The Definitive "Why I Oppose Trump!" Thread

[Tanngrisnir]

1) Straw man
2) His positions serves russia's interests, not ours
3) You're making stuff up. That's not what he said
4) I said nothing about any oligarchs, but there are russian businessmen with strong ties to the russian govt who have done business with Trump

All you did was confirm that it is impossible to defend Trump without engaging in the same sort of hysterical and unreasonable misrepresentations you decried in your OP

Yup. The irony is deafening that so many logical fallacies are being thrown around by one who purports to subscribe/adhere to logic.

 

[Captain Adverse]

1) Straw man
2) His positions serves russia's interests, not ours
3) You're making stuff up. That's not what he said
4) I said nothing about any oligarchs, but there are russian businessmen with strong ties to the russian govt who have done business with Trump

All you did was confirm that it is impossible to defend Trump without engaging in the same sort of hysterical and unreasonable misrepresentations you decried in your OP

No Sangha, quite the contrary. I proved it is possible to defend Trump with FACTS.

On the other hand, you have proved that you cannot be swayed by FACTS.

That you prefer, despite a rational presentation of said FACTS, to adhere to the mud-slinging anti-Trump meme.

That you respond to the FACTS with bluster and ill-reasoned disbelief.

The truth is that the FACTS will convince anyone without assumption bias that Trump is not the monster he is being made out to be. :coffeepap:

 

[Captain Adverse]

Yup. The irony is deafening that so many logical fallacies are being thrown around by one who purports to subscribe/adhere to logic.

Point to any "fallacy" and I will be happy to address it. Remember, stick to the OP rules and you will get a rational reply.

Meanwhile, I have yet to see you provide any citations in support of your list of "argumetum ad populorum" statements, demonstrating you are the one presenting in logical fallacy. :shrug:

 

[Tanngrisnir]

Point to any "fallacy" and I will be happy to address it. Remember, stick to the OP rules and you will get a rational reply.

You've already committed a bare assertion and quite a few straw men, and you incorrectly tried to reference ad populum earlier on. And on top of that, when I pointed that out, you neglected to address it.

If you don't understand terms (or use) of formal logic, why try and reference them?

 

[Tanngrisnir]

Point to any "fallacy" and I will be happy to address it. Remember, stick to the OP rules and you will get a rational reply.

Meanwhile, I have yet to see you provide any citations in support of your list of "argumetum ad populorum" statements, demonstrating you are the one presenting in logical fallacy. :shrug:

Yawn. I committed no such fallacy, nor can you demonstrate that I have.

Thanks for confirming your disinterest in honest discourse and that you're rather laughably unacquainted with logic.

Some friendly advice: try and know what you're talking about before actually talking.

 

[sangha]

No Sangha, quite the contrary. I proved it is possible to defend Trump with FACTS.

On the other hand, you have proved that you cannot be swayed by FACTS.

That you prefer, despite a rational presentation of said FACTS, to adhere to the mud-slinging anti-Trump meme.

That you respond to the FACTS with bluster and ill-reasoned disbelief.

The truth is that the FACTS will convince anyone without assumption bias that Trump is not the monster he is being made out to be. :coffeepap:

No, what you have presented is not FACTS. Trump never condemned Russia. Trump said that Russia would not go into Ukraine even though they already have. His policies do benefit Russia. He did say he would pull out of NATO and that he would consider not defending NATO members from attack. He said he doesn't care if Ukraine joins NATO. He said that Ukraine's problems are not important to the US. He said that NATO is obsolete. He did justify Russia's taking over Crimea.

What is not a FACT is that Trump's NATO comments are a "scare tactic" meant to make them spend more on defense, that Trump apologized for his claim to have seen a video with money being unloaded from a plane to pay for hostages, that he's doing this to save money for the US (because the US doesn't save any money if other nations spend more on NATO), and that Trump's words mean something other than what they actually mean simply because they came out of Trump's mouth (ie "Trump-speak")

Yawn. I committed no such fallacy, nor can you demonstrate that I have.

Thanks for confirming your disinterest in honest discourse and that you're rather laughably unacquainted with logic.

Some friendly advice: try and know what you're talking about before actually talking.

See my 2nd paragraph (above) for some of the bare assertions CA has made.

 

[Captain Adverse]

No, what you have presented is not FACTS. Trump never condemned Russia. Trump said that Russia would not go into Ukraine even though they already have. His policies do benefit Russia. He did say he would pull out of NATO and that he would consider not defending NATO members from attack. He said he doesn't care if Ukraine joins NATO. He said that Ukraine's problems are not important to the US. He said that NATO is obsolete. He did justify Russia's taking over Crimea.

What is not a FACT is that Trump's NATO comments are a "scare tactic" meant to make them spend more on defense, that Trump apologized for his claim to have seen a video with money being unloaded from a plane to pay for hostages, that he's doing this to save money for the US (because the US doesn't save any money if other nations spend more on NATO), and that Trump's words mean something other than what they actually mean simply because they came out of Trump's mouth (ie "Trump-speak")

See my 2nd paragraph (above) for some of the bare assertions CA has made.

Okay, it is clear that we have reached an impasse. The FACTS I refer to are clearly present in my prior responses.

That you are not swayed by them is evidence of nothing but that you choose not to be. Perhaps others willing to view those same facts with an open mind will be. :shrug:

Now if you'll forgive me, I still have to respond to some other member(s) issues.

 

[sangha]

Okay, it is clear that we have reached an impasse. The FACTS I refer to are clearly present in my prior responses.

No, the "FACTS" you posted are a jumble of fictions you concocted, which is why you won't defend the obviously untrue claims you've made.

 

[Captain Adverse]

TRUMP and IMMIGRATION

Part I

Mostly I find his positions to be incredibly unAmerican.

Banning Muslims. Even though I understand the reasoning behind it, it's too unAmerican for my blood. Also worth mentioning, to use Trumpian terms, it's a disaster.
Experts Say Trump'''s Muslim Ban Would Cripple Immigration System - NBC News

Deporting Millions of Mexicans: Again, although I understand the reasoning behind it, the plan would be a disaster.
Economic costs of deporting all undocumented immigrants - Business Insider

Building a wall: Same argument
Trump?s Wall: Impractical, Impolitic, Impossible

Sorry for the delay, but I was addressing other issues on the order presented by the members.

You noted that I already addressed your concern about Trump v. NATO in a joint response. The other issues were all related to immigration so I'll try to address them in this one post.

1. Banning Muslims. Even though I understand the reasoning behind it, it's too unAmerican for my blood. Also worth mentioning, to use Trumpian terms, it's a disaster.

Here is his quote, read from his campaign statement:

Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on.

Donald Trump speech in full: What the Republican presidential candidate said about Muslims | Americas | News | The Independent

So he originally made this statement and as the facts presented later show (from your citation) it would be a difficult, if not impossible issue to enforce...based solely on religion. So when he made this original statement to win points after a recent spate of terrorists attacks in Europe, it was not a well-thought out position. So some concerns are valid.

Having said that, I must point out that while denial until we "figures things out" based solely on religion is unrealistic; asking a religion question as part of the immigration vetting process accompanied by thorough background checking might help the process of minimizing easy-access to terrorists from Muslim dominated countries. I have no expertise in the area of immigration, so I can't assert how feasible this would be.

2. Deporting Millions of Mexicans: Again, although I understand the reasoning behind it, the plan would be a disaster.

This is a hard issue to address, because whether or not we can effectively deport Illegal Mexican aliens and what effect it can have on the American economy is a matter or pure opinion. For example, in your citation referring to jobs an argument is made that "using estimates of output per worker in each of those industries, that the cost in lost output would be in the hundreds of billions of dollars. 'Overall, removing all undocumented immigrants would cause private sector output to decline by between $381.5 billion and $623.2 billion. This translates to a 2.9 percent to 4.7 percent reduction in total annual output from the private sector.'"

But the counter-argument is that this would open up a vast job market for American labor. People often insist that illegals do jobs that American's don't want, but that is an argumentum ad populum. At least one of our Forum members, whom I respect for his intelligent posts, is a free-lance jack-of-all-trades laborer from Texas. There are over 750,000 Americans working in Farm jobs, and this site (quoting 2009 Bureau of Labor Statistic figures) show there are many American just like him who would be willing to put in a hard days work for a fair days wage in jobs most Illegals are hired to do. https://www.numbersusa.org/pages/jobs-americans-wont-do

The only people who would be negatively affected (aside from the illegals) are the businesses who increase their profit margins by hiring illegals for an unfair and untaxed wage.

Furthermore, the INS can do, and has done in the past, a fairly good job of rounding up and deporting illegals. The problems seem to lie in keeping them out once deported, or having amnesty/release programs interfere in the process due to political agendas.

Moreover, it has worked in the past:

Operation Wetback was an immigration law enforcement initiative created by Director of the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service Joseph Swing in cooperation with the Mexican government.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Wetback

Trumps position is feasible.

 

[Captain Adverse]

TRUMP and IMMIGRATION

Part II:

3. Building a wall: Same argument.

Again, your citation is an opinion piece on the feasibility of Trump's building a "Great Wall of America." It is also true that there are many arguments made against it from various expert sources.

If you asked me if it could be done? I'd answer that anything humans can envisage can be done, if we are willing to invest both the time and the expense/effort.

If you asked me SHOULD it be done? I would answer, no...at least not the kind of Great Wall of America he originally proposed. However, as this Border Agent expressed in this article:

After a conference call with agents from several sectors representing every state on the Southwest border, they seemed to zero in on certain conclusions:

-- Whether you call it a wall, or a fence, agents say they work.

"The wall is just one deterrent," says Del Cueto. "We need the wall. But we also definitely need more boots on the ground. We need more equipment. It is not just one thing."

How feasible is Trump's proposed wall? | Fox News

So, would an enhancement of our current "wall-building" methods, including extensions/improvements of various exiting barriers with backup from "more boots on the ground" and electronic surveillance help? THAT kind of wall I clearly support. The rest is just political bombast.

Summary:

1. Trumps blanket ban on Muslim Immigration based solely on a religious test is neither feasible nor IMO Constitutional. However, other vetting efforts to minimize the threat should be possible, and a prolonging of the process before allowing residence would not be unreasonable.

2. Deporting Mexican Illegals is feasible. It is just politically unpopular among certain elements of our society.

3. Trumps plan to build a massive "Great Wall" is not feasible. However, enhancing border barriers and increasing the support network of the INS border patrol is feasible.

 

[calamity]

TRUMP and IMMIGRATION

Part II:

3. Building a wall: Same argument.

Again, your citation is an opinion piece on the feasibility of Trump's building a "Great Wall of America." It is also true that there are many arguments made against it from various expert sources.

If you asked me if it could be done? I'd answer that anything humans can envisage can be done, if we are willing to invest both the time and the expense/effort.

If you asked me SHOULD it be done? I would answer, no...at least not the kind of Great Wall of America he originally proposed. However, as this Border Agent expressed in this article:

How feasible is Trump's proposed wall? | Fox News

So, would an enhancement of our current "wall-building" methods, including extensions/improvements of various exiting barriers with backup from "more boots on the ground" and electronic surveillance help? THAT kind of wall I clearly support. The rest is just political bombast.

Summary:

1. Trumps blanket ban on Muslim Immigration based solely on a religious test is neither feasible nor IMO Constitutional. However, other vetting efforts to minimize the threat should be possible, and a prolonging of the process before allowing residence would not be unreasonable.

2. Deporting Mexican Illegals is feasible. It is just politically unpopular among certain elements of our society.

3. Trumps plan to build a massive "Great Wall" is not feasible. However, enhancing border barriers and increasing the support network of the INS border patrol is feasible/

2. the biggest issue not addressed is deporting parents here illegally but whose children are American citizens. IMO, kicking them out creates more problems than it solves. Also, I for one do not want an all powerful INS running around gathering up millions of people in all 50 states. How that squares with so-called libertarians and other small, central government types baffles the hell out of me.

As for the other two. Yeah. Not feasible, and the fact that he is promoting such bs goes a long way toward making him not credible. He's basically running on lies.

Considering his opponent is also one hell of a liar...we have us probably the two most dishonest candidates running for president in recent history. I guess it comes down to which liar do you trust the most? Ugh.

 

[Captain Adverse]

2. the biggest issue not addressed is deporting parents here illegally but whose children are American citizens. IMO, kicking them out creates more problems than it solves. Also, I for one do not want an all powerful INS running around gathering up millions of people in all 50 states. How that squares with so-called libertarians and other small, central government types baffles the hell out of me.

As for the other two. Yeah. Not feasible, and the fact that he is promoting such bs goes a long way toward making him not credible. He's basically running on lies.

Considering his opponent is also one hell of a liar...we have us probably the two most dishonest candidates running for president in recent history. I guess it comes down to which liar do you trust the most? Ugh.

Sorry, I didn't see the bolded position. Did he make a statement about it you wanted me to investigate?

Well, one could call it lying or B.S., or one could call it old-style bombastic campaigning...depending on one's viewpoint.

I don't consider any of these unfeasible positions a game killer since I know they can't actually come about. Again, as I've pointed out in other threads, Trump has little support in Congress to fund any of these changes. I won't discuss why this option seems preferable to me as opposed to supporting his opponent who may be able to accomplish things I'd oppose while in office. (Sorry, that was a diversion to pure personal opinion and not meant as a counter-argument).

 

[Geoist]

So, while I may not be the best qualified advocate since my support for Trump is somewhat conditional

Conditional or not, how a self-described 'left-libertarian' can support a megalomaniac billionaire landlord is beyond me.

 

[cpwill]

Okay, unless you are a clinical psychiatrist who has examined Trump and can make an informed diagnosis, then this is an example of the kind of character assassination attack that I will not be responding to. .

Wait. So you find this kind of behavior unacceptable from a fellow poster, but not from a potential President?

Sent from my XT1526 using Tapatalk

 

[Glen Contrarian]

So, you accept the point that his stance on NATO, taken alone, does not show a Pro-Russia lean.

A fact that is taken alone, unless there are no related facts whatsoever, cannot be said to be taken in proper context. Ask any of our courts - a crime by a certain suspect might not seem that serious, unless one takes into consideration that suspect's past actions, his "rap sheet" as it were. You know this.

I have also pointed out that his statement about "Ukraine" was about him vs. Obama when dealing with Russian aggression. When taken in context he was saying "Putin in Ukraine? Not if I am President." That is the opposite of support for Putin.

His quote was, "He's not going into Ukraine, OK, just so you understand. He's not going to go into Ukraine, all right? You can mark it down. You can put it down. You can take it anywhere you want". George Stephanopolous pointed out that he's already there, and then Trump said, "OK -- well, he's there in a certain way. But I'm not there. You have Obama there. And frankly, that whole part of the world is a mess under Obama with all the strength that you're talking about and all of the power of NATO and all of this. In the meantime, he's going away. He takes Crimea."

First, it's pretty disingenuous for Trump to claim that Putin's "not going to go into Ukraine" when Putin's already been there for freaking YEARS. How, exactly, does Trump think he's going to get Putin out of there? Sounds to me like a wonderful case of magical thinking. He's SO sure that he's SO strong and SO effective that the ex-head of the KGB who took Crimea also took Georgia (before Obama became president, remember) will meekly back out, because Trump.

Really?

No. Not really. Putin will eat him for lunch. The almost-beyond-reasonable-doubt fact that Russia appears to be trying to help Trump get elected should be all you need to know in order to realize that they WANT him to be president. Why would Putin want Trump to be president? Is it because he suddenly wants the best for America? What kind of scenario are you buying into where Putin is somehow more afraid of Trump, yet does that which is obviously meant to benefit Trump in our election?

That leaves your last two points, that he has economic ties to Russian oligarchs and his response to the email hacking.

Riiiiiiight. Out of all the times that Trump's said truly, incredibly stupid crap over the past year, followed by having to walk back his statements, trying to tap-dance his way out of it, NOW he finally actually succeeds in being 'subtly' sarcastic?

No.

With all his statements in the past when he's tried to be sarcastic, his attempts have been obvious - there's been no question whatsoever from left or right as to whether he was being sarcastic. What you're forgetting is that Trump has shown every indication of saying whatever pops into his head at the moment. He doesn't think ahead. Look at what he said before, that "Putin won't go into Ukraine", and then tries to walk it back, as if Putin would leave the Ukraine once Trump was in the Oval Office. He MEANT what he said in the first quote, and then when Stephanopolous corrected him, he MEANT what he said when he walked back his first statement.

That should be a great glaring red light to those of us who are deciding whom to hire, who would have access to the nuclear football.

That just leaves the close ties with Russian oligarchs:

There have been a lot of op-ed pieces alleging hidden ties. But in trying to follow the links...I find bupkis, nada, nicht...NOTHING but allegations.

Except for what Time Magazine found. My only question would be whether you're going to accept what the article points out, or whether you're going to still try to defend the indefensible. Unfortunately, I suspect it will be the latter.

 

[cpwill]

Conditional or not, how a self-described 'left-libertarian' can support a megalomaniac billionaire landlord is beyond me.

One poster had a good argument for that position, arguing that their intention was to destroy the Republican Party.

 

[sangha]

my bad...

What’s Trump’s Position on NATO?

I found no evidence he actually intends to do it. In this case your point is not valid. :shrug:

Because saying he will pull out of NATO if some of the nations don't contribute more is "no evidence" he will pull out of NATO :roll:

It's become obvious that, like every other Trump supporter, the only way you can defend his absurd statements is by denying they mean what they clearly mean

But your link clearly agrees with me

d he has said that, under a Trump administration, the U.S. might no longer be a part of the alliance if it isn’t restructured and other nations don’t start to pick up more of the costs.

 

[d0gbreath]

There's just too much thrust Captain. We're breaking apart.

 

[Psychoclown]

I haven't read the whole thread, but this seems potentially interesting so I'll share some of my objections ...

1) Trump has run perhaps the most substance free campaign in history. Yes, its even worse than Hope and Change. I watched every Republican debate and Trump spent most of this time either bragging about his poll numbers or just flat out insulting his opponents. When he has offered something resembling specifics its either warmed over ideas that have been floating around in the Republican sphere for years (like his healthcare "plan") or simplistic, symbolic ideas that simply won't solve the problem they are supposed to address.

2) Which brings me to my next point, the wall. Its Trump's signature issue. One of the few things he's been unwaveringly consistent on. The problem is, it will cost a lot more than Trump's publicly claimed it will cost (depending on what speech you quote I've seen him claim it would cost between 4 - 12 billion, when real number is north of doubling the high end), will cost loads more to maintain and man, and won't solve the problem. Half of our illegal immigrants end up here on expired visas. They come legally and then overstay their visas. A wall will do nothing to stop that.

The wall appeals to some folks because its a simple, straightforward and feels tough and decisive, but it won't solve the problem and will cost us a whole lot more than we've been lead to believe. Kind of sums up Trump's entire candidacy if you ask me.

3) I don't trust a man who has engaged in crony capitalism for years (and bragged about it) to be the one to clean up the system. Just like I wouldn't hire a burglar to watch over my house or a child molester to watch my daughter, I don't trust a man who brags about buying politicians to suddenly be a anti-corruption reformer.

4) His trade policy would be a disaster. The man has openly talked about slapping 30% tariffs on goods made overseas. This would be an economic disaster. Yes, we have lost jobs (even entire industries) due to free trade, but we've gained access to cheaper goods and that has allowed us to reallocate our manpower elsewhere, into fields where we are most efficient and effective. Free trade has been one of the primary drivers of our economic growth for the last 20 years.

5) I don't trust him on foreign policy. Some of his stances are refreshingly non-interventionist. But I've seen what happens when a foreign policy neophyte runs on a less invasive foreign policy and then gets into the Oval Office. GWB ran on a "humble" foreign policy that rejected nation building in 2000. Obama was peace candidate in 2008 who bravely voted against Iraq. Both embraced interventionism once they came into office and were surrounded by "seasoned advisors". I don't think Trump will be any different. Especially when looking at the man's own temperament. This is a guy who's first response to any opposition, questioning of his leadership, or difference of opinion is to attack. He instinctively seems to escalate conflict. We've seen with the Megan Kelley, the Khans, his Republican opponents, McCain, Romney, and even the media in general. Say something bad about Trump and he goes on the attack. I can't help but suspect he'll take the same thin-skinned mentality to international politics.

6) I don't trust him on domestic policy either. This is a guy who until 8 years ago or so was a life long Democrat. You can dig up statements from him taking left wing stances on abortion, guns, taxation, and healthcare just to name a few. Yes, people do change, but to see such a dramatic 180 in such a short time without him ever really giving a good reason why (he did explain his shift on abortion fairly well, but not the other issues) makes he suspicious to say the least. Is he an opportunist? Does he just lack any core political principles? I can't answer for sure, but it certainly doesn't ring true for me.

 

[Psychoclown]

7) He's a birther. That alone should make people question his judgement. Its an idea held only by the lunatic fringe. Maybe he doesn't really believe it and just used it as a way to stir up the crazies in his favor, but that hardly speaks well for him in my book, and that's the best case scenario I can think of. And birtherism isn't the only time he's dabbled in the world of paranoid conspiracies. In the primaries he often complained that the establishment was going to "steal" the nomination from him. Now he complains the general election is "rigged" against him. Again, maybe he doesn't really believe this malarkey and is just trying to stir up his base, but there are crazy people out there who will believe this and inflaming their passions seems to be a dangerous game to play.

8) Trump's campaign has been poorly run. Yes he's brilliantly used the media to get free coverage, but in the primaries his campaign was consistently outworked on the ground game. And even now in the early general campaign he's stumbled from one self inflicted wound to another. For a guy that claims that he regularly surrounds himself with the best available people, I'm not seeing it so far in his campaign. There were times in Colorado and elsewhere where they seemed genuinely surprised or unprepared for the rules of the primary or caucus. Not the hallmarks of a well run organization filled with top people in their fields. And you would think some of his top advisors would have warned him that going after a Gold Star family was never going to be a winning move, but he did it anyway, meaning he's either surrounded by yes men or he doesn't bother to listen to the best people that he surrounds himself with.

 

[Enlighten Me]

Just check off the ones that describe Donald Trump's life and candidacy, then YOU decide if you want him in the White House.

Profile of the Sociopath

This website summarizes some of the common features of descriptions of the behavior of sociopaths.

•Glibness and Superficial Charm


•Manipulative and Conning
They never recognize the rights of others and see their self-serving behaviors as permissible. They appear to be charming, yet are covertly hostile and domineering, seeing their victim as merely an instrument to be used. They may dominate and humiliate their victims.


•Grandiose Sense of Self
Feels entitled to certain things as "their right."


•Pathological Lying
Has no problem lying coolly and easily and it is almost impossible for them to be truthful on a consistent basis. Can create, and get caught up in, a complex belief about their own powers and abilities. Extremely convincing and even able to pass lie detector tests.


•Lack of Remorse, Shame or Guilt
A deep seated rage, which is split off and repressed, is at their core. Does not see others around them as people, but only as targets and opportunities. Instead of friends, they have victims and accomplices who end up as victims. The end always justifies the means and they let nothing stand in their way.


•Shallow Emotions
When they show what seems to be warmth, joy, love and compassion it is more feigned than experienced and serves an ulterior motive. Outraged by insignificant matters, yet remaining unmoved and cold by what would upset a normal person. Since they are not genuine, neither are their promises.


•Incapacity for Love


•Need for Stimulation
Living on the edge. Verbal outbursts and physical punishments are normal. Promiscuity and gambling are common.


•Callousness/Lack of Empathy
Unable to empathize with the pain of their victims, having only contempt for others' feelings of distress and readily taking advantage of them.


•Poor Behavioral Controls/Impulsive Nature
Rage and abuse, alternating with small expressions of love and approval produce an addictive cycle for abuser and abused, as well as creating hopelessness in the victim. Believe they are all-powerful, all-knowing, entitled to every wish, no sense of personal boundaries, no concern for their impact on others.


•Early Behavior Problems/Juvenile Delinquency
Usually has a history of behavioral and academic difficulties, yet "gets by" by conning others. Problems in making and keeping friends; aberrant behaviors such as cruelty to people or animals, stealing, etc.


•Irresponsibility/Unreliability
Not concerned about wrecking others' lives and dreams. Oblivious or indifferent to the devastation they cause. Does not accept blame themselves, but blames others, even for acts they obviously committed.


•Promiscuous Sexual Behavior/Infidelity
Promiscuity, child sexual abuse, rape and sexual acting out of all sorts.


•Lack of Realistic Life Plan/Parasitic Lifestyle
Tends to move around a lot or makes all encompassing promises for the future, poor work ethic but exploits others effectively.


•Criminal or Entrepreneurial Versatility
Changes their image as needed to avoid prosecution. Changes life story readily.


Other Related Qualities:
1.Contemptuous of those who seek to understand them
2.Does not perceive that anything is wrong with them
3.Authoritarian
4.Secretive
5.Paranoid
6.Only rarely in difficulty with the law, but seeks out situations where their tyrannical behavior will be tolerated, condoned, or admired
7.Conventional appearance
8.Goal of enslavement of their victim(s)
9.Exercises despotic control over every aspect of the victim's life
10.Has an emotional need to justify their crimes and therefore needs their victim's affirmation (respect, gratitude and love)
11.Ultimate goal is the creation of a willing victim
12.Incapable of real human attachment to another
13.Unable to feel remorse or guilt
14.Extreme narcissism and grandiose
15.May state readily that their goal is to rule the world

(The above traits are based on the psychopathy checklists of H. Cleckley and R. Hare.)