I’ve said 1,000 times (probably literally), on here and reddit, for nearly a decade, that Trump is easily understood and predictable if one understands malignant narcissistic personality disorder. Trump’s picture will be in the DSM-6 one day, right next to the definition. If you aren’t familiar with the diagnosis, please have a look for yourself. Not some pop-sci shit, look at medical definitions, the traits required for such a diagnosis.

Think a guy like that is putting himself in a subservient sexual position? For any sort of personal gain?!

But let’s say you have some angle you find plausible from Trump’s POV. What in the hell makes you think Clinton would want an old white guy to blow him? He’s the poster boy for hetero horndog.

“But what about the text of the email?!”

Who knows? We need the preceding context. Ever joked around about the kompromat the Russians must have on Trump? Maybe it was that sort of reference? Ever joked that so-and-so must be sucking dick to get favors you couldn’t otherwise understand? Also, notice they dropped it, zero further discussion?

This is a picture perfect case of social media taking a thing at face value because it’s just too juicy not to believe. Don’t know what the take is on other social media, but I find you guys taking way too much at face value because you want to believe. Be better, think critically.

tl;dr: Trump wouldn’t do it. Clinton wouldn’t want it. Makes for great memes, but it’s absurd on it’s face.

  • shalafi@lemmy.worldOPEnglish
    32·
    16 days ago

    Recently, emails from 2018 between my brother and me were made public. They were simply part of a humorous private exchange between two brothers and were never meant for public release or to be interpreted as serious remarks.

    For the avoidance of doubt, the reference to ‘Bubba’ in this correspondence is not, in any way, a reference to former President Bill Clinton.

    Any attempt to conflate that reference with President Clinton, or to read sweeping implications into them, misrepresents both the purpose and the tone of the original correspondence. I want to be absolutely clear on this point so that the public record is not distorted and so that speculation does not unfairly implicate people who are not actually being referenced in those communications.

    Exactly as I said, a dumb joke.