Donald Trump has 'dangerous mental illness' say psychiatry experts at Yale... Pt 3
Quote:
|
Quote:
Guess what? The VOTERS told them to go pound sand and Trump won enough in the primaries to easily win the nomination. But just because you don't like him he shouldn't be allowed to run? |
Quote:
If only the Yale Group had thrown their degrees and experience into the ring back then.... |
Quote:
He should never have been allowed to run because he was and is grossly unfit to represent the Republican Party, let alone sit in the White House. There are plenty of people I don't like, including some I pay for professional services because I respect their knowledge and judgment. I probably wouldn't agree with John McCain or Mitt Romney or Jeb Bush about much of anything, but I recognized them as responsible public servants who understand the role and purposes of government. I say Trump should never have been allowed to run for President because nothing in his life qualifies him to sit in the White House: no govenment jobs, elected or appointed, of any kind at any level; no military service of any kind at any level; no experience as a university professor or administrator, or even earning an advanced college degree; no corporate experience of any kind at any level except in his own family's sleazy little business, handed to him by his father; a long history of defrauding and intimidating contractors and customers; a long history of tax evasion and fraud; associations with organized crime figures through Roy Cohn; a history of assaulting women and bragging about it; his deficit-expanding tax cuts for the wealthiest; his smug racism; his bottomless ignorance; his rejection of climate science and of facts in general; his impulsive, irrational decision-making; his thousands of blatant lies; his open contempt for America's law enforcement agaencies, intelligence agencies and courts and his destruction of professionalism throughout the government; his slobbering affection for bloodthirsty dictators; etc., etc., etc. And that's just for starters. Trump was elected because of a massive failure of our political sytem and malpractice by our mass media, and ultimately because Vladimir Putin wanted him to win. |
Quote:
Since Trump can obviously communicate in writing, any attempt to remove him via the 25th would require review and consensus by Congress. Which is probably even less likely than Congress removing him through impeachment. And that's assuming that the Cabinet is inclined to initiate a 25th amendment process in the first place. Can you elaborate on how you think the 25th could become more important than ever? |
Quote:
If you disagree, I would very much like to see your proposal for how to improve the current system by preventing people from running for president, or even campaigning for a party nomination. |
I think that we should be in the business of placing less, not more, obstacles in front of people who want to run for office. The two major parties have a slew of ballot access restrictions in place, maybe we can get rid of those instead of adding more.
|
Quote:
The party nominee represents the party. The party leadership should be able to exercise control over who may hold that position. And until the 1970s, nominees were mostly selected at conventions controlled by party leaders, not by primaries conducted under different rules and procedures in every state. People smarter than I am have written at length about how to revise the electoral process. I just note that any process that would put a Trump into the White House requires improvement. |
Quote:
You can't call winning by cheating actual winning. |
Quote:
|
I don't think Putin expected Trump to win any more than Hillary did. I think whatever his strategy was, it was based on the assumption that Hillary would be president.
I think Trump is a bad choice of partner in a criminal enterprise. He can't keep his mouth shut. He doesn't honor his business agreements. He doesn't pay his creditors. Whatever deal Putin made with Trump, it's a metaphysical certainty that Trump would renege on it. And blab it to the world. Plus, he's not even all that politically connected. There's probably a lot more levers Putin could pull, with Hillary Clinton, and a lot more levers she could pull for him. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
The party's nominee runs as the party's representative, and the party decides how to select him/her/them/it. Party leadership could require that candidates have held public office previously, that they have been active in Republican affairs, that caucuses be eliminated and primaries be conducted under uniform rules, that convention delegates not be bound to a candidate and be free to vote their conscience, etc. I would particularly like to see primaries conducted under rank-voting rules, so voters could select multiple candidates in order of preference. I also note again that for most of U.S. history, nominees were selected at conventions, not through primaries and caucuses, and that most Americans never had a chance to vote for Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, Chris Christie and other nationally prominent Republicans because the process pushed them out at early stages. I suspect convention delegates might have voted for one of them over Trump if they could have. |
Quote:
From Time's summary: Here's What We Know So Far About Russia's 2016 Meddling Quote:
And Russia has been financing Trump's businesses for years. This is from the search engine so you can find the article. I don't want to use it as one of my free articles at the moment. Quote:
|
Psssssst....I had to double check what the topic of this thread was. I thought I had accidentally clicked on the Trump Presidency or Impeachment threads, not the 'dangerous mental illness' thread.
|
Quote:
But I think it's helpful in once sense: it proves a point that I've been making since the beginning of the thread. People don't like Trump and the things he says and does. IOW, they don't like his politics and his tactics. They didn't like this stuff since before there were such things as a Yale Group, a book, a Duty to Warn organization, a petition, etc. Then after the election comes a flood of that stuff and that stuff confirms people's biases. Ethics and standards be damned; these shrinks are explaining Trump in a way that makes sense to them. I think for some people, its important to use any bit of information possible to discredit and possibly get rid of Trump, provenance be damned. Now see, I didn't like any of this about Trump either. We can continue not to like Trump without endorsing bad medicine. |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
Trump has been very good for this country and its economy. The numbers don't lie. You can come up with all sorts of numbers about how many lies he has supposedly told but in my lifetime (I'm 60) in terms of actually following through on campaign promises Trump, despite all of his character faults, has been the most honest president in that regard. Most importantly, he puts America and American citizens first. The left mocked him when he made America First part of his campaign platform. Shouldn't that be the #1 priority of any president? Racist? Why does he take such pride in having the lowest AA/Hispanic/Asian unemployment rates in history? Why is the current Surgeon General AA? Why did he sign into law prison reform? There simply is not a single fact to support the notion that he's racist. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Your post exemplifies perfectly how Trumpers and non-Trumpers view things so differently. "Trump has been very good for this country and its economy. The numbers don't lie." Numbers don't lie. But giving Trump credit for the good economy is not accurate. If you look at the numbers, the economy rebounded under Obama and that trend continued under Trump. The Business Insider had done a 9 chart comparison of the economies under Bush, Obama, and Trump. It does not support the belief that Trump is responsible for the current good economy. The report also says that "Trump's ongoing trade wars have sapped business confidence. Companies are pulling back on hiring workers as a result." Take the time to actually look at the numbers and don't just swallow Trump's bragging that he's the reason for the economy. Trump promised to eliminate the national debt but his policies have actually ballooned it to record numbers. https://www.businessinsider.com/9-ch...rations-2019-9 Whether Trump has been 'good for this country' is a matter of opinion, not fact. My opinion is that he has been horrible for the country and I believe history will support my opinion. I could list all the ways he has negatively affected this country, but they've been discussed thoroughly already. If you don't see them, it's because you don't want to. As for Trump "putting America first"...Trump puts Trump first. His behavior has proved that. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Dr. Lee now has Trump supporters diagnosed via Twitter as having a "shared psychosis." Maybe all of their co-workers can have them committed - are there enough beds for this?
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
Can we please get an autopsy when Trump kicks the bucket?
I'm willing to put money on Syphilis. |
I'm eagerly awaiting Dr Lee's peer reviewed publication of original research showing that Narcissistic Personality Disorder is contagious. And apparently Twitter is a vector.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
To have Mexico will pay for the wall. To release his tax returns. To "defund Planned Parentnood". To 'repeal and replace Obamacare". To "allow individuals to fully deduct health insurance premium payments from their tax returns under the current tax system." To eliminate federal debt in 8 years. To cancel funding for all 'sanctuary' cities. To establish a commission on radical Islam which will include reformist voices in the Muslim community. To end 'birthright citizenship". To enact Congressional term limits. To not take vacations during his presidency. To sue his accusers of his sexual misconduct. There are many more. For anyone to claim Trump has been the most honest in following through with campaign promises is shockingly naive at best and dishonest at worst. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
What would be well said (by TM or anyone else) would be a citation of where Dr Lee demonstrates that this claim is true. |
Quote:
ETA: TM is right: Twitter doesn't spread NPD, but it does reveal its presence. Just look at Trump's tweets. |
Quote:
Quote:
What would make it convincing is some peer-reviewed research that supports it. |
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
Her illustration was Alan Dershowitz using the term "perfect" in an idiosyncratic way - his "perfect, perfect sex life " - which Lee posited had been influenced by Trump's phrase "perfect call" with Volodymyr Zelensky. Trouble was, Trump used that phrase two months after Dershowitz did. Obviously, Trump Tweets are a part of Dr. Lee's remote viewing diagnosis protocolTM, but that's not what we were joking about. If Lee is serious, then it is only logical that this shared contagion is being propagated via Twitter. |
I think we are running the risk of losing our sense of humor over the president being madder than a loon which has been suffering from longterm mercury poisoning.
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:55 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2015-24, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.