Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 12-28-2019, 09:51 AM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 59,873
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan Chance View Post
The minute that decision is made and transmitted to Pelosi and Grassley then Pence is IT. He's in the hot seat whether he wants it or not. It's part of what he took on when he swore his oath of office.
And indeed if Pence says nothing, I have no objection. Post 38 hypothesizes that the Vice President was rejecting (if a bit vaguely) the circumstances under which he has become Acting President, which could be interpreted as a refusal to accept the appointment, and under those circumstances, I can picture the Speaker declaring "Then I'm in charge, now!"

I am very confident the Vice President will spin faster than an Iranian centrifuge and respond "No, I'm Acting President", and then do nothing with the office until the President can transmit his own declaration to re-assume the duties, which the Vice-President will pointedly not object to.

But the body Congress has set up under this hypothetical might, and then things really go nuts. At some point SCOTUS will have to step in and put some limits on what such a body can do, and can it over-ride the expressed wishes of the Vice-President. Interesting times.
  #52  
Old 12-28-2019, 10:11 AM
Northern Piper is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: The snow is back, dammit!
Posts: 30,522
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moriarty View Post
What kind of fucked up offices has Lee worked in?!
I wondered that as well.
__________________
"I don't like to make plans for the day. If I do, that's when words like 'premeditated' start getting thrown around in the courtroom."
  #53  
Old 12-28-2019, 10:15 AM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 59,873
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper View Post
As far as I can tell, itís not ďsuch other bodyĒ; itís to be set in motion by the VP and members of that other body. If the VP isnít on board at the start, then as far as I can tell there is no start.
The text says "or", not "and". If the Veep isn't on board but the congress-appointed body is, the text doesn't clearly state the Veep can stop it.
  #54  
Old 12-28-2019, 11:07 AM
The Other Waldo Pepper is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 17,084
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers View Post
The text says "or", not "and". If the Veep isn't on board but the congress-appointed body is, the text doesn't clearly state the Veep can stop it.
It says both: it says the Vice President and a majority of either (a) the principal officers of the executive departments or of (b) such other body as Congress may by law provide. The either/or part is built into the ďandĒ: the VP and either X or Y.
  #55  
Old 12-28-2019, 11:43 AM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 59,873
One could interpret that as A and (B or C), or (A and B) or C. I'm confident in application you're right and it will be the former, but we live in an age where facts are optionally alternative.
__________________
Don't worry about the end of Inception. We have top men working on it right now. Top. Men.
  #56  
Old 12-28-2019, 12:01 PM
The Other Waldo Pepper is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 17,084
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers View Post
One could interpret that as A and (B or C), or (A and B) or C. I'm confident in application you're right and it will be the former, but we live in an age where facts are optionally alternative.
Remove the word ďeitherĒ from that Amendment and Iíd maybe agree that it could be interpreted as A and (B or C) or as (A and B) or C. But that ďeitherĒ seems to do all of the heavy lifting; I can only make it fit one of those readings.
  #57  
Old 12-28-2019, 12:02 PM
Jim Peebles is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 573
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chisquirrel View Post
You're claiming the President of the United States is a political dissident. Think about that for a second.
Yes, against the swamp he pledged to drain.
  #58  
Old 12-28-2019, 12:14 PM
QuickSilver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 20,353
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Peebles View Post
Yes, against the swamp he pledged to drain.
And the wall he pledged to build. And the wars he pledged to end. And the laughing he pledged to stop. And the manufacturing he pledged to bring back.

Lies told, lies believed.
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.

Last edited by QuickSilver; 12-28-2019 at 12:14 PM.
  #59  
Old 12-28-2019, 12:36 PM
drad dog is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 6,745
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan Chance View Post
It's not only nonsense, it's complete fucking nonsense.

In one instance, Nancy Pelosi is not his co-worker in any real way. She's a part of a separate branch of government. Occasionally, they may be required to interact but they only do so at their own discretion.

Yes, I suppose someone on the street may make the case that he's somehow clinically insane - narcissism doesn't count or we'd lose 90% of congress and CEOs - and therefore a danger to those around him. Sure, but that's provided for by the 25th Amendment. If Pence and a majority of the cabinet - or other body as Congress may appoint - alerts Pelosi and Grassley that they believe he's incapacitated he can be temporarily removed and a process begins where it can be permanent.

There are only four ways to remove a sitting president.

Loss of Election
Voluntary Resignation
25th Amendment, Section 4
Impeachment by the House and Removal by the Senate

Anything else - ANYTHING ELSE - is fairytales and nonsense from someone who has either an ax to grind or column inches to fill. Learn this. Assume it into yourself.

Because the sort of article you link? It doesn't help. It's the exact opposite of helping. It's hysterical shrieking that agitates our opponents more than our own people.

Want to remove Trump? Find your local Democratic Party office. Walk in. Volunteer. Donate money. Run for office yourself with the stated aim of returning dignity to elected office.

But this? It's just embarrassing for everyone involved.
She is not his coworker? Huh?

So turnp hasn't done an insanely evil act on film yet, by your opinion? Great. So he hasn't gone down and actually marched with the blood and soil crowd? Wonderful. Thanks for your insight. Are you filling up column inches too or are you special?
  #60  
Old 12-28-2019, 12:52 PM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 59,873
On reflection, I'll gladly concede that whatever "body" congress provides by law for the purposes of evaluating a president's fitness, it is far more likely to be seen as an alternative to the cabinet, rather than an alternative for the Vice-President and cabinet, hence the Vice-President will have a critical role in any such evaluation and effectively a veto.

I would like to note, however, that we seem to be living in an era where there is serious consideration (or at least lip-service to serious consideration) given to the questions of whether or not a president can pardon himself and whether or not impeachment means his term "doesn't count", letting him run for a third, so... don't relax too much.
__________________
Don't worry about the end of Inception. We have top men working on it right now. Top. Men.
  #61  
Old 12-28-2019, 01:13 PM
drad dog is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 6,745
Quote:
Originally Posted by outlierrn View Post
Hard disagree, she's not right about his mind and psyche. Narcissism and grandiosity may well be dangerous in the powerful, and Trump may well be unfit, but the kind of holds discussed in that opinion piece apply to people who are imminently, creditably homicidal, suicidal or gravely disabled, Trump is not. I don't know what he says in his bedroom, but I'm highly skeptical that Lee has special knowledge, if she did, she'd be ethically bound to make the call to emergency services herself.
She is not claiming special knowledge, just expertise. How do you place your insights above hers? Are you in the field?

I think she is trying to bring something home that we are missing in our media coverage and internet yakking. Certainly what she is saying is not a public failure or disservice, like say for instance, the medias confusion at covering tirnp, a maze which we are still in and wondering how to get the fuck out of.
  #62  
Old 12-28-2019, 01:24 PM
Jim Peebles is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 573
Let me correct your proposals:
A body of expert, impartial, unassailable psychological experts is recognized. They administer ink blot tests to every elected official. Based on their expert, objective, state of the art assessment of the officials' inkblot tests, each one is allowed to either see to his or her elected duties, on probation, under the benevolent, expert monitoring of the psychological experts; or if they have a mental health issue revealed by the inkblot test, or later flagged under the vigilant monitoring, they are relieved of their duties, to undergo psychiatric treatment, until such time they are deemed mentally fit to carry out the duties originally assigned by the voters.
  #63  
Old 12-28-2019, 01:45 PM
QuickSilver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 20,353
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Peebles View Post
Let me correct your proposals:
A body of expert, impartial, unassailable psychological experts is recognized. They administer ink blot tests to every elected official. Based on their expert, objective, state of the art assessment of the officials' inkblot tests, each one is allowed to either see to his or her elected duties, on probation, under the benevolent, expert monitoring of the psychological experts; or if they have a mental health issue revealed by the inkblot test, or later flagged under the vigilant monitoring, they are relieved of their duties, to undergo psychiatric treatment, until such time they are deemed mentally fit to carry out the duties originally assigned by the voters.
So let me get this straight....:

We suspect the head of the organization is mentally unfit to perform his duties competently. We therefore demand that he AND every single senior leader in the organization be subjected to the same evaluation. Despite the fact that few if any of them have shown similar signs of mental incompetence, or serve at a sufficiently high level to warrant similar concern.

This smacks of the continued efforts to normalize Trump's behavior by projecting and distracting the focus from the epicenter of the actual problem.
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.

Last edited by QuickSilver; 12-28-2019 at 01:46 PM.
  #64  
Old 12-28-2019, 01:55 PM
Jim Peebles is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 573
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper View Post
As far as I can tell, itís not ďsuch other bodyĒ; itís to be set in motion by the VP and members of that other body. If the VP isnít on board at the start, then as far as I can tell there is no start.
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSilver View Post
So let me get this straight....:

We suspect the head of the organization is mentally unfit to perform his duties competently. We therefore demand that he AND every single senior leader in the organization be subjected to the same evaluation. Despite the fact that few if any of them have shown similar signs of mental incompetence, or serve at a sufficiently high level to warrant similar concern.

This smacks of the continued efforts to normalize Trump's behavior by projecting and distracting the focus from the epicenter of the actual problem.
Good point. What a waste of resources. The evaluation mechanism is no doubt infallable, but think of the cost. We will let the state propaganda arm, I mean mainstream media, decide which elected officials need scrutiny, to narrow down the scope and reduce costs.
  #65  
Old 12-28-2019, 02:13 PM
QuickSilver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 20,353
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Peebles View Post
Good point. What a waste of resources. The evaluation mechanism is no doubt infallable, but think of the cost. We will let the state propaganda arm, I mean mainstream media, decide which elected officials need scrutiny, to narrow down the scope and reduce costs.
Let me get break it down to simpler terms.

You have a flat on you left front tire. Do you:

A) Fix/replace the left front tire.
B) Insist that all tires be fixed/replaced.
C) Keep driving with the flat to avoid wasting valuable resources.
D) Blame the Waze app for the cost and inconvenience.
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #66  
Old 12-28-2019, 03:09 PM
RioRico is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: beyond cell service
Posts: 1,664
Back in the day was a phrase, "Closing the barn door after the horse has bolted," meaning to apply a fix too late. Evaluating politicians' mental states AFTER they take office is too late. I doubt citizens could persuade legislators to enact candidate screening requirements that cover themselves too, so voter referendums in the states are needed. Running for state or federal office? Pass a psych review - weed out the sociopaths - but then, who's left?

This POTUS is not going to be removed for mental instability. It's too late for that.
  #67  
Old 12-28-2019, 03:54 PM
Jonathan Chance is online now
Domo Arigato Mister Moderato
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: On the run with Kilroy
Posts: 23,396
Quote:
Originally Posted by drad dog View Post
She is not his coworker? Huh?

So turnp hasn't done an insanely evil act on film yet, by your opinion? Great. So he hasn't gone down and actually marched with the blood and soil crowd? Wonderful. Thanks for your insight. Are you filling up column inches too or are you special?
She is, absolutely, not his co-worker. Sheís a member of a co-equal branch of government. Nothing more. To think otherwise is to misunderstand the separate but equal branches of government.

As for Trump being evil? I have no doubt youíre correct. But being evil is not an incapacity. Trump is placed in his position by something two hundred plus years of history respects more than anything else: a free election. Disagreeing with that result also isnít an incapacity.

And in terms of her expertise? Iím sure sheís very knowledgeable in her field. But that field isnít government nor constitutional law. Itís a pointless argument made by an angry person. Sound and fury, signifying nothing.
  #68  
Old 12-28-2019, 04:01 PM
outlierrn is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: republic of california
Posts: 5,834
Quote:
Originally Posted by drad dog View Post
She is not claiming special knowledge, just expertise. How do you place your insights above hers? Are you in the field?
I'm an emergency room nurse, I routinely deal with involuntary mental health holds, I believe we had 4 on the last shift I worked.

I know little about the 25th amendment, but when Lee says
Quote:
Anyone can call 911 to report someone who seems dangerous, and family members are the most typical ones to do so. But so can coworkers, and even passersby on the street.
she's talking about something I work with often. Something that, in my professional opinion, based on what I've seen and read, doesn't apply to Trump.

Expertise notwithstanding, since she 'translates' Trumps' tweets on her own twitter feed as a 'public service', I consider her professional objectivity forfeit until proven otherwise.
__________________
Just another outlying data point on the bell curve of life
  #69  
Old 12-28-2019, 05:25 PM
drad dog is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 6,745
Quote:
Originally Posted by outlierrn View Post
I'm an emergency room nurse, I routinely deal with involuntary mental health holds, I believe we had 4 on the last shift I worked.

I know little about the 25th amendment, but when Lee says

she's talking about something I work with often. Something that, in my professional opinion, based on what I've seen and read, doesn't apply to Trump.

Expertise notwithstanding, since she 'translates' Trumps' tweets on her own twitter feed as a 'public service', I consider her professional objectivity forfeit until proven otherwise.
Why would you have a problem with that?

So you're waiting for the public warning of your dreams, "Warning Right"?
  #70  
Old 12-28-2019, 05:29 PM
drad dog is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 6,745
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan Chance View Post
She is, absolutely, not his co-worker. Sheís a member of a co-equal branch of government. Nothing more. To think otherwise is to misunderstand the separate but equal branches of government.

As for Trump being evil? I have no doubt youíre correct. But being evil is not an incapacity. Trump is placed in his position by something two hundred plus years of history respects more than anything else: a free election. Disagreeing with that result also isnít an incapacity.

And in terms of her expertise? Iím sure sheís very knowledgeable in her field. But that field isnít government nor constitutional law. Itís a pointless argument made by an angry person. Sound and fury, signifying nothing.
Have you ever worked for an organization, one that had an HR dept?

When you are on your job there are coworkers, customers, maybe some other words. But you can't claim anyone you interact with professionally is not a coworker for the purposes of labor laws.

Why is it significant to you?
  #71  
Old 12-28-2019, 05:35 PM
drad dog is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 6,745
Quote:
Originally Posted by RioRico View Post
Back in the day was a phrase, "Closing the barn door after the horse has bolted," meaning to apply a fix too late. Evaluating politicians' mental states AFTER they take office is too late. I doubt citizens could persuade legislators to enact candidate screening requirements that cover themselves too, so voter referendums in the states are needed. Running for state or federal office? Pass a psych review - weed out the sociopaths - but then, who's left?

This POTUS is not going to be removed for mental instability. It's too late for that.
Who's left indeed.

The fact that he might have made it out of the woods and may stay continent for the next year is not a reason to avoid creating the future for trornp wherein he leaves office as someone who needed to defend his sanity. He needs to because we have lived with the insanity long enough.

People want to see this as static, but I just can't see the world that way.
  #72  
Old 12-28-2019, 05:35 PM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 59,873
Doesn't Trump technically work for Pelosi, that is to say, doesn't he work to fulfill the directives of and serve at the pleasure of the organization (congress) of which Pelosi is arguably the most powerful member?

She should be drawing up his pink slip even now.
__________________
Don't worry about the end of Inception. We have top men working on it right now. Top. Men.
  #73  
Old 12-28-2019, 05:44 PM
drad dog is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 6,745
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan Chance View Post
She is, absolutely, not his co-worker. Sheís a member of a co-equal branch of government. Nothing more. To think otherwise is to misunderstand the separate but equal branches of government.

As for Trump being evil? I have no doubt youíre correct. But being evil is not an incapacity. Trump is placed in his position by something two hundred plus years of history respects more than anything else: a free election. Disagreeing with that result also isnít an incapacity.

And in terms of her expertise? Iím sure sheís very knowledgeable in her field. But that field isnít government nor constitutional law. Itís a pointless argument made by an angry person. Sound and fury, signifying nothing.
I'm sorry to go back to this but "Itís a pointless argument made by an angry person. Sound and fury, signifying nothing." is really pretty outrageous in the context of such a professional warning. I didn't notice that she was angry at all. Are you?

Are you an anti-trumper defending democracy by saying this? Fake news from the left now everybodys doing it...? I don't get the point of slagging on the warning.
  #74  
Old 12-28-2019, 06:01 PM
Exapno Mapcase is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NY but not NYC
Posts: 32,035
Quote:
Originally Posted by drad dog View Post
I'm sorry to go back to this but "Itís a pointless argument made by an angry person. Sound and fury, signifying nothing." is really pretty outrageous in the context of such a professional warning. I didn't notice that she was angry at all. Are you?

Are you an anti-trumper defending democracy by saying this? Fake news from the left now everybodys doing it...? I don't get the point of slagging on the warning.
It is a canon of the psychiatric profession not to diagnose anyone they have not personally examined. She is in violation of her ethics. And politically speaking, she's far crazier than Trump.

I told you before that expecting Trump to be committed involuntarily was wishful thinking. That obviously wasn't strong enough. It's delusional thinking. You're also coming off crazier than Trump. You're the one who's making the anti-Trump movement look deranged. The left is supposed to be the bastion as reality and real-world thinking. As of this moment, you're part of the far right. Hope you like the food there.
  #75  
Old 12-28-2019, 06:30 PM
HMS Irruncible is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 8,980
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
I don't like Trump as a person. I feel he's not very smart and has a lot of personality problems. I feel he's an incompetent President. And I think he's committed several serious crimes.

But I don't feel he is physically or mentally incapacitated. Congress should not be seeking to invoke the 25th Amendment.
Serious question... if he were incapacitated, how would we know? I mean, obviously he doesn't appear in public with food in his pockets or wearing his underwear outside of his pants. But on the other hand, he often talks like that kind of person, and he's clearly surrounded himself with people who would prevent us from seeing him like that.

So how/when do we know when he's lost his marbles?

Last edited by HMS Irruncible; 12-28-2019 at 06:30 PM.
  #76  
Old 12-28-2019, 06:48 PM
drad dog is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 6,745
Quote:
Originally Posted by Exapno Mapcase View Post
It is a canon of the psychiatric profession not to diagnose anyone they have not personally examined. She is in violation of her ethics. And politically speaking, she's far crazier than Trump.

I told you before that expecting Trump to be committed involuntarily was wishful thinking. That obviously wasn't strong enough. It's delusional thinking. You're also coming off crazier than Trump. You're the one who's making the anti-Trump movement look deranged. The left is supposed to be the bastion as reality and real-world thinking. As of this moment, you're part of the far right. Hope you like the food there.
Cite that she violated her ethics.

The rest:

"I told you before that expecting Trump to be committed involuntarily was wishful thinking. That obviously wasn't strong enough. It's delusional thinking. You're also coming off crazier than Trump. You're the one who's making the anti-Trump movement look deranged. The left is supposed to be the bastion as reality and real-world thinking. As of this moment, you're part of the far right. Hope you like the food there." Have fun in the straw. Not one meaningful syllable.

"I told you before" is just not a good start either.

Last edited by drad dog; 12-28-2019 at 06:52 PM.
  #77  
Old 12-28-2019, 06:50 PM
drad dog is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 6,745
Quote:
Originally Posted by HMS Irruncible View Post
Serious question... if he were incapacitated, how would we know? I mean, obviously he doesn't appear in public with food in his pockets or wearing his underwear outside of his pants. But on the other hand, he often talks like that kind of person, and he's clearly surrounded himself with people who would prevent us from seeing him like that.

So how/when do we know when he's lost his marbles?
They would hide him as much as possible. And the dems should be trying to pry him out of that hiding every minute. Hopefully they don't read this thread and get discouraged.
  #78  
Old 12-28-2019, 07:02 PM
outlierrn is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: republic of california
Posts: 5,834
Quote:
Originally Posted by drad dog View Post
Why would you have a problem with that?

So you're waiting for the public warning of your dreams, "Warning Right"?
What, I don't understand what you're saying.
__________________
Just another outlying data point on the bell curve of life
  #79  
Old 12-28-2019, 07:14 PM
Kelby is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 259
Quote:
Originally Posted by HMS Irruncible View Post
Serious question... if he were incapacitated, how would we know? I mean, obviously he doesn't appear in public with food in his pockets or wearing his underwear outside of his pants. But on the other hand, he often talks like that kind of person, and he's clearly surrounded himself with people who would prevent us from seeing him like that.

So how/when do we know when he's lost his marbles?
Exactly what I was coming to say.

I'm trying to imagine a scenario now, where Trump says or does something that would cause the VP and cabinet officials to pursue the 25th.

I can't.
  #80  
Old 12-28-2019, 07:41 PM
Northern Piper is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: The snow is back, dammit!
Posts: 30,522
Quote:
Originally Posted by drad dog View Post
Have you ever worked for an organization, one that had an HR dept?

When you are on your job there are coworkers, customers, maybe some other words. But you can't claim anyone you interact with professionally is not a coworker for the purposes of labor laws.
Trump and Pelosi are not employees. They are both office-holders, holding offices created by the Constitution itself: Pelosi by Article I, Trump by Article II. Labour laws do not apply to them and they are not co-workers.
__________________
"I don't like to make plans for the day. If I do, that's when words like 'premeditated' start getting thrown around in the courtroom."
  #81  
Old 12-28-2019, 07:44 PM
Northern Piper is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: The snow is back, dammit!
Posts: 30,522
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers View Post
Doesn't Trump technically work for Pelosi, that is to say, doesn't he work to fulfill the directives of and serve at the pleasure of the organization (congress) of which Pelosi is arguably the most powerful member?

She should be drawing up his pink slip even now.
Bryan, youíre letting your parliamentary tradition show!

Sheís done all she can by getting articles of impeachment passed. Once she sends them to the Senate, itís out of her hands.
__________________
"I don't like to make plans for the day. If I do, that's when words like 'premeditated' start getting thrown around in the courtroom."
  #82  
Old 12-28-2019, 07:53 PM
Northern Piper is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: The snow is back, dammit!
Posts: 30,522
Quote:
Originally Posted by drad dog View Post
Cite that she violated her ethics
Itís called the Goldwater rule: section 7 of the American Psychiatric Societyís Code of Professional Ethics.

It provides that psychiatrists are not to attempt to diagnose someone theyíve never interviewed personally, and not to make any public statements about a personís mental state without that personís consent.

The American Psychological Association and the American Medical Association have similar rules.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldwater_rule
__________________
"I don't like to make plans for the day. If I do, that's when words like 'premeditated' start getting thrown around in the courtroom."

Last edited by Northern Piper; 12-28-2019 at 07:55 PM.
  #83  
Old 12-28-2019, 08:01 PM
drad dog is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 6,745
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northern Piper View Post
Itís called the Goldwater rule: section 7 of the American Psychiatric Societyís Code of Professional Ethics.

It provides that psychiatrists are not to attempt to diagnose someone theyíve never interviewed personally, and not to make any public statements about a personís mental state without that personís consent.

The American Psychological Association and the American Medical Association have similar rules.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldwater_rule
That is not a cite that she violated her ethics.
  #84  
Old 12-28-2019, 08:04 PM
drad dog is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 6,745
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northern Piper View Post
Trump and Pelosi are not employees. They are both office-holders, holding offices created by the Constitution itself: Pelosi by Article I, Trump by Article II. Labour laws do not apply to them and they are not co-workers.
What laws may apply to them at work?

If donnie drops his pants in the oval office does it matter whether she is a co worker or a colleague?

At my place of work, IIRC, if you were working and you did something like that it doesn't matter who you were with, inside, or outside.

Last edited by drad dog; 12-28-2019 at 08:09 PM.
  #85  
Old 12-28-2019, 08:13 PM
drad dog is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 6,745
Quote:
Originally Posted by outlierrn View Post
What, I don't understand what you're saying.
Well I am asking why you have a problem with her interpreting trumps tweets. If you wait for a more perfect warning it may be too late. Unless there is nothing to be looking at in this whole matter. Maybe you're there?
  #86  
Old 12-28-2019, 08:14 PM
Northern Piper is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: The snow is back, dammit!
Posts: 30,522
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kelby View Post
Exactly what I was coming to say.

I'm trying to imagine a scenario now, where Trump says or does something that would cause the VP and cabinet officials to pursue the 25th.

I can't.

Scene: The Cabinet room

The President: ďBy the way, everyone, Iíve decided that when Ginsburg dies, Iím going to nominate Hillary to the Supreme Court. Iím starting to think Iíve been too hard on her and she deserves a reward for her public service. Cabinetís over. See you next week.Ē

The President leaves.

The Vice-President: ďColleagues, Iíll be calling Mitch as soon as Iím back at my office. Agreed?Ē

Cabinet members: ďAgreed!Ē

The Vice-President: ďIím assuming itís unanimous?Ē

Cabinet members: ďAgreed!Ē

The Vice-President: ďThanks, Iíll keep you all updated. I think you should all be at your posts for the rest of the day.Ē

Vice-President and Cabinet secretaries scurry out.
__________________
"I don't like to make plans for the day. If I do, that's when words like 'premeditated' start getting thrown around in the courtroom."
  #87  
Old 12-28-2019, 08:18 PM
Northern Piper is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: The snow is back, dammit!
Posts: 30,522
Quote:
Originally Posted by drad dog View Post
What laws may apply to them at work?
The Constitution. Neither can be fired or disciplined under ordinary labour laws.

Pelosi can only be removed if a majority of the House votes her out of office.

Trump can only be removed by impeachment or by the 25th Amendment process.
__________________
"I don't like to make plans for the day. If I do, that's when words like 'premeditated' start getting thrown around in the courtroom."
  #88  
Old 12-28-2019, 08:25 PM
Northern Piper is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: The snow is back, dammit!
Posts: 30,522
Quote:
Originally Posted by drad dog View Post
That is not a cite that she violated her ethics.
Sheís a psychiatrist who is purporting to diagnose the Presidentís mental state, without having examined him. She is discussing her opinion of his mental health in public, without his permission. Both of those actions are forbidden under Section 7 of the APA, Code of Ethics.
__________________
"I don't like to make plans for the day. If I do, that's when words like 'premeditated' start getting thrown around in the courtroom."

Last edited by Northern Piper; 12-28-2019 at 08:26 PM.
  #89  
Old 12-28-2019, 08:34 PM
drad dog is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 6,745
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northern Piper View Post
The Constitution. Neither can be fired or disciplined under ordinary labour laws.

Pelosi can only be removed if a majority of the House votes her out of office.

Trump can only be removed by impeachment or by the 25th Amendment process.
So crimes and sex abuses by elected officials are all dealt with solely by impeachment? It's never a legal matter?
  #90  
Old 12-28-2019, 08:36 PM
drad dog is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 6,745
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northern Piper View Post
Sheís a psychiatrist who is purporting to diagnose the Presidentís mental state, without having examined him. She is discussing her opinion of his mental health in public, without his permission. Both of those actions are forbidden under Section 7 of the APA, Code of Ethics.
It would be ridiculous to judge this on your framing, sorry. It has to be a real cite about her in the media, hopefully not right wing.
  #91  
Old 12-28-2019, 08:53 PM
Gatopescado is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: on your last raw nerve
Posts: 23,323
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
I don't like Trump as a person. I feel he's not very smart and has a lot of personality problems. I feel he's an incompetent President. And I think he's committed several serious crimes.

But I don't feel he is physically or mentally incapacitated. Congress should not be seeking to invoke the 25th Amendment.

Let's remove Trump from office through legal means.
This is entirely too reasonable. Shame on you!
  #92  
Old 12-28-2019, 09:21 PM
drad dog is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 6,745
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northern Piper View Post
The Constitution. Neither can be fired or disciplined under ordinary labour laws.

Pelosi can only be removed if a majority of the House votes her out of office.

Trump can only be removed by impeachment or by the 25th Amendment process.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_law_(legal_system)

Impeachment comes up only after civil laws or other etc etc...have been broken, as a material matter in the prosection. The potus is not above the law.
  #93  
Old 12-28-2019, 09:35 PM
Northern Piper is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: The snow is back, dammit!
Posts: 30,522
Quote:
Originally Posted by drad dog View Post
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_law_(legal_system)

Impeachment comes up only after civil laws or other etc etc...have been broken, as a material matter in the prosection. The potus is not above the law.
Correct. And the applicable law governing his removal for misconduct in office is the impeachment process. And the applicable law for removing him for mental incapacity is the 25th Amendment. Normal labour laws or mental hold laws are superceded by the Constitution, which is the supreme law.

Breach of civil or criminal laws may well be used by Congress in support of impeachment, and if a President is removed by the impeachment process, the impeached ex-president could be found liable under those laws. But if your focus is on removing a president before their term is up (any president, not just Trump), you have to use one of the two methods set out in the Constitution, which is the Supreme law.
__________________
"I don't like to make plans for the day. If I do, that's when words like 'premeditated' start getting thrown around in the courtroom."
  #94  
Old 12-28-2019, 10:02 PM
drad dog is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 6,745
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northern Piper View Post
Correct. And the applicable law governing his removal for misconduct in office is the impeachment process. And the applicable law for removing him for mental incapacity is the 25th Amendment. Normal labour laws or mental hold laws are superceded by the Constitution, which is the supreme law.

Breach of civil or criminal laws may well be used by Congress in support of impeachment, and if a President is removed by the impeachment process, the impeached ex-president could be found liable under those laws. But if your focus is on removing a president before their term is up (any president, not just Trump), you have to use one of the two methods set out in the Constitution, which is the Supreme law.
You aren't following my arguments. I'm talking about crimes as would necessarily involve law enforcement as the precursor to suits involving his ability to function. You are just reminding us again of the normal removal method. I'm not committed to his removal. If you read my posts I don't care. I'm about the act of getting hard on him on every issue until he's gone. It means looking at all means. I am so not into defeatism on his mental health, or any issue, just because he can't be removed on that basis. So what? He is a bad wasps nest and you are just saying that you can't get rid of the nest with impeachment.

No shit. It needs to be shaken, at every level on every issue before it will come out. It's not clean.

tornup is human, and there is an impulse here to make him superman, on the left and the right. He's not and he will fail eventually. Why prolong his heyday with defeatism?

If you don't want trenep to have anxiety every minute of the day until he's gone, and to always worry about the next phone call, then what do you want?

Last edited by drad dog; 12-28-2019 at 10:05 PM.
  #95  
Old 12-28-2019, 10:29 PM
outlierrn is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: republic of california
Posts: 5,834
Quote:
Originally Posted by drad dog View Post
in the context of such a professional warning.

I don't agree that this is a valid professional warning, I agree that she has violated her professional ethics, I believe you've been given valid cites in regards to that.
__________________
Just another outlying data point on the bell curve of life
  #96  
Old 12-28-2019, 10:41 PM
Triskadecamus is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: I'm coming back, now.
Posts: 7,621
Mental stability is always a matter of frame of reference. Within the the population, is the person's functioning level significantly outside the parameters of expected rational behavior?

We're talking about US Presidents, here! Perhaps, legally, Federal officeholders. Talk about a low bar!
  #97  
Old 12-28-2019, 11:05 PM
drad dog is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 6,745
Quote:
Originally Posted by outlierrn View Post
I don't agree that this is a valid professional warning, I agree that she has violated her professional ethics, I believe you've been given valid cites in regards to that.
I have no idea what you mean about the identity of the professional warning she made. I don't think it matters whether you agree with it though.

No cites on her ethical standing yet. Are you going to step up? You know the Goldwater rule isn't the only thing in the world? She seems to have been conscientious and I will leave it to her peers to judge her.

She is making an anti-authoritarian activists message, having to do wth the failure of the goldwater rule to address our problem. Of course those kinds of things are ridiculed by...authoritarians, among others.

Last edited by drad dog; 12-28-2019 at 11:05 PM.
  #98  
Old 12-28-2019, 11:31 PM
outlierrn is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: republic of california
Posts: 5,834
Quote:
Originally Posted by drad dog View Post
I have no idea what you mean about the identity of the professional warning she made. I don't think it matters whether you agree with it though.

No cites on her ethical standing yet. Are you going to step up? You know the Goldwater rule isn't the only thing in the world? She seems to have been conscientious and I will leave it to her peers to judge her.
Well, you made the statement about her professional warning, what did you mean by it?


What cites would you accept?
__________________
Just another outlying data point on the bell curve of life
  #99  
Old 12-28-2019, 11:51 PM
Exapno Mapcase is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NY but not NYC
Posts: 32,035
Where are the board's conservatives? The one time they can legitimately rag us about Trump Derangement Syndrome and they're blowing it! Oh well, I suppose that always being in the wrong is what makes them conservatives.

Have fun. I'm checking out. Somebody let me know if they show up and get in some good zingers. I'm sure the thread, despite already going in circles, is good for another three days at least.
  #100  
Old 12-29-2019, 12:05 AM
Jonathan Chance is online now
Domo Arigato Mister Moderato
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: On the run with Kilroy
Posts: 23,396
Quote:
Originally Posted by drad dog View Post
You aren't following my arguments. I'm talking about crimes as would necessarily involve law enforcement as the precursor to suits involving his ability to function. You are just reminding us again of the normal removal method. I'm not committed to his removal. If you read my posts I don't care. I'm about the act of getting hard on him on every issue until he's gone. It means looking at all means. I am so not into defeatism on his mental health, or any issue, just because he can't be removed on that basis. So what? He is a bad wasps nest and you are just saying that you can't get rid of the nest with impeachment.

No shit. It needs to be shaken, at every level on every issue before it will come out. It's not clean.

tornup is human, and there is an impulse here to make him superman, on the left and the right. He's not and he will fail eventually. Why prolong his heyday with defeatism?

If you don't want trenep to have anxiety every minute of the day until he's gone, and to always worry about the next phone call, then what do you want?
It has been official Department of Justice policy for decades that a sitting President cannot be indicted for a criminal act while in office. All such prosecutions are held until that President is out of office through one of the four paths I outlined in an earlier post. Should Trump be removed through impeachment early next year I feel he'll certainly have an interesting time of it with criminal charges being filed. I believe the Southern District of NY would already like to have words with him but have indicated they're willing to wait.

Civil issues CAN go forward as they did for Bill Clinton.

But your railing to the skies that all that somehow doesn't apply? It's nonsense, of course. It does apply. It's established policy since at least the Nixon administration and has continued straight through until today.

An election is truly a sovereign act. Nothing save Impeachment will override that. The courts have been pretty clear on respecting the choice of the voters and I don't see any court being willing to suddenly go against that precedent.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

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 Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:49 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017