Trump’s Mental Health is a problem

[Farmer77]

Just now, and then said:

f she is to be considered a serious professional, she should stop making "diagnoses" without ever seeing the patient or examining them firsthand. 

If you read the links you would see she hasnt made one

Just now, and then said:

Just remember that if he's re-elected, escalating rhetoric to violence will do NO-ONE any good.  I hope you agree with this sentiment.

In general I do. Hopefully I still will as the facts unfold.

This regime has proven itself too corrupt to assume we are going to have a fair election , or that they would accept the results of one if it happens, so at this point I am honestly hoping that I will still agree with that sentiment come election day.

[Farmer77]

Just now, simplybill said:

Those points of consideration you presented are cause for concern, but because we do have a Constitution that limits the power of the President I’m not overly concerned about it. But if Pres. Trump has any intentions of appointing himself Emperor, I’ll be the first to drive to D.C. with a load of tar and feathers.

I dont personally think its about a long term gameplan. I dont think he has the intent to damage the Constitution I think its all about  short term "winning" as it has been his whole life.  The problem is the long term constitutional and societal consequences of that short term winning.

As for the Constitution limiting his power that is done through Congress which he currently refuses to submit to. Making that constitutional check even more tenuous is the blatant sycophancy in the senate with the majority leader flatly saying there wont be a fair trial. 

That is him publicly declaring his intention to violate his constitutional oath. This is where the shared psychosis comes in and becomes dangerous. Because he's "winning" over the libs no one cares about his constitutional duties.

[Farmer77]

23 minutes ago, and then said:

Well, belief is a personal choice and enough people disagree with you and those like you that he is almost certainly going to be around for another 5 years. 

Hang on we're not talking about belief. We're talking about fact. His administration lied to the American people and then told us they were going to keep doing it.

I guess you can believe that people who unrepentantly lie are qualified leaders. Is that what you meant?

28 minutes ago, and then said:

The priceless aspect of that is that his enemies have done more to assure it than his supporters.  Simply amazing, innit?

Nah on a serious level his supporters are his supporters no matter what he or anyone else does. There is a reason we call you guys cult members.

Barring a youth explosion the ones deciding the election will be the Obama voters who voted for Trump in '16. Which way do they go? Do they have any reason to vote for Trump? Gonna be a whole lot of local politics deciding the next election IMO

 

[+and-then]

27 minutes ago, simplybill said:

Trump has any intentions of appointing himself Emperor, I’ll be the first to drive to D.C. with a load of tar and feathers.

My guess is that most of those who support him would feel the same.  No president should ever feel he cannot be removed from office by way of elections.  The reality is that the D's actually tried to expedite their power at the expense of the voters.  They've been self-destructing ever since.

[Unusual Tournament]

17 hours ago, RabidMongoose said:

Has the professor been sacked yet?

He needs sacking.

Has the president been sacked yet?

He needs sacking.

There i fixed it for ya.

[simplybill]

45 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

That is him publicly declaring his intention to violate his constitutional oath. This is where the shared psychosis comes in and becomes dangerous. Because he's "winning" over the libs no one cares about his constitutional duties.

Farmer77-

I have enough faith in our system to believe that if Pres. Trump has bad intentions concerning our Constitution, he will be constrained by the Legislative and Judicial branches of government, as well as the Constitution itself. That’s how the Founding Fathers set it up. I honestly don’t see any psychosis in that reasoning.

 

 

[Farmer77]

23 minutes ago, simplybill said:

Farmer77-

I have enough faith in our system to believe that if Pres. Trump has bad intentions concerning our Constitution, he will be constrained by the Legislative and Judicial branches of government, as well as the Constitution itself. That’s how the Founding Fathers set it up. I honestly don’t see any psychosis in that reasoning.

On the surface IDK that there is necessarily psychosis in that reasoning either.

I do think that if we had the time to honestly sit down and go through the issues one by one though, especially as it relates to the intentional efforts to erode the efficacy of the checks and balances , you may start to see how it takes a certain level of shared psychosis to still think things are OK on a fundamental level.

Muddying the waters , and I dont know you so id love to be wrong, is the fact that by and large the folks who think things are OK are for the most part receiving their news from one source**. How much of what has become "normal" is because of a shared psychosis and how much is just because the news you are watching coordinates its efforts with the Trump campaign to downplay the things that should be worrying to constitutional conservatives? 

Honestly its a tough conversation for me because I do fundamentally agree with the majority of the rhetoric that constituted his campaign so Im not in any way saying a psychosis has to be responsible for liking Trump in the beginning at all. Hell I wanted him to beat Hillary believe it or not.

**  This is one I should have put in my previous list

Trump's War on the Truth Has Officially Gone Full Orwell

Quote

“What you’re seeing and what you’re reading is not what’s happening.”

 

Edited December 31, 2019 by Farmer77

[Space Commander Travis]

16 hours ago, simplybill said:

 

Captain Risky: The article you posted has no substance. The Professor herself failed to offer anything of substance to defend her allegations of ‘mental illness’ other than this :

“Specifically, Lee said, his six-page letter to Pelosi ahead of the impeachment vote suggests Trump’s mental health is in a questionable condition.”

She didn’t quote a specific paragraph or sentence from the letter, or analyze why it showed signs of mental illness. Nothing at all.

The author goes on to quote two people who have no qualifications to diagnose mental illness, and who have been virulently opposed to President Trump from the beginning.

The article is nothing but political mud slinging.

 

You do have to wonder about Pelancy and her fellow fanatics' mental health, with their never-ending obsession with getting rid by some legalistic nicety of someone who they weren't able to defeat in legitimate ways. 

[Space Commander Travis]

3 hours ago, Farmer77 said:

[quoting this person who wrote this supposed thing]

In the most extreme cases, the dynamics contribute to what is called “shared psychosis.” Shared psychosis is a phenomenon that happens commonly in households where a severely ill individual goes untreated: rather than the sick person growing healthy, healthy family members often take on symptoms of the sick person. I have seen some of the most intelligent and otherwise high-functioning persons succumb to the most bizarre delusions from close contact with someone whose mental state is not normal.

And that could sum up Nancy Pelancy, the "Democratic" Party and their fellow fanatics in a nutshell. 

[Farmer77]

Just now, Dumbledore the Awesome said:

And that could sum up Nancy Pelancy, the "Democratic" Party and their fellow fanatics in a nutshell. 

Exactly how so?

 

 

[Farmer77]

4 minutes ago, Dumbledore the Awesome said:

You do have to wonder about Pelancy and her fellow fanatics' mental health, with their never-ending obsession with getting rid by some legalistic nicety of someone who they weren't able to defeat in legitimate ways. 

I know they were SO obsessed when they started the Russia investigation right? 

Its been funny watching the name association trick Trump pulled and how it has worked so well.

 

[Space Commander Travis]

1 minute ago, Farmer77 said:

I know they were SO obsessed when they started the Russia investigation right? 

You got it! Something that they completely made up in a attempt to give them an excuse. That's exactly it.

[Unusual Tournament]

16 hours ago, simplybill said:

 

Captain Risky: The article you posted has no substance. The Professor herself failed to offer anything of substance to defend her allegations of ‘mental illness’ other than this :

“Specifically, Lee said, his six-page letter to Pelosi ahead of the impeachment vote suggests Trump’s mental health is in a questionable condition.”

She didn’t quote a specific paragraph or sentence from the letter, or analyze why it showed signs of mental illness. Nothing at all.

The author goes on to quote two people who have no qualifications to diagnose mental illness, and who have been virulently opposed to President Trump from the beginning.

The article is nothing but political mud slinging.

 

...even without the professor's learned opinion, its no stretch in claiming that Trump is mentally ill. He's incoherent at times and down right lies about the facts and events, constantly. If not already aware that, you can google that for yourself. But the scariest thing is how a morally corrupt businessman became president. This deserves more attention from the good professor, imo. Was the best person to lead the country nominated or did he buy and bullchit his way to the top? 

So even though i agree that the article has a fair degree of bias, its still is extremely accurate in pointing out our leaders shouldn't just be subjected to a yearly physical exam but also mental and ethical evaluation.

Do you think that Trump is mentally and ethically sound enough to be POTUS ?  

[Farmer77]

4 minutes ago, Dumbledore the Awesome said:

You got it! Something that they completely made up in a attempt to give them an excuse. That's exactly it.

LOL comeon youre better than that. 

So youre gonna honestly say youre in the camp that believes the democrats controlled the FBI and forced them to start an investigation into Trump's Russia contacts during the election to sink him BUT didnt bother to tell the public about it during the election and instead told the public about the investigation into the democrat candidate who they actually wanted to win.........

Yeah ........

Edited December 31, 2019 by Farmer77

[Space Commander Travis]

8 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

Exactly how so?

 

 

Well, like I said in the psot just below that, their utter monomania about conspiring to overthrow the one who beat their beloved candidate fits the good Prof Bandy Legs' description to a T, or is it tee, I've never been sure 

[RoofGardener]

28 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

On the surface IDK that there is necessarily psychosis in that reasoning either.

I do think that if we had the time to honestly sit down and go through the issues one by one though, especially as it relates to the intentional efforts to erode the efficacy of the checks and balances , you may start to see how it takes a certain level of shared psychosis to still think things are OK on a fundamental level.

Muddying the waters , and I dont know you so id love to be wrong, is the fact that by and large the folks who think things are OK are for the most part receiving their news from one source**. How much of what has become "normal" is because of a shared psychosis and how much is just because the news you are watching coordinates its efforts with the Trump campaign to downplay the things that should be worrying to constitutional conservatives? 

Honestly its a tough conversation for me because I do fundamentally agree with the majority of the rhetoric that constituted his campaign so Im not in any way saying a psychosis has to be responsible for liking Trump in the beginning at all. Hell I wanted him to beat Hillary believe it or not.

**  This is one I should have put in my previous list

Trump's War on the Truth Has Officially Gone Full Orwell

 

Yeeeesss... the Esquire article seems to be basically saying "You should believe everything you see and hear in the MSN". 

Well, most of the US "Mainstream Media" long ago nailed its colours to the mast; they are overtly and actively anti-Trump, and will slant any story concerning President Trump accordingly. Calling this out - by saying "what you are seeing and hearing is not true" is NOT Orwellian at ALL. It is a reasonable position. 

I also note that Esquire is heavily pushing the "Psychosis" angle, casting doubts on the Presidents mental health, but without offering ANY justification for doing so. I suspect this is going to be a theme over the next few days in the MSM echo-chamber ? 

 

[Unusual Tournament]

3 minutes ago, Dumbledore the Awesome said:

You got it! Something that they completely made up in a attempt to give them an excuse. That's exactly it.

Damn you're hard to understand. ...i can't speak for @Farmer77 but to me that reply can be read as mocking or agreeing in a cheeky way. why can't you speak like a normal person. 

[Space Commander Travis]

2 hours ago, Farmer77 said:

This regime has proven itself too corrupt to assume we are going to have a fair election ,

Change "this regime" to "The Democratic party" and it would be every bit as much true if not even more so by several times over. It seems a shame that you can't seem to see that though. 

[RoofGardener]

9 minutes ago, Captain Risky said:

...even without the professor's learned opinion, its no stretch in claiming that Trump is mentally ill. He's incoherent at times and down right lies about the facts and events, constantly.

Yes, it IS a stretch. As for lying about facts and events, well, DOES he ? Any moreso than any other politician who interprets events in the most favourable way for their agenda ? 

10 minutes ago, Captain Risky said:

 Was the best person to lead the country nominated or did he buy and bullchit his way to the top? 

He got to "the top" because his rallies attracted a vastly larger audience than any of his Republican opponents for the nomination, and the Republican rank-and-file membership voted for him. 

He then won a Presidential Election, despite the overtly partisan opposition of the mainstream media. Not bad for a first-timer with no political connections ? 

[Farmer77]

6 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

Well, most of the US "Mainstream Media" long ago nailed its colours to the mast; they are overtly and actively anti-Trump, and will slant any story concerning President Trump accordingly. Calling this out - by saying "what you are seeing and hearing is not true" is NOT Orwellian at ALL. It is a reasonable position. 

No thats never a reasonable thing for the leader of a free society to say such things. Ever.  Healthy adults understand that.

6 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

I also note that Esquire is heavily pushing the "Psychosis" angle, casting doubts on the Presidents mental health, but without offering ANY justification for doing so. I suspect this is going to be a theme over the next few days in the MSM echo-chamber ? 

Try as you might to pin it to an "msm echo chamber" the dudes mental health has been an issue for years.

 

[Space Commander Travis]

2 hours ago, Farmer77 said:

I dont personally think its about a long term gameplan. I dont think he has the intent to damage the Constitution I think its all about  short term "winning" as it has been his whole life.  The problem is the long term constitutional and societal consequences of that short term winning.

As for the Constitution limiting his power that is done through Congress which he currently refuses to submit to. Making that constitutional check even more tenuous is the blatant sycophancy in the senate with the majority leader flatly saying there wont be a fair trial. 

That is him publicly declaring his intention to violate his constitutional oath. This is where the shared psychosis comes in and becomes dangerous. Because he's "winning" over the libs no one cares about his constitutional duties.

what exactly do you mean by destroying, or damaging, or ripping up the Constitution? (How long is the Constitution? Is it like how big phone books used to be before everyone had these "cell phones" they have these days? I'd like to see him try to rip up something like that live on TV, although it'd probably be a capital offense)? What exactly has The Don said that gives proof that that's his aim? 

Edited December 31, 2019 by Dumbledore the Awesome

[Farmer77]

2 minutes ago, Dumbledore the Awesome said:

Change "this regime" to "The Democratic party" and it would be every bit as much true if not even more so by several times over. It seems a shame that you can't seem to see that though. 

Why would you claim I cant see that?

The dems are shady as HELL for sure.

I think  at this current moment  however one side is a much more clear threat than the other and yes the current threat does take it beyond a "both sides" issue.

I see alot of people who cant get over the bolded. **** happens fast, facts on the ground change, folks need to keep up.

[Farmer77]

8 minutes ago, Dumbledore the Awesome said:

what exactly do you mean by destroying, or damaging, or ripping up the Constitution? (How long is the Constitution? Is it like how big phone books used to be before everyone had these "cell phones" they have these days? I'd like to see him try to rip up something like that live on TV, although it'd probably be a capital offense)? What exactly has The Don said that gives proof that that's his aim? 

See I dont think its "his aim" as in its a longterm goal. He has the mental and emotional aptitude of a child. Children dont think beyond the next step, they think about getting what they want and need NOW, and they deal with the rest later.

The problem with that mentality when it comes to POTUS is the long term effects.

This tweet and the non reaction to it is also a great example of the "shared psychosis" IMO.

Holy **** he just asked why we should follow the constitution on what amounts to official government letterhead.

Edited December 31, 2019 by Farmer77

[Unusual Tournament]

9 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

Yes, it IS a stretch. As for lying about facts and events, well, DOES he ? Any moreso than any other politician who interprets events in the most favourable way for their agenda ? 

already said he does. But id like to add insulting others, soliciting, bribery and destructive for America and its partners.

13 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

He got to "the top" because his rallies attracted a vastly larger audience than any of his Republican opponents for the nomination, and the Republican rank-and-file membership voted for him. 

 IMO, Trump got to the top because at some level the sheeple believe that its normal to behaviour like an **** and do what you like. Populism. He makes no excuses for it and the people love him for it. 

Maybe the psychological evaluation should be on America and its people ?

17 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

He then won a Presidential Election, despite the overtly partisan opposition of the mainstream media. Not bad for a first-timer with no political connections ? 

Yes he did win. 

[Farmer77]

22 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

Not bad for a first-timer with no political connections ? 

Second timer with a ton of political AND media connections. Stop with the mythmaking