, to get re-elected, and thought that promising a vaccine would achieve it. Waiting until testing was completed and verified was indeed the sensible thing to do.
 

April.

New Member
Please note, every one of those citations were made by skeptics who were right to be skeptical at the time, because (1) Trump had already promised that COVID would disappear "like magic" in the spring, and promised that it could be cured with bleach and ivermectin, to the dismay of those in the medical profession, and (2) he had a political agenda, to get re-elected, and thought that promising a vaccine would achieve it. Waiting until testing was completed and verified was indeed the sensible thing to do.

The problem is that the narrative has changed, and when you point this out, people deny it. The reality is the the "skepticism" was a partisan reaction to Trump, and had nothing to do with the actual manufacturing of the vaccine, which they admit was fine (as they started pushing it the second Biden became president). They brought up the vaccine being rushed as a reason to be skeptical, and yet decided to push it anyway, knowing it was rushed (as if that is now no longer a reason to be skeptical).

It's similar to december 2019, when people pointed out the virus was going to be a thing, and people were labeled conspiracy theorists for saying such. They even had "hug a chinese person" events going on to "show the virus wasn't worth being concerned about". Bringing this up now, people are in full denial of what happened. If you maintained a consistent stance and did not change your view, you'd go from being accepted as not being a conspiracy theorist, to being a full blown conspiracy theorist, simply for accepting what was the past position, failing to update and follow big brother. The reasoning has not changed, yet the label assigned to such people has changed.

I was also called a conspiracy theorist when I pointed out russia will invade ukraine. Turns out a few months later, russia indeed invade ukraine, and then people started acting like they always knew it would happen and that it was obvious.

It's the gaslighting, the lying, and the hypocrisy that is the problem. Not the stances. I believe official sources and I get called a conspiracy theorist. I disbelieve official sources and I get called a conspiracy theorist. There's no winning. So I just follow my own understanding of things, fully acknowledge the lying from authorities, and retain skepticism.

Covid was called a conspiracy theory and then happened.

Longer than two weeks was a conspiracy theory and then happened.

Vaccine passports were called a conspiracy theory and then happened.

Mandatory vaccines were called a conspiracy theory and then happened.

Booster shots were called a conspiracy theory and then happened.

Multiple boosters were called a conspiracy theory and then happened.

Again, people wonder why people are conspiracy theorists? Because authorities lie and gaslight, and then the theories turn out to be true.
 

Ann K

Senior Member.
The problem is that the narrative has changed, and when you point this out, people deny it. The reality is the the "skepticism" was a partisan reaction to Trump
All the examples given were from 2020. The FDA approved the Pfizer vaccine in April of 2021. Every single one of the people quoted emphasized that they'd trust the medical people over the politician, as indeed they should for matters of medicine.


August 23, 2021

Today, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved the first COVID-19 vaccine. The vaccine has been known as the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine, and will now be marketed as Comirnaty (koe-mir’-na-tee), for the prevention of COVID-19 disease in individuals 16 years of age and older. The vaccine also continues to be available under emergency use authorization (EUA), including for individuals 12 through 15 years of age and for the administration of a third dose in certain immunocompromised individuals.
Content from External Source
https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-approves-first-covid-19-vaccine
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
All the examples given were from 2020.
so what? suggesting our health agencies would bow down to any President instills distrust in our institutions.

@April. i applaud you for having the guts to look at your own party critically. How anyone can think that both parties aren't identical or how partisan media isn't all doing the same stuff, is beyond me. Same tactics, same spin, same propaganda etc.

One of my favorites from early covid days was when Cuomo (i'm from NY area) said his health department had no idea covid was coming into NY since "they" said it was all from CHina..even though Spain and Italy were on fire and all those flights come into Kennedy. I mean talk about losing faith in the "institutions" and the "science" people. We got annihilated here.
 

tinkertailor

Senior Member.
They even had "hug a chinese person" events going on to "show the virus wasn't worth being concerned about"
Who is "they" here? Because the only evidence of this I can find was that it occurred in Italy, at the beginning of the pandemic. Furthermore, the majority of sources reporting on this are heavily right-leaning outlets, e.g. Breitbart, or smaller news orgs of unknown providence. In fact, as far as I can tell, this whole thing was based on one video of one Chinese-Italian guy, which is linked in this article by one of those aforementioned small news orgs. A note: several articles are claiming that the video was produced by China's government. I'm not finding concrete evidence of that, either.

Furthermore, the majority of the sources on this claim that the mayor of Florence, Dario Nardella, supported the "hug a Chinese person" movement. I'm finding no evidence of that, either, just more articles and Reddit threads talking about how silly it is. Basically, it was one video of one guy doing it. Likewise, his point in doing the video was not to show that COVID "wasn't worth being concerned about," it was to stop anti-Chinese sentiment. It said nothing about COVID being no big deal.

My point here is that it's very easy to hear that there was a campaign to hug Chinese people and make assumptions that it was a grand governmental scheme when it's actually pretty small. At worst, the Chinese government made a video that didn't go even remotely viral about being nice to Chinese people, and the mayor of a European city endorsed the sentiment. Most of that isn't backed up by data or an internet paper trail, but that's what we have here.
 

Ann K

Senior Member.
so what? suggesting our health agencies would bow down to any President instills distrust in our institutions.
Where on earth did you get that idea? You're attributing words (to me, or to them) that were never said. No, they trusted the people whose business it is to understand disease and immunology, as would I.
 

Rory

Senior Member.
It's similar to december 2019, when people pointed out the virus was going to be a thing, and people were labeled conspiracy theorists for saying such. They even had "hug a chinese person" events going on to "show the virus wasn't worth being concerned about".

Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't "hug a Chinese person" from February 2020 and started in Florence, Italy? And not to show the virus wasn't worth being concerned about but to counter xenophobia and offer moral support to the Chinese?
 

econ41

Senior Member
Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't "hug a Chinese person" from February 2020 and started in Florence, Italy? And not to show the virus wasn't worth being concerned about but to counter xenophobia and offer moral support to the Chinese?
That is more or less my recollection.

But why let the truth get in the way of a conspiracy theory discussion? ;)
 

April.

New Member
Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't "hug a Chinese person" from February 2020 and started in Florence, Italy? And not to show the virus wasn't worth being concerned about but to counter xenophobia and offer moral support to the Chinese?

It was indeed february. But by "counter xenophobia", you mean "not be afraid of chinese tourists who could very well have the virus" and "don't do lockdowns to prevent transmission between countries". Which turns out later is exactly what happened by the very people protesting against it.
 

LilWabbit

Senior Member
Which "people" interpreted it that way? That's an important question to ask. There is a whole reinterpretation industry out there doing its best to spin minor facts into major controversies. Indeed, the country is so thoroughly polarized right now that "who says so" is a question that must always be asked, as topics which generated little disagreement a generation ago are now politicized into huge issues. I never thought we'd see a day when democracy, voting, vaccines, the rights of women, science, libraries, and public education were publicly called into question and elected officials publicly praise Nazis and Hitler, but now one's stance on many questions aligns perfectly with one's political party.

It's always troubling (albeit not the first time) how in a modern democratic society it's still possible to blindly rally around a charismatic figure, posturing himself as a force of good against existential threats posed by 'the other group'. And like you said, going so far as to effectively question the fundamentals of democracy, voting and routine health precautions. Such developments within a Western democracy are not unheard of in the past century, and are fraught with danger.

But, we mustn't be blind that it's a mutual demonization where 'the other group' also must look in the mirror. Many feel the very same surprise and dismay to witness a day in a so-called modern and free democracy when you can be fired and publicly shamed for having the 'wrong' opinion, and when the acceptance of two biological sexes, dual-sex marriage and individual merit (rather than majority/minority group-membership) as a determinant for selection are regarded a discriminatory legacy of power-tripping white males, a vicious attack against the minorities, and for the radicals even an existential threat against those who don't easily fit these 'heteronormative' categories. These are just as 'conspiratorial' mindsets.

The psychology of demonizing the 'other tribe' as the source of all evil, and the uncritical acceptance of pseudoscientific bunk in the name of fact-checks and science, is very mainstream and not only fringe. And hence is something where all of us have some learning and self-reflection to do. Not just the ufologists, the truthers and the Republicans.
 

Rory

Senior Member.
It was indeed february. But by "counter xenophobia", you mean "not be afraid of chinese tourists who could very well have the virus" and "don't do lockdowns to prevent transmission between countries".

The former I'm okay with but I dont know why you would say that I mean the latter (I definitely don't).

Are you standing by that "hug a Chinese person" was some scheme to "show the virus wasn't worth being concerned about"?

(Also only just noticed that TinkerTailor already addressed that, and in much more detail - apologies.)

As for the long list of things that were called conspiracy theories and then happened - I really dont recall any of that being the case. But I'll stand corrected if I'm wrong.

Who are all these people calling you a conspiracy theorist? Sounds kind of strange to me, and the things you've quoted aren't the CTs that I'm used to.
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
and trump is untrustworthy.
this is a fact
Article:
President Donald Trump acknowledged the dangers of the coronavirus pandemic in a February interview with journalist Bob Woodward and acknowledged downplaying the threat in an interview a month later, according to an account of Woodward's new book.

“I wanted to always play it down. I still like playing it down because I don't want to create a panic," Trump said in a March 19 call with Woodward

he lied to the public in a matter of public health

your talking points are spinning "don't trust Trump" into "the vaccine is bad", but that's a bad take of what the speakers are saying
80 million more links, please - you need to prove "all".
Colloqial "all" and the predicate logic operator "all" are not the same.
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
They brought up the vaccine being rushed as a reason to be skeptical, and yet decided to push it anyway, knowing it was rushed (as if that is now no longer a reason to be skeptical).
the quotes are from when it was thought Trump would rush it before election day

that did not happen
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
If you maintained a consistent stance and did not change your view, you'd go from being accepted as not being a conspiracy theorist, to being a full blown conspiracy theorist, simply for accepting what was the past position, failing to update
failure to update one's position based on new facts coming to light is a hindrance for anyone searching after truth and understanding

it's also a mark of true conspiracy theories, as they're set up to be unfalsifiable and thus never have to change majorly with new facts

they simply adapt
one such adaptation to smart people not sharing their view is this:
Since they "know" their beliefs to be correct, cognitive dissonance forces them into one remaining logical conclusion: that I am mentally ill or I have psychological factors that prevent me from seeing the truth.
Again, unfalsifiable.
 

econ41

Senior Member
It was indeed february. But by "counter xenophobia", you mean "not be afraid of chinese tourists who could very well have the virus" and "don't do lockdowns to prevent transmission between countries". Which turns out later is exactly what happened by the very people protesting against it.
Hi April. I'm following the discussions and am still interested but there's a bit too much confrontation and confusion at present.
 

Mauro

Senior Member
This is from Italian newspaper "La nazione", 5/6 February 2020. I have translated some excerpt, images and the link to the original article are below. By the way, the 'hug a Chinese' thing had very little relevance in Italy, I personally never heard anything about it (I live about 300km from Florence).


"Stop it, I'm not a virus. A race to hug a Chinese. A dedicated hashtag has been set up"

Florence, 6 February 2020. "I'm not a virus, I'm a human being. Free me from prejudices." Massimiliano Martigli Jiang, who came to San Donnino (a town between Florence and Prato, also nicknamed 'Saint Beijing') in the 90s has taken a stance, to say 'no' to discriminations due to fear of getting infected and to fake news.

He stood in different places in the center of Florence wearing a blindfold and face mask, with a sign at his feet, trying to catch attention. (....) Now we need to cope with the creeping ignorance which makes people point fhe finger to any Chinese, even if he was born here or has been leaving here since years without any contact with the Far East. The mayor of Florence Dario Nardella did not stay back and launched the twitter hashtag #AbbracciaUnCinese [hug a Chinese].

The pshychological terrorism and the disinformation who someone are doing to find excuses for hate and exclusion are not acceptable. We are instead close to the Chinese community in this common battle [against the Coronavirus, NdT]. The Florentine church made his voice heard too: "It's indispensable, starting from public servants, to reassess our behaviours, to fight with determination the virus of unreasonability which brings to irrational and offensive stances, often mistreating with evil cruelty people who, notwhistanding the different color of their skin, share with us the same fragility and the same fears". (....)


1664531936475.png

1664532016160.png
https://www.lanazione.it/firenze/cronaca/virus-cinese-1.5016021
 

Ann K

Senior Member.
...publicly shamed for having the 'wrong' opinion, and when the acceptance of two biological sexes, dual-sex marriage...
You've worded that in a naïve way that doesn't properly describe the situation. But of course both sides "accept" those. The problem arises when one group (almost, but not exclusively, aligned with political leanings) declare that those are the only acceptable marriages and the only sex distinctions that exist, thus discriminating against homosexuals and transsexuals. it isn't a zero-sum game here. Accepting and supporting basic human rights for a marginalized group does not mean fewer rights for yourself. A person who does not realize that can be disruptive of the cohesion necessary for employees to work together as a group.
 

LilWabbit

Senior Member
You've worded that in a naïve way that doesn't properly describe the situation. But of course both sides "accept" those. The problem arises when one group (almost, but not exclusively, aligned with political leanings) declare that those are the only acceptable marriages and the only sex distinctions that exist, thus discriminating against homosexuals and transsexuals. it isn't a zero-sum game here. Accepting and supporting basic human rights for a marginalized group does not mean fewer rights for yourself. A person who does not realize that can be disruptive of the cohesion necessary for employees to work together as a group.

Both sides tend to exaggerate in a naive way the position of the other side which you also did in your post. The extremist caricatures are used to describe the average supporter. Which isn't helpful and which both perpetrate. As a net result, a potentially less inflammatory discussion is hijacked by radicals on all sides.
 

Ann K

Senior Member.
Both sides tend to exaggerate in a naive way the position of the other side which you also did in your post. The extremist caricatures are used to describe the average supporter. Which isn't helpful and which both perpetrate.
Most people can disagree without demonizing the others. However, as I pointed out, I was not describing the "average supporter". The people that fit the extremist character are the ones that are the problem in a civilized society. Some of them discriminate just by being vocally dismissive of others, and they're the ones we don't invite to a polite party ...or don't hire in the first place. But as we see almost every day in the news, some of them are violent, and in the USA they're likely to be armed. I don't want to be around them at all.
 

LilWabbit

Senior Member
I recall a time I would have agreed with that.

I think it's fair to say it's gotten worse. There are of course 'degrees' of demonization. There's the milder denigration involving passive-aggressive disdain, regarding those that disagree as 'stupid', 'medieval', 'Karen' or 'deplorable' (pick a mockery from either side). And then there's the more extreme type engaging in active personal attacks, character assassinations, censorships, attempts to strip people of their jobs and titles, all the way to physical violence.

What we often fail to realize is that it's the 'civilized' disdain of the majority that the extremists use as their fuel.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
No, they trusted the people whose business it is to understand disease and immunology, as would I.
then they shouldnt have even brought it up. All sides handled covid badly that election year.


And like you said, going so far as to effectively question the fundamentals of democracy,
noone was questioning the fundamentals of democracy*. they thought they were fighting FOR democracy. we deny elected leaders in other countries when we think the elections are corrupt.

*American democracy not global, we are a republic.
Are you standing by that "hug a Chinese person" was some scheme to "show the virus wasn't worth being concerned about"?
it wasn't worth being concerned about in America, because it wasn't in American Chinatowns yet at that time. That's what Pelosi said (as she was hugging Chinese people). I gave the footage. That's why @April. brought up the not locking down travel from China.

y'all might be misunderstanding what April is meaning. or maybe she is talking about the Italy campaign to literally hug a Chinese person, and i'm misunderstanding her.
 

Ann K

Senior Member.
then they shouldnt have even brought it up. All sides handled covid badly that election year.
It was a campaign season. (Remember those, when it didn't last for four years straight?) They were asked In debates. Of course they answered the question. They didn't dodge and duck and run down the hall to evade reporters.
 

Ann K

Senior Member.
when we think the elections are corrupt.
When votes have been counted and recounted and verified, when court after court dismisses the "fraudulent votes" suits for lack of substance, when some states nevertheless send fraudulent electors to try to circumvent the certified ones, when violent mobs attack the capitol, then yes, there was a desperate attempt to corrupt the election. It failed. Nobody aware of the news can honestly say they still think it was corrupted. Go ahead and downvote me. Whenever you do, it just tells me that the shoe fits.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
They were asked In debates.
ONE was.

They didn't dodge and duck and run down the hall to evade reporters.
I dont know what this means. Sounds like whataboutism, which i'm fine with but your peers rail when i do it.

Nobody aware of the news can honestly say they still think it was corrupted.
the news? :) Like the news that the earth is round? or the news that cd was not involved in 9/11?
either way, noone is questioning the fundamentals of democracy as Lilwabbit said.

Whenever you do, it just tells me that the shoe fits.
what shoe? the i don't agree with your spin and gaslighting shoe? i'm cool with that.
 
Last edited:

tinkertailor

Senior Member.
It was indeed february. But by "counter xenophobia", you mean "not be afraid of chinese tourists who could very well have the virus" and "don't do lockdowns to prevent transmission between countries". Which turns out later is exactly what happened by the very people protesting against it.
Do you have any sources to back this claim up?
 

LilWabbit

Senior Member
either way, noone is questioning the fundamentals of democracy as Lilwabbit said.

Trump is/was blatantly. And those who know him yet choose to support him. His utter disregard for democratic principles and the rule of law is evidenced by much more than just leftist propaganda, all the way back when he wasn't even identifying as a republican. On the left there's an echo chamber of its own kind spouting half-truths and some bunk masquerading as science. But on your side huge demographics are lost in an echo chamber mistaking calculatingly doctored misinformation for a fact.

That you don't see a narcissist, untethered to principle, pathologically incapable of admitting defeat while more than capable of winning impressionable crowds by noisome lies is a rabbit hole of a whole different kind. The mainstream kind.

And psychologically not that different from the fringe kind.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
But on your side huge demographics are lost in an echo chamber mistaking calculatingly doctored misinformation for a fact.
like what specifically? you mean the ones who still believe Trump won the election?

That you don't see a narcissist, untethered to principle, pathologically incapable of admitting defeat while more than capable of winning impressionable crowds by noisome lies is a rabbit hole of a whole different kind.
i don't see that? huh.

The mainstream kind.
q-anon die hards are not mainstream.

And psychologically not that different from the fringe kind.
if you say so. surely you know what you know what you are talking about from the other side of the world, better than i.
 

LilWabbit

Senior Member
i don't see that?

The psychology of a wabbit hole epitomized.

q-anon die hards are not mainstream.

But those uncritically swallowing the misinformation of stolen elections are.

if you say so. surely you know what you know what you are talking about from the other side of the world, better than i.

Undistracted by echoes. And abortive attempts at sarcasm. Claiming intellectual authority on all things American by appeal to nationality is droll.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.

LilWabbit

Senior Member
that's kinda par for the course rhetoric in america now. 74% of Dems think Hillary was ripped off by Russia..if we want to believe poll answers.

Just to remind, I've been consistent in acknowledging there are different kinds of mainstream delusions/bunk beliefs on both sides.

But if one is able to see the evident truth of Donald Trump being the archetypal narcissist incapable of admitting defeat, and yet one doesn't see how predictable it is for such a narcissist to go out of his way to deny the integrity of the elections he lost, then one is either delusional or willfully ignorant.

Hence the mainstream wabbit hole claim.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
But if one is able to see the evident truth of Donald Trump being the archetypal narcissist incapable of admitting defeat, and yet one doesn't see how predictable it is for such a narcissist to go out of his way to deny the integrity of the elections he lost, then one is either delusional or willfully ignorant.
so...he is anti-democracy because of his mental health disorder of narcissism? that sounds iffy to me. and you pointing out his narcissism as the reason he can't accept the results of the election could in fact be true, kinda ruins your (paraphrase) 'because he is anti-democracy' strategy. Narcissists legitimately believe they won.

But you can think as you will, just as everyone else has a right to do too.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top