Ironically this is you projecting your opinion.
Actually, it's not my opinion. Everything I said is observable fact about the differences between positive and negative prejudice, and about carnal vanity. The last paragraph is a hypothetical scenario, but it is facts based. Those facts being that some people know more than others as a matter of circumstance and it's not anyone's fault this occurs.
Do you apply all this you've said when talking about Trump?
Yes, it applies to everyone.
Both Hilary and Biden have been in politics for decades. Neither had ever been president before. Being vice president isn't the same as being president and requires different duties. Hilary was the wife of a president and followed him around during most of his duties, so she would be able to learn first hand what being a president is like.
I don't disagree that Hillary had knowledge gained from her experience as a first lady, senator, and secretary of state. If she believes she would be the best president, I would not call her a narcissist because,
it's just her OPINION.
So of all people, Hilary seems was better suited than others as a matter of circumstance.
That's an opinion.
How do you know Biden knew more about the job than Hilary?
I don't. I just know Biden had more experience as a senator and as a vice President. In a competent administration the vice president is just as informed and included in all matters as the President, so that they can effectively step in and takeover at a moment's notice.
How do you know Hilary didn't have the experience of governing or knew how government works?
I don't, and I never thought she didn't.
Just about any other democrat that isn't Biden.
And as you yourself said:
"He actually would be stupid to run for President if he thought the other candidate would make a better President."
As this video on narcissism explains, clinging to power is a trait of a narcissist.
Your own words condemn him.
Him being stupid is reference to your own comment about Biden stupid to run for president if he thought other candidates would make a better President.
You need to rethink this. I said he would be stupid to run IF he thought the other candidate would make a better President. It's a provisional statement. The FACT IS
he didn't run, because
he felt he didn't have the passion to do the job. Since in the interview he thinks he would be the better President IF HE HAD THE PASSION, then obviously the provisional requirement that qualifies stupidity in my statement, doesn't exist.
Him being a forgetful, frail old man should be enough for him to step down.
That's a valid argument, but IF Joe believes he can do the job and IF he is the one best suited to defeat Trump, those would be valid reasons to not step down.
The self-defamatory joke could also be seen as deflection.
It could, and it probably would be seen that way by any cynic who projects cynicism. But if it were deflection, then it's even a quicker wit than if it wasn't. The point being that it's a contradiction for a cynic to both claim it's proof Biden is stupid and then claim it's a calculated deflection.
Constantly evoking his dead son's name to garner sympathy.
Well, he talked about this in the video you posted. He felt he would be the best President but because Beau died, he felt he had lost his soul, and he did not have the passion to do what the job required. So, despite his expressed confidence in his experience and knowledge which you see as narcissism, he did not run.
He was grieving then, and he may now be using Beau's memory to pick himself up and do something meaningful in his last years, believing Beau would want that. So, when he mentions Beau, if he is thinking within himself, he's doing this for Beau, then I can see how he can come across as using Beau to garner sympathy for Joe's cause. Even so, that does not qualify as false humility.
How do you know that's what he was thinking when he said that?
I study semantics particular to psycholinguistics. Words are expressed sentiments and therefore they have power/energy. Since a singular word can carry positive, neutral or negative connotations depending on how it is qualified; by using true dichotomies, I can conduct a subjective semantic analysis and thereby discern the underlying intentions, where they are coming from in their approach to the objective truth, and whether they are informed or misinformed.
Do you apply this same level of grace and understanding to Trump?
I understand he is carnal minded and can't help himself.
This also doesn't explain Biden's insults and racist comments, which appropriately demonstrates one of my points about Biden supporters. They just ignore it.
Do you realize I have no idea what so called insults and racist comments you could be referring to? I'm just saying if you're going to say something bad about someone, you need to have proof; otherwise, it's just slander.
There's a firehose of disinformation out there and people get tired of debunking lies. It should be expected that at some point people ignore it.
Could you give an example that you've seen regarding Biden?
I was simply pointing out that a person can't justify slander, but they can justify standing up against slander. Are you asking me to show where Biden is standing up against the wickedness of slander?
I've already provided "convincing proof" to you in regards to Biden. You must have missed the post or ignored it.
As far as I remember, I've debunked everything you've called "convincing proof" of narcissism that was directed at me.
Could you point out the slander regarding Biden? Because pointing out Joe Biden's lies, insults and racism isn't slander, it's exposing evil.
I recall saying you should first prove he mocked Christianity before you move on to trying to prove he's done all the things God hates. All you showed me was one man's opinion that when Joe made the sign of the cross it was Joe's intention to make a mockery of the Catholic faith. That is slandering Joe.
