King of the narcissists

someoneyouknow

Literotica Guru
Joined
Jun 5, 2006
Posts
28,274
Based solely on his refusal to ever admit it's his fault, one would be under the correct impression the con artist has an inflated ego. When combined with his comments which are solely designed to make himself look good, after refusing to admit any mistake, one might even say he borders on narcissism.

Now comes word the con artist doesn't border on narcissism, he has jumped far beyond the Red Line of narcissism. At several locations of his properties, the con artist has placed Time magazine covers showing his leering, unrepentant smirk. The problem is, he has never been on the cover of Time. Further, the date of the cover, March 1st, 2009, is a date on which Time never issued an edition.

Just like his continuing whining about Hillary Clinton receiving more votes than he did, it appears the con artist can't let it go that he's never been on the cover of Time magazine. His ego is so fragile, so susceptible to deflation if his name isn't mentioned every fifteen seconds, that he had fake Time covers made up. This at the same time he calls "fake news!" every time truthful stories about his incompetence, his corruption, and his collusion with Russia are published.

Even worse, after telling the entire U.S. intelligence service they were incompetent and useless, the con artist then appeared at CIA headquarters to "patch things up". But instead of being a leader and admitting he was wrong to say what he did, he launched into a self-serving pat on back by bragging about having more covers than anyone else, saying: "I think we have the all-time record in the history of Time magazine." This, like his fake Time magazine cover, is also fake. The person with the most covers is Richard Nixon with fifty-five.

Is it any wonder the man can't accomplish anything? He's more worried about how people perceive him and stroking his own ego than he is doing something useful. If that doesn't scream narcissism, give him a minute. He's sure to come up with something else.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40427357
 
Based solely on his refusal to ever admit it's his fault, one would be under the correct impression the con artist has an inflated ego. When combined with his comments which are solely designed to make himself look good, after refusing to admit any mistake, one might even say he borders on narcissism.

Now comes word the con artist doesn't border on narcissism, he has jumped far beyond the Red Line of narcissism. At several locations of his properties, the con artist has placed Time magazine covers showing his leering, unrepentant smirk. The problem is, he has never been on the cover of Time. Further, the date of the cover, March 1st, 2009, is a date on which Time never issued an edition.

Just like his continuing whining about Hillary Clinton receiving more votes than he did, it appears the con artist can't let it go that he's never been on the cover of Time magazine. His ego is so fragile, so susceptible to deflation if his name isn't mentioned every fifteen seconds, that he had fake Time covers made up. This at the same time he calls "fake news!" every time truthful stories about his incompetence, his corruption, and his collusion with Russia are published.

Even worse, after telling the entire U.S. intelligence service they were incompetent and useless, the con artist then appeared at CIA headquarters to "patch things up". But instead of being a leader and admitting he was wrong to say what he did, he launched into a self-serving pat on back by bragging about having more covers than anyone else, saying: "I think we have the all-time record in the history of Time magazine." This, like his fake Time magazine cover, is also fake. The person with the most covers is Richard Nixon with fifty-five.

Is it any wonder the man can't accomplish anything? He's more worried about how people perceive him and stroking his own ego than he is doing something useful. If that doesn't scream narcissism, give him a minute. He's sure to come up with something else.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40427357

And then there's a honest Clinton?
 
It's not the fact that he is a pompous narcissist that is annoying, as there have been many world leaders in history who were full of themselves but still empowered their people and encouraged productivity, the love of arts and sciences.

It's the fact that he is NOT willing to learn. He is willfully ignorant, a strong trait of many right wingers. That is why they like him. They see themselves in HIM.

How anyone can look at that disgusting bad weaved, lizard slit mouth MUG and have admiration is beyond me.


He's in over his rat like toupee and he knows it. He's not fit to even lead a third world country as many third world country leaders are wise enough to know that they must bring their population into the 21st century, that you must make your people happy to advance to the top. These stupid Republicans in government do not understand that factor. Of course, these daft SOUTHERNERS and RED STATE DWELLERS would cut off their nose in spite of their face due to their bigotry. That's one major reason he is in office. But it's not just their fault.

The evidence that the Russians bought him is very strong, and it makes sense, as what better way to live your former Soviet Union glory than to weaken one of the most powerful nations on Earth? Your former adversary. How do they do that? By installing the biggest ass (in more ways than one) to the highest office of the country you despise.

 
Last edited:
2016 wasn't a happy election.

I wanted Bernie Sanders. If we can get him up for election, I'm about certain he will win, and the people of the USA will enjoy his time in office.

But yeah, I think DT is buying his own con, and I laughed when the HRC crowd were complaining that the election wasn't fair, after the primary they'd just ruined.
 
And then there's a honest Clinton?


Why do you right wingers continue to input Clinton's name in any discussion? She isn't President.

You pansies are extremely intimidated by any strong woman who decides to speak out and not just function as a kiss ass blow up doll or fundie twit like your typical Republican female.

For the "party of personal responsibility", you fools just can't stop deflecting and blaming other people.
 
Why do you right wingers continue to input Clinton's name in any discussion? She isn't President.

You pansies are extremely intimidated by any strong woman who decides to speak out and not just function as a kiss ass blow up doll or fundie twit like your typical Republican female.

For the "party of personal responsibility", you fools just can't stop deflecting and blaming other people.

Yeah, it's quite amusing that Hillary Clinton can still make these guys piss in their pants they're so scared of what she was/is/isn't really anymore. :D

As far as narcissism, I think some of that is a requirement for a national leader to be able to function. The Donald, as mentioned, takes it to a psychotic place, though.
 
Yeah, it's quite amusing that Hillary Clinton can still make these guys piss in their pants they're so scared of what she was/is/isn't really anymore. :D

As far as narcissism, I think some of that is a requirement for a national leader to be able to function. The Donald, as mentioned, takes it to a psychotic place, though.

Your new novel has boy-girl sex in it?
 
Your new novel has boy-girl sex in it?

I have novels with boy-girl sex, but my most recent one(s) doesn't(don't).

I have a boy-girl sex one (based on celebrities from the last century) serialized here on Literotica for free read. Wolf Creek. It's not a new novel, though.
 
I have novels with boy-girl sex, but my most recent one(s) doesn't(don't).

I have a boy-girl sex one (based on celebrities from the last century) serialized here on Literotica for free read. Wolf Creek. It's not a new novel, though.

I'll take a look at it. I haven't read anything for awhile. I won't critique it, just pleasure reading.

Books don't care if they are not new, neither do I :)
 
Why is this relevant?

When they can't defend the president, their alternative is to attack the Clintons, no matter how irrelevant they now are. (And I do hope HRC is out of the picture, though I don't think she'll go willingly)

Before anyone can accuse me of being against having a woman in office, I would have voted for HRC if she'd taken Warren as her VP. Had Warren run with-or-instead-of Bernie Sanders, I'd have been tickled to vote for her that way, too.
 
Why do you right wingers continue to input Clinton's name in any discussion? She isn't President.

You pansies are extremely intimidated by any strong woman who decides to speak out and not just function as a kiss ass blow up doll or fundie twit like your typical Republican female.

For the "party of personal responsibility", you fools just can't stop deflecting and blaming other people.
Hillary Clinton is the only First Lady to hold an elected office. No First Lady before or since has done that. (Some have been appointed, but none elected.)

That must sting.
 
Back
Top