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)

Bob001 9th January 2020 07:46 PM

Donald Trump has 'dangerous mental illness' say psychiatry experts at Yale... Pt 3
 
Mod InfoThis is a continuation from here. As is usual, the split point is arbitrary and participants are free to quote from the previous thread.
Posted By:Agatha





Quote:

Originally Posted by carlitos (Post 12948798)
The election is in 10 months and Trump's term is over in a year. We are rapidly approaching a time when the 25th Amendment and impeachment are both moot, no matter how badly everyone might want to see a Pence / Paula White-Cain administration.

It's about 11 weeks between Election Day and the inauguration. If Trump loses, there will be nothing to restrain him, and, based on his history, he will be obsessed with revenge. The 25th amendment and the prospect of impeachment might become more important than ever.

Iamafalser 9th January 2020 09:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bob001 (Post 12946585)
Why aren't you working the problem? The first step would be for the Republican party elders to re-assert some conttrol over who can run, in part by limiting who can get party money and toughening the requirements to get on primary ballots. The Democratic establishment was criticized for making it too hard for legitimate candidates to challenge H. Clinton; they would never have allowed a Trump to crawl out of the woodwork.

But now it may be too late. Republicans and Trumpists are one and the same.

In case you missed it back in 2015 and 2016, the Republican powers that be already tried very hard to get rid of Trump. Weekly anti-Trump hit pieces in National Review and more from other never-Trumper Republicans speaking out as well as all of the money they spent running those commercials with Romney telling voters what an awful person Trump was.

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?

xjx388 9th January 2020 10:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iamafalser (Post 12949379)
In case you missed it back in 2015 and 2016, the Republican powers that be already tried very hard to get rid of Trump. Weekly anti-Trump hit pieces in National Review and more from other never-Trumper Republicans speaking out as well as all of the money they spent running those commercials with Romney telling voters what an awful person Trump was.



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?



If only the Yale Group had thrown their degrees and experience into the ring back then....

Bob001 10th January 2020 11:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iamafalser (Post 12949379)
In case you missed it back in 2015 and 2016, the Republican powers that be already tried very hard to get rid of Trump. Weekly anti-Trump hit pieces in National Review and more from other never-Trumper Republicans speaking out as well as all of the money they spent running those commercials with Romney telling voters what an awful person Trump was.

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?


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.

theprestige 10th January 2020 11:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bob001 (Post 12949321)
The 25th amendment and the prospect of impeachment might become more important than ever.

How do you envision the 25th amendment being applied?

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?

theprestige 10th January 2020 11:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bob001 (Post 12949921)
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.

That seems like exactly the kind of thing which, in a democracy, has to be decided by the voters themselves.

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.

carlitos 10th January 2020 12:08 PM

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.

Bob001 10th January 2020 01:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theprestige (Post 12950022)
That seems like exactly the kind of thing which, in a democracy, has to be decided by the voters themselves.
.....

Which voters? The voters of California and New York and Texas and Florida didn't have a chance to vote for Jeb Bush because he dropped out after Iowa and New Hampshire. Trump was winning early 2016 primaries with around 20% of the vote because the 80% of Republican voters who didn't want him were split 15 different ways. The Iowa caucus is especially atypical because it requires people to leave their homes in the dead of winter and attend lengthy mass meetings. Only a small percentage of eligible Iowa voters even participate. And they get to decide who the entire rest of the country can even consider?

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.

Skeptic Ginger 11th January 2020 12:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iamafalser (Post 12950018)
In case you missed it back in 2015 and 2016, the Republican powers that be already tried very hard to get rid of Trump. Weekly anti-Trump hit pieces in National Review and more from other never-Trumper Republicans speaking out as well as all of the money they spent running those commercials with Romney telling voters what an awful person Trump was.

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?

Guess what, Trump won by getting illegal help from Putin and if we aren't careful he'll cheat again.

You can't call winning by cheating actual winning.

carlitos 11th January 2020 07:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger (Post 12950524)
Quote:

Originally Posted by Iamafalser (Post 12950018)
In case you missed it back in 2015 and 2016, the Republican powers that be already tried very hard to get rid of Trump. Weekly anti-Trump hit pieces in National Review and more from other never-Trumper Republicans speaking out as well as all of the money they spent running those commercials with Romney telling voters what an awful person Trump was.

Guess what? The VOTERS told them to go pound sand and Trump won enough in the primaries to easily win the nomination.

Guess what, Trump won by getting illegal help from Putin and if we aren't careful he'll cheat again.

You can't call winning by cheating actual winning.

Really? Russia helped Trump win the primary?

theprestige 11th January 2020 08:10 AM

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.

Ziggurat 11th January 2020 08:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bob001 (Post 12950020)
He should never have been allowed to run

Allowed by whom? There is no answer to that question which isn’t worse than the problem you want to solve with it.

Bob001 11th January 2020 11:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ziggurat (Post 12950697)
Allowed by whom? There is no answer to that question which isn’t worse than the problem you want to solve with it.


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.

Skeptic Ginger 11th January 2020 02:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by carlitos (Post 12950653)
Really? Russia helped Trump win the primary?

Yes really.

From Time's summary:
Here's What We Know So Far About Russia's 2016 Meddling
Quote:

hile Rubio only described cyberattacks that took place after he dropped his bid for the White House, experts have said the Florida senator, like Clinton, was targeted as early as the 2016 primary season.

“Russia’s overt media outlets sought to sideline opponents on both sides of the political spectrum,” Clint Watts, a fellow at the Foreign Policy Research Institute, told the Senate Intelligence Committee just hours before Rubio’s comments....

The more subtle influence efforts that Watts was describing actually stretched back even further than the primary season. Russia’s plans to affect the U.S. election began in April of 2014 with the development of a “troll farm” that could spread false and disparaging messages on social media, as TIME previously reported and another crucial indictment confirmed. Mueller’s indictment in February of 2018 charged 13 Russian nationals and three Russian companies — including the Internet Research Agency — with conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy to commit bank fraud and identity theft.
The NYT has a long article about all Trump campaign officials that had long time connections to Putin: Page, Flynn, Manafort, Papadopoulus.

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:

The Plot to Subvert an Election: Unraveling the Russia Story So Far ...
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...p-clinton.html
Anonymous View
Sep 20, 2018 ... But to travel back to 2016 and trace the major plotlines of the Russian ... A banner of President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia that hung in Manhattan in October 2016. ... as Mr. Putin's niece and offered to help set up a meeting between the ... that the Trump aides, far from certain their candidate would win, were ...
Do your own search. Trump and Putin go way back as does Putin's interference in the US elections.

Stacyhs 11th January 2020 11:06 PM

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.

xjx388 13th January 2020 08:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stacyhs (Post 12951303)
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.

Nope.

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.

Ziggurat 13th January 2020 08:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bob001 (Post 12950837)
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

Bad idea. Politicians are already too separated from the rest of the population, we shouldn't reinforce that.

Quote:

that they have been active in Republican affairs, that caucuses be eliminated and primaries be conducted under uniform rules,
None of this would necessarily have prevented Trump, let alone "not allowed" him.

Quote:

that convention delegates not be bound to a candidate and be free to vote their conscience
The justification for this runs exactly opposite to the justification for eliminating caucus primaries.

Quote:

I would particularly like to see primaries conducted under rank-voting rules, so voters could select multiple candidates in order of preference.
What's that got to do with allowing Trump to be elected?

Quote:

I also note again that for most of U.S. history, nominees were selected at conventions, not through primaries and caucuses,
We moved away from that for a reason.

Iamafalser 13th January 2020 10:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bob001 (Post 12950020)
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.

You have a very serious case of OMBD. (orange man bad disease)

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.

Lurch 13th January 2020 11:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xjx388 (Post 12952521)
Nope.

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.

It's less the man's "policies and tactics" I despise as the creature itself. A thoroughly repugnant man-child without morals, whose narcissism makes him incapable of a position of care for others.

Stacyhs 13th January 2020 12:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iamafalser (Post 12952678)
You have a very serious case of OMBD. (orange man bad disease)

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.

Since this thread seems to have morphed away from Trump's mental illness, I may as well join in.

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.

Stacyhs 13th January 2020 12:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lurch (Post 12952786)
It's less the man's "policies and tactics" I despise as the creature itself. A thoroughly repugnant man-child without morals, whose narcissism makes him incapable of a position of care for others.

Even if I liked his policies, I could never support him. There is no amount of nose pinching that can hide the stink of him as a person. The people who put him in office had many other GOP candidates with similar political beliefs to choose from and he was the one they chose. I will never, ever understand why.

carlitos 13th January 2020 12:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger (Post 12950984)
Yes really.

From Time's summary:
Here's What We Know So Far About Russia's 2016 Meddling


The NYT has a long article about all Trump campaign officials that had long time connections to Putin: Page, Flynn, Manafort, Papadopoulus.

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.

Do your own search. Trump and Putin go way back as does Putin's interference in the US elections.

I'm aware of everything you say here, but I'm not aware of evidence that Russia's help pushed Trump to the Republican nomination. Seems like a stretch to me. You could make a case that CNN and others giving his rallies free media coverage had a much larger impact that some hack of Rubio around the time he was dropping out anyway.

carlitos 14th January 2020 12:00 PM

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:

Alan Dershowitz’s employing the odd use of “perfect”—not even a synonym—might be dismissed as ordinary influence in most contexts. However, given the severity and spread of “shared psychosis” among just about all of Donald Trump’s followers, a different scenario is more likely.

...

Which scenario? That he has wholly taken on Trump’s symptoms by contagion. There is even proof: his bravado toward his opponent with a question about his own sex life—in a way that is irrelevant to the actual lawsuit—shows the same grandiosity and delusional-level impunity.

Belz... 14th January 2020 12:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iamafalser (Post 12952678)
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.

His central promise was building a wall. Where's the wall?

Quote:

Most importantly, he puts America and American citizens first.
Are you joking? Not only does he not do that, and not only does he put himself first every time, but he puts no one second or even last: there is nothing that exists for him except himself.

The Great Zaganza 14th January 2020 12:31 PM

Can we please get an autopsy when Trump kicks the bucket?
I'm willing to put money on Syphilis.

theprestige 14th January 2020 01:04 PM

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.

carlitos 14th January 2020 01:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theprestige (Post 12954087)
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.

Even worse, Dershowitz caught the idiosyncratic usage of the phrase "perfect" from Trump two months before Trump said it.

Stacyhs 14th January 2020 01:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Belz... (Post 12954025)
His central promise was building a wall. Where's the wall?

Other campaign promises not kept:

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.

TragicMonkey 14th January 2020 01:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theprestige (Post 12954087)
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.

Twitter doesn't spread NPD, it just reveals its presence.

Stacyhs 14th January 2020 01:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey (Post 12954104)
Twitter doesn't spread NPD, it just reveals its presence.

Well said.

theprestige 14th January 2020 01:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey (Post 12954104)
Twitter doesn't spread NPD, it just reveals its presence.

Still waiting on Dr Lee's original research showing that, too.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stacyhs (Post 12954105)
Well said.

Not really. It's just the same jackass claim Dr Lee has been peddling all along.

What would be well said (by TM or anyone else) would be a citation of where Dr Lee demonstrates that this claim is true.

Stacyhs 14th January 2020 02:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theprestige (Post 12954133)
Still waiting on Dr Lee's original research showing that, too.


Not really. It's just the same jackass claim Dr Lee has been peddling all along.

What would be well said (by TM or anyone else) would be a citation of where Dr Lee demonstrates that this claim is true.

Where does Dr. Lee mention Twitter is a vector...or Twitter at all? I see your claim that she said that, but not one from her. I may have missed it, so if you can provide it, I'd appreciate it.

ETA: TM is right: Twitter doesn't spread NPD, but it does reveal its presence. Just look at Trump's tweets.

theprestige 14th January 2020 02:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stacyhs (Post 12954209)
Where does Dr. Lee mention Twitter is a vector...or Twitter at all? I see your claim that she said that, but not one from her. I may have missed it, so if you can provide it, I'd appreciate it.

It was a joke, based on the Yale Group's position that they can diagnose NPD via the subject's Twitter feed. I honestly have no idea what the actual contagion vectors are, for NPD. I doubt Dr Lee does, either.

Quote:

ETA: TM is right: Twitter doesn't spread NPD, but it does reveal its presence. Just look at Trump's tweets.
Again, this is the same tired claim we've been debating since the inception of this thread. Repeating it doesn't make it any more convincing.

What would make it convincing is some peer-reviewed research that supports it.

Stacyhs 14th January 2020 03:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theprestige (Post 12954226)
It was a joke, based on the Yale Group's position that they can diagnose NPD via the subject's Twitter feed. I honestly have no idea what the actual contagion vectors are, for NPD. I doubt Dr Lee does, either.

I suggest you use an emoji when joking in the future as it certainly did not come across as a 'joke' to me.

Quote:

Again, this is the same tired claim we've been debating since the inception of this thread. Repeating it doesn't make it any more convincing.

What would make it convincing is some peer-reviewed research that supports it.
No, it's not. The topic has been whether it was ethical to diagnose without an in person interview and whether or not Trump has a mental illness. MY post to TM was in regard to whether Twitter spreads NPD or merely reveals it.

carlitos 14th January 2020 03:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stacyhs (Post 12954252)
I suggest you use an emoji when joking in the future as it certainly did not come across as a 'joke' to me.

This whole topic is a joke, but what I mentioned and theprestige replied to was Dr. Lee diagnosing Trump supporters with a "shared psychosis" based on, in part, their tendency to share the Presidents beliefs and language, thus "taking on his symptoms by contagion." (sic?)

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.

TragicMonkey 14th January 2020 03:16 PM

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.

theprestige 14th January 2020 03:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stacyhs (Post 12954252)
I suggest you use an emoji when joking in the future as it certainly did not come across as a 'joke' to me.

Noted.

Quote:

No, it's not. The topic has been whether it was ethical to diagnose without an in person interview and whether or not Trump has a mental illness. MY post to TM was in regard to whether Twitter spreads NPD or merely reveals it.
There's been a couple different topics running through this thread, stemming from the OP.

Stacyhs 14th January 2020 03:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by carlitos (Post 12954270)
This whole topic is a joke, >snip<

That I can agree with.

theprestige 14th January 2020 03:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey (Post 12954278)
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.

Who's "we", kemosabe?

TragicMonkey 14th January 2020 04:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theprestige (Post 12954302)
Who's "we", kemosabe?

Q.E.D.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:44 PM.

Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2015-19, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.