International Skeptics Forum

International Skeptics Forum (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumindex.php)
-   USA Politics (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=6)
-   -   Continuation Donald Trump has 'dangerous mental illness' say psychiatry experts at Yale... Pt 3 (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=341507)

xjx388 13th August 2021 10:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bob001 (Post 13569971)
She pretty clearly is horrified, professionally and personally, that this lunatic she has known all her life could have become President.


Which doesn’t explain the new expansion into commenting on a turtle.

Skeptic Ginger 13th August 2021 11:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xjx388 (Post 13570006)
Which doesn’t explain the new expansion into commenting on a turtle.

Pretty sure that's about enabling behavior. A lot of GOP legislators are enabling Dump.

Bob001 13th August 2021 11:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger (Post 13570018)
Pretty sure that's about enabling behavior. A lot of GOP legislators are enabling Dump.


Precisely.
Quote:

Elected Republicans have become Donald’s greatest enablers since his father, Fred. For all of their professed reluctance and half-hearted attempts to keep Donald at arm’s length, almost every single elected Republican at every level of government, either tacitly or enthusiastically, very quickly came to support his breaches—against decency, the rule of law, and the Constitution. Kevin McCarthy went from being one of Donald’s critics in the immediate aftermath of January 6 to pretending that creating a commission to find out what happened on that day was somehow a partisan witch hunt. Elise Stefanik intuited that going all in with Donald would be her best chance for advancement. The number three Republican in Congress, Liz Cheney, had the audacity to stand up against the Big Lie, for which she was removed from her leadership position and replaced by Stefanik.

The most dangerous Republican enabler by far is, of course, Mitch McConnell, who saw an opportunity that even he probably never dared hope for: The guy in the Oval Office wouldn’t just sign off on every aspect of the Republicans’ agenda, he would push the envelope—of decorum, of autocracy—so far that the system itself could be used to create permanent minority rule. Donald showed his party (and yes, it is his party) the limits of pretending to care about good governance or play by the rules. He also showed them the utility of not just stoking racism and hatred of the Other—in the form of immigrants, Democrats, and even epidemiologists—but championing those who espoused them.
https://newrepublic.com/article/1631...gainst-america

Stacyhs 14th September 2021 10:36 AM

Trump's mental illness came up again in Woodward's new book Peril. According to Woodward, the transcript of a call on Jan. 8 reveals a phone call between Nancy Pelosi and Gen. Milley in which they agree T is "crazy".
Quote:

Woodward and Costa obtained a transcript of Pelosi's January 8 phone call to US Gen. Mark Milley, in which she wanted to know "what precautions are available to prevent an unstable president from initiating military hostilities or from accessing the launch codes and ordering a military strike."

Milley told Pelosi that there were "a lot of checks in the system" to prevent Trump from going rogue, the book said.

Pelosi then told Milley, "He's crazy. You know he's crazy."

"He's crazy and what he did yesterday is further evidence of his craziness," Pelosi said, referring to the deadly Capitol riot.

According to the book, Milley responded: "I agree with you on everything."
https://news.yahoo.com/top-us-genera...163402668.html

This is when Milley took top secret steps to prevent T from ordering a military strike somewhere by ordering no one obey such an order without informing him first. He even called his Chinese counterpart twice to assure him the US would not be launching any military strikes

Ziggurat 15th September 2021 06:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stacyhs (Post 13599240)
This is when Milley took top secret steps to prevent T from ordering a military strike somewhere by ordering no one obey such an order without informing him first. He even called his Chinese counterpart twice to assure him the US would not be launching any military strikes

So far this is just sourced to Woodward, and he's... not always been accurate in his reporting.

But if this was accurate, then frankly, it doesn't make Trump look nearly as bad as it makes Milley look. Which makes me wonder if maybe people are setting up Milley to take a fall. That might be convenient right about now.

carlitos 15th September 2021 06:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ziggurat (Post 13599991)
So far this is just sourced to Woodward, and he's... not always been accurate in his reporting.

But if this was accurate, then frankly, it doesn't make Trump look nearly as bad as it makes Milley look. Which makes me wonder if maybe people are setting up Milley to take a fall. That might be convenient right about now.

Wow.

Ziggurat 15th September 2021 07:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by carlitos (Post 13600004)
Wow.

Why do you say that?

The story as told doesn't indicate that Trump did anything. All it indicates is that some people thought badly about Trump, which, so the hell what, really? It's not going to change anyone's mind about him, either you already agree or you don't, so it won't really make any difference.

But what Milley did, according to the story (and it may not be true), is really, really, really bad. And you don't have to be a Trump supporter to recognize that.

Crazy Chainsaw 15th September 2021 07:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ziggurat (Post 13600027)
Why do you say that?

The story as told doesn't indicate that Trump did anything. All it indicates is that some people thought badly about Trump, which, so the hell what, really? It's not going to change anyone's mind about him, either you already agree or you don't, so it won't really make any difference.

But what Milley did, according to the story (and it may not be true), is really, really, really bad. And you don't have to be a Trump supporter to recognize that.

But if you remember Trump was a Russian Useful idiot and untrustworthy, then that changes your who,e perspective on this issue.

JoeMorgue 15th September 2021 07:45 AM

Ah yes I figured the Trumpers would turn the General who possibly stopped a nuclear war into the real bad guy.

tyr_13 15th September 2021 07:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ziggurat (Post 13600027)
Why do you say that?

The story as told doesn't indicate that Trump did anything.

Explicitly cited his actions during the Jan 6th insurrection.

BobTheCoward 15th September 2021 07:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue (Post 13600045)
Ah yes I figure Trumpers would turn the General who possibly stopped a nuclear war into the real bad guy.

if it is a lawful order, then it would be wrong to stop it.

Ziggurat 15th September 2021 07:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue (Post 13600045)
Ah yes I figure Trumpers would turn the General who possibly stopped a nuclear war into the real bad guy.

That's like the joke about the boy scout who always whistled on hikes. The other scouts asked why, and he said it was to keep the tigers away. "But there are no tigers here". "See? It works!"

There was no threat of nuclear war. Milley didn't save anyone from anything. And Alexander Vindman isn't a Trumper.

BobTheCoward 15th September 2021 07:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ziggurat (Post 13600027)
Why do you say that?

The story as told doesn't indicate that Trump did anything. All it indicates is that some people thought badly about Trump, which, so the hell what, really? It's not going to change anyone's mind about him, either you already agree or you don't, so it won't really make any difference.

But what Milley did, according to the story (and it may not be true), is really, really, really bad. And you don't have to be a Trump supporter to recognize that.


from the book

Quote:

Woodward and Costa write that Milley, deeply shaken by the assault, 'was certain that Trump had gone into a serious mental decline in the aftermath of the election, with Trump now all but manic, screaming at officials and constructing his own alternate reality about endless election conspiracies.'
I find it interesting that you think that is thinking badly about someone. That sounds like caring about someone.

JoeMorgue 15th September 2021 09:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ziggurat (Post 13600058)
That's like the joke about the boy scout who always whistled on hikes. The other scouts asked why, and he said it was to keep the tigers away. "But there are no tigers here". "See? It works!"

There was no threat of nuclear war. Milley didn't save anyone from anything. And Alexander Vindman isn't a Trumper.

I'll need that opinion expressed from someone who doesn't think Trump is a god-king second coming messiah who can do no wrong before I even begin to take it seriously.

carlitos 15th September 2021 09:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ziggurat (Post 13600027)

The story as told doesn't indicate that Trump did anything.

Other than going completely delusional about election conspiracies, releasing videos about how he loved the special people who attacked Congress, screaming at staff about how ****** they were, how we weren't going to have a country anymore, etc.

Maybe you meant that Trump didn't do anything Presidential?

ETA - I heard Wesley Clark talking about Vindman and basically he said that a colonel wouldn't know what contact the generals have with each other. Could be.

bruto 15th September 2021 09:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward (Post 13600056)
if it is a lawful order, then it would be wrong to stop it.

Only, of course, for a certain definition of "wrong," since as we ought by now to know without having to animate the ghost of Godwin, a "lawful" order can be awfully wrong by that other definition.

Of course we have no control group to determine what would or would not have happened if things went differently. But I don't think it takes too much mental contortion at least to entertain the possibility that preventing an insane president from precipitating a gratuitous war that could kill millions and devastate the earth might be "right" in a sense more pressing than it is "wrong" in that other sense.

There have in history been people whose sense of what was right impelled them to commit acts that got them in trouble, if not executed, and while that can go both ways, there have, in history, been a few whose actions are considered in retrospect to have been worthwhile - at least by those whose judgment is not so dependent on doctrine that they would accept the destruction of part or all of humanity as the only thing that is acceptably pure.

BobTheCoward 15th September 2021 09:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bruto (Post 13600133)
Only, of course, for a certain definition of "wrong," since as we ought by now to know without having to animate the ghost of Godwin, a "lawful" order can be awfully wrong by that other definition.

Of course we have no control group to determine what would or would not have happened if things went differently. But I don't think it takes too much mental contortion at least to entertain the possibility that preventing an insane president from precipitating a gratuitous war that could kill millions and devastate the earth might be "right" in a sense more pressing than it is "wrong" in that other sense.

There have in history been people whose sense of what was right impelled them to commit acts that got them in trouble, if not executed, and while that can go both ways, there have, in history, been a few whose actions are considered in retrospect to have been worthwhile - at least by those whose judgment is not so dependent on doctrine that they would accept the destruction of part or all of humanity as the only thing that is acceptably pure.

What that amounts to is unilaterally ending democratic rule because you think you should be making those decisions rather than the country's voters. A lot of juntas agree with you.

sackett 15th September 2021 10:03 AM

This isn't really addressed to Bob, of course
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward (Post 13600056)
if it is a lawful order, then it would be wrong to stop it.

No, it would be right. It would also be illegal, and a good first step toward revising a dangerously outmoded law.

Try to understand. The US's current procedures for using nukes appeared during the Cold War, a scared and scarey time. The men who devised them were WW2 survivors, as were their Soviet counterparts. They all knew plenty about surprise attacks. Better a hair trigger, they thought, than no trigger at all.

Today, we're only just emerging from the rubble of a bizarre episode of crazed mismanagement. We face different risks than we once did, and we need to address them.

Here's to that hardass General Milley, the best mutineer in the world! And to Nancy Pelosi and all the other conspirators! If they go to jail, I for one will bake them a cake loaded with hacksaw blades!

And their American guards will deliver it to them completely untouched.

carlitos 15th September 2021 10:06 AM

Stanislav PetrovWP sends his best.

Ziggurat 15th September 2021 10:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by carlitos (Post 13600122)
ETA - I heard Wesley Clark talking about Vindman and basically he said that a colonel wouldn't know what contact the generals have with each other. Could be.

And? Vindman's post AND my statement are both predicated on the story as presented being true. And I explicitly stated it may not be, and that I don't have confidence in the source. If it isn't true, then of course a conclusion contingent on it being true would not hold. Obviously.

carlitos 15th September 2021 10:18 AM

:rolleyes:

BobTheCoward 15th September 2021 10:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sackett (Post 13600169)
No, it would be right. It would also be illegal, and a good first step toward revising a dangerously outmoded law.

Try to understand. The US's current procedures for using nukes appeared during the Cold War, a scared and scarey time. The men who devised them were WW2 survivors, as were their Soviet counterparts. They all knew plenty about surprise attacks. Better a hair trigger, they thought, than no trigger at all.

Today, we're only just emerging from the rubble of a bizarre episode of crazed mismanagement. We face different risks than we once did, and we need to address them.

Here's to that hardass General Milley, the best mutineer in the world! And to Nancy Pelosi and all the other conspirators! If they go to jail, I for one will bake them a cake loaded with hacksaw blades!

And their American guards will deliver it to them completely untouched.

spoken like a real generalissimo


Billions of votes have been cast in the US have been cast to select people to revise the system. Who looks at that and thinks they know better?

Stacyhs 15th September 2021 10:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ziggurat (Post 13599991)
So far this is just sourced to Woodward, and he's... not always been accurate in his reporting.

But if this was accurate, then frankly, it doesn't make Trump look nearly as bad as it makes Milley look. Which makes me wonder if maybe people are setting up Milley to take a fall. That might be convenient right about now.

Have you seen Gen. Milley denying this? Any of those involved? No? Why do you think that is?

Why do you think anyone needs to set Milley up to 'take the fall'? Fall for what exactly?

Incidentally, how has Woodward "not always been accurate in his reporting"?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

The story as told doesn't indicate that Trump did anything.
:eye-poppi You've got to be kidding. Inciting a riot to overturn the election, ranting like a madman that it was stolen from him and living in his own (un) reality is "not doing anything?" Add to that his unilateral order to draw all troops out of Afghanistan without informing or consulting ANYONE.

Quote:

The Nov 11 memo...had been secretly drafted by two Trump loyalists and never went through the normal process for a military directive -- the secretary of defense, national security adviser and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs had all never seen it. Unpredictable, impulsive, Trump had done an end run around his whole national security team.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/09/14/polit...emo/index.html

The entire picture is of a man with the power to launch a military strike and start WW3 who is out of control and delusional. And you think Milley had no reason to do what he did? I'm thankful for what Milley did.

Stacyhs 15th September 2021 10:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward (Post 13600157)
What that amounts to is unilaterally ending democratic rule because you think you should be making those decisions rather than the country's voters. A lot of juntas agree with you.

Nope. A junta is a military coup and takeover of the government. Milley did not do that nor was he attempting that. What he did was tell them that, IF Trump ordered a military strike, they were to follow the procedure and tell him. After all, Trump had not followed procedure in issuing the Afghanistan withdrawal on Nov. 11

Quote:

In response, Milley took extraordinary action, and called a secret meeting in his Pentagon office on January 8 to review the process for military action, including launching nuclear weapons. Speaking to senior military officials in charge of the National Military Command Center, the Pentagon's war room, Milley instructed them not to take orders from anyone unless he was involved.
"No matter what you are told, you do the procedure. You do the process. And I'm part of that procedure," Milley told the officers, according to the book.
He then went around the room, looked each officer in the eye, and asked them to verbally confirm they understood.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/09/14/polit...ear/index.html

Milley was tryng to stop TRUMP from not following lawful procedure.

Stacyhs 15th September 2021 10:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward (Post 13600197)
spoken like a real generalissimo


Billions of votes have been cast in the US have been cast to select people to revise the system. Who looks at that and thinks they know better?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...23019df605.jpg

bruto 15th September 2021 11:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward (Post 13600157)
What that amounts to is unilaterally ending democratic rule because you think you should be making those decisions rather than the country's voters. A lot of juntas agree with you.

This is with the presumption that the crazy person in question was indeed democratically elected, and that the people responsible for that were reasonably knowledgable about his craziness, both at the time and later, and that the action he was about to do was itself lawful. While a sitting president can say, and has said, that anything he does is inherently legal, this is not actually true. I addition, one might point out that it is possible for a person to become crazier after being elected, and even (perish the thought) to have lied and concealed his true nature before.

To stop him would likely be illegal, an action many would undertake anyway if the necessity seemed grave enough.

Once again, I think you have allowed your devotion to ideological purity to avoid difficult decisions and to trivialize real world dilemmas. The fact that it appears a person was duly elected does not allow him to do just anything he wants for the next four years.

Stacyhs 15th September 2021 11:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bruto (Post 13600240)
This is with the presumption that the crazy person in question was indeed democratically elected, and that the people responsible for that were reasonably knowledgable about his craziness, both at the time and later, and that the action he was about to do was itself lawful. While a sitting president can say, and has said, that anything he does is inherently legal, this is not actually true. I addition, one might point out that it is possible for a person to become crazier after being elected, and even (perish the thought) to have lied and concealed his true nature before.

To stop him would likely be illegal, an action many would undertake anyway if the necessity seemed grave enough.

Once again, I think you have allowed your devotion to ideological purity to avoid difficult decisions and to trivialize real world dilemmas. The fact that it appears a person was duly elected does not allow him to do just anything he wants for the next four years.

Tell that to Donnie who got away with doing anything he wanted for four years thanks to the same attitude as B the C.

BobTheCoward 15th September 2021 11:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bruto (Post 13600240)
This is with the presumption that the crazy person in question was indeed democratically elected, and that the people responsible for that were reasonably knowledgable about his craziness, both at the time and later, and that the action he was about to do was itself lawful. While a sitting president can say, and has said, that anything he does is inherently legal, this is not actually true. I addition, one might point out that it is possible for a person to become crazier after being elected, and even (perish the thought) to have lied and concealed his true nature before.

To stop him would likely be illegal, an action many would undertake anyway if the necessity seemed grave enough.

Once again, I think you have allowed your devotion to ideological purity to avoid difficult decisions and to trivialize real world dilemmas. The fact that it appears a person was duly elected does not allow him to do just anything he wants for the next four years.

Again, what makes your position different from a military coup?

Ziggurat 15th September 2021 11:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bruto (Post 13600240)
This is with the presumption that the crazy person in question was indeed democratically elected, and that the people responsible for that were reasonably knowledgable about his craziness, both at the time and later, and that the action he was about to do was itself lawful. While a sitting president can say, and has said, that anything he does is inherently legal, this is not actually true. I addition, one might point out that it is possible for a person to become crazier after being elected, and even (perish the thought) to have lied and concealed his true nature before.

To stop him would likely be illegal, an action many would undertake anyway if the necessity seemed grave enough.

Once again, I think you have allowed your devotion to ideological purity to avoid difficult decisions and to trivialize real world dilemmas. The fact that it appears a person was duly elected does not allow him to do just anything he wants for the next four years.

This is all either wrong or off target. Yes, a president can't do whatever he wants. There are checks and balances, but none of them require circumventing the military chain of command, or conspiring with foreign governments. And if a president is truly crazy, then no, stopping him doesn't require any illegal action. The constitution provides a specific mechanism to handle such an event, legally. Milley made no attempt to use that mechanism.

Ziggurat 15th September 2021 11:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stacyhs (Post 13600248)
Tell that to Donnie who got away with doing anything he wanted for four years thanks to the same attitude as B the C.

Except he didn't. There were a number of high profile cases where the administration got shut down by the courts. Notably, Trump never went against the courts after any such ruling.

Contrast that with Biden, who admitted his eviction moratorium was unconstitutional but declared he was going to proceed with attempting it anyways.

BobTheCoward 15th September 2021 11:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ziggurat (Post 13600255)
This is all either wrong or off target. Yes, a president can't do whatever he wants. There are checks and balances, but none of them require circumventing the military chain of command, or conspiring with foreign governments. And if a president is truly crazy, then no, stopping him doesn't require any illegal action. The constitution provides a specific mechanism to handle such an event, legally. Milley made no attempt to use that mechanism.

Who cares if the constitution theoretically provides a mechanism? The constitution is not a moral or philosophical document that has any say on how I judge what someone should do.

dirtywick 15th September 2021 11:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward (Post 13600251)
Again, what makes your position different from a military coup?

that there wasn't an attempt to seize control of the government

BobTheCoward 15th September 2021 11:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dirtywick (Post 13600259)
that there wasn't an attempt to seize control of the government

That is why I said "position" rather than outcome.

Both think that their personal conclusions of what is right should direct their use of government resources more than the lawful system they agreed to.

dirtywick 15th September 2021 11:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward (Post 13600260)
That is why I said "position" rather than outcome.

Both think that their personal conclusions of what is right should direct their use of government resources more than the lawful system they agreed to.

ok, I don't think that excuses that you're misusing the word coup and in doing so mischaracterizing the events that took place.

-edit-

And I'm not even sure that he did anything that wasn't lawful. Is reassuring a foreign government you're not at war with that there's no surprise attack coming unlawful? Not so sure

BobTheCoward 15th September 2021 11:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dirtywick (Post 13600263)
ok, I don't think that excuses that you're misusing the word coup and in doing so mischaracterizing the events that took place.

I'm not clear how I'm misusing the word coup? A comparison to a different group of people does not make the person being compared part of that group.

Ziggurat 15th September 2021 11:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward (Post 13600258)
Who cares if the constitution theoretically provides a mechanism? The constitution is not a moral or philosophical document that has any say on how I judge what someone should do.

Nobody knows how you judge anything, and at this point nobody cares.

The constitution is a legal document, and it has considerable say on how we judge the legality of the actions of anyone in government, including Milley.

BobTheCoward 15th September 2021 11:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ziggurat (Post 13600272)
Nobody knows how you judge anything, and at this point nobody cares.

The constitution is a legal document, and it has considerable say on how we judge the legality of the actions of anyone in government, including Milley.

There doesn't seem to be too many arguments going on about legality right now. It appears to be mostly moral questions.

dirtywick 15th September 2021 11:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward (Post 13600265)
I'm not clear how I'm misusing the word coup? A comparison to a different group of people does not make the person being compared part of that group.

It's like the third time it's been explained, but a coup is an attempt to seize control of the government. Any comparison of the actions of someone who isn't trying to seize control of the government to a coup, which again attempting to seize control of the government, is a poor comparison.

But you didn't really just use it as a comparison anyway, you accused several posters of being supportive of a military coup by implying that what happened here was a coup.

BobTheCoward 15th September 2021 11:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dirtywick (Post 13600279)
It's like the third time it's been explained, but a coup is an attempt to seize control of the government. Any comparison of the actions of someone who isn't trying to seize control of the government to a coup, which again attempting to seize control of the government, is a poor comparison.

But you didn't really just use it as a comparison anyway, you accused several posters of being supportive of a military coup by implying that what happened here was a coup.

No, this would not be a coup and I don't imply things. I'm explicit. The thinking that one should use government resources to do something illegal because they think their judgement is better is the same.

dirtywick 15th September 2021 11:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward (Post 13600283)
No, this would not be a coup and I don't imply things. I'm explicit. The thinking that one should use government resources to do something illegal because they think their judgement is better is the same.

OK, when you write this in response to a post support of Milley's actions:

Quote:

Again, what makes your position different from a military coup?
The implication is that they are supportive of a coup.


Secondly, it's not clear that anything illegal happened. According to some reports, he was given permission and later briefed civilian leadership in the Pentagon regarding the call. Even if not, it's not clear to me that it's illegal for a general to reassure a foreign power not to worry about a surprise attack that isn't coming. Had he warned them of an attack that was imminent, these accusations of treasons and coups would make a bit more sense to me.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:18 AM.

Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2015-20, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.