ISF Logo   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 , Trump administration , Trump controversies

Closed Thread
Old 22nd February 2017, 05:40 PM   #81
Emily's Cat
Knows how to push buttons... er... press keys
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Pacific Northwet
Posts: 8,857
Originally Posted by wareyin View Post
Serious question #1: the Republican legislature has been abominable for the past six years, so the voters have punished them by giving them all the branches of government. Why shouldn't the Democrats try what obviously works?
You're assuming that people who voted for Trump did so because they approve of and support the republican platform. I don't believe this is the case. I think that there was a dislike of the democratic candidate put forth and the message delivered by her throughout the campaign. Which is a substantially different thing.

Originally Posted by wareyin View Post
Serious question #2: If the Democrats follow your and Emily Cat's advice, they basically either allow the Republicans to do whatever they want, or they join the Republicans in their one party rule, pretty much ceding any progressive or liberal ideals. How is this not a terrible plan for Democrats, and for the country as a whole?
I don't think anyone is suggesting that Dems roll over and do whatever Reps want. I think there's a striking difference between "roll over and give up" and "be contrarian and obstructive so we get revenge on those evil Reps!".
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.
Emily's Cat 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 22nd February 2017, 05:41 PM   #82
Emily's Cat
Knows how to push buttons... er... press keys
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Pacific Northwet
Posts: 8,857
Originally Posted by Spindrift View Post
Are they claiming a specific diagnosis or suggesting a possible diagnosis?
Does it matter from ethical perspective?
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.
Emily's Cat 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 22nd February 2017, 05:41 PM   #83
Babbylonian
Philosopher
 
Babbylonian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 9,839
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
Fair point, you are correct.

I do wonder about the ethics of the situation though. Opining publicly on the mental health status of a person who is not their patient, and claiming a specific diagnosis without proper evaluation seems as if it should be a breach of medical ethics.
Unless they are prescribing a course of treatment or attempting to, say, place the person in a locked facility, they're just talking. Medical ethics allow doctors to say all kinds of things and express all kinds of opinions. It doesn't become an ethical issue unless they're purposely lying (as opposed to opining on a diagnosis based on their experience), particularly in an attempt to use their position to harm someone.

Any doctor weighing in on this knows that their opinion is at best incomplete and that they don't have the data to make an actionable diagnosis.

I prescribe a chill pill.
Babbylonian 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 22nd February 2017, 05:44 PM   #84
Spindrift
Time Person of the Year, 2006
 
Spindrift's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Right here!
Posts: 18,914
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
Does it matter from ethical perspective?
I would think so.
__________________
I've always believed that cluelessness evolved as an adaptation to allow the truly appalling to live with themselves. - G. B. Trudeau
A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it. - Kay, Men in Black.
Enjoy every sandwich. - Warren Zevon
Spindrift 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 22nd February 2017, 05:49 PM   #85
wareyin
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 6,194
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
You're assuming that people who voted for Trump did so because they approve of and support the republican platform. I don't believe this is the case. I think that there was a dislike of the democratic candidate put forth and the message delivered by her throughout the campaign. Which is a substantially different thing.
Trump was not the only Republican voted in. The voters also continued Republican majorities in the House, the Senate, and the majority of state governments, not to mention the SCOTUS (yes, I know they didn't vote a conservative in to the Supremes, voters just voted in the guy who said he would keep the SCOTUS dominated by conservatives). Clinton was not the only Democrat who lost an election.

So, the question remains, why not do what obviously works?


Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
I don't think anyone is suggesting that Dems roll over and do whatever Reps want. I think there's a striking difference between "roll over and give up" and "be contrarian and obstructive so we get revenge on those evil Reps!".
When one party controls all three forms of the Federal Gov't, how much power do you really think the Dems have?
wareyin 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 22nd February 2017, 05:50 PM   #86
Emily's Cat
Knows how to push buttons... er... press keys
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Pacific Northwet
Posts: 8,857
Originally Posted by Babbylonian View Post
Unless they are prescribing a course of treatment or attempting to, say, place the person in a locked facility, they're just talking. Medical ethics allow doctors to say all kinds of things and express all kinds of opinions. It doesn't become an ethical issue unless they're purposely lying (as opposed to opining on a diagnosis based on their experience), particularly in an attempt to use their position to harm someone.

Any doctor weighing in on this knows that their opinion is at best incomplete and that they don't have the data to make an actionable diagnosis.

I prescribe a chill pill.
Originally Posted by Spindrift View Post
I would think so.
Neither of you see an ethical issue with a licensed medical professional publicly opining that a public figure has a medical condition and doing so without proper evaluation, especially when it is clear that such an opinion will be used in a political fashion?

In this case, it is mental health professionals leveraging their credibility as experts in order to invalidate the president, and to increase political pressure against the him on the basis of their professional medical opinions.
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.
Emily's Cat 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 22nd February 2017, 05:55 PM   #87
Babbylonian
Philosopher
 
Babbylonian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 9,839
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
Neither of you see an ethical issue with a licensed medical professional publicly opining that a public figure has a medical condition and doing so without proper evaluation, especially when it is clear that such an opinion will be used in a political fashion?

In this case, it is mental health professionals leveraging their credibility as experts in order to invalidate the president, and to increase political pressure against the him on the basis of their professional medical opinions.
Unless they're saying something they know to be false, no, I have no problem with it. If you have some evidence that what they're doing is a violation of either their oaths or established medical standards, you're welcome to present it; I'm open to changing my mind. At this point, though, it seems like you're searching (in the most shallow way possible) for reasons to discount their opinions besides the substance of their concerns and despite the evidence that the current insane occupier of the Oval Office has demonstrated on more than one occasion that he's a compulsive liar who cares for nothing unless it is to his personal advantage.
Babbylonian 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 22nd February 2017, 05:55 PM   #88
Stacko
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 8,541
This is not concerning at all.

Quote:
A former senior campaign official said Nunberg and his successor, former communications director Jason Miller, were particularly skilled at using alternative media like Breitbart, Washington Examiner, Infowars and the Daily Caller to show Trump positive coverage.

And once they got the stories published, campaign officials with large numbers of Twitter followers would tweet them out.

They would also go to media amplifiers like Fox News hosts and conservative columnists to encourage them to tweet out the story so that they could print out and show a two-page list of tweets that showed that they were steering the message. While Trump still couldn't contain his Twitter-rage with Machado, and ended up tweeting about a mystery sex-tape of the Hillary Clinton surrogate, aides say they dialed back even more posts.
Stacko 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 22nd February 2017, 05:55 PM   #89
Emily's Cat
Knows how to push buttons... er... press keys
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Pacific Northwet
Posts: 8,857
Originally Posted by wareyin View Post
When one party controls all three forms of the Federal Gov't, how much power do you really think the Dems have?
I dunno. How much power did Reps have between 2009 and 2011? Were they powerless?
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.
Emily's Cat 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 22nd February 2017, 05:59 PM   #90
Spindrift
Time Person of the Year, 2006
 
Spindrift's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Right here!
Posts: 18,914
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
Neither of you see an ethical issue with a licensed medical professional publicly opining that a public figure has a medical condition and doing so without proper evaluation, especially when it is clear that such an opinion will be used in a political fashion?

In this case, it is mental health professionals leveraging their credibility as experts in order to invalidate the president, and to increase political pressure against the him on the basis of their professional medical opinions.
If they are correct, then they have a responsibility to the country to do so.

From what I've seen no one has made a diagnosis. They couch it in terms, "He's showing signs of x. This thing that he does is often a sign of y." That's not a diagnosis.

However let's be realistic. Unless he is diagnosed by a physician who examines him it doesn't matter, he's not going to be removed because a TV shrink thinks he may have something.
__________________
I've always believed that cluelessness evolved as an adaptation to allow the truly appalling to live with themselves. - G. B. Trudeau
A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it. - Kay, Men in Black.
Enjoy every sandwich. - Warren Zevon

Last edited by Spindrift; 22nd February 2017 at 06:01 PM.
Spindrift 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 22nd February 2017, 06:03 PM   #91
wareyin
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 6,194
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
I dunno. How much power did Reps have between 2009 and 2011? Were they powerless?
Are you under the impression that Trump will try to work with Democrats they way Obama did with Republicans? Or are you thinking that the Republican party will suddenly be willing to cross the aisle the way Democrats did then?
wareyin 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 22nd February 2017, 06:07 PM   #92
Emily's Cat
Knows how to push buttons... er... press keys
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Pacific Northwet
Posts: 8,857
Originally Posted by Babbylonian View Post
Unless they're saying something they know to be false, no, I have no problem with it. If you have some evidence that what they're doing is a violation of either their oaths or established medical standards, you're welcome to present it; I'm open to changing my mind.
It would be a violation of my professional ethics and standards of practice if I publicly opined as an actuary on an actuarial matter without having done a proper and appropriate analysis of the data in question. I would face professional sanctions and penalties from the Actuarial Board of Conduct. If I were to do so in a fashion that negatively affected the target of that opinion, I could lose my professional standing altogether and be prohibited from doing work as an actuary in the US.

I assume that medical ethics are no less stringent. I could be wrong.

Originally Posted by Babbylonian View Post
At this point, though, it seems like you're searching (in the most shallow way possible) for reasons to discount their opinions besides the substance of their concerns and despite the evidence that the current insane occupier of the Oval Office has demonstrated on more than one occasion that he's a compulsive liar who cares for nothing unless it is to his personal advantage.
Personally, I am quite inclined to believe that Trump is nuts. But I'm not a medical professional, and it is not unethical for me to say so. I have no professional standing and no implied credibility on this topic.

I'm not necessarily discounting the accuracy of their assessment; I'm questioning the ethics of their public statements.
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.
Emily's Cat 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 22nd February 2017, 06:09 PM   #93
phiwum
Philosopher
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 8,485
Originally Posted by wareyin View Post
Serious question #1: the Republican legislature has been abominable for the past six years, so the voters have punished them by giving them all the branches of government. Why shouldn't the Democrats try what obviously works?

Serious question #2: If the Democrats follow your and Emily Cat's advice, they basically either allow the Republicans to do whatever they want, or they join the Republicans in their one party rule, pretty much ceding any progressive or liberal ideals. How is this not a terrible plan for Democrats, and for the country as a whole?
Serious answer #1: because working together when you have common ground is the decent thing to do. .

Serious answer #2: I don't want democrats to vote with republicans unless their interests align. Try to compromise, but there's no reason to capitulate.
phiwum 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 22nd February 2017, 06:11 PM   #94
Emily's Cat
Knows how to push buttons... er... press keys
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Pacific Northwet
Posts: 8,857
Originally Posted by wareyin View Post
Are you under the impression that Trump will try to work with Democrats they way Obama did with Republicans? Or are you thinking that the Republican party will suddenly be willing to cross the aisle the way Democrats did then?
No. Nor do I believe I have implied such a thing. Rather I have said that Democrats should not plan to act the way that Republicans have acted. Planning to be purposefully obstructive in the future as revenge for this election is not a strategy that I support, and it's not a strategy that I think will be effective for Democrats in the long term.

FFS, Republicans have woven their own rope, draped it about their necks, climbed up on the platform, and tied that rope to the cross bar. Democrats shouldn't make plans to hang themselves as well, out of some misguided need for retaliation.
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.
Emily's Cat 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 22nd February 2017, 06:12 PM   #95
wareyin
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 6,194
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
It would be a violation of my professional ethics and standards of practice if I publicly opined as an actuary on an actuarial matter without having done a proper and appropriate analysis of the data in question. I would face professional sanctions and penalties from the Actuarial Board of Conduct. If I were to do so in a fashion that negatively affected the target of that opinion, I could lose my professional standing altogether and be prohibited from doing work as an actuary in the US.

I assume that medical ethics are no less stringent. I could be wrong.


Personally, I am quite inclined to believe that Trump is nuts. But I'm not a medical professional, and it is not unethical for me to say so. I have no professional standing and no implied credibility on this topic.

I'm not necessarily discounting the accuracy of their assessment; I'm questioning the ethics of their public statements.
Didn't Trump trot out some doctor to claim Clinton had dementia? Or was that Fox News? I didn't find it with a quick search, but this is not the first time a physician has opined on the health of a public figure.
wareyin 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 22nd February 2017, 06:14 PM   #96
phiwum
Philosopher
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 8,485
Originally Posted by wareyin View Post
Are you under the impression that Trump will try to work with Democrats they way Obama did with Republicans? Or are you thinking that the Republican party will suddenly be willing to cross the aisle the way Democrats did then?
I think there are a few decent republicans willing to do that, yes. I hope so.

If not, democrats should vote their consciences and oppose partisan bills.
phiwum 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 22nd February 2017, 06:14 PM   #97
Stacko
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 8,541
Originally Posted by wareyin View Post
Didn't Trump trot out some doctor to claim Clinton had dementia? Or was that Fox News? I didn't find it with a quick search, but this is not the first time a physician has opined on the health of a public figure.
Fox. No idea originates with Trump. He always takes from something he sees on TV or in a tabloid.
Stacko 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 22nd February 2017, 06:15 PM   #98
Emily's Cat
Knows how to push buttons... er... press keys
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Pacific Northwet
Posts: 8,857
Originally Posted by wareyin View Post
Didn't Trump trot out some doctor to claim Clinton had dementia? Or was that Fox News? I didn't find it with a quick search, but this is not the first time a physician has opined on the health of a public figure.
I would find that equally unethical.
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.
Emily's Cat 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 22nd February 2017, 06:15 PM   #99
wareyin
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 6,194
Originally Posted by phiwum View Post
Serious answer #1: because working together when you have common ground is the decent thing to do. .

Serious answer #2: I don't want democrats to vote with republicans unless their interests align. Try to compromise, but there's no reason to capitulate.
I simply don't believe that after 6 years of being the party of No, Republicans will now be willing to work with Democrats rather than cram everything they want through since Trump will sign it without even reading it.

Frankly, I think it's pretty naive to think the Republicans will be passing any legislation that remotely aligns with Democratic interests, especially after being rewarded for not doing so for the last 6 years.
wareyin 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 22nd February 2017, 06:17 PM   #100
Spindrift
Time Person of the Year, 2006
 
Spindrift's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Right here!
Posts: 18,914
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
It would be a violation of my professional ethics and standards of practice if I publicly opined as an actuary on an actuarial matter without having done a proper and appropriate analysis of the data in question. I would face professional sanctions and penalties from the Actuarial Board of Conduct. If I were to do so in a fashion that negatively affected the target of that opinion, I could lose my professional standing altogether and be prohibited from doing work as an actuary in the US.

I assume that medical ethics are no less stringent. I could be wrong.


Personally, I am quite inclined to believe that Trump is nuts. But I'm not a medical professional, and it is not unethical for me to say so. I have no professional standing and no implied credibility on this topic.

I'm not necessarily discounting the accuracy of their assessment; I'm questioning the ethics of their public statements.
I found this: https://www.actuary.org/pdf/prof/code_of_conduct.pdf

I don't know if that is appropriate, but please show me where it says that an actuary can't be interviewed by a news source and give their opinion on publicly available information about someone who isn't their client. That is what the medical professionals are doing.
__________________
I've always believed that cluelessness evolved as an adaptation to allow the truly appalling to live with themselves. - G. B. Trudeau
A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it. - Kay, Men in Black.
Enjoy every sandwich. - Warren Zevon
Spindrift 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 22nd February 2017, 06:18 PM   #101
Emily's Cat
Knows how to push buttons... er... press keys
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Pacific Northwet
Posts: 8,857
Originally Posted by phiwum View Post
I think there are a few decent republicans willing to do that, yes. I hope so.

If not, democrats should vote their consciences and oppose partisan bills.
Absolultey agree.

Democrats shouldn't blindly support bills out of a misguided sense of what constitutes collaboration. Nor should they blindly oppose bills of a misguided sense of party loyalty. They should support or oppose bills on the merit of those bills and their perception of the impact of them on the american people whom they serve. Republicans should do the same, but haven't been. Democrats shouldn't stoop to the same level. No american wins with that strategy.
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.
Emily's Cat 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 22nd February 2017, 06:19 PM   #102
Emily's Cat
Knows how to push buttons... er... press keys
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Pacific Northwet
Posts: 8,857
Originally Posted by wareyin View Post
I simply don't believe that after 6 years of being the party of No, Republicans will now be willing to work with Democrats rather than cram everything they want through since Trump will sign it without even reading it.
I don't think anyone is expecting reps to suddenly become collaborative. I believe we're asking that dems don't become reps.

Originally Posted by wareyin View Post
Frankly, I think it's pretty naive to think the Republicans will be passing any legislation that remotely aligns with Democratic interests, especially after being rewarded for not doing so for the last 6 years.
They very well may not. But that's still a different thing from planning to oppose anything done by reps regardless, simply because it's being proposed by reps.
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.
Emily's Cat 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 22nd February 2017, 06:21 PM   #103
Emily's Cat
Knows how to push buttons... er... press keys
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Pacific Northwet
Posts: 8,857
Originally Posted by Spindrift View Post
I found this: https://www.actuary.org/pdf/prof/code_of_conduct.pdf

I don't know if that is appropriate, but please show me where it says that an actuary can't be interviewed by a news source and give their opinion on publicly available information about someone who isn't their client. That is what the medical professionals are doing.
If I haven't gotten back to you by early next week, remind me. I'm on my way out now and am busy the next couple of days. Your inquiry deserves a response.
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.
Emily's Cat 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 22nd February 2017, 06:21 PM   #104
Spindrift
Time Person of the Year, 2006
 
Spindrift's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Right here!
Posts: 18,914
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
I don't think anyone is expecting reps to suddenly become collaborative. I believe we're asking that dems don't become reps.


They very well may not. But that's still a different thing from planning to oppose anything done by reps regardless, simply because it's being proposed done by reps.
ftfy
__________________
I've always believed that cluelessness evolved as an adaptation to allow the truly appalling to live with themselves. - G. B. Trudeau
A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it. - Kay, Men in Black.
Enjoy every sandwich. - Warren Zevon
Spindrift 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 22nd February 2017, 06:27 PM   #105
Skeptic Ginger
formerly skeptigirl
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 62,871
Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets View Post
Not 'The people', but the people who voted for Trump. They voted for Trump because he was the only viable candidate, not because they were stupid....
Say what? Doesn't that give just a bit too much credence to the thought processes that went into that vote?

Your comparison between Palin and Clinton is a FAIL. In your analogy the choice would have been between in incompetent candidate and a con man, not a comparable analogy.

The choice was between a competent, experienced candidate that might not have had the values a Republican was looking for, and a con man who it turns out is of questionable fitness for the job. If Trump voters didn't see that he was conning them, what does that say about the voter's intelligence?

I think too many Republicans were (and some still are) in denial about Trump. Many think the GOP Congress will make it all OK. Some didn't recognize how serious the lying and narcissism is.
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 22nd February 2017, 06:44 PM   #106
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 17,719
Originally Posted by Spindrift View Post
However let's be realistic. Unless he is diagnosed by a physician who examines him it doesn't matter, he's not going to be removed because a TV shrink thinks he may have something.
Let's be realistic. He isn't going to be removed even if he is diagnosed by an examining physician. The reason is because he is far too functional to be considered incapable - no matter how horrible anyone thinks he is.

Yes, there is an emergency plan to remove a President in the case of mental illness. But that is for a major psychotic break into nonfunctioning after actually being functional. No matter how crazy anyone thinks he is, he is still functioning as President.

Nonfunctional insanity with grounds for removal would have symptoms such as:

Not signing anything at all.
Refusing to speak to anyone no matter who they are.
Sleeping for 20 hours every single day.
Urination and defecation on the Oval Office rug instead of the toilet.

Stuff like that is what the emergency removal is about.
__________________
Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.
William Parcher 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 22nd February 2017, 06:45 PM   #107
wareyin
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 6,194
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
I don't think anyone is expecting reps to suddenly become collaborative. I believe we're asking that dems don't become reps.


They very well may not. But that's still a different thing from planning to oppose anything done by reps regardless, simply because it's being proposed by reps.
Even if the Democrats do not plan ahead to oppose things simply because they are being done by Republicans, how do you think the Republican majority will spin Democrats not simply voting yes for every odious bill the Republican propose? How has Trump been framing Democratic obstruction to his patently unqualified nominees (that the R's are happy to vote on through for the most part)? If you are going to be painted as obstructionist for not enthusiastically throwing away your ideals and going along with Republican attempts to destroy the ACA, SS, the EPA, etc, why not actually be obstructionist? Again, it didn't hurt the R's in the voters eyes.
wareyin 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 22nd February 2017, 06:49 PM   #108
Spindrift
Time Person of the Year, 2006
 
Spindrift's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Right here!
Posts: 18,914
Originally Posted by William Parcher View Post
Let's be realistic. He isn't going to be removed even if he is diagnosed by an examining physician. The reason is because he is far too functional to be considered incapable - no matter how horrible anyone thinks he is.

Yes, there is an emergency plan to remove a President in the case of mental illness. But that is for a major psychotic break into nonfunctioning after actually being functional. No matter how crazy anyone thinks he is, he is still functioning as President.

Nonfunctional insanity with grounds for removal would have symptoms such as:

Not signing anything at all.
Refusing to speak to anyone no matter who they are.
Sleeping for 20 hours every single day.
Urination and defecation on the Oval Office rug instead of the toilet.

Stuff like that is what the emergency removal is about.
I agree. If the 25th is invoked I would think it's because Trump had a stroke or massive heart attack, which is a lot more plausible given Trump's physical condition and the effects of the office.
__________________
I've always believed that cluelessness evolved as an adaptation to allow the truly appalling to live with themselves. - G. B. Trudeau
A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it. - Kay, Men in Black.
Enjoy every sandwich. - Warren Zevon
Spindrift 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 22nd February 2017, 06:49 PM   #109
phiwum
Philosopher
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 8,485
Originally Posted by wareyin View Post
I simply don't believe that after 6 years of being the party of No, Republicans will now be willing to work with Democrats rather than cram everything they want through since Trump will sign it without even reading it.

Frankly, I think it's pretty naive to think the Republicans will be passing any legislation that remotely aligns with Democratic interests, especially after being rewarded for not doing so for the last 6 years.
If the Republicans do not even attempt to work with the Democrats, then of course the Democrats should not vote with the Republicans.

Trickier is the question whether they ought to filibuster and obstruct bills that they are opposed to. This is a last-ditch effort to prevent legislation that is simply beyond the pale and likely to lead to the end of the filibuster entirely, so should really be used with care. I'm afraid that Republicans are short-sighted enough that they might just get rid of the filibuster altogether, to the detriment of both parties ultimately.

The Democrats are in a very weak position, but that doesn't mean it's permanent.
phiwum 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 22nd February 2017, 06:51 PM   #110
phiwum
Philosopher
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 8,485
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
Absolultey agree.

Democrats shouldn't blindly support bills out of a misguided sense of what constitutes collaboration. Nor should they blindly oppose bills of a misguided sense of party loyalty. They should support or oppose bills on the merit of those bills and their perception of the impact of them on the american people whom they serve. Republicans should do the same, but haven't been. Democrats shouldn't stoop to the same level. No american wins with that strategy.
Right! What Republicans did the last eight years, and particularly after the Supreme Court opening, was a *********** shame. I don't want Democrats to follow suit. Better to be a decent person than an effective *******.
phiwum 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 22nd February 2017, 06:54 PM   #111
phiwum
Philosopher
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 8,485
Originally Posted by wareyin View Post
Even if the Democrats do not plan ahead to oppose things simply because they are being done by Republicans, how do you think the Republican majority will spin Democrats not simply voting yes for every odious bill the Republican propose? How has Trump been framing Democratic obstruction to his patently unqualified nominees (that the R's are happy to vote on through for the most part)? If you are going to be painted as obstructionist for not enthusiastically throwing away your ideals and going along with Republican attempts to destroy the ACA, SS, the EPA, etc, why not actually be obstructionist? Again, it didn't hurt the R's in the voters eyes.
Not sure what you're asking. In the end, Democrats should vote for those bills that are aligned with their interests, and not those that aren't, and the Republican spin machine will react however it does so.

But I admit that I care more about honor than political points. I'm probably not well-suited for this sort of thing.
phiwum 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 22nd February 2017, 07:07 PM   #112
Skeptic Ginger
formerly skeptigirl
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 62,871
Originally Posted by Babbylonian View Post
If by that you mean "no repercussions whatsoever," you may have something there.

For the record, HIPAA regulations control the use and release of patient information. They don't prevent health care providers from talking about people who aren't their patients.

In other words, health care providers who have provided care to the current insane occupant of the White House, or have been privy to his health care records, would be covered by the restrictions of HIPAA. Everyone else is free to say whatever they want about him.
The rule of thumb is, if you learned confidential medical information about a patient in the course of your job, medical confidentiality laws apply (and HIPAA is not the only law governing confidentiality, it just added a bunch of stuff). If you learned the information outside of your work, you are no more obligated to keep it confidential than are your neighbors who learn something about you over coffee.


There are some professionals who feel it is unethical not to speak up about Trump's mental illness.

Lance M. Dodes, M.D. wrote a letter to the NYT on Feb 13th. It was signed by a long list of professionals.
Quote:
Charles M. Blow (column, nytimes.com, Feb. 9) describes Donald Trump’s constant need “to grind the opposition underfoot.” As mental health professionals, we share Mr. Blow’s concern.

Silence from the country’s mental health organizations has been due to a self-imposed dictum about evaluating public figures (the American Psychiatric Association’s 1973 Goldwater Rule). But this silence has resulted in a failure to lend our expertise to worried journalists and members of Congress at this critical time. We fear that too much is at stake to be silent any longer.

Mr. Trump’s speech and actions demonstrate an inability to tolerate views different from his own, leading to rage reactions. His words and behavior suggest a profound inability to empathize. Individuals with these traits distort reality to suit their psychological state, attacking facts and those who convey them (journalists, scientists).

In a powerful leader, these attacks are likely to increase, as his personal myth of greatness appears to be confirmed. We believe that the grave emotional instability indicated by Mr. Trump’s speech and actions makes him incapable of serving safely as president.
Temperament Tantrum
Some say President Donald Trump's personality isn't just flawed, it's dangerous.
Quote:
John D. Gartner, a practicing psychotherapist who taught psychiatric residents at Johns Hopkins University Medical School, minces as few words as the president in his professional assessment of Trump.

"Donald Trump is dangerously mentally ill and temperamentally incapable of being president," says Gartner, author of "In Search of Bill Clinton: A Psychological Biography." Trump, Gartner says, has "malignant narcissism," which is different from narcissistic personality disorder and which is incurable.

Gartner acknowledges that he has not personally examined Trump, but says it's obvious from Trump's behavior that he meets the diagnostic criteria for the disorder, which include anti-social behavior, sadism, aggressiveness, paranoia and grandiosity. Trump's personality disorder (which includes hypomania) is also displayed through a lack of impulse control and empathy, and "a feeling that people ... don't recognize their greatness.

"We've seen enough public behavior by Donald Trump now that we can make this diagnosis indisputably," says Gartner. His comments run afoul of the so-called Goldwater Rule, the informal term for part of the ethics code of the American Psychiatric Association saying it is wrong to provide a professional opinion of a public figure without examining that person and gaining consent to discuss the evaluation. But Gartner says the Trump case warrants breaking that ethical code.
It should also be noted that when the Goldwater ethics position statement (because it is called a rule but technically is not a rule) was written, the state of psychiatric diagnosis was seriously problematic. The DSM had not yet been developed and people were still tying behaviors to the many unsupportable ideas of Freud.
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 22nd February 2017, 07:14 PM   #113
Skeptic Ginger
formerly skeptigirl
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 62,871
Originally Posted by William Parcher View Post
That's not even a meaningful question for the issue at hand. What is being promoted is for him to be forcefully removed from office because he is mentally ill.
It may be premature to announce an Article 25 action, but it's not premature to mention the pathology word.

Originally Posted by William Parcher View Post
Who is the psychologist that makes the diagnosis? What happens if another psychologist disagrees with the diagnosis? This is pretty major in significance and impact because we are talking about the President and not a backroom stock boy at Walmart.

Can there be conflicts of interest in the diagnosis? I think so. I say that because a professional psychologist who voted for Trump might be disinclined to think that he is mentally ill. Also the reverse could happen.

How do you ensure that your psychologists who examine Donald Trump do not have personal biases concerning his mental health?

What do you say to a certified and highly-regarded professional psychologist who says, "Trump is not mentally ill. Instead, he knows how to make America great again and he is on his way to doing it"?
That's not how Article 25 works. And the fact professionals disagree on a diagnosis is not at issue here.

It's going to come down to Trump doing more pathology related things. Right now his alt-reality has only caused alarm. I think it's safe to believe Al Franken when he says Trump's pathological lying and other behaviors are not going unnoticed among Republican legislators just because they aren't talking about it publicly.
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 22nd February 2017, 07:15 PM   #114
Skeptic Ginger
formerly skeptigirl
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 62,871
Originally Posted by William Parcher View Post
Again though, the person who decides that he is unable to be President... is that person a Democrat or a Republican?
The way Article 25 works apparently the call is made by Pence and some of the Cabinet members.

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 22nd February 2017, 07:18 PM   #115
Skeptic Ginger
formerly skeptigirl
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 62,871
Originally Posted by William Parcher View Post
People who aren't psychologists decide that he is mentally ill and boot him out of the White House. Then the Vice President takes over and proceeds with the exact same policies that the insane ex-President was doing.

Then Urban Americans (Liberal Democrats) say no this amendment to remove insane Presidents isn't working. What needs to happen is that the definition is changed so that Conservative Ideology is now regarded as a symptom of mental illness. We can't ever have a Conservative Republican President because those people are all mentally ill. They will ruin America and its international relationships.

And so forth.
You are focused on the diagnosis when it is the behavior that matters. His fixation on his election outcome and the blatant alt-reality lies he sticks to in light of direct evidence to the contrary, are among some of the problematic behaviors.
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 22nd February 2017, 07:21 PM   #116
Babbylonian
Philosopher
 
Babbylonian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 9,839
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
The way Article 25 works apparently the call is made by Pence and some of the Cabinet members.

Exactly. A physician could have a [hypothetical] positive blood test for mental illness and three concurring opinions that a president is unfit, and that physician could still do nothing unless the VP and cabinet receives the information and votes to declare the president unfit or Congress impeaches.
Babbylonian 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 22nd February 2017, 07:22 PM   #117
Skeptic Ginger
formerly skeptigirl
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 62,871
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
Do they think people buy into that nonsense?

I remember when "cafeteria plans" started coming in. Now, companies were offering you a choice! You could get the same thing you had last year, by paying a whole lot more money, or you pay the same amount you did last year, and get a lot less. Choice is awesome.

I know what I really look for in a health care plan is "personal responsibility".

One could argue whether or not having the government provide health care or pay for it is a good idea, but do they think that they can give less and call it more? Do they think they can sell it as "freedom"?
In this case choice means between health insurance plans you cannot afford. But hey, you have a choice.

By the way, the ACA did not take away your choices of health care insurance or providers, the insurance companies changed up some policies, something that was done all the time, ACA or not.


Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
What it means is that people like me (solid middle class, no chance of not having health insurance) will pay fewer subsidies for people less fortunate. I suppose that's a form of freedom. I guess.
You are uninformed if you didn't know you were already paying these costs when your health care providers and insurers passed those uninsured folks' bad debt on to you.

Last edited by Skeptic Ginger; 22nd February 2017 at 07:26 PM.
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 22nd February 2017, 07:24 PM   #118
Spindrift
Time Person of the Year, 2006
 
Spindrift's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Right here!
Posts: 18,914
Originally Posted by Babbylonian View Post
Exactly. A physician could have a [hypothetical] positive blood test for mental illness and three concurring opinions that a president is unfit, and that physician could still do nothing unless the VP and cabinet receives the information and votes to declare the president unfit or Congress impeaches.
Yes. The 25th amendment specifies a procedure that can be followed.

I still think that unless Trump becomes totally incoherent, President Bannon will continue running the country for Trump.
__________________
I've always believed that cluelessness evolved as an adaptation to allow the truly appalling to live with themselves. - G. B. Trudeau
A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it. - Kay, Men in Black.
Enjoy every sandwich. - Warren Zevon
Spindrift 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 22nd February 2017, 07:30 PM   #119
Skeptic Ginger
formerly skeptigirl
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 62,871
Originally Posted by Babbylonian View Post
...
Any doctor weighing in on this knows that their opinion is at best incomplete and that they don't have the data to make an actionable diagnosis.
(bold mine)

Wrong.

More than a few highly qualified professionals have weighed in to discount the nonsense seeing Trump in person would add to the diagnostic reliability.
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 22nd February 2017, 07:33 PM   #120
Skeptic Ginger
formerly skeptigirl
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 62,871
Originally Posted by Spindrift View Post
....
From what I've seen no one has made a diagnosis. They couch it in terms, "He's showing signs of x. This thing that he does is often a sign of y." That's not a diagnosis....
Some were a little more specific than that. But regardless, there are a few now speaking out. See my post (#112) a couple clicks upthread for some links.

Last edited by Skeptic Ginger; 22nd February 2017 at 07:38 PM.
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
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 11:38 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
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.