A Sociopathic President With An Abby Normal Brain? Buy Stock In Pitchforks & Torches

When I refer to President Trump as a sociopath that gives us some idea how he may govern and, eventually, un-govern. A narcissist like Trump will not handle defeat lightly, bigly unlightly. Trump’s response to his own immanent failure will likely be catastrophic. Some key psych peeps out there disagree with me on this one. What?! This farcissistic spoofy-o-path won’t tolerate dissent! George W. Bush was just incompetent, but Trump represents a diagnostical and diabolical downgrade (DDD). I didn’t think even our right-leaning friends could miss all the clues associated with this guy’s unhingedness. Kidding, each news cycle they miss more clues than Inspector Clouseau on a fentanyl drip. If you remain a 21st century Republican, you have to ask yourself the age old Zano question: do I just come to the wrong conclusion about every issue on Earth on my own, or have I had help? You need to understand, your party has become an anti-intellectual, delusional movement that mimics a form of mental illness. As a collective you are only slighly healthier than your president. I’ve been discussing the personality disorder aspect inherent in the modern GOP for well over a decade now. From an emotional perspective you’re only slightly healthier than those Kool-Aid drinking Jim Jonesers, or those folks who tried to board that passing comet in the 90s. Hale-GOPP? Kidding, those peeps were at least savvy enough to leave Earth, pre-Donald.

More and more we see our Axis-II friends (sociopaths, anti-personality, narcissistic) shifting into positions of power, so beware the encroaching sociopathy …which also happens to be my favorite Lovecraft novel. We all have a smattering in us, a pinch is required to lead, but this guy has enough Axis-II traits to stuff his entire comb-over. Trump’s psyche resides somewhere between full-blown narcissism and half-assed sociopathy. The following list covers that whole happy family …which also happens to be my favorite order at the Jade Dragon.

Here’s the Diagnostic Statistical Manuel (DSM-V) breakdown:

  1. Failure to obey laws and norms by engaging in behavior which results in criminal arrest, or would warrant criminal arrest. “Release my taxes? Separate from my businesses? Press core right up my ass?  Sorry, I got to grab me some pussy! I can get away with it because I’m yuge, above the law YUUUGE!”
  2. Lying, deception, and manipulation, for profit or self-amusement. “Alternative facts are facts, well, if they benefit me. Please refer to everything that has ever come out of my mouth.”
  3. Impulsive behavior. Sing it with me: “I can’t stop this tweeting anymore, I’ve forgotten what I started tweeting for.”
  4. Irritability and aggression, manifested as frequently assaults others, or engages in fighting. See: John McCain, disabled reporters, journalists in general, women, minorities, liberals in general, and people not named Donald Trump. Not to mention the next senseless and unprovoked war.
  5. Blatantly disregards safety of self and others. “Yes, I’ve tweeted the nuclear codes in hashtag form #12345BOOM!, but don’t worry, shortly after I launched that tweet my family and I were whisked safely away to that bunker under the White House.Make America Irradiated Again?”
  6. A pattern of irresponsibility. Fast forward to the next four years. Kidding, he’ll be impeached before then. Kidding, we’ll all be dead before then.
  7. Lack of remorse for actions.  His tendency to double down on every inappropriate comment and never admit to any fault, despite a gross lack of obvious merits.

The Trumpster hits every mark and should be diagnosed accordingly (jokes or no jokes). Also, there’s a straight line between our prez’s emotional instablity and his political party. Oh sorry, not a straight line, more of a closeted/repressive line.

Irony Alert: Due to a common qualifying diagnosis, Republicans are all eligible for the Medicaid Expansion that they are now gutting.

I can’t help quoting myself at least once during an article about narcissism. It’s kind of a rule:

“I am not immune to selfishness, but my self-absorption is focused on certain establishments and a collection of baristas and bartenders. Barcissism? As I’ve said, we all have a little in us, unless we’re true Bodhisattvas. The Ghetto Shaman asserts that he is a Bootysttva—a practice neither endorsed by Buddhism or the American Psychological Association.”
—Zano

Speaking of the APA, some of those folks disagree with my diagnosis. One article from Psychology Today defends Trump’s fragile psyche as a kind of  “normal crazy”, here. Worse still, an author of the DSM-5 itself, Dr. Allen Frances, pointed out how a psychological disorder is contingent upon whether or not the individual finds the symptoms distressing. Far be it from me to disagree with the author of the psych-Bible, but WRONG! Here’s the thing, the personality disorders are very different than most other types of emotional issues. Sociopaths are essentially conscienceless individuals, they’re not going to be bothered by stuff pertaining to other mere mortals, period. If Jeffrey Dahmer wasn’t caught I don’t believe his “symptoms” would have been all that distressing to him, or:

“Dear Clarice, I have followed with enthusiasm the course of your disgrace and public shaming. My own never bothered me, except for the inconvenience of being incarcerated.”

You probably guessed that’s not a Trump quote; it comes courtesy of a fictional sociopath with an IQ. Most common folk would go to jail for assaulting people, but Trump remains above the law. So how is being filthy rich and sociopathic going to become distressing to him? By the time that happens someone might want to check Mr. Trump’s freezer for body parts. We might want to do that anyway. Sadly, our Republican friends cannot identify a moron when they see one, or a sociopathic one. Thus the recent coronation of President Ass-Clown Hitler. At 70, and with his psychological presentation, Trump is likely to remain wholly unchangeable, despite facts on the ground. Narcissism is an engrained personality flaw. You can’t teach an old GOP new tricks, or, in his case, any. The GOP is irreparably damaged at this point. If what is true for the individual holds true for the collective, they will prove rather difficult to reel in. I have always said it’s a race between the GOP’s extinction or the world’s. The world lost. I understand the implications of those last statements, which is why it’s been my clarion call for over a decade now—well, that and the unsettling prevalence of sports bars. Sorry, folks, the GOP is bigly broken! Yuuuge broken! Buffalo Wildwings broken. Don’t get me started on that place. That’s a discussion for another day …if we have any more of those.

 

*My related feature on sociopaths here as well as my full Republican diagnosis, here.

(Visited 169 times, 1 visits today)
Mick Zano

Mick Zano

Mick Zano is the Head Comedy Writer and co-founder of The Daily Discord. He is the Captain of team Search Truth Quest and is currently part of the Witness Protection Program. He is being strongly advised to stop talking any further about this, right now, and would like to add that he is in no way affiliated with the Gambinonali crime family. 

  12 comments for “A Sociopathic President With An Abby Normal Brain? Buy Stock In Pitchforks & Torches

  1. Pokey
    February 3, 2017 at 8:28 AM

    If the Republicans are the “anti-intellectuals” then why are the liberals always the ones shouting down and bullying, rather than debating, people who they do not agree with–see Berkely and NYU. It always seems to be the left who deprives people of the right to speak. Asd the Left’s leadership never seems to condemn such action.

    • Mick Zano
      February 3, 2017 at 12:42 PM

      I will agree with you one point, and I always have: rampant political correctness is progressivisms biggest failure. But I am frankly sick of the ongoing delusion that republicans can lead. There’s absolutely no evidence for this. We had the Largest protest in history last Saturday and per capita the most peaceful. Join the revolution Pokey!

  2. pokey
    February 3, 2017 at 2:02 PM

    what exactly did you protest?

  3. pokey
    February 3, 2017 at 2:16 PM

    My protest was my vote in 2017 election. And I can tell you exactly what I protested. I protested the killing of unborn babies and the dissecting of their parts for scientific/medical research. I protested the Unconstitutional Federal Reserve selling out our nation’s economy to the whims of international bankers. I protested the thugs/rioters who threaten with force rather than debate the issues. I protested the illegal federal income taxing of my labors. I protested the unconstitutional individual mandate. And there are more specific issues that I protested with my vote. What specifically are you protesting?

    • Mick Zano
      February 3, 2017 at 5:51 PM

      You do not have ovaries (moot). Obamacare was a stepping stone to single payer, the mandate part is the republican contribution (moot). Hillary gave speeches to Wall Street, Trump has since moved them into his cabinet (moot). Trump may well tank the Federal Reserve, is that your solution? I protested the creation and perpetuation of an alternate political reality that has been created within the U.S. over the last two decades. One that allowed a wholly fictional political platform, minus almost any merit, to gain a super majority. Let’s throw in active voter suppression, rampant unconstitutional obstructionism and a future of war mongering. Our economy, our ecosystem, our Constitution and our collective futures will now be forfeit to greed, ignorance, isolationism, and bigotry. Your party has lost all perspective on reality, but you did inspire the post today! http://www.dailydiscord.com/?p=9793http://www.dailydiscord.com/?p=9793

      • Mick Zano
        February 3, 2017 at 9:32 PM

        OK, fine, they’re not entirely moot, as we have discussed, but were they worth destroying the economy, the country, the planet? I say no. Especially when you consider the context of a time period wherein illegal immigration, abortion and overall violence are down.

    • Pierce Winslow
      February 7, 2017 at 8:56 AM

      Federal Reserve selling out? How about five Goldman Sachs execs in the cabinet, including the “Foreclosure King” as Secretary of the Treasury?

      Debate the issues? How about launching the most religiously oppressive (and thereby unconstitutional) policy in history by Executive Order?

      Protesting federal income tax? So, you’re saying that Trump is going to abolish that?

      The conservatively controlled Supreme Court decided that the individual mandate was constitutional, therefore, it IS constitutional no matter how much you disagree. It’s a constitution thing.

      • Pokey
        February 7, 2017 at 10:59 PM

        Okay Pierce, I want to address your three main points.

        1) federal reserve–I said my vote (for Trump) was a protest against the federal reserve selling out our nation’s economy. I see that the Democrats and Republicans have been in the pocket of the federal reserve and international bankers for many years. A vote for Trump (or even a vote for Sanders) represents a protest against this centralization of an international economy through trade agreements and monetary policies at the expense of local grassroots economies and national sovereignty. Perhaps Trump will deliver, perhaps he won’t. Perhaps Trump is genuine, perhaps he’s a shill. We’ll find out. But I stand by my protest vote against the Democratic (Clintons) and Republican (Bush’s) pawns of the Federal Reserve.

        2) Federal Income Tax–it’s theft. The 16th Amendment said “The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on income…”

        It’s important to note that the definition of “income” as used in the 16th amendment is “unearned income”, that is, profit from investments, dividends, capital gains, and net income from corporate earnings. The term “income” did not apply to wages, salaries, and labor. Supreme Court hearings–Brushaber versus Union Pacific Railroad (1916), Peck versus Lane (1918), and Tafter versus Bowers (1928) have each confirmed that the income Tax is only written and administered as an excise on privilege, not on labor, wages, or salary. Since the Supreme has ruled in such a way, I’m sure you’ll join me in protesting the unconstitutional taxing of wages, labor, and salary. There is no statute written by Congress that allows the government to tax the wages of American people period. The IRS perpetuates this theft with help of the Democrats and Republicans. Do I think that Donald Trump will abolish the IRS? No, but perhaps he will simplify the tax code and reduce the size and scope of the IRS’s power, rather than expand the IRS’s power like the Bush’s, the Clinton’s and the Obama’s have done.

        3) It’s funny how in one sentence you suggested that Trump’s executive order is unconstitutional, not because the courts say so but, because it is “the most religiously oppressive (and thereby unconstituional) policy in history,” and in another sentence you state that the individual mandate is constitutional, not because it doesn’t violate people’s rights but, simply because the supreme court ruled that it was constitutional. In the first case, you’re not waiting for the court to rule as to the executive order’s constitutionality. You already know that its unconstitutional due to it being soooo “religiously oppressive.” Do you see the contradiction Pierce?

        And you are in fact right in suggesting that some actions are unconstitutional regardless of what the court says. You are wrong when you claim that the Supreme Court’s ruling determines the Constitutionality of an act, law, or order. The meaning of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution clearly demonstrate that we have rights that are not determined or defined by the governments or courts. “We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.” The rights did not come from the government or the Supreme Court; they came from the Creator. The government and the courts have been established to protect our God-given rights to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. That’s one the many reasons that Roe versus Wade is the perfect example of a flawed Supreme Court case. Because there are those among us who realize through reason and revelation that we are each endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights, and the Constitution is to protect the God-given rights of every individual. So when does God endow us with these God-given rights? First trimester, second trimester, third trimester–what is the scientific basis that a “trimester” marks the endowment of God-given rights? Before the umbilical cord is cut or after the umbilical cord is cut? Before the child can speak the words “no.” Through honest reasoning, we can come to the understanding that our Creator endows each of us with these unalienable rights at the moment of conception, when the substance of the mother becomes more than the mother, and when the substance of the father becomes more than the father–thus a unique genetic coding of an individual is established. Is there a more reasonable place to assume that an individual is endowed by their Creator with these unalienable rights? I have yet to hear one, and so I protest against the legalization of abortion, as I protest against the Individual Mandate, both of which deny individuals of their God-given rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness–regardless of what the courts have ruled.

        Ignoring these self-evident Truths has led otherwise intelligent progressives to hold onto blatant contradictions, which I so cherish in bringing to light for you and Zano.

        Peace Pierce,

        Pokey

        • dailyDiscor
          dailyDiscor
          February 8, 2017 at 10:11 AM

          So you honestly believed that a Trump economic policy would really be about the common man and not special interests? This is a guy who got where he was on the shoulders of the common man. He cheated union laborers out of earned wages, made bribes to avoid a fraud indictment and has economic ties with our enemies. There’s a reason that the EIU put a Trump presidency on their list of top 10 threats to the world economy, right there next to China and terrorism. Right off the bat, pulling out of the TPP basically handed 40% of the world market to the Chinese. Now the member countries will partner with China in a pact that explicitly excludes the US. The Chinese will receive the economic benefits, and more importantly the good will and economic and political influence that that partnership would have brought to the US. Trump doesn’t understand the relationship between economics and foreign policy. And look at who he’s putting in his cabinet: mostly billionaires and CEOs, the very definitions of “special interest” and “corporate greed”. I’m sure those five former Goldman-Sachs execs are looking out for us, including the “Foreclosure King” who is now Secretary of the Treasury. I’d say that your hopes of a common-man-friendly administration are already out the window and it’s only been two weeks.

          Trump isn’t going to do anything about income tax. He has to finance the war machine he is building, the wall he wants to build (you don’t really believe that Mexico is going to pay for that, do you?) and the wars he is either going to start or will have to react to in the aftermath of his separatist polices. And even if he does lower our taxes then the resulting deficit will crush our economy which would be far worse.

          And there is no conflict. The travel ban is unconstitutional on prima fascia evidence, which is why a federal judge suspended it. It will remain that way until either A) the suspension is overturned by a higher court or B) the constitution is amended. Roe v Wade is constitutional by the same logic. The Supreme Court ruled that it is constitutional; THOSE ARE THE RULES. You don’t have to like it; you do have to live with it. Your argument is that it is still unconstitutional because your God grants the right to life and that that life begins at conception. But for other peoples’ Gods it’s not as cut and dried. Some Gods believe that it’s OK early on. Some do not take any stance at all. That’s why we have a separation of church and state. Otherwise our government would foster levels of intolerance like that of Sharia Law. Our constitution says you don’t have the right in infringe on the rights of others nor do you, as an individual, have the right to decide what those rights are. That’s for our duly elected representatives. On its face, obviously the fetus is a part of the woman’s body until it is born. Logic suggests that the woman has control of her own body, ergo she has the right to get an abortion. Any other stance has a religious or at the very least a mystical basis. We cannot run a government based upon that since none of if can be proven or disproven.

          You see all of your “truths” as self-evident; they are not. If they were self-evident then everyone would see them the same way. You do, however, have the right to speak out, to protest, etc. My question is “how does voting-in a guy with a proven record of sexual assault, prejudice, bankrupting corporations, cheating workers out of wages, bribing officials to avoid prosecution, contempt for our government, contempt for the rule of law, contempt for our allies, a seriously bloated sense of self-importance, and a demonstrated separation from reality qualify as a protest?”

          • Pokey
            February 8, 2017 at 7:09 PM

            Pierce, I do enjoy this conversation. Let me clarify: The only truth that I claim to be self-evident is that every person is endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights–among them life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

            I believe that our disagreement over the constitution is one of semantics. In my view the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights speak of Constitutional “Principles” while the rest of the document that talks of separation of powers are Constitutional “Procedures.” It is my contention that Constitutional procedures can violate constitutional principles, but let me just stop this line of thinking and concede to your claim that whatever the Supreme Court ruling determines the constitutionality of an act, law or order.

            But before we continue, I would like to ask you this: is possible for a constitutional Supreme Court decision to be in error?

            I conclude that it is in fact possible for a Supreme Court decision to violate peoples unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (Those rights that I used to define as Constitutional Principles).

            Here are a few examples. Dred Scott versus Samford (1857) held that African Americans, whether free men or slaves could not be considered American citizens. I used to say that when this Supreme Court decision was passed it was unconstitutional, but you have corrected me. Thank you. So I now ask you–do you agree with me that the Dred Scott decision, when it was passed, violated people’s unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and therefore was worthy of people’s protest. Or to quote your last entry, should we have taken the attitude that they “don’t have to like it, but (they) have to live with it.”
            How about Buck versus Bell (1927) which forced the sterilization of those with state-assessed intellectual disabilities “for the protection and health of the state.” Of course that was a constitutional ruling, since the Supreme Court made the ruling. So did that ruling help to violate individual’s unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
            Let’s not forget Korematus versus the United States (1944) where the Supreme Court upheld the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II. Formally, I would have said that such a ruling violated the principles of the Constitution. No more, you showed me my error, Pierce, and I am grateful. But I will say that this decision helped to violate the unalienable rights of many American citizens. Would you agree?
            And over the next eight years, if President Trump packed the courts with Nazi judges who would uphold the Presidents internment camps for Muslim Americans, would you tell those Muslim Americans that they don’t have to like it, but they have to live with it, or would you join me, Pierce, in protesting the Supreme Court’s violation of people unalienable rights to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

            I have much more to say, but let stop here so we can stay focused.

            • Mick Zano
              February 8, 2017 at 10:32 PM

              Great debate, gents, a rare thing, but these should be features! you bozos!

  4. pokey
    February 7, 2017 at 12:55 AM

    We’ve debated all these matters over the last few years. I respect your opinions on such matters, I simply disagree. That’s what elections are for. The election is over. So what are you protesting now? Trump’s use of executive order for travel bans on certain nations? Yes, I agree; this is a matter for Congress to solve, although arguably Trump’s actions may have been temporarily permissible if critical to national security. The courts will sort it out, like they did with the last president’s controversial executive orders. It seems to me that those progressive “protesters” throughout the nation are not protesting a particular policy or action, but Trump himself, as though he were somehow illegitimate–this feeds into the mob frenzy that would threaten and silence free speech like what happened last week in Berkeley and NYU. *This brings me back to my point. If your side really does have the intellectual high ground, if your side is really on the side of science and reason, then why are they the ones disrupting, shouting down, and silencing the free speech of their opponents?* If the battle is between reasonable debate versus irrational mob rule, why are the Trump supporters characterized as the irrational mob. It just doesn’t seem to happen on the Right. Trump’s rallies were consistently disrupted by the left. Were Mrs. CLinton’s rallies disrupted by Trump supporters? I don’t think so. Even when Bernie Sanders was disrupted in his speech, it was by Black Lives Matter. I don’t hear the leadership from the Left condemning such behavior. Progressives, who in the 60’s were emboldened by free speech slogans like “I may not agree with what you say, but I would put my life on the line to defend your right to say it,” seem to have degenerated into the kind of people who have been conditioned to be comfortable with such blatant contradiction. Your inability to answer this question suggests that your position, though glorified in your own assessment, may be objectively less reasonable, scientific, and intellectually sound as the average Trump supporter’s position.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *