Diagnoses were not being made— simply observations, based on recorded behaviour which one can see— ad nauseum. And not textual analysis of the holier than thou category. If you don’t like the commentary you can just disregard it- it is, after all supposedly dialogue. But it is certainly not “fortune cookie” bull crap. Lot’s of people with linear minds have apparently found the simple grunts of confidence enough to make a decision based on hearing what they want to hear. The world is simpler that way- it’s how we got obamaumao et cie. The elite are counting on it.
As for characters of history, the “despots” as you like to term criminal psychopaths— happen to have an entire library of (read) well documented works on the individuals, including psychological workups, from experts in the field (without any compunction about post mortem ethical probity-LOL). For example, a former much honored colleague is known worldwide for being the first to confirm the identity of the remains of Tsar Nicholas II and his family (less the boy and one girl) in 1992 in Ekaterinberg. Forensic medicine to accompany the forensic psychology. And the Founders as well. Deo Vindice.
I see the double-talk runs down hill among the Trump haters.
“Diagnoses were not being made— simply observations:” that laid claimed psychoanalytical authority.
Riots are the rioters fault, but Trump has some unquantifiable responsibility.
I know the guy that identified Tzar Nicholas’ remains, so I know forensic psychology...
WTF?
Your conceptual linkages are a joke. You make absolutely NO effort to present any kind of rival conjecture for your conclusions. What you are spouting is eisegesis by definition.