Continuation Donald Trump has 'dangerous mental illness' say psychiatry experts at Yale... Pt 3

[xjx388]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

He cannot stop, he cannot help himself. When you understand that you can see all his actions are because he's mentally ill.

In all the Trump threads people in this forum are still saying things like he's doing X for his base.

Sometimes that is true like his pandering to the Evangelicals and hugging the flag. His wall and some of his racism is pandering. I say some because some of it is his own racism.

But the majority of the time Trump is only about Trump. There is no more behind his actions than that.

It's absurd to 'not talk about it as a professional'. It would be disengenious.


You need to reassess your heel digging in here.

Dr Lee is very passionate about her obligation to speak out about Trump. Co-authored with Thomas Singer, MD
Mental Health Experts Urge Revision of the Goldwater Rule - Psychiatrists formally propose revising a highly divisive rule.


BTW, this is not about profiting from the book:

There's more but it will have to wait, I can't keep my eyes open.

Thanks for that.

I guess we will see what the profession as a whole decides to do. I don't have a vote, of course, but if I did, I would be OK with a modification to the Goldwater rule that allowed professionals to speak out if: 1)They made clear that they haven't formally evaluated the subject and their opinion has limitations and 2)They aren't making any diagnosis of mental illness.

ETA: I'd also like to see, along with a modification, a formal investigation of appropriate methodology to use in making such public commentary. What does the evidence show about the reliability of such "remote assessment?"

[3point14]

Surely we're well past the point that there's any credibility left in defending the man?

[Bob001]

Originally Posted by xjx388

.....
ETA: I'd also like to see, along with a modification, a formal investigation of appropriate methodology to use in making such public commentary. What does the evidence show about the reliability of such "remote assessment?"

You simply refuse to acknowledge the simple fact that the President holds a unique position in our society, and this particular President's life has been thoroughly and extensively documented at least back to his 30s, probably much more so than any other political figure. Whatever rules you think should apply to ordinary people in ordinary circumstances just don't work here, and there is just no evidence about any other situation that would be applicable here.

[xjx388]

Originally Posted by Bob001

You simply refuse to acknowledge the simple fact that the President holds a unique position in our society, and this particular President's life has been thoroughly and extensively documented at least back to his 30s, probably much more so than any other political figure. Whatever rules you think should apply to ordinary people in ordinary circumstances just don't work here, and there is just no evidence about any other situation that would be applicable here.

I would say that many here refuse to acknowledge that opinions that are supposed to be rooted in science should follow some scientific methodology.

All I am asking is for exactly that.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by xjx388

.... ETA: I'd also like to see, along with a modification, a formal investigation of appropriate methodology to use in making such public commentary. What does the evidence show about the reliability of such "remote assessment?"

Originally Posted by 3point14

Surely we're well past the point that there's any credibility left in defending the man?

Originally Posted by Bob001

You simply refuse to acknowledge the simple fact that the President holds a unique position in our society, and this particular President's life has been thoroughly and extensively documented at least back to his 30s, probably much more so than any other political figure. Whatever rules you think should apply to ordinary people in ordinary circumstances just don't work here, and there is just no evidence about any other situation that would be applicable here.

Originally Posted by xjx388

I would say that many here refuse to acknowledge that opinions that are supposed to be rooted in science should follow some scientific methodology.

All I am asking is for exactly that.

We're not the one's with arbitrary limits.

Why do you limit the science to some narrow definition of evidence gathered in a clinic? We aren't talking about methodology of a research project.

Look at what I highlighted on Bob's post.

When I evaluate a patient I look at all the evidence I have. Sometimes that even includes which pathogens are circulating in the community. I might look at the pressure someone is under knowing they just moved here from flooded Dallas.

Why would I dismiss the volumes of material we have on Trump? Oohhh, can't use that, it wasn't gathered in a formal interview.

How about the observations I've made since he was elected? Can I use that? Go back to the beginning of this thread. I said he has a pathological personality disorder and it is affecting his behavior.

Fast forward a bit and I said something to the effect he was never going to act 'Presidential' because he has a pathological personality disorder and it is controlling his behavior.

Fast forward to the present. One can predict his behavior based on the fact he can't help himself. He is incapable of thoughts and actions separate from his pathological personality disorder. He can't help himself. He's 100% predictable based on his pathological personality disorder.

Why toss out all that evidence including confirmatory evidence because you have some bizarre idea about scientific methodology, which by the way, is not what one uses to assess a patient?

Diagnostic methodology using scientific evidence based medicine is what one uses to diagnose a patient.

[xjx388]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

We're not the one's with arbitrary limits.

Medicine has clearly defined limits based on the evidence. Medicine is not making things up as you go along just because you have a piece of paper that says you can practice medicine.

Quote:

Why do you limit the science to some narrow definition of evidence gathered in a clinic? We aren't talking about methodology of a research project.

Because as a clinician, that's what a medical professional is supposed to do. There is no science about watching someone on TV, reading their tweets, etc and drawing conclusions about their mental state.

Quote:

Look at what I highlighted on Bob's post.

How do you know all that public information is accurate or reflective of a public figure's true mental state?

Quote:

When I evaluate a patient I look at all the evidence I have. Sometimes that even includes which pathogens are circulating in the community. I might look at the pressure someone is under knowing they just moved here from flooded Dallas.

Right, because there is science that shows which pathogens are most likely to be involved and how stress can lower the immune system.

Quote:

Why would I dismiss the volumes of material we have on Trump? Oohhh, can't use that, it wasn't gathered in a formal interview.

Because you can't vet the accuracy and relevance of public domain information. You can't be sure that what he presents to the public on his TV shows, interviews, etc is reflective of his true personality or mental state. A formal interview affords the opportunity to probe deeper using validated tools over time, to get to know the subject and interact with them.

Quote:

How about the observations I've made since he was elected? Can I use that? Go back to the beginning of this thread. I said he has a pathological personality disorder and it is affecting his behavior.

So what? I said he is a narcissitic ******* and that's affecting his behavior. I fail to see how dressing your opinion in medical terms makes it more helpful than my lay opinioin. Same exact result and predictions.

Quote:

Fast forward a bit and I said something to the effect he was never going to act 'Presidential' because he has a pathological personality disorder and it is controlling his behavior.

That's not the only possible reason that he will never act Presidential.

Quote:

Fast forward to the present. One can predict his behavior based on the fact he can't help himself. He is incapable of thoughts and actions separate from his pathological personality disorder. He can't help himself. He's 100% predictable based on his pathological personality disorder.

Why toss out all that evidence including confirmatory evidence because you have some bizarre idea about scientific methodology, which by the way, is not what one uses to assess a patient?

You don't have real medical evidence: you have your observations and your interpretation based on only one possible reading that you've arrived at. You outright reject the idea that it's possible he could simply be incompetent and just a bad person.

I think it's shocking and revealing that you would say medical professionals don't use scientific methodology to assess a patient. That is unfathomable to me. If medical diagnosis and assesment is not based on science, then what do you think it is based on?

Quote:

Diagnostic methodology using scientific evidence based medicine is what one uses to diagnose a patient.

How is that different? Where is the scientific evidence based medicine in remote diagnosis?

[TragicMonkey]

Well, 1037 pages in and it's still the same arguments made by the same two people. What's the old saw about insanity being repeating the same actions and expecting different results? Donald 'Bananas' Trump may or may not be crazy but we've got mounting evidence for a case for y'all!

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

Well, 1037 pages in and it's still the same arguments made by the same two people. What's the old saw about insanity being repeating the same actions and expecting different results? Donald 'Bananas' Trump may or may not be crazy but we've got mounting evidence for a case for y'all!

I know. Just when I thought the discussion had moved an inch forward, the old already addressed ad nauseum argument spews forth again.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by xjx388

[snipped all answered already dozens of times]

... you have your observations and your interpretation based on only one possible reading that you've arrived at. You outright reject the idea that it's possible he could simply be incompetent and just a bad person.

[snipped more of the same]

OK, let's get to that one inch of meat here.

Maybe you cannot see what is clearly pathological and not merely incompetent behavior because you are not a medical professional.

[Bob001]

Originally Posted by xjx388

I would say that many here refuse to acknowledge that opinions that are supposed to be rooted in science should follow some scientific methodology.

All I am asking is for exactly that.

Mental illness is largely diagnosed by assessing the subject's thinking and behavior, not by some medical test. That's why psychologists, who are not medical doctors, are trained and licensed to treat it. Trump's thinking and behavior are more deeply and extensively documented than they could ever be for any ordinary patient. The Yale doctors and others have described in detail the basis for their conclusions. And they have said that their responsibility is to the community and the nation, not to a public official who is not their patient.

And here's what Dr. Lee thinks of the APA:

Quote:

I rather hold responsible the institutions that propped him up for their short-term profits, and the American Psychiatric Association is chief among them. Given that the insidious effects of mental pathology defined this whole presidency, the Association was in a unique position to prevent vast suffering. Psychiatrists understand not just mental illness but criminal behavior, violence, capacity to serve in an office, and many other things. By aggressively shaping a milieu where mental health professionals would not be able to share their knowledge as a national mental health crisis was unfolding, the Association instead primed the public to become the president’s prey.

https://www.rawstory.com/2019/05/yal...x-of-his-lies/

What don't you get? Does it help you sleep better to believe there's no scientific proof that a raving, raging lunatic occupies the White House?

[xjx388]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

OK, let's get to that one inch of meat here.

Maybe you cannot see what is clearly pathological and not merely incompetent behavior because you are not a medical professional.

I think we can find some common ground here.


Yes. Exactly. Neither can the vast majority of the voting public. So what value will the public get out of diagnostic terms, "dangerously mentally ill," etc? They are in no position to judge the validity of such things. They either accept it on the authority of the "Doctor" title or they accept or reject it on political/personal grounds.

What it has the danger of doing is creating an image of mental illness as "incompetent, stupid, Trump-like." It can cause mistrust of mental health professionals: "Those stupid doctors just want to attack Trump!" And for what, exactly?

[Lurch]

I find it truly fascinating how it is that the higher up the rungs of power and responsibility, the less demanding are the qualifications, and the more willing we are to overlook incompetence, if not criminality.

Those who would forgive and support in the White House such a wretch as Trump would not do so were he their child's teacher, for example. As I've said before, we hold a pimple-faced kid flipping burgers to a more rigorous standard, and impose redress for poor performance with all alacrity.

Why not for the most powerful position in the land?

[3point14]

Originally Posted by Lurch

I find it truly fascinating how it is that the higher up the rungs of power and responsibility, the less demanding are the qualifications, and the more willing we are to overlook incompetence, if not criminality.

Those who would forgive and support in the White House such a wretch as Trump would not do so were he their child's teacher, for example. As I've said before, we hold a pimple-faced kid flipping burgers to a more rigorous standard, and impose redress for poor performance with all alacrity.

Why not for the most powerful position in the land?

Because the US political system is built on the principle that's impossible to be politically neutral.

[dann]

Originally Posted by xjx388

Sure . . . but he's not a doctor. I don't hold him to their standards. I hold him to the standards of an elected official. I find his behavior is dangerous and unethical because he fails to listen to his medical advisors and incorporate their expertise in his thinking. He thinks he's smarter than them and his word is gold. Even so, there is no real ethical code or standard of practice for elected officials. My analysis is just based on what I think our elected officials should do, whereas my analysis of the doctors is based on the standards and ethics of their profession.

At this point, I find it astonishing that after Trump has been in office for 40 months, not one single medical or other advisor has had the guts to say out loud at one of his press briefings that he is pathologically incompetent and should be removed immediately. Is it really consistent with their standards and ethics to let him ramble on? Are they so opportunistic that they can't see how liberating it would be for the country (and to some extent for the rest of the world as well) to have a brave advisor stop brownnosing and say to his face in front of open mics and cameras: "Donny, you have the mental capacity of a not-too-bright, extremely obnoxious five-year-old, and you need to be removed for the common good of everybody else."

I guess the brave heroes that you always see in American movies standing up to lunatic tyrants just don't exist in real life. The USA as a country has always laughed at the crazy things that guys like Kim Jong-Un got away with - and always with the undertone: Thank God, It could never happen here! And yet, not a single expert in any field has dared to oppose him openly at the press briefings, and even the critical journalists remain polite and ask the monster questions as if he were somehow normal and capable of understanding and answering the questions.

Trump dismisses concerns over surge of inquiries about safety of ingesting disinfectant – as it happened (Guardian, April 28)

[3point14]

Originally Posted by dann

At this point, I find it astonishing that after Trump has been in office for 40 months, not one single medical or other advisor has had the guts to say out loud at one of his press briefings that he is pathologically incompetent and should be removed immediately. Is it really consistent with their standards and ethics to let him ramble on? Are they so opportunistic that they can't see how liberating it would be for the country (and to some extent for the rest of the world as well) to have a brave advisor stop brownnosing and say to his face in front of open mics and cameras: "Donny, you have the mental capacity of a not-too-bright, extremely obnoxious five-year-old, and you need to be removed for the common good of everybody else."

I guess the brave heroes that you always see in American movies standing up to lunatic tyrants just don't exist in real life. The USA as a country has always laughed at the crazy things that guys like Kim Jong-Un got away with - and always with the undertone: Thank God, It could never happen here! And yet, not a single expert in any field has dared to oppose him openly at the press briefings, and even the critical journalists remain polite and ask the monster questions as if he were somehow normal and capable of understanding and answering the questions.

Trump dismisses concerns over surge of inquiries about safety of ingesting disinfectant – as it happened (Guardian, April 28)

You're expecting the press to be all "You can't handle the truth!" where, in fact, they're much more "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain"

[dann]

No, I don't really expect much. I'm just pointing out a certain ... I don't know, cognitive dissonance, maybe, in the U.S. self-perception.

[jimbob]

Originally Posted by xjx388

Sure . . . but he's not a doctor. I don't hold him to their standards. I hold him to the standards of an elected official. I find his behavior is dangerous and unethical because he fails to listen to his medical advisors and incorporate their expertise in his thinking. He thinks he's smarter than them and his word is gold. Even so, there is no real ethical code or standard of practice for elected officials. My analysis is just based on what I think our elected officials should do, whereas my analysis of the doctors is based on the standards and ethics of their profession.

You seem to be trying to eat your cake and have it.

Yes you criticise Trump, but you also criticise anyone who tries to point out that he's actually and literally losing his mind.

It *really* doesn't take a full on medical examination when he exhibits so many signs.

It might take a proper medical evaluation to determine what in particular is wrong with him, but spotting that *something* is seriously wrong and that he's losing capacity is easy.

It is important to know what is wrong though. In case it is the sort of ghing that leads to irrational violence against himself or others, when he has such military power at his command.

[Stacyhs]

Trump: I've done a spectacular job!
Death toll: nearing 62,000 and rising.

Nah, he's mentally very stable.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by dann

No, I don't really expect much. I'm just pointing out a certain ... I don't know, cognitive dissonance, maybe, in the U.S. self-perception.

He appointed every one of them from his sycophant-group of worshipers.

I am reminded of going to hear John Dean speak. He said being around the POTUS one was sort of star-struck. I was surprised because I would have thought all the people at the top with the POTUS felt at least on par with Nixon.

Trump rewards people who are star-struck, allowing them to be around him. Look at Cohen, he thought he and Trump were best friends, all the while Trump was just using him. And Pence, putting his water bottle on the floor when Trump did. That's nuts and no way is Pence going to rationally decide they really do need Article 25.

Back to the latest example of pathologic narcissism vs stupidity:

Guardian (also reported in multiple news sources):Trump erupts over poll slump and threatens to sue campaign manager

Quote:

But the blow-up was just the latest in a series of tense moments between Trump and his 2020 re-election team, according to reports from multiple outlets including the Washington Post, the Associated Press and CNN.

“I’m not ******* losing to Joe Biden,” Trump reportedly said on a call with Parscale during a meeting with aides. According to multiple sources who spoke to the AP, the president cursed at Parscale repeatedly.

He's mad and venting, OK, how is that pathological? Very significant denial and fabrication of his own reality.

Quote:

Trump deflected much of the blame for the disappointing polls, ignoring criticism of his performances at the podium during daily White House coronavirus press briefings, where he has repeatedly attacked the media for questioning delays in the government’s response, pushed misinformation and shown little empathy for victims.

... political advisers briefed Trump on data sourced internally and from the Republican National Committee. The figures showed the president losing ground against Biden in key battleground states. ...

The president allegedly balked at the guidance, insisting viewers “love” them and think he’s “fighting for them”. Trump instead pointed to restricted travel and an inability to host campaign rallies as the source of the slump.

There was more denial plus pathologic projection:

Quote:

Trump shot back at reports of his growing frustration on Wednesday, telling Reuters he doesn’t “believe the polls”.

“I believe the people of this country are smart. And I don’t think that they will put a man in who’s incompetent,” he said of Biden.

That is not just incompetence, it includes frank denial that he might be responsible for dropping approval in the polls. That mixed with not believing the polls but instead replacing that with his fantasy, people love him, he's doing great. He blames everyone but himself.

This repeating pattern happens over and over again: denial and delusion, projection and always finding a reason he is great, hasn't failed, hasn't slipped up. That whole thing with the disinfectants for treatment was only because of the way the dishonest media lied about him.

Repeatable, predictable, and well beyond incompetence and increasing senility. IOW observable pathological behavior.


As for laypersons not knowing how to interpret the information, bullocks! That differs by the individual, but not because they are laypersons.

[dann]

Originally Posted by jimbob

It is important to know what is wrong though. In case it is the sort of ghing that leads to irrational violence against himself or others, when he has such military power at his command.

I wouldn't mind the former as much as the latter.

[dann]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

He appointed every one of them from his sycophant-group of worshipers.

Even Birx and Fauci?

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by dann

Even Birx and Fauci?

Both Birx and Fauci have been apologizing/making excuses for Trump, making PC watered down statements, doing it with all smiles.

So yeah, even those two are either basking in the limelight and adulation of being the national experts or they are enamored with Trump or both.

I have posted the details of bad and distorted information coming out of Fauci's mouth. And look at Brix when Trump talked about investigating injecting disinfectants? She barely objected and certainly didn't speak up.

[Bob001]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Both Birx and Fauci have been apologizing/making excuses for Trump, making PC watered down statements, doing it with all smiles.

So yeah, even those two are either basking in the limelight and adulation of being the national experts or they are enamored with Trump or both.
.....

I would like to think that they are doing what they need to do to serve the puiblic, and they know if they get pushed out they will be replaced by Trumper hacks. Fauci has been at NIH since 1968, and Birx has been a government official, including time as an Army officer and a doctor at Walter Reed, since 1980. They probably see Trump as an ignorant tourist, to be tolerated until he goes away.

[Lurch]

Originally Posted by Bob001

I would like to think that they are doing what they need to do to serve the puiblic, and they know if they get pushed out they will be replaced by Trumper hacks. Fauci has been at NIH since 1968, and Birx has been a government official, including time as an Army officer and a doctor at Walter Reed, since 1980. They probably see Trump as an ignorant tourist, to be tolerated until he goes away.

This is how I lean.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Bob001

I would like to think that they are doing what they need to do to serve the puiblic, and they know if they get pushed out they will be replaced by Trumper hacks. Fauci has been at NIH since 1968, and Birx has been a government official, including time as an Army officer and a doctor at Walter Reed, since 1980. They probably see Trump as an ignorant tourist, to be tolerated until he goes away.

Well they are not, but the details are off topic for this thread. I have posted them elsewhere, mostly in the US politics and COVID thread.

[Roger Ramjets]

Originally Posted by xjx388

What it has the danger of doing is creating an image of mental illness as "incompetent, stupid, Trump-like."

That's ridiculous. Most people know the difference between incompetence, stupidity, and mental illness, and they also know there are different types and degrees of mental illness.

Quote:

It can cause mistrust of mental health professionals: "Those stupid doctors just want to attack Trump!" And for what, exactly?

What can cause distrust of mental health professionals (or any professionals) is being told something they don't want to hear. And being the hyper-partisan deplorables that they are, attacking the messenger is their automatic response - no matter what the subject or how incontrovertible the evidence.

They already mistrust professionals for the mere fact that they are experts anyway, so pandering to their prejudices is for what, exactly? Well we know what - it's so deplorables can masquerade as disinterested parties who are 'concerned' about mistrust of mental health professionals.

[jimbob]

Originally Posted by dann

I wouldn't mind the former as much as the latter.

I know you are being somewhat flippant but a murder-suicide by someone with nuclear weapons is not a nice idea.

[Stacyhs]

Trump Retweeted

Concast (@NBCNews) and Fake News @CNN are going out of their way to say GREAT things about China. They are Chinese puppets who want to do business there. They use USA airwaves to help China. The Enemy of the People!

I posted this here because it definitely belongs in this thread. We're being led by a very sick man.

[Roger Ramjets]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

We're being led by a very sick man.

But 62,984,828 of us knew he was very sick, yet still voted for him. So who are the sickest?

[dann]

Originally Posted by jimbob

I know you are being somewhat flippant but a murder-suicide by someone with nuclear weapons is not a nice idea.

No, it isn't. And suicide by cop is too much to hope for.
How about suicide by frustrated medical adviser ...?

[xjx388]

Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets

That's ridiculous. Most people know the difference between incompetence, stupidity, and mental illness, and they also know there are different types and degrees of mental illness.

I don't share your rosy view of what most people know. That's why "mental illness" has the stigma it does.

Quote:

What can cause distrust of mental health professionals (or any professionals) is being told something they don't want to hear. And being the hyper-partisan deplorables that they are, attacking the messenger is their automatic response - no matter what the subject or how incontrovertible the evidence.

They already mistrust professionals for the mere fact that they are experts anyway, so pandering to their prejudices is for what, exactly? Well we know what - it's so deplorables can masquerade as disinterested parties who are 'concerned' about mistrust of mental health professionals.

That's a thinly veiled ad hom.

If psychiatry moves from an evidence-based, scientific approach, it loses credibility. If it moves to an approach that puts the expertise of the professional ahead of the science, it loses credibility. "I know dangerousness when I see it," is not evidenced-based medicine.

[dann]

Originally Posted by xjx388

If it moves to an approach that puts the expertise of the professional ahead of the science, it loses credibility.

What is that supposed to mean? The "expertise of the professional" consists of nothing but science! What else do you suppose that "the expertise of the professional" means? If you are thinking of dudes like Mike Pence or Jared Kushner, then you got it wrong! They may be appointed by the American idiot to head institutions that would work much better with actual experts in charge, but nobody accuses them of being professional experts.
Appointing those guys to be in charge of the pandemic response is actually one of the symptoms of a pathological mental disorder.

[dann]

Originally Posted by Lurch

I find it truly fascinating how it is that the higher up the rungs of power and responsibility, the less demanding are the qualifications, and the more willing we are to overlook incompetence, if not criminality.

Those who would forgive and support in the White House such a wretch as Trump would not do so were he their child's teacher, for example. As I've said before, we hold a pimple-faced kid flipping burgers to a more rigorous standard, and impose redress for poor performance with all alacrity.

Why not for the most powerful position in the land?

That is the difference between power and competence!
You get it completely wrong when you claim that we are willing to overlook incompetence. It is not that we are willing to overlook anything, it's that we don't have a real choice to do anything about it. You treat people in power as if they were a plumber who didn't have the skills to do the job, so you let him go.

That is the point of power, that is how it's different:
Trump is the guy in charge. Every four years voters hand over power to ******** like him, and they don't have any power to do anything about him. All they can do, as long as they obey this rule, is to sit and wait for four years, with or without quarantine restrictions, until they can elect somebody new more or less like him.
People fool themselves if they think otherwise.

[dann]

Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets

But 62,984,828 of us knew he was very sick, yet still voted for him. So who are the sickest?

He is!
A very small minority of those people would seriously consider bleach or other disinfectants to be medicine. Very, very few of those would buy a bottle of bleach and come up with the idea, 'Hey, it might be healthy to take a glass of that!'
We know approximately how insignificant the minority is that did so after Trump recommended it. They are Darwin Award worthy!

[Lurch]

Originally Posted by dann

That is the difference between power and competence!
You get it completely wrong when you claim that we are willing to overlook incompetence. It is not that we are willing to overlook anything, it's that we don't have a real choice to do anything about it. You treat people in power as if they were a plumber who didn't have the skills to do the job, so you let him go.

That is the point of power, that is how it's different:
Trump is the guy in charge. Every four years voters hand over power to ******** like him, and they don't have any power to do anything about him. All they can do, as long as they obey this rule, is to sit and wait for four years, with or without quarantine restrictions, until they can elect somebody new more or less like him.
People fool themselves if they think otherwise.

When I say "we" are more willing to overlook incompetence and even criminality in those at the highest echelons of power, I mean this in the broadest sense. Look at the ~40% of the populace who still think Trump is doing great. Look at the Senators who failed to convict. These are the "we" who make my point.

And a system structured so that the rest of us must wait years for an election to oust (and no guarantee there, either) the bastard(s) points to the societal abdication of a means for more immediate redress. Impeachment? Hasn't worked yet (Nixon quit because shame in politics had not yet died). The 25th? As if.

Holding to account such a rogue as Nixon was stymied by his fellows in that political class absolving him via Presidential pardon. Trump might possibly get a pardon, for all we know. There's always the background consideration of harm to the nation. The system is structured so as to effectively say, "POTUS is too big to fail."

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets

But 62,984,828 of us knew he was very sick, yet still voted for him. So who are the sickest?

I think stupidity had more to do with it.

[dann]

Yes indeed, the system is structured so as to effectively say, "POTUS is too big to fail," and it also is structured so that the rest must wait years for an election.
But it only works as long as they obey this rule.

Quote:

Democracy makes no secret of the fact that it assigns the political leadership that the normal person has to follow: on the contrary, it emphasizes this when it offers the election decision to the citizens as the supreme act that makes them the true sovereign in the last instance.

However, this decision is wisely organized so that it can’t do anything other than enthrone a leadership – or vice versa: submission to the power that the elected officials then hold and therefore submission to the elected officials who then hold this power. Because what democracy declares to be separably connected and periodically puts up for decision is really only the occupancy of office. That the holder of the office has power over people is not up for debate, and certainly not what this power if for, but is rather presupposed, not merely tacitly, as the most obvious thing in the world. This is supposed to make the question of office occupancy so important – and at the same time so largely irrelevant because, apart from the figure who holds it, it guarantees nothing will change in the rule. That is precisely the achievement of the bourgeois state power, that it is defined by a complete catalog of tasks and these are specified to the governing as well as the governed as objective reasons of state, in other words, takes away any arbitrariness. The citizens’ electoral decision rescinds and dissolves the one difference, namely between office and person, which the democratic state periodically opens in order to allow its subjects to close it in an act of free decision. The democratic vote then also inevitably establishes this identity of state power and power holder, and indeed remarkably unequivocally: it does not attach any demands or conditions to the assignment of power – such a thing is left completely up to the pact-making coalition partners or the internal rivalries and power struggles of those elected. The vote is not merely incapable of giving any tasks to the rulers, but is, in its entire construction, a single precaution against any possible demands or conditions being drawn from its outcome. Other than awarding the office, the vote does nothing else at all; it can’t even not award it.
The Bourgeois State (Ruthless Criticism)

[Skeptic Ginger]

Here's a prediction based on Trump's pathologic narcissism.

When COVID arrived on our shores, he wished it away. We know what happened with that fantasy.

He's doing it again. He's wishing it away. The result is his mixed messages.

States can go back to work, it's up to them, I didn't say they should go back to work, the task force is disbanding, the states can handle this now, there will be a vaccine by the end of the year.... and so on.

[xjx388]

Originally Posted by dann

What is that supposed to mean? The "expertise of the professional" consists of nothing but science! What else do you suppose that "the expertise of the professional" means?

. Expertise consists of a professional’s fund of knowledge: in medicine, expertise = x + y + z, where x = knowledge about anatomy, physiology, disease processes, etc, y= knowledge of the proper diagnostic tools and their application and z= refinements and enhancements to that knowledge gained by experience.

It seems to me like many people are leaving out the y in that equation, as if it is unnecessary. As if only the education and experience are sufficient to make professional judgements. To be sure, those can be sufficient to make an informed guess about something but not to provide certainty and not to carry the authority of the profession.

Proffering an opinion as “professional,” when it leaves out the application of validated diagnostic tools is not practicing medicine. Expertise allows a doctor to read and interpret x-rays and pathology reports, but not to see through a patient and diagnose liver cancer.

Quote:

If you are thinking of dudes like Mike Pence or Jared Kushner, then you got it wrong!

I’m not.

Quote:

They may be appointed by the American idiot to head institutions that would work much better with actual experts in charge, but nobody accuses them of being professional experts.
Appointing those guys to be in charge of the pandemic response is actually one of the symptoms of a pathological mental disorder.

No it isn’t. If it were, then almost every politician in the world is mentally ill. Every politician appoints people they agree with and who will carry out their agenda.

[xjx388]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Here's a prediction based on Trump's pathologic narcissism.

When COVID arrived on our shores, he wished it away. We know what happened with that fantasy.

He's doing it again. He's wishing it away. The result is his mixed messages.

States can go back to work, it's up to them, I didn't say they should go back to work, the task force is disbanding, the states can handle this now, there will be a vaccine by the end of the year.... and so on.

That isn’t a prediction, it’s an observation of what is currently happening.

Besides, anyone paying attention could have predicted how Trump would act or that he would bungle the response. Labels like, “NPD” or “malignant narcissism,” or “dangerously mentally ill,” were completely unnecessary for such predictions.