IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags donald trump , mental illness issues , psychiatry incidents , psychiatry issues , Trump controversies

Closed Thread
Old 7th January 2020, 05:49 PM   #3321
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 90,671
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
The American Psychiatric Association is.


Uh yeah, mental health diagnosis should be a confidential matter between a patient and their doctor with the goal of finding treatment. It's not for anyone else to assess and it should be done in private.

To say otherwise is, frankly, kind of scary.
They are one source, not 'the' source.

That you continue to ignore that fact does not make your claim true.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th January 2020, 06:16 PM   #3322
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 90,671
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
Impossible for us to determine.
Still going on with this crap? You can't tell but you are just sure a top Yale psychiatric Professor is wrong.




Originally Posted by Steve View Post
I think you should provide only your own opinion on this matter and not speak for others. There are quite a few posters here who seem to have determined that the Yale group's position is in fact correct. And very few who have determined that it is incorrect.
Not only is it correct, look at the precipice Trump's impulsive behavior has taken us now.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th January 2020, 06:21 PM   #3323
Bob001
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: US of A
Posts: 14,541
Might be time to count Donnie Jr.'s marbles, too. After all, this stuff has a genetic component.
Quote:
Over the weekend, Donald Trump Jr. picked up a rifle inscribed with medieval Christian iconography, a molded knight’s helmet and a magazine picturing Hillary Clinton behind bars, and went shooting. He shared the photos of this weapon on Instagram.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlo...with-crusades/
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th January 2020, 06:27 PM   #3324
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Antimemetics Division
Posts: 55,138
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
Might be time to count Donnie Jr.'s marbles, too. After all, this stuff has a genetic component.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlo...with-crusades/
Sounds like time is running out, for you to come up with a solution for keeping a guy like that from getting elected. Again. Have you made any progress? Or are you still waiting for Dr Lee to think of something?
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th January 2020, 06:34 PM   #3325
Bob001
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: US of A
Posts: 14,541
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Sounds like time is running out, for you to come up with a solution for keeping a guy like that from getting elected. Again. Have you made any progress? Or are you still waiting for Dr Lee to think of something?
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.

Last edited by Bob001; 7th January 2020 at 06:35 PM.
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th January 2020, 06:54 PM   #3326
Hellbound
Merchant of Doom
 
Hellbound's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Not in Hell, but I can see it from here on a clear day...
Posts: 14,694
Well, you know, at least we can take comfort in all of those posters who have assured us that Trump won't do anything crazy like start a war to stay in office.

Oh, wait...
__________________
History does not always repeat itself. Sometimes it just yells "Can't you remember anything I told you?" and lets fly with a club. - John w. Campbell
Hellbound is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th January 2020, 06:55 PM   #3327
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
 
bruto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy
Posts: 30,242
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Sounds like time is running out, for you to come up with a solution for keeping a guy like that from getting elected. Again. Have you made any progress? Or are you still waiting for Dr Lee to think of something?
I would have thought that one way to keep a guy like that from being elected, or at least from staying elected, might be to enforce rules against election fraud and the use of foreign influence, and when there's enough suspicion that such things have occurred, to impeach.

Actually, I think if you were to read Bob001's original post more carefully, you might find that it addressed your question already - mentioning some things that should not have occurred, and that (one hopes) might be undone, such as voter suppression, the overturning of the voting rights act, the Citizens United decision, and the influence of Russian trolls on social media. You may not like the idea of undoing things like that, but you can't say they weren't mentioned.

Of course it's quite possible that a fair election without voter suppression, fraud, corruption and foreign tampering might still result in a character like Trump being elected, but I would contend that our last presidential election leaves the question open.
__________________
I love this world, but not for its answers. (Mary Oliver)

Quand il dit "cuic" le moineau croit tout dire. (When he's tweeted the sparrow thinks he's said it all. (Jules Renard)
bruto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th January 2020, 07:25 PM   #3328
xjx388
Moderator
Moderator
 
xjx388's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 10,164
I’ve got one small idea about how to stop a guy like Trump from being elected.

Take some time to pay sincere attention ( ) to people who are on the other side (and I’m addressing this generally to both sides). And when I say that, I don’t mean some vague BS. We will know you are paying sincere attention when you stop calling the other side deplorables, libtards, repubnicans, demonrats, etc...

Populists breed in divisive times. What we should be looking for is some common ground, some basis for cooperation.

Trump isn’t breaking the country -we are. We are the disease and he is the symptom.
__________________
Hello.
xjx388 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th January 2020, 08:15 PM   #3329
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
 
bruto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy
Posts: 30,242
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
I’ve got one small idea about how to stop a guy like Trump from being elected.

Take some time to pay sincere attention ( ) to people who are on the other side (and I’m addressing this generally to both sides). And when I say that, I don’t mean some vague BS. We will know you are paying sincere attention when you stop calling the other side deplorables, libtards, repubnicans, demonrats, etc...

Populists breed in divisive times. What we should be looking for is some common ground, some basis for cooperation.

Trump isn’t breaking the country -we are. We are the disease and he is the symptom.
On that, at least, I agree. Up to a point at least. I think it is indeed a poor idea to call names, and a good and proper idea to listen to and understand persons of different points of view. I would stop short at "teaching the controversy" and such clichés, when it comes to radical and foolish ideas, cults, hatreds and so forth. There are some things people on all sides ought simply to reject. Unfortunately, partisan rhetoric has become so distorted that many people and their demagogues lump their opponents into those categories, calling them socialists, traitors, fascists, and so forth, advocating a scorched-earth policy to disenfranchise them. Getting back to something like reasonable civility is going to be a hard march.
__________________
I love this world, but not for its answers. (Mary Oliver)

Quand il dit "cuic" le moineau croit tout dire. (When he's tweeted the sparrow thinks he's said it all. (Jules Renard)
bruto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th January 2020, 08:36 PM   #3330
Lurch
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 1,913
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
How would you fix the nomination process to prevent another such nominee?
End the disaffection engendered by accelerating wealth disparity. When about half a nation is just one paycheck away from financial disaster, it's hardly surprising many might take the leap toward a chaotic candidate. It's not so unlike those Germans, suffering under a ravaged economy, who looked hopefully to Hitler.
Lurch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th January 2020, 10:40 AM   #3331
xjx388
Moderator
Moderator
 
xjx388's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 10,164
Originally Posted by Cabbage View Post
I've already explained it is a thing internal to an individual and it doesn't look like anything. I have no metric by which I can measure whether an individual sincerely paid attention; someone asked what I hoped would be the response to the psychiatrists raising the alarm and my answer was that people would sincerely pay attention. Why you seem to keep insisting that I must therefore be out in the field judging whether or not people are indeed taking it seriously remains a mystery to me. I merely expressed a wish.

.........(sigh)......It depends on the individual. If I haven't made that obvious myself, it really should have already been obvious to you after a simple moment's reflection. Are you new to this "Being Human" thing? You act as if it's new to you. Everyone is different. I am not demanding anyone believe this or that, I only wish they would pay attention. Whether or not they actually pay attention is on the honor system; I am not the "Pay Attention" Police.
Then I'm really not sure why you expressed your wish for people to pay attention. It's meaningless. Further, it's quite obvious that everyone in this thread is paying attention because we've been engaging in this discussion for quite some time. There's a fundamental disagreement in this thread that is predicated on having paid attention.
Quote:
You distort my words and make this needlessly difficult. I have already told you multiple times you are wrong in what you think I expect. I want people to pay attention. If they pay attention and their mind is not changed, I'm fine with that. You keep strawmanning me and trying to claim I want everyone to agree with me. No. No. No. How many times must I tell you before it sinks in? I want those that simply dismiss it to finally pay attention. If their minds remain unchanged, so be it.
It's not strawmanning, it's attempting to get you to say something meaningful. But apparently you don't have a menaingful argument.

Quote:
Is strawmanning all you have? You persist in doing it even when I specifically point it out to you.

I gave a specific example of a Trump supporter refusing to believe that Trump ever said he could shoot someone on Fifth Ave and not lose a single supporter. This is merely an example--There are lots of examples of Trump supporters denying reality. Have you honestly not noticed this?
The Yale Group says he is dangerous and a threat to the safety of the people our country and the world. Never has Trump demonstrated a propensity to that level of dangerousness. Things he has said have not demonstrated such a propensity. It's possible to hear those things and dismiss them as the meaningless ramblings of a narcissist, not a danger to the world.

Quote:
They are self explanatory. They mean precisely what they say.
Which is absolutely nothing of substance.
Quote:
OK. I'll play your game: Where, precisely is the contradiction. I'll give you a heads up: You're gonna struggle here because there is no contradiction.
You say you aren't looking for people to do anything and that you can't read minds. Then you say that for Trump supporters you know they aren't paying sincere attention (i.e., you can read their minds) because of something they are doing. You say I am not paying sincere attention (you can read my mind) because I said I dismissed the Yale Group. So there's your contradiction: You apparently can read minds and you apparently are looking to what people do, despite your repeated objections.

Quote:
I can make observations based on their words and actions, yes.

When they make a pattern of ignoring anything inconsistent with their ideal image of Trump (and, indeed, tell you they don't believe anything bad about Trump), then I come to the conclusion they are not paying sincere attention.
But you can't read their minds so you have no idea whether or not they are paying attention; you just cast aspersions anyway. Further evidence that for you, Disagreement=not paying attention.

Quote:
The contents of their assignment. Don't take the analogy too far, bro. If I give you a sealed document and you tell me you've read it but it's still got the original seal, I know you're lying. If the seal is broken and you tell me you've read it---I can't tell if you're telling the truth or not.
If you don't want us to break down an analogy to see what you are trying to say,i it's best not to use analogies.
Quote:
I don't recall this alarm being raised by the psychiatrists prior to the election. Assuming my recall is accurate, that can't possibly be used as evidence that you've paid attention specifically to the psychiatrists--it's anachronistic.
I responded to your specific quesiton:
Quote:
The question of whether Trump is mentally fit for office? None of what you just referred to is in any way relevant to that question. What evidence that you've sincerely considered the question do you think you've presented (because what you just referred to isn't it)?
You asked me, there, for evidence that I sincerely evaluated the question of Trump's fitness for office. The evidence is that I didn't vote for him. I am capable of making that determination all on my own as did millions of other Americans.

As for evidence that I sincerely evaluated the issues raised by the Yale Group? I used my knowledge of medical ethics and standards of practice as well as research on the official positions of the authorities of the profession. All cited here in this thread over a period of years.

Quote:
Then why did you, for example, bring up Dr Oz and the headline, “What Astrological Sign Can Tell You About Your Health”? I don't see how that analogizes with the Yale group at all (and yet you said the Yale group are "doing the same thing"---No. They are not).
Because Dr. Oz is using his white coat to promote frickin' astrology -a bit of woo that is based knowing things about a person without knowing the actual person. He isn't using medical standards and it's unethical for him to shroud non-medical ideas in his white coat. Exactly what the Yale Group is doing.

Quote:
Oh, wow, look: Yet another strawman! No, I do not claim you are not sincerely paying attention simply because of your point of view. I said what I did due to comments you've made, such as, "What alarm are they raising and is it worthy of attention?" (if you were sincerely paying attention you wouldn't have to ask) and "Why can't it be dismissed simply because it's unethical and based on non-standard practice of medicine/psychology?"
Got it. I'm not paying sincere attention because 1)I don't agree that they've made an actionaable warning of a specific threat Trump poses and 2)I don't agree that unethical and non-standard medical opinions are worthy of consideration. To boil it down to essentials: You say I am not paying sincere attention because I don't agree with you. Which is exactly what I set out to show; if people don't think the way you do, they aren't paying sincere attention.

Quote:
When you admit that you didn't sincerely consider it, why are you surprised when I say I think you didn't sincerely consider it?
Don't get it twisted: I sincerely evaluated it on criteria that are important to me and came out with an opposite view to yours. That is isn't evidence that I didn't sincerely pay attention; it's evidence that I think differently than you do.

Quote:
I find that when I listen and use my own attentiveness, research, and brain power in just such a situation I'm capable of things that surprise me. I would recommend trying that instead of throwing my hands up and claiming, "It's simply beyond me".
Neither of us has the training to properly evaluate medical claims for their accuracy and reliability. The difference between us is that I don't hear a panel of experts say something and then simply accept it because they are experts. It seems to me that you are more willing to give weight to a professional's opinion by dint of their titles, positions, degrees and experience -their "expertness" than I am. I put more weight on the idea that those experts should follow standards of practice and ethics before they issue professional opinions. We have different persepectives, and that's fine.

Quote:
I don't think it's irresponsible to point out that a pattern of 1) Insisting he had the largest attendance of any inauguration in history, 2) Insisting he actually won the popular vote if you take away the millions of illegal votes, 3) Redrawing a weather map to falsely support his claim that Alabama was in the path of a hurricane (to name but a few) are indicative of some sort of mental unfitness.
No, I wouldn't say it's irresponsible for you to say that. I wouldn't even say it's irresponsible for a professional to say that as a general commentary without directly saying "Trump is dangerously mentally ill." It's that specific diagnosis and assessment of danger that goes beyond what they should say publicly.
Quote:
I don't think it's fair of you to demand that they specify whether it will manifest itself as a nuclear war or a crashing of the economy or a ruination/erosion of the ability of the federal govt to cohere anymore. I can understand your wish for them to be specific regarding symptoms they have witnessed in Trump; I think you're being deflectively disingenuous in demanding they can also warn of a specific imminent threat.
They invoke a Duty to Warn. A Duty to Warn has a legal standard. They must act on a suspicion of a specific imminent threat to specific person. I am just applying that standard to them and seeing that they fall way short. It was them that invoked the Duty to Warn, not me.
Quote:
I think having a malignant pathological narcissist in the White House is cause enough for alarm that he will eff things up; it's not necessary for me to know specifically in what manner he will eff things up in order for me to wish that ability to eff things up were taken away from him before it comes to fruition.
How do you know he's a malignant narcissist? Even Dr. Lee says she has recently split from other members of the Yale Group over this specific diagnosis issue (too bad it was after she had a conference, made the media rounds and wrote a book with them). According to the sources I've read and cited here throughout the years, there is no way that such a diagnosis could be arrived at without spending significant time at a professional level with Trump. So, really, how do you know he's a malignant narcissist? It seems to me like you are just taking their word for it. But I wonder . . . what was your honest assessment of Trump's fitness before the election?
__________________
Hello.
xjx388 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th January 2020, 10:44 AM   #3332
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Antimemetics Division
Posts: 55,138
Originally Posted by Lurch View Post
End the disaffection engendered by accelerating wealth disparity. When about half a nation is just one paycheck away from financial disaster, it's hardly surprising many might take the leap toward a chaotic candidate. It's not so unlike those Germans, suffering under a ravaged economy, who looked hopefully to Hitler.
That's not a fix to the process. That's just wishing away the conditions under which the process breaks. Your goal should be to come up with a process that still works reasonably well even under less-than-ideal conditions. Not to double down on a process that only works under ideal conditions.

Other solutions proposed so far are along the lines of "fix the people, and the process won't break". That's not realistic. And in practice, not humane.

Last edited by theprestige; 8th January 2020 at 10:45 AM.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th January 2020, 03:20 PM   #3333
wasapi
Penultimate Amazing
 
wasapi's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 14,090
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
That's not a fix to the process. That's just wishing away the conditions under which the process breaks. Your goal should be to come up with a process that still works reasonably well even under less-than-ideal conditions. Not to double down on a process that only works under ideal conditions.

Other solutions proposed so far are along the lines of "fix the people, and the process won't break". That's not realistic. And in practice, not humane.
Not just unrealistic, but "fix the people, etc.", reminds me of the mind boggling 'new age-speak'. In a 'perfect world', and all of that . . .
__________________
Julia
wasapi is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th January 2020, 05:34 PM   #3334
Cabbage
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 2,598
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
Then I'm really not sure why you expressed your wish for people to pay attention. It's meaningless.
You're gonna have to give me some details on how you arrived at that conclusion. I'm honestly mystified by it.

Quote:
Further, it's quite obvious that everyone in this thread is paying attention because we've been engaging in this discussion for quite some time.

No, it's not at all obvious when you yourself use words that seem to imply you've dismissed the alarm against Trump due to the questionable ethics of the Yale Group. You may be paying attention to something, but not what I expressed a wish for you to pay attention to.

Quote:
There's a fundamental disagreement in this thread that is predicated on having paid attention.
It's not strawmanning, it's attempting to get you to say something meaningful. But apparently you don't have a menaingful argument.

It is strawmanning when you claim I said things I never said. And the only reason you think I don't have a "menaingful" argument is because you're listening to what you imagine I say, not what I'm really saying.

Quote:
The Yale Group says he is dangerous and a threat to the safety of the people our country and the world. Never has Trump demonstrated a propensity to that level of dangerousness.

That's like your opinion, man, and is extraordinarily debatable.

Quote:
Things he has said have not demonstrated such a propensity. It's possible to hear those things and dismiss them as the meaningless ramblings of a narcissist, not a danger to the world.

Possible =/= accurate reflection of reality. Hell, it's possible to listen to what Trump says and believe he's absolutely the Best. President. Ever. Really. I've seen it happen.

Quote:
Which is absolutely nothing of substance.

There you go with your opinionating again.

Quote:
You say you aren't looking for people to do anything and that you can't read minds.

Strawman. I never said that. Why in the hell is this difficult for you? I want people to pay sincere attention to the warning. That's not "nothing", and the fact that no metric exists to measure whether people are paying attention doesn't make it "nothing". Let it go, already; you're wasting both of our times with this nonsense.

Quote:
Then you say that for Trump supporters you know they aren't paying sincere attention (i.e., you can read their minds) because of something they are doing.
Some of them, sure.

Quote:
You say I am not paying sincere attention (you can read my mind) because I said I dismissed the Yale Group. So there's your contradiction: You apparently can read minds and you apparently are looking to what people do, despite your repeated objections.
I'm taking "dismiss" to mean "discard without paying sincere attention" and therefore I am not claiming to read your (or anyone else's mind)--I am simply taking you at your word. It's really quite simple; I'm honestly having trouble understanding why this is so difficult for you.

Quote:
But you can't read their minds so you have no idea whether or not they are paying attention; you just cast aspersions anyway. Further evidence that for you, Disagreement=not paying attention.
There you go with your strawman again. I never said "Disagreement=not paying attention"; in fact I've said multiple times I do not believe that. Some Trump supporters make clear they dismiss any evidence that doesn't fit with their narrative that Trump is the GPOAT--[b]I'm not reading their minds, I'm listening to what they are telling me. Why in the ever loving hell can't you listen to me when I tell you that REPEATEDLY

Quote:
If you don't want us to break down an analogy to see what you are trying to say,i it's best not to use analogies.

Some aspects of the analogy are clear. I don't understand why you couldn't figure yourself that what was wrapped in plastic was the contents of the lesson. Wasn't that absolutely clear from context? Did you think it might be a.........dead body, or something. Do you want to know the teacher's name, too? Where the school is? Use some common sense here. It was merely an analogy to facilitate your understanding that while I can't read X (where X is an internal property of someone else, such as their thoughts) because I can't read minds, I can certainly use other evidence to sometimes determine not X without reading anyone's mind.


Quote:
I responded to your specific quesiton: You asked me, there, for evidence that I sincerely evaluated the question of Trump's fitness for office. The evidence is that I didn't vote for him.

That's not evidence. Other factors may account for that. And when I said, "That's not relevant" I was referring to your deflection to the ethics of the Yale Group. It should be obvious that that is indeed irrelevant to Trump's mental fitness.

Quote:
I am capable of making that determination all on my own as did millions of other Americans.

As for evidence that I sincerely evaluated the issues raised by the Yale Group? I used my knowledge of medical ethics and standards of practice as well as research on the official positions of the authorities of the profession. All cited here in this thread over a period of years.

Again, that's what I am referring to as irrelevant. That's not relevant to whether Trump is mentally fit, it's relevant to whether the Yale Group should've raised the alarm in the first place due to professional ethics considerations.

Quote:
Because Dr. Oz is using his white coat to promote frickin' astrology -a bit of woo that is based knowing things about a person without knowing the actual person.

Observing a public figure in public is not analogous to astrology.

Quote:
He isn't using medical standards and it's unethical for him to shroud non-medical ideas in his white coat. Exactly what the Yale Group is doing.

No. The Yale Group isn't using astrology.

Quote:
Got it. I'm not paying sincere attention because 1)I don't agree that they've made an actionaable warning of a specific threat Trump poses and 2)I don't agree that unethical and non-standard medical opinions are worthy of consideration. To boil it down to essentials: You say I am not paying sincere attention because I don't agree with you. Which is exactly what I set out to show; if people don't think the way you do, they aren't paying sincere attention.

No. I am saying you didn't pay sincere attention because you said you dismissed the Yale Group and my definition of "dismiss" is: Discard without paying sincere attention. Simple, really.

Quote:
Don't get it twisted: I sincerely evaluated it on criteria that are important to me and came out with an opposite view to yours.

Based on what you persist in telling me, you "evaluated" it on criteria on completely irrelevant criteria--That criteria being: It is unethical for the Yale Group to make this warning, therefore I will dismiss it.

Quote:
That is isn't evidence that I didn't sincerely pay attention; it's evidence that I think differently than you do.

No, to me it's evidence that you simply dismissed the warning without sincere attention, like I said.

Quote:
Neither of us has the training to properly evaluate medical claims for their accuracy and reliability. The difference between us is that I don't hear a panel of experts say something and then simply accept it because they are experts.

Where have I done this? This isn't happening in a vacuum--In addition to the doctors' warnings I can observe the situation myself. If a panel of experts say something and it is contrary to my own experience I do not simply accept it because they are experts.

Nice attempt at yet another strawman, however!

Quote:
It seems to me that you are more willing to give weight to a professional's opinion by dint of their titles, positions, degrees and experience -their "expertness" than I am. I put more weight on the idea that those experts should follow standards of practice and ethics before they issue professional opinions. We have different persepectives, and that's fine.

I would argue instead that I do a better job of listening and thinking for myself--Instead of dismissing something simply because the "Simon Sez" protocol wasn't followed to the letter.

Quote:
No, I wouldn't say it's irresponsible for you to say that. I wouldn't even say it's irresponsible for a professional to say that as a general commentary without directly saying "Trump is dangerously mentally ill." It's that specific diagnosis and assessment of danger that goes beyond what they should say publicly.They invoke a Duty to Warn. A Duty to Warn has a legal standard. They must act on a suspicion of a specific imminent threat to specific person. I am just applying that standard to them and seeing that they fall way short. It was them that invoked the Duty to Warn, not me.How do you know he's a malignant narcissist? Even Dr. Lee says she has recently split from other members of the Yale Group over this specific diagnosis issue (too bad it was after she had a conference, made the media rounds and wrote a book with them). According to the sources I've read and cited here throughout the years, there is no way that such a diagnosis could be arrived at without spending significant time at a professional level with Trump. So, really, how do you know he's a malignant narcissist? It seems to me like you are just taking their word for it. But I wonder . . . what was your honest assessment of Trump's fitness before the election?

I thought he was unfit before the election. However, unlike you, I appreciate the Yale Group's stance because, unlike you, I am aware that not everyone came to that same conclusion before the election and there is a chance that some people's perceptions may be changed by it.
Cabbage is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th January 2020, 09:45 AM   #3335
xjx388
Moderator
Moderator
 
xjx388's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 10,164
Originally Posted by Cabbage View Post
You're gonna have to give me some details on how you arrived at that conclusion. I'm honestly mystified by it.
You wish for people to do something that you can't know if they do or not and you don't expect any particular result from doing it. Someone could pay sincere attention and dismiss the alarm. The wish is meaningless.

Quote:
No, it's not at all obvious when you yourself use words that seem to imply you've dismissed the alarm against Trump due to the questionable ethics of the Yale Group.
You don't know whether or not I've paid sincere attention to the alarm. All you know is that I've dismissed the alarm. I suspect that the dismissal is the really the meaningful thing to you, not my inner thought process to get there.
Quote:
You may be paying attention to something, but not what I expressed a wish for you to pay attention to.
Serious question: Can you tell me exactly why the Yale Group's warning is worthy of sincere attention? You say the ethics and standards are seperable from the warning itself. But if the warning is based in unethical, non-standard practice, I cannot fathom why I should pay attention to it. Can you unravel that?
Quote:
I'm taking "dismiss" to mean "discard without paying sincere attention" and therefore I am not claiming to read your (or anyone else's mind)--I am simply taking you at your word. It's really quite simple; I'm honestly having trouble understanding why this is so difficult for you.
I can dismiss something after sincerely considering that it isn't worthy of my attention.
Quote:
There you go with your strawman again. I never said "Disagreement=not paying attention";
I didn't say you said that, I said it's evidence that you think that.
Quote:
in fact I've said multiple times I do not believe that.
Perhaps, but I think your words betray you.
Quote:
Some aspects of the analogy are clear. I don't understand why you couldn't figure yourself that what was wrapped in plastic was the contents of the lesson. Wasn't that absolutely clear from context? Did you think it might be a.........dead body, or something.
Uh-boy . . . No. I want you to tell me, in the analogy to paying sincere attention to the alarm, what the unwrapped package is. Because that unwrapped package in your analogy is something tangible that tells you they didn't do the work. So I'm asking you what is the "something tangible" that tells you people aren't paying sincere attention to the Yale Group's alarm. You keep saying there is nothing tangible and then make a stupid analogy where there is. You are all over the map and then want to blame me for not getting it.
Quote:
That's not evidence. Other factors may account for that.
But if I'm telling you that I didn't vote for him because I didn't think he was fit . . . I mean what the hell else do you need?
Quote:
And when I said, "That's not relevant" I was referring to your deflection to the ethics of the Yale Group. It should be obvious that that is indeed irrelevant to Trump's mental fitness.
Again you are all over the place, seemingly conflating two different things. I agree that Trump's actual mental fitness is seperable from the Yale Group's ethics. However, whether or not we should seriously pay attention to what the Yale Group says ("the alarm") about Trump's dangerous mental illness is inseperable from how they arrived at their opinion.
Quote:
No. I am saying you didn't pay sincere attention because you said you dismissed the Yale Group and my definition of "dismiss" is: Discard without paying sincere attention. Simple, really.
That's an idiosyncratic definition rigidly applied in inapplicable circumstances.
Quote:
Based on what you persist in telling me, you "evaluated" it on criteria on completely irrelevant criteria--That criteria being: It is unethical for the Yale Group to make this warning, therefore I will dismiss it.
Finally. I mean, this is as direct an admission as I'm going to get that if I don't evaluate things on the same criteria as you do -i.e. I disagree with you- then I am not seriously considering things.

I'll try to recap and move on. You want me to sincerely pay attention to two things: 1)Trump's actual mental fitness and 2)The Yale Group's warning about Trump's dangerous mental illness.

For #1, I evaluated Trump's fitness when I decided where to cast my vote and ultimately did not cast one for Trump. For #2, I evaluated whether or not the warning was worth listening to and saw that a)no one in the Yale Group has ever actually met Trump, b)all they have to go on is public appearances, which the APA has specifically said is not sufficient, c)they are engaging in hyperbole (he might launch nukes!), d)I see nothing in Trump's history that would suggest that he might wanna blow up the world (he's narcissistic and incompetent but not violent in that way) . . . etc. Therefore I dismiss the warning as hyperbolic, unethical and based on non-standard practice -much like I dismiss Dr. Oz's nonsense about astrology and health.

For real: asking me to seriously pay attention to the Yale Group's warning is akin to asking me to seriously pay attention to Dr. Oz's astrology crap.
Quote:
No, to me it's evidence that you simply dismissed the warning without sincere attention, like I said.
It should be clear that I didn't just dismiss it; I considered whether or not I should listen to it. I decided I could dismiss it for the reasons outlined above.

Quote:
Where have I done this? This isn't happening in a vacuum--In addition to the doctors' warnings I can observe the situation myself. If a panel of experts say something and it is contrary to my own experience I do not simply accept it because they are experts.
That's exactly what I have been saying -what the Yale Group is saying is contrary to my own observations, experience and knowledge about Trump, medical practice and ethics. It's contrary to their own professional organization's position. I do not simply accept it because they're experts.

Quote:
I would argue instead that I do a better job of listening and thinking for myself--Instead of dismissing something simply because the "Simon Sez" protocol wasn't followed to the letter.
This is how people accept bad medical claims: "I'm smart enough to know when a claim is right, even if there are no studies, protocols or standards to support the claim. Pass me that alkaline water and an astrology chart!"

Quote:
I thought he was unfit before the election. However, unlike you, I appreciate the Yale Group's stance because, unlike you, I am aware that not everyone came to that same conclusion before the election and there is a chance that some people's perceptions may be changed by it.
And you consider it a good thing that an unethical, non-standard medical opinion will sway people's votes. I don't.
__________________
Hello.
xjx388 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th January 2020, 11:05 AM   #3336
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 20,923
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
You and others say the process is broken. I would wager that you didn’t think it was broken when Obama was elected.

The system had a bad outcome this time from our POV, that doesn’t imply the whole system is broken.

This only works if you think Obama was mentally ill.

Do you think Obama was mentally ill? Please show the evidence. I would have expected more headlines, to be honest.

Otherwise this is just another distraction. The system for dismissing a mental president for office simply wasn't called for.
__________________
Up the River!

Anyone that wraps themselves in the Union Flag and also lives in tax exile is a [redacted]
3point14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th January 2020, 11:09 AM   #3337
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 36,171
Quote:
A group of mental health professionals have warned Congress it must act urgently to demand Donald Trump undergo an evaluation to determine his continued fitness for office after nearly a week of heightened tensions with Iran.

The World Mental Health Coalition made the statement a month after warning Congress that the stress of impeachment could cause Mr Trump's mental state to deteriorate to a dangerous level.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-a9275986.html
__________________
"If everyone in the room says water is wet and I say it's dry that makes me smart because at least I'm thinking for myself!" - The Proudly Wrong.
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th January 2020, 11:16 AM   #3338
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Antimemetics Division
Posts: 55,138
Originally Posted by 3point14 View Post
This only works if you think Obama was mentally ill.
Not so.

The system hasn't changed since Obama was elected. If Trump got into power through a broken system, and it's the same system, then Obama also got into power through a broken system.

Personally, I don't think the system is broken at all. Quite the opposite: A system that can tolerate the occasional Donald Trump as president, as well as this system does, is probably pretty close to as good as you can expect a democratic system to get.

One piece of supporting evidence is that so far nobody who suggests the system is broken have shown any interest in proposing a fix. (Other than handwaving at "if we fixed the people we wouldn't need to fix the system.")
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th January 2020, 11:26 AM   #3339
carlitos
"más divertido"
 
carlitos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: USA! USA!
Posts: 23,870
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
The World Mental Health Coalition is what the authors of that book call themselves. It is an organization created solely for the purpose of commenting on Donald Trump's mental health.

Originally Posted by dangerouscase.org
ABOUT US
WHO WE ARE

WORLD MENTAL HEALTH COALITION

Meet the 37 authors of the book and thousands of other professionals who have come together in historically unprecedented ways to offer our consensus view that Donald Trump’s mental state presents a clear and present danger to the nation and the world.

An ethics conference on the topic at Yale School of Medicine in April 2017 drew national attention and led to the first book, which became an instant New York Times bestseller and the Washington Post’s “most courageous book of the year.” Demands for an update gave rise to a second book, which was released in March 2019. Meanwhile, we have become the nation’s first and largest mental health professionals-only organization to address the issue of dangerous mental instability in the highest office of the land. Joining with our international partners, we have recently renamed ourselves the World Mental Health Coalition (formerly the National Coalition of Concerned Mental Health Experts).
Attached Images
File Type: jpg world-mental-health.jpg (36.5 KB, 3 views)
carlitos is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th January 2020, 11:40 AM   #3340
xjx388
Moderator
Moderator
 
xjx388's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 10,164
Originally Posted by 3point14 View Post
This only works if you think Obama was mentally ill.



Do you think Obama was mentally ill? Please show the evidence. I would have expected more headlines, to be honest.



Otherwise this is just another distraction. The system for dismissing a mental president for office simply wasn't called for.


No. The process by which we select candidates and elect a President worked fine for Obama, Bush, Clinton , Regan, Carter, etc. Which indicates that most of the time, we get a decent outcome, politics aside. IOW, we get a person who is relatively normal. With Trump, we got a kook -the process didn’t suddenly become broken, though. Same process; bad outcome.

The process to remove a President should be difficult and predicated on a little more than some shrinks that have never met him saying he’s dangerous.
__________________
Hello.
xjx388 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th January 2020, 11:43 AM   #3341
xjx388
Moderator
Moderator
 
xjx388's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 10,164
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post


This is just another name for what we’ve been calling the Yale Group; makes ‘me sound all official. Like the Duty to Warn organization. More or less the same people in both.
__________________
Hello.
xjx388 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th January 2020, 11:47 AM   #3342
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Antimemetics Division
Posts: 55,138
Originally Posted by carlitos View Post
The World Mental Health Coalition is what the authors of that book call themselves. It is an organization created solely for the purpose of commenting on Donald Trump's mental health.
What's interesting about Joe's article is that the WMHC actually acknowledges one of my points: Pressuring Donald Trump (for example, with impeachment) risks making the potential danger a real danger.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th January 2020, 12:01 PM   #3343
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 61,386
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
What's interesting about Joe's article is that the WMHC actually acknowledges one of my points: Pressuring Donald Trump (for example, with impeachment) risks making the potential danger a real danger.
Which leaves us with a choice between furthering a self-fulfilling prophecy or else humoring a madman. It's just like a Greek tragedy! The ultimate lesson is that our own hubris brings us to ruin.
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th January 2020, 12:23 PM   #3344
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 90,671
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
I’ve got one small idea about how to stop a guy like Trump from being elected.

Take some time to pay sincere attention ( ) to people who are on the other side (and I’m addressing this generally to both sides). And when I say that, I don’t mean some vague BS. We will know you are paying sincere attention when you stop calling the other side deplorables, libtards, repubnicans, demonrats, etc...

Populists breed in divisive times. What we should be looking for is some common ground, some basis for cooperation.

Trump isn’t breaking the country -we are. We are the disease and he is the symptom.
This might relate to how Trump got elected but beyond that it has nothing at all to do with the risk Trump as POTUS poses.

For example, an impulsive decision to take out a general (the military that briefed Congress had no evidence of any imminent threat) which might have resulted in the accidental take down of a passenger jet in Iran.


Yep, Trump isn't a risk.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th January 2020, 12:32 PM   #3345
carlitos
"más divertido"
 
carlitos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: USA! USA!
Posts: 23,870
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.
carlitos is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th January 2020, 12:42 PM   #3346
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Antimemetics Division
Posts: 55,138
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
Which leaves us with a choice between furthering a self-fulfilling prophecy or else humoring a madman. It's just like a Greek tragedy! The ultimate lesson is that our own hubris brings us to ruin.
Stipulating that he's a madman, this seems like the right place to start, if you're trying to figure out what to do about Donald Trump.

Maybe the best solution is some sort of Shutter Island gambit.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th January 2020, 03:18 PM   #3347
xjx388
Moderator
Moderator
 
xjx388's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 10,164
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
This might relate to how Trump got elected but beyond that it has nothing at all to do with the risk Trump as POTUS poses.

For example, an impulsive decision to take out a general (the military that briefed Congress had no evidence of any imminent threat) which might have resulted in the accidental take down of a passenger jet in Iran.


Yep, Trump isn't a risk.
You are evaluating the merits of the Soleimani operation with a bias towards “Trump is dangerous,” so its easy for you to say, “see, Trump is dangerous.” I’m pretty sure you didn’t evaluate Obama’s drone strikes, which took out hundreds of civilians, as indicative of Obama’s dangerousness or riskiness.

Presidents have to make these risky decisions all the time with advice from the military and when presented with the opportunity to take out a high-value target, they often take it.
__________________
Hello.
xjx388 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th January 2020, 04:12 PM   #3348
Cabbage
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 2,598
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
You wish for people to do something that you can't know if they do or not and you don't expect any particular result from doing it. Someone could pay sincere attention and dismiss the alarm. The wish is meaningless.

I expect a whole lot of people would be making a more informed decision than they are now. So there's that.

And therefore it's not "meaningless".

Quote:
You don't know whether or not I've paid sincere attention to the alarm. All you know is that I've dismissed the alarm. I suspect that the dismissal is the really the meaningful thing to you, not my inner thought process to get there.
As I explained in the very post you are responding to, I take the word "dismiss" to mean "Discard without paying sincere attention to", and therefore your lack of an inner thought process is implicit. Perhaps there's a misunderstanding based on our different interpretations of the word "dismiss"--In that case, that's what it is. I wouldn't recommend basing your "argument" on that misunderstanding.



Quote:
Serious question: Can you tell me exactly why the Yale Group's warning is worthy of sincere attention?

Because of their qualifications along with the fact that it is consistent with Trump's behavior.

Can you tell me why the warning is not? And I'm not talking about questions of ethics: I'm specifically talking about the simple fact of whether Trump is or is not dangerously mentally ill. That is either True or False and the side question of ethics is irrelevant to the question I just asked.

Quote:
You say the ethics and standards are seperable from the warning itself. But if the warning is based in unethical, non-standard practice, I cannot fathom why I should pay attention to it. Can you unravel that?

Because the warning may be worth heeding even if the presentation wasn't done properly.

Quote:
I can dismiss something after sincerely considering that it isn't worthy of my attention.

Based on what? Questions of ethics which are irrelevant to whether or not the warning is accurate?


Quote:
I didn't say you said that, I said it's evidence that you think that.
....after I've repeatedly explained specifically how it fails to be evidence.

Quote:
Perhaps, but I think your words betray you.

And I think your failure to think this through clearly betrays you.


Quote:
Uh-boy . . . No. I want you to tell me, in the analogy to paying sincere attention to the alarm, what the unwrapped package is. Because that unwrapped package in your analogy is something tangible that tells you they didn't do the work. So I'm asking you what is the "something tangible" that tells you people aren't paying sincere attention to the Yale Group's alarm. You keep saying there is nothing tangible and then make a stupid analogy where there is. You are all over the map and then want to blame me for not getting it.
yourself: I've already told you what the unwrapped package is: Many Trump supporters themselves have already told us they dismiss (under my definition, not yours) any information that reflects negatively on Trump. I can tell they are not paying sincere attention because they tell me they are not paying sincere attention.

Seriously, this isn't difficult. Try reading my answers to your questions for a change instead of bitching about how you think I'm not answering. Because I am answering.


Quote:
But if I'm telling you that I didn't vote for him because I didn't think he was fit . . . I mean what the hell else do you need?

Now those are different statements: 1) I didn't vote for him, and 2) I didn't vote for him because I didn't think he was fit. I agree 2) is evidence you don't think he was fit. You, however, presented statement 1) as "evidence". It is not.

Quote:
Again you are all over the place, seemingly conflating two different things. I agree that Trump's actual mental fitness is seperable from the Yale Group's ethics. However, whether or not we should seriously pay attention to what the Yale Group says ("the alarm") about Trump's dangerous mental illness is inseperable from how they arrived at their opinion.
I simply disagree. I claim if Trump is dangerously mentally unfit for the office then you should pay serious attention to anyone who informs you of such. How you learn isn't as important to me as the fact that you do learn, from somewhere.

Quote:
That's an idiosyncratic definition rigidly applied in inapplicable circumstances.

Now you're just making stuff up.

Dismiss: to reject serious consideration of

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dismiss


Quote:
Finally. I mean, this is as direct an admission as I'm going to get that if I don't evaluate things on the same criteria as you do -i.e. I disagree with you- then I am not seriously considering things.
Not just that: When the criteria you use is irrelevant you are simply wrong. If, for example, you want to base who you vote for on astrological signs, that's not simply a disagreement--You are simply wrong.

Quote:
I'll try to recap and move on. You want me to sincerely pay attention to two things: 1)Trump's actual mental fitness and 2)The Yale Group's warning about Trump's dangerous mental illness.
Actually, just the former. The impetus for paying attention is irrelevant. Do you finally see what I am telling you?

Quote:
For #1, I evaluated Trump's fitness when I decided where to cast my vote and ultimately did not cast one for Trump. For #2, I evaluated whether or not the warning was worth listening to and saw that a)no one in the Yale Group has ever actually met Trump, b)all they have to go on is public appearances, which the APA has specifically said is not sufficient, c)they are engaging in hyperbole (he might launch nukes!), d)I see nothing in Trump's history that would suggest that he might wanna blow up the world (he's narcissistic and incompetent but not violent in that way) . . . etc. Therefore I dismiss the warning as hyperbolic, unethical and based on non-standard practice -much like I dismiss Dr. Oz's nonsense about astrology and health.


For real: asking me to seriously pay attention to the Yale Group's warning is akin to asking me to seriously pay attention to Dr. Oz's astrology crap.


It should be clear that I didn't just dismiss it; I considered whether or not I should listen to it. I decided I could dismiss it for the reasons outlined above.
That's not how I would phrase it. It looks to me you evaluated whether the Yale Group is ethically qualified to pass such a judgment, you decided they are not, and therefore chose to ignore the message. That's your prerogative, but it's certainly not what I would call "paying sincere attention to the warning itself" when you choose to ignore it based on other considerations.

Quote:
That's exactly what I have been saying -what the Yale Group is saying is contrary to my own observations, experience and knowledge about Trump, medical practice and ethics. It's contrary to their own professional organization's position. I do not simply accept it because they're experts.

And it's consistent with my own observations and therefore you are wrong when you claim I simply accept it because they're experts. Don't give me that "That's exactly what I have been saying" when I have to correct you: I wouldn't have corrected you if that was exactly what you've been saying.

Quote:
This is how people accept bad medical claims: "I'm smart enough to know when a claim is right, even if there are no studies, protocols or standards to support the claim. Pass me that alkaline water and an astrology chart!"


And you consider it a good thing that an unethical, non-standard medical opinion will sway people's votes. I don't.

I contest your notion that it is unethical or that there is insufficient evidence to determine what has been determined regarding Trump.
Cabbage is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th January 2020, 04:14 PM   #3349
carlitos
"más divertido"
 
carlitos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: USA! USA!
Posts: 23,870
You guys can stop the back-and-forth wall-o-quotes now. You've both convinced everyone that you are right.
carlitos is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th January 2020, 04:18 PM   #3350
carlitos
"más divertido"
 
carlitos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: USA! USA!
Posts: 23,870
cabbage and xjx388 - Good news - we took a vote and you are both right. No need for further wall-o-quotes. Nice job.
carlitos is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th January 2020, 04:23 PM   #3351
Cabbage
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 2,598
Originally Posted by carlitos View Post
cabbage and xjx388 - Good news - we took a vote and you are both right. No need for further wall-o-quotes. Nice job.

Cabbage is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th January 2020, 07:46 PM   #3352
Bob001
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: US of A
Posts: 14,541
Originally Posted by carlitos View Post
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.
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th January 2020, 09:26 PM   #3353
Iamafalser
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 133
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
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?
Iamafalser is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th January 2020, 10:31 PM   #3354
xjx388
Moderator
Moderator
 
xjx388's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 10,164
Originally Posted by Iamafalser View Post
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....
__________________
Hello.
xjx388 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th January 2020, 11:54 AM   #3355
Bob001
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: US of A
Posts: 14,541
Originally Posted by Iamafalser View Post
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.

Last edited by Bob001; 10th January 2020 at 11:56 AM.
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th January 2020, 11:57 AM   #3356
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Antimemetics Division
Posts: 55,138
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
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 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th January 2020, 11:59 AM   #3357
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Antimemetics Division
Posts: 55,138
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
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.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th January 2020, 12:07 PM   #3358
carlitos
"más divertido"
 
carlitos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: USA! USA!
Posts: 23,870
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. IThe two major parties have a slew of ballot access restrictions in place, maybe we can get rid of those instead of adding more.
carlitos is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th January 2020, 12:08 PM   #3359
carlitos
"más divertido"
 
carlitos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: USA! USA!
Posts: 23,870
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.
carlitos is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th January 2020, 01:02 PM   #3360
Agatha
Winking at the Moon
Deputy Admin
 
Agatha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 14,661
Mod Info This thread has been closed due to length and instability (of the thread, not necessarily the subject). Please visit the new continuation in [url=http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=341507]part three of the thread.
Posted By:Agatha
__________________
Why can't you be more like Agatha? - Loss Leader
Agatha is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Closed Thread

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:59 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.