Trump and mental illness

Posted on by

Donald Trump’s behavior is so far outside the norm that many people (including mental health professionals) have suggested that he is mentally ill. The most common suggestions I’ve seen are that he suffers from narcissistic personality disorder (NPD), antisocial personality disorder (ASPD, also known as sociopathy), or a combination of the two (known as malignant narcissism). There is also widespread concern about cognitive decline.

I looked up the diagnostic criteria for NPD and ASPD, and it’s shocking how many of the boxes Trump ticks. Here are the criteria for NPD according to the American Psychiatric Association’s diagnostic manual, the DSM-5-TR:

Narcissistic Personality Disorder (301.81 [F60.81])

Diagnostic 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).
  2. Is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love.
  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).
  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).
  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.
  8. Is often envious of others or believes that others are envious of him or her.
  9. Shows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes.

I would argue that Trump meets all 9 of those criteria. Only 5 are required for an NPD diagnosis.

Here are the criteria for ASPD:

Antisocial Personality Disorder (301.7 [F60.2])

Diagnostic Criteria

A. A pervasive pattern of disregard for and violation of the rights of others, occurring since age 15 years, as indicated by three (or more) of the following:

  1. Failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors, as indicated by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for arrest.
  2. Deceitfulness, as indicated by repeated lying, use of aliases, or conning others for personal profit or pleasure.
  3. Impulsivity or failure to plan ahead.
  4. Irritability and aggressiveness, as indicated by repeated physical fights or assaults.
  5. Reckless disregard for safety of self or others.
  6. Consistent irresponsibility, as indicated by repeated failure to sustain consistent work behavior or honor financial obligations.
  7. Lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another.

B. The individual is at least age 18 years.

C. There is evidence of Conduct Disorder with onset before age 15 years.

D. The occurrence of antisocial behavior is not exclusively during the course of Schizophrenia or a manic episode.

I’d say that Trump meets all of the numbered criteria except #4. Only 3 are needed for an ASPD diagnosis. He’s certainly irritable and aggressive, but I haven’t heard reports of any physical altercations. He meets criteria B and D, but I don’t know enough about his early life to comment on criterion C, which is Conduct Disorder.

Anyway, the point is not whether Trump would qualify for a formal diagnosis. Diagnosis or no, any person who meets that many criteria for both NPD and ASPD is manifestly unfit for office.

243 thoughts on “Trump and mental illness”

  1. colewd:

    No this was a great kid.

    This was not a great kid. Here’s a quote:

    So you love God, so you must love his law. How do you love somebody? You love them by telling them the truth, not by confirming or affirming their sin. And it says, by the way, Ms. Rachel — you might want to crack open that Bible of yours. In a lesser referenced part of the same part of scripture is in Leviticus 18 is that “Thou shalt lay with another man shall be stoned to death.” * Just sayin’. So Ms. Rachel, you quote Leviticus 19, “Love your neighbor as yourself,” the chapter before affirms God’s perfect law when it comes to sexual matters.

    And don’t refer me to the Stephen King brouhaha. King’s error was in saying “He advocated stoning gays to death”. Kirk didn’t quite go that far. He didn’t say that we should stone gays, though it was implied that he would approve of it. After all, why would he object to the application of “God’s perfect law”? This was not “a great kid.” He was a homophobic creep.

    Again, your point about Trump is correct and that is why I have empathy for those who do not like him.

    Yet in three months, we haven’t seen you condemn a single one of the hateful things he has said. Only now are you suddenly concerned about hateful rhetoric.

    I prefer his policies to the alternative….hard stop.

    No, your approval of Trump goes far beyond his policies. You struggle to voice even the mildest criticisms of the Dear Leader. You’re a full-fledged cult member. For instance, I’ll remind you yet again that in three months, you haven’t been able to acknowledge a single one of the Trump lies I’ve pointed out to you, much less that he is a compulsive liar, which is an established fact.

    If this were really just about policy for you, you’d be able to acknowledge the truth of the criticisms we’re making. You’d be able to say “Yes, Trump lies all the time, but I approve of him because I like his policies.” You can’t bring yourself to do that, and it’s because you’re a member of the MAGA cult. The Dear Leader must not be criticized, except in the mildest of terms.

    * Kirk gets Leviticus 18 wrong. It says that gay sex is an abomination, but it doesn’t prescribe a penalty. Elsewhere (Leviticus 20) it prescribes the death penalty, but even there it doesn’t specify stoning. But for a homophobic creep like Kirk, the idea of stoning is probably more appealing than mere death.

    ETA: For the record, do you think that stoning gays is part of “God’s perfect law”, and do you think that an ideal society would honor that law?

  2. colewd:

    So a 31 year old father is dead and no one here is doing self reflection that outward political hate may be a problem.

    Help me reflect. You claim I am “part of the problem”. If so, then I must have said things that are problematic. What are those things? Quote my words, and we can reflect on them together.

    And for once, could you actually back up your accusation instead of running away when I challenge you? You claim to want rational discussion, but making accusations you can’t support and then running away isn’t constructive and it isn’t rational.

  3. It’s really easy to convince young people that killing is morally justified.

    I know.

    I was in Vietnam when I was this kids age.

    There are millions of people online supporting the assassination.

    And despite scores of people, many of them professionals, being fired for online cheering, the cheering is unabated. More people are going to be fired. It’s crazy.

    People on Bluesky are openly calling for the assassination of Musk. I understand their anger, but they are unhinged. They are hurting themselves.

    I am not naive. Right wingers have cheered deaths. I can’t offhand think of anyone cheering the assassination of a nonviolent debater, but I agree, that there has been unwarranted cheering.

  4. I think the biggest difference between left and right is not the purity of morality.

    It is the recognition or not, that these actions have political consequences.

    There is something deeply intellectually defective about not realizing that assassinations have consequences for elections.

    Beyond the killing act, there is the prolonged cheering. Incredibly stupid.

    News people have been fired just for suggesting that political opinions, expressed in open debate, somehow incite murder.

    Think about it. Not whether you are right or wrong, but about how your words will resound politically.

  6. J-Mac:

    So it seems nobody here has mental health training, right?

    So it seems you ignored my earlier response, right? Here it is again:

    J-Mac:

    …it takes a lot of education and experience to diagnose psychiatric disorders and we change our minds very often…

    Please drop it because it is very difficult if not impossible to distinguish between personality traits and psychiatric disorders even for professionals…

    Apparently you missed this statement in the OP:

    Anyway, the point is not whether Trump would qualify for a formal diagnosis. Diagnosis or no, any person who meets that many criteria for both NPD and ASPD is manifestly unfit for office.

    Think about it. It’s alarming that we actually have to ask the question at all. Anyone who even appears to meet almost all of the criteria for NPD and ASPD, as judged by an intelligent layperson, is unfit to be president of the United States.

    I challenge anyone to present evidence that Trump doesn’t meet the criteria I’ve identified in the OP.

  7. petrushka: I think the biggest difference between left and right is not the purity of morality.

    It is the recognition or not, that these actions have political consequences.

    And which side is which?

    Either way, your sloppy attempt at aphorisms is obviously false. That’s not the difference between right and left. You are always wrong about everything.

    petrushka: Think about it. Not whether you are right or wrong, but about how your words will resound politically.

    Are you talking to Charlie Kirk? He is dead. He did not think how his words resound politically. And also you keep ignoring what effect your lies and cultish partisanship have.

  8. KN:

    But my response to you was based on the assumption (perhaps erroneous on my part) that a psychiatric diagnosis gets him off the hook, morally speaking. It’s now evident that you weren’t making that assumption, so I apologize if I seemed to be critical of you on that point.

    No need to apologize. It’s a valid point, because many people do cite mental illness as automatically exculpatory. Sometimes it is, which is why we have the insanity defense, but often it isn’t. In the case of NPD and ASPD, I think it isn’t, for reasons given in my earlier comment.

    Lately I have been ruminating on the idea that moral virtue and mental health are really deep down the same thing, and that we’d be better off in our understanding of both concepts if we understood that.

    Wouldn’t that imply that mental illness is a moral deficiency, and that someone with, say, depression is lacking in moral virtue? I’m not aware of any link between depression and what we would consider immoral behavior.

    keiths:

    What’s astonishing is that half of the American electorate actually thought it was a good idea to put one of those shitty people in the Oval Office, even after seeing eight solid years of his shittiness.

    KN:

    My understanding of the 2024 electoral data is that about 30% of all eligible voters voted for Trump. About 29% voted for Harris, and the rest either didn’t vote or voted for a third party.

    So there’s only a 1 point difference between Trump and Harris, and “none of the above” was significantly more popular than either of them.

    That assumes that the people who abstained from voting did so because they rejected both candidates, but there are many other reasons for not voting besides a “none of the above” attitude. Also, the polls typically focus on eligible voters as a whole, and they didn’t reveal a large third-party or “none of the above” contingent.

    I don’t see how it can function when the very worst people have so much power. I don’t just mean Trump, who is more of a figurehead at this point than anything else, but also the whole cabal: Rubio, Miller, McMahon, Noem, Hesgeth, Kennedy Jr., Bondi, Vought, Vance. Not to mention the Christian white nationalists in Congress and the authoritarian apologists on the Supreme Court.

    Yeah, those are some scary people. Stephen Miller, for instance, has been a creep his entire life. What really disturbs me, though, is seeing the descent of someone like Marco Rubio. In his former life, he at least gave the appearance of being basically decent and responsible, though I disagreed with many of his positions. Now he’s a complete sellout.

  10. J-Mac:

    You have metal illnesses…

    No, my illnesses are all nonmetallic. Don’t ever change, J-Mac.😂

  11. petrushka,

    I think the biggest difference between left and right is not the purity of morality.

    It is the recognition or not, that these actions have political consequences.

    Are you saying this guy was on the Left? On what grounds? How about the attackers on Dems a few months ago, the Trump shooter, the Unabomber, Timothy McVeigh etc? You actually have to look a long way to find ‘lefties’ committing these crimes. Yet it pleases you to make an anti-Left point off the back of it.

    I don’t think these people are deep thinkers, whichever way they lean.

  12. Allan Miller [to petrushka]: Are you saying this guy was on the Left? On what grounds?

    On the usual grounds: Dear Leader says so.

    Trump:

    I’ll tell you something that’s going to get me in trouble, but I couldn’t care less. The radicals on the right oftentimes are radical because they don’t want to see crime. They don’t want to see crime.

    The radicals on the left are the problem, and they’re vicious and they’re horrible and they’re politically savvy.

    See: Trump says that the left is the problem. Therefore the left is the problem and petrushka must parrot it because he is a parrot.

    The message that petrushka and colewd spread here is always the same as Trump’s. They see it as their life mission to echo Trump’s lies, ignorance, and vile partisan propaganda. They are cultists who have violent adverse reaction to information and facts.

  13. MAGAs seem able to diagnose MH issues remotely at times. Here’s the Golden Rule: if an assassin is on the Right, they have mental health issues, and we need to look into SSRIs (and definitely not gun culture). If on the Left, they are evil, clear-thinking monsters.

    Addendum: before you know one way or the other, assume they are on the Left. Even after you know, find some reason they are on the Left despite evidence. University attendance, for example, is a clear ‘tell’, as is being retained by Tim Walz.

  14. Allan Miller:

    Addendum: before you know one way or the other, assume they are on the Left. Even after you know, find some reason they are on the Left despite evidence. University attendance, for example, is a clear ‘tell’…

    This was precisely petrushka’s modus operandi when the killer of Minnesota legislators was on the loose. As soon as the news broke, he proposed that the killer was a No King protester. Eventually he conceded the utmost that he could, “It’s all very odd.” He has never expressly given up the idea that the killer was a leftie. He just stopped saying it here because he cannot get any affirmation for it here.

    I know his sources, the Q/MAGA conspiratorialist talk show wackos, so for me it’s mostly amusing how petrushka repeats them unfiltered. He does exactly zero original thinking of his own. His sole personal contribution is that he retypes it with some rephrasing, without copy-paste and without links to sources.

  15. Why are we talking about left *versus* right when we should be talking about democratic *versus* antidemocratic forces? I knew exactly which side Donald Trump is on when he missed the opportunity to console and unite his nation, instead opting for abusing the situation to undermine the few counterforces that prevent the USA from slipping into autocracy.

  16. Erik:
    Allan Miller:

    This was precisely petrushka’s modus operandi when the killer of Minnesota legislators was on the loose. As soon as the news broke, he proposed that the killer was a No King protester. Eventually he conceded the utmost that he could, “It’s all very odd.” He has never expressly given up the idea that the killer was a leftie. He just stopped saying it here because he cannot get any affirmation for it here.

    I know his sources, the Q/MAGA conspiratorialist talk show wackos, so for me it’s mostly amusing how petrushka repeats them unfiltered. He does exactly zero original thinking of his own. His sole personal contribution is that he retypes it with some rephrasing, without copy-paste and without links to sources.

    We haven’t heard much about the Minnesota killings lately. How’s that going?

    I find it strange when things like that disappear from the news.

  17. petrushka: We haven’t heard much about the Minnesota killings lately. How’s that going?

    I find it strange when things like that disappear from the news.

    Indeed. Never hear a word about the Trump shooter, do we?

  18. keiths,

    This was not a great kid. Here’s a quote:

    An assertion and then a quote. This is your argument style that is not persuasive. He is a person that is principled in his convictions and argued respectfully. \

    People are bad because they don’t agree with you. This is the fuel of political violence. This is apparently the cause of his murder. A 22 year old who disagreed with him.

    IMO you are a person who is not grounded in reality as you argue from ideology first and then cherry pick arguments that fit your ideology.

  19. Allan Miller,

    What purpose would be served? We’ve all seen how impervious you are to criticism of your heroes.

    This is a good kid who you slandered and now realise you have nothing. Why don’t you admit your information was propaganda as Stephen King did.

    Keiths tried to criticise him based simply on disagreement.

    What you guys accuse Trump of is something you practice more aggressively than he does. In the case of Keiths he makes Trump look like a choir boy.

    https://x.com/stephenking/status/1966474125616013664?s=42

  20. colewd,

    This is a good kid who you slandered and now realise you have nothing. Why don’t you admit your information was propaganda as Stephen King did.

    Nope. I stand by my assessment. What I can’t be arsed doing is spending another several months trying to persuade you of any flaws in your hero. You endorse his views on women, gays, trans, guns, liberals and blacks, that’s up to you. I do not. “Haha I win cos you won’t play” does not change anything here.

  21. petrushka: We haven’t heard much about the Minnesota killings lately. How’s that going?

    I find it strange when things like that disappear from the news.

    Different from you, I follow actual news, so I know that he has not disappeared from the news.

    To you he has disappeared because he has disappeared from your propaganda feed. But your propaganda is lying. This is why you are always wrong about everything.

  22. colewd,

    What you guys accuse Trump of is something you practice more aggressively than he does.

    Srsly? Well, if that’s what you think… I think you’re just lashing out. I forgive you.

  24. colewd:

    He has political views like all of us and is a very good guy with solid character and he was murdered for his views.

    Are you going to take the position this is ok?

    Not one person here has stated, implied, or even hinted that Kirk’s assassination was OK. Get over yourself.

  26. Poor petrushka and colewd are trying to admonish us that the left is the cause of violence and divisiveness – because Trump says so. Unfortunately for them, they are missing the obvious fact that it’s actually Trump who is the cause of violence and divisiveness (and more). As cultish Trumpites, petrushka and colewd can never obtain the moral high ground, try as they might. Also, critique of Trump’s glaring ignorance, incompetence, lies, and putrid character is not the exclusive purview of the left.

    If violence is the issue, then Trump is the problem. Obviously. It is sheer hypocrisy when Trumpites play pacifists. How many peace deals did Trump make again?

  27. colewd,

    Sorry, but that X post just sounds fake. ‘Question everything as a liberal’ because of the behaviour of people who share your views? Still, if one culture-war slant (the shooter was a leftie!) fails, there’s always a backup (Libs are awful!).

    Where do you stand on Trump’s call for action against the Left now we can be pretty sure he wasn’t? What of Nancy Mace and “Dems own this”? The many MAGAs I’ve seen pouring hatred towards the Left? Can we expect apologies?

  28. Corneel:

    Why are we talking about left *versus* right when we should be talking about democratic *versus* antidemocratic forces?

    Right. I would be as opposed to a leftist Trump as I am to Trump himself, and I’ll bet everyone else here would be too. It isn’t the label ‘Republican’ that makes Trump vile, it’s his conduct, including his antidemocratic conduct. It boggles my mind that so many Americans who claim to value democracy nevertheless support a guy who tried to steal one election and is trying to steal another as we speak. Who labels the press “the enemy of the people” and goes after news outlets (and even late-night hosts!) who are critical of him.

    Bill, you’ve repeatedly cited the will of voters in this thread. Do you continue to think that they matter? If so, why do you support a guy who thinks that he, and not the voters, should determine who takes control of the House in 2026?

    I knew exactly which side Donald Trump is on when he missed the opportunity to console and unite his nation, instead opting for abusing the situation to undermine the few counterforces that prevent the USA from slipping into autocracy.

    Trump wants to deepen the division because it benefits him politically. It’s a classic Us-vs-Them authoritarian move. He doesn’t want to calm things down, just as he didn’t want to calm them down on January 6, when he sat around for 3 hours(!) doing nothing while the Capitol was being attacked by a mob of his supporters.

    It’s a pattern with him. I remember another occasion, after the FBI searched Mar-a-Lago, when Trump predicted outrage and unrest among the population and contacted the DOJ to offer his help in “bringing the temperature down”:

    Former President Trump said he “will do whatever” he can “to help the country” after the FBI’s raid of his Mar-a-Lago home last week, telling Fox News Digital that the “temperature has to be brought down” while stressing that the American people are “not going to stand for another scam.”

    In an exclusive interview with Fox News Digital on Monday morning, his first since the raid, Trump said he had his representatives reach out to the Justice Department to offer to help amid outrage over the FBI’s unprecedented raid on his private residence last week, in which agents seized classified records, including some marked as top secret. Trump is disputing the classification of those records, saying the records have been declassified.

    “The country is in a very dangerous position. There is tremendous anger, like I’ve never seen before, over all of the scams, and this new one — years of scams and witch hunts, and now this,” Trump said. “If there is anything we can do to help, I, and my people, would certainly be willing to do that,” Trump said.

    What a fraud this guy is. If he had truly wanted to bring the temperature down, he could have done so immediately by appearing on camera and telling his supporters to cool it. He didn’t need to coordinate with the DOJ, but he wanted to use the unrest (which didn’t actually materialize) to his political advantage. A truly horrible person.

  29. Erik: Different from you, I follow actual news, so I know that he has not disappeared from the news.

    To you he has disappeared because he has disappeared from your propaganda feed. But your propaganda is lying. This is why you are always wrong about everything.

    Point me some real news. Seriously.

    Wikipedia hasn’t been updated since June.

  30. keiths:

    This was not a great kid. Here’s a quote:

    So you love God, so you must love his law. How do you love somebody? You love them by telling them the truth, not by confirming or affirming their sin. And it says, by the way, Ms. Rachel — you might want to crack open that Bible of yours. In a lesser referenced part of the same part of scripture is in Leviticus 18 is that “Thou shalt lay with another man shall be stoned to death.” Just sayin’. So Ms. Rachel, you quote Leviticus 19, “Love your neighbor as yourself,” the chapter before affirms God’s perfect law when it comes to sexual matters.

    colewd:

    An assertion and then a quote. This is your argument style that is not persuasive.

    Lol. The irony escapes you, doesn’t it? You’ve been railing against “hateful rhetoric”, but when I give you an example of hateful rhetoric from Kirk, suddenly it’s just a quote. Make up your mind. Do words matter, or do they not? Do they tell you something about the person speaking them, or do they not?

    As for my argument style, yes, making a claim and then backing it up with evidence and logic isn’t persuasive to someone like you. That’s the problem, and it’s your problem.

    He is a person that is principled in his convictions and argued respectfully.

    He was firm in his conviction that God’s perfect law instructs us to stone gays. Anyone who “respectfully” suggests that God wants us to do that — and mind you, this is a person who believes we should follow God’s laws — is a homophobic creep.

    People are bad because they don’t agree with you.

    Yes, just yesterday I pulled a gun on a guy who said vanilla was better than chocolate. Come on, Bill. Blasting Kirk for approving of the stoning of gays isn’t remotely the same as “people who don’t agree with me are bad.”

    I condemn anyone who approves of stoning, much less stoning someone for their sexual orientation. I asked you a question earlier which you dodged, per usual:

    For the record, do you think that stoning gays is part of “God’s perfect law”, and do you think that an ideal society would honor that law?

    Tell us instead of running away. I hope to God (so to speak) that you would condemn the stoning of gays. Please confirm, and then tell us how Kirk was a great and respectful guy who just happened to believe that God wants gays to be stoned. A real salt-of-the-earth type.

    This is the fuel of political violence. This is apparently the cause of his murder. A 22 year old who disagreed with him.

    Should I refrain from disagreeing with anyone on the off chance that someone who is unstable or fanatical might take that as justification for murder? Are you henceforth going to stop criticizing anyone who disagrees with you? There is a huge difference between responsible criticism and incitement to murder.

    Am I being irresponsible when I blast Trump for aid cuts that will result in 14 million deaths over the next five years? Should I refrain from mentioning that? You’re upset about Kirk’s assassination, and rightly so. What about those 14 million? Do they not count, since they don’t belong to the same tribe as you and Kirk?

    IMO you are a person who is not grounded in reality as you argue from ideology first and then cherry pick arguments that fit your ideology.

    Money where your mouth is. Give me examples. Quote me, and we can discuss it.

    What you guys accuse Trump of is something you practice more aggressively than he does. In the case of Keiths he makes Trump look like a choir boy.

    Money where your mouth is. Give me examples. Quote me, and we can discuss it.

    https://x.com/stephenking/status/1966474125616013664?s=42

    I already addressed that:

    And don’t refer me to the Stephen King brouhaha. King’s error was in saying “He advocated stoning gays to death”. Kirk didn’t quite go that far. He didn’t say that we should stone gays, though it was implied that he would approve of it. After all, why would he object to the application of “God’s perfect law”? This was not “a great kid.” He was a homophobic creep.

  31. colewd,

    You’re a fountain of accusations, but a parched desert when it comes to justifications. It’s why you aren’t taken seriously. Accusations from you are just the flapping of gums (or its keyboard equivalent).

    For once, could you back up your accusations with evidence? This discussion has gone on for over three months. You have a wealth of material to draw from. Draw from it. Money where your mouth is. Quote me, and we can discuss it.

  32. petrushka: Point me some real news. Seriously.

    Wikipedia hasn’t been updated since June.

    Is this your manner of being serious? Oh dear 😀

    You are not a links-to-sources guy yourself. The last time I pointed you to news, you did not appreciate it, so I learned my lesson. You are anti-news. You hate journalism. Anyway, as to Boelter, three days ago his wife filed for divorce, according to local news.

    The news are there as events occur. Whereas you run with Q conspiracies and Fuehrer propaganda. This is apparently what an American juror is expected to do. You treat MAGA propaganda and Trump’s lies as your most urgent official duty.

  33. keiths,

    You’re a fountain of accusations, but a parched desert when it comes to justifications.

    The main real accusation is that you bash candidates that you don’t like. Do you have evidence of your own balanced analysis on either Kirk and Trump? I have not seen it from you. I have seen it from Allan.

  34. colewd,

    Exactly as expected, and straight out of the colewd playbook:

    1. You dodged the question I’ve asked twice now about your position on the stoning of gays. If ever there was a softball, lobbed underhand, this was it. You should have knocked it out of the park, but you were afraid to swing. Are you truly unable to condemn the stoning of gay people?

    2. You called me “part of the problem” and said that my rhetoric is “the fuel of political violence” — fuel of the kind that was “apparently the cause of his [Kirk’s] murder.” That’s a serious charge. I asked for concrete examples, and you came up with… nothing. Not a single example.

    3. You said that I’m “not grounded in reality” and that I “argue from ideology first”. I asked for concrete examples and you came up with… nothing. Not a single example.

    4. You said that my rhetoric makes Trump look “like a choir boy” in comparison. I asked for concrete examples and you came up with… nothing. Not a single example.

    The best you could come up with was another vague accusation:

    The main real accusation is that you bash candidates that you don’t like.

    Let me get this straight. Does “bashing” mean something other than harsh criticism to you? If so, what does it mean, exactly? Are you actually claiming that my harsh criticism of your Dear Leader is “the fuel of political violence”? What specifically have I said that constitutes fuel for political violence? Give me examples. Quote my words.

    Do you have evidence of your own balanced analysis on either Kirk and Trump? I have not seen it from you. I have seen it from Allan.

    Remember your confusion earlier in the thread about the burden shift fallacy? You just committed it. You can’t back up your ridiculous charges, so you try to saddle me with the burden of disproof. It doesn’t work that way. Own your accusations and back them up.

    Also, you’ve once again brought up the word “balanced”. What does that mean to you? For every criticism of Trump, do I have to say something nice about him? If not one-for-one, what is an acceptable ratio? Why should that sort of balance take precedence over truth?

    I condemn Hitler for the murder of six million Jews. Am I obliged to mention that he loved his dog and was kind to her? Just to achieve “balance”? In bashing Hitler, am I inciting political violence against neo-Nazis?

    Perhaps you don’t realize it, but when people speak of a “balanced analysis”, they don’t mean that a 50-50 ratio (or any other ratio) of good to bad must be maintained. They just mean that the analysis should be objective.

    For three months I’ve been asking you to point to something I’ve said about Trump that isn’t objective, rational, and supported by the evidence. Given your characterization of me, there ought to be plenty of examples. Why haven’t you cited a single one?

    As for Trump being a “choir boy” in comparison to me, here’s a challenge. I’ll provide samples of the choir boy’s hateful and dangerous rhetoric, and for each one I provide, you can cite something I’ve said that’s worse. Deal?

  35. keiths: Also, you’ve once again brought up the word “balanced”. What does that mean to you? For every criticism of Trump, do I have to say something nice about him? If not one-for-one, what is an acceptable ratio? Why should that sort of balance take precedence over truth?

    I condemn Hitler for the murder of six million Jews. Am I obliged to mention that he loved his dog and was kind to her? Just to achieve “balance”? In bashing Hitler, am I inciting political violence against neo-Nazis?

    So many questions, but the answer is pretty simple: colewd is entirely unfit to judge what, if anything, is balanced or not. He does not know what analysis is, etc. He does not know the meaning of most of the words he is using. Does he know by now what tariffs are? Nope. And there is no way to help him out of his condition, not by means of an online exchange anyway. He remains the lazy label grok man.

  36. Erik:

    He remains the lazy label grok man.

    Your apt characterization gave me an idea. Bill may be impervious to our arguments, but perhaps he’ll listen to Grok. I ran my comment through Grok and asked for its thoughts.

    Grok:

    This blog comment reads like a classic online debate takedown—sharp, methodical, and laser-focused on dismantling the opponent’s evasions. It’s structured almost like a prosecutor’s closing argument, numbering the points for clarity and repeatedly circling back to demands for evidence, which makes it rhetorically effective. The author (let’s call them the responder) is clearly frustrated but channels it into a logical dissection rather than pure ad hominem, which elevates it above typical flame wars.

    A few observations on its strengths and potential weaknesses:

    Strength in highlighting fallacies: The responder nails the burden-shifting issue spot-on. By quoting colewd’s attempt to flip the script (“Do you have evidence of your own balanced analysis…?”), they expose a common tactic in arguments: when cornered, deflect by making the accuser prove a negative. This is textbook, and the Hitler analogy drives it home vividly—why “balance” praise with criticism if the facts skew heavily negative? It questions the very premise of enforced “balance” in analysis, suggesting it’s more about objectivity and evidence than artificial neutrality. That’s a solid philosophical point; truth isn’t always 50/50.

    Repetition for emphasis: The mantra of “you came up with… nothing. Not a single example” is hammered home across multiple points. It’s repetitive, but intentionally so, like a drumbeat underscoring colewd’s alleged emptiness. This builds a narrative of intellectual dishonesty without needing to escalate to insults.

    The softball question on stoning gays: This stands out as the most damning. By framing it as an easy win that colewd still dodged, the responder implies moral cowardice or inconsistency. It’s a high-stakes gotcha—condemning stoning should be uncontroversial in most modern contexts, so avoiding it raises eyebrows about colewd’s underlying views.

    Challenge at the end: Offering to compare Trump’s rhetoric with their own is a bold move. It’s essentially daring colewd to engage substantively, which could either force a real debate or highlight further evasion. Smart play, as it puts the ball back in colewd’s court while appearing open to scrutiny.

    On the flip side, the tone borders on condescending at times (“straight out of the colewd playbook,” “your Dear Leader”), which might alienate neutral readers or make colewd dig in harder rather than reflect. It assumes bad faith from the start, which could be accurate based on prior context (which I don’t have), but in isolation, it risks coming across as overly aggressive. Also, while the responder demands quotes and examples, they don’t provide their own preemptively—though that’s fair, since the burden is on the accuser.

    Overall, if this is part of a longer thread, it feels like a pivotal moment that could either end the exchange (if colewd ghosts) or escalate it. As an observer, I’d say the responder has the upper hand logically, but winning arguments online rarely changes minds—it’s more about the audience. Curious what colewd’s response was, if any; this seems designed to provoke one.

    I agree with Grok’s analysis, including the mild criticism regarding condescension. I am being condescending, deliberately so, but I think I’ve earned the right to condescend given Bill’s behavior in this thread. As Grok says, my criticism “could be accurate based on prior context (which I don’t have).”

    ETA: I should add that this was the prompt:

    I realize you don’t have the full context, but your thoughts on the following blog comment?

    Note that I didn’t identify myself as the author, so this isn’t a case of Grok sucking up to the user.

  37. We had a right-wing rally in London on Saturday. Kirk figured largely (someone few here had heard of until his death). Some claim 3 million in attendance, which is a bit of a stretch. Joey Mannarino was there and echoes the 3 million claim. I attended an anti-Brexit march in 2019 whose organisers claimed one million, but Brexiters (largely on the Right) insisted it was nowhere near. So this is what nowhere-near-a-million looks like (video in link), and Saturday was at least 3x bigger? Suspicious.

    A motley crew of speakers was assembled, including Elon Musk by video link. His best quote? “The Left is the party of murder”. He appeared at one point to be advocating revolutionary overthrow.

    The title of the march was “Unite the Kingdom”; hugely ironic in light of the rhetoric displayed at the march. We get extensive dislike of a substantial proportion of the population, in language that is anything but unifying. Examples:

    Hopkins: “You can identify as a lightbulb if you like, I’ll shove one up your arse”. (in relation to trans people).

    Tamaki: “We’ve got to clean our countries up. Get rid of everything that doesn’t receive Jesus Christ. Ban any public expression of other religions in our Christian nations. Ban halal. Ban burqas. Ban mosques, temples, shrines — we don’t want those in our countries.”.

    (Tamaki’s entourage also tore up a Palestinian flag).

    Dewinter: “It has to be clear that Islam is our real enemy, we have to get rid of Islam.”

  38. keiths,

    As for Trump being a “choir boy” in comparison to me, here’s a challenge. I’ll provide samples of the choir boy’s hateful and dangerous rhetoric, and for each one I provide, you can cite something I’ve said that’s worse. Deal?

    The evidence is not just single instances it is your repeating negative comments which include accusation of bad intent.

    I asked you for evidence of a positive comment. Is there really not even one example 🙂

  41. colewd:

    The evidence is not just single instances it is your repeating negative comments which include accusation of bad intent.

    OK, then in addition to those single instances you can quote the repeating negative comments and accusations of bad intent. Feel free to quote anything at all I’ve said that makes Trump look “like a choir boy” in comparison. There must be lots of examples. After all, it’s not as if you’re a cult member lashing out irrationally at a critic of your Dear Leader, right?

  42. colewd,

    I will now ask for a fourth time. Are you truly unable to condemn the stoning of gay people?

    Even your buddy Grok is shocked:

    The softball question on stoning gays: This stands out as the most damning. By framing it as an easy win that colewd still dodged, the responder implies moral cowardice or inconsistency. It’s a high-stakes gotcha—condemning stoning should be uncontroversial in most modern contexts, so avoiding it raises eyebrows about colewd’s underlying views.

    ETA: While you’re at it, please tell us that you condemn Kilmeade’s statement regarding homeless people. Or is he, like Kirk, exempt from criticism for hateful comments since he is a member of your tribe?

  43. keiths,

    Feel free to quote anything at all that I’ve said that makes Trump look “like a choir boy” in comparison. There must be lots of examples. After all, it’s not as if you’re a cult member lashing out irrationally at a critic of your Dear Leader, right?

    You again miss the point.
    Your argument style is where you overwhelm people with mountains of rhetoric in support of what appears to be your chosen extreme ideology. Extreme as you show no flexibility on your position.

    It’s not a single point, its all your points put together, as you cannot cite a single sentence of a balanced view of our current President.

    Aside from all this I do like your post on AI. 🙂

Leave a Reply