Which would still be admitting weakness (at least in Trump’s eyes) so he’ll only do that if he’s absolutely convinced a worse alternative is imminent (ie removal from office following impeachment or the 25th Amendment being invoked).
No kidding, Sherlock. But the rules, and the culture are largely the same. If one makes a declarative statement of fact, it’s up to that person to prove it via reliable cites.
Even you would agree that “I saw it on the internet” is not a legitimate cite, yes?
If someone tried to write a fictional book or make a movie predicting this presidency 2 years ago, they would have been laughed out of rooms for being too unrealistic. Comedy section at least.
You claimed it was a sub-forum.
I never said a thing about “I saw it on the internet”. That was Grrr!
Would you prefer “4th World nations”? Because some nations *are *pretty much shitholes, sad to say. But the President shouldn’t be using that term in public.
Well, that’s a fair point.
Except for the part I bolded. I think that’s usually true, but not in cases where the evidence is overwhelming. If I say that there is no meaningful difference between the intelligence of black people and white people, the burden is not on me to prove that because it’s already been demonstrated countless times and there is no credible evidence showing otherwise. That’s the mentality I’m coming from with that statement. Obviously ‘‘batshit insane’’ has no specific meaning, it’s what I thought when my schizophrenic uncle used to ramble to me about people putting dead bodies in his cigarettes. It conveys a feeling you get when engaging with a crazy person more than anything else.
I agree specificity of behaviors is our friend in general. I always run my thoughts/postings about mental illness by **Sr. Weasel ** to make sure I’m in the ballpark of correct, as I trust his professional judgment immensely, especially with regard to professional ethics. (Yeah, I’m biased, so sue me.) It’s easy for him to turn to me, in the privacy of our home, and say, "That guy has the worst case of NPD I’ve ever seen,‘’ but it would be unethical to call that a formal diagnosis, and it would be largely unproductive in mixed company.
I don’t think the ‘‘he’s mentally ill’’ line of argument is particularly helpful for a number of reasons, the most obvious being, ''So what?" While we can make an educated guess about his mental health status, there’s absolutely no way to determine, absent an intensive evaluation that will never happen, whether said mental illness makes him unfit for office. It’s not like a mental health diagnosis automatically determines someone’s fitness for work. I feel that some liberals engage in a number of unrealistic fantasies in an effort to get the guy booted from office, and this is the fantasy where some expert psychologist evaluates him and determines him unfit for office. This isn’t going to happen. I think people engaging in this fantasy, more often than not, don’t understand mental health or the nature of its treatment all that well. As someone who takes all of this psychology shit very seriously, I find it personally very frustrating.
So this line of argument, I think, only serves to alienate people who support him in a way that also alienates them from the field of psychology in general, which is not good. Thousands of people are impacted by mental illness in this country, and all of this sloppy public dialog will affect their lives and their ablity to receive treatment… all for nothing, because the conversation will not affect Trump’s position of power one iota. If you want to talk about the good of society, you have to consider those people, too.
You think polls are an objective metric for measuring someone’s mental health? :dubious:
Keep in mind as you read it that the author has publicly stated that large portions of it are bullshit.
No, he didn’t.
Indeed…how about a cite for that, Clothahump?
The author was on Meet The Press, and unless he made that claim during a commercial break, I missed it. I sure can’t wait to see the cite for that claim, I bet it’s a doozy.
:rolleyes:
Bullshit. That’s am excuse I see all the time from the right side of the aisle. You don’t get to just say “No” with any credibility whatsoever without backing it up.
And, btw, until you’ve been a member of a formal, top-league debate team, don’t even think about trying to tell someone who knows by experience (like yours truly) what the rules of debate are.
I said this before the last time Shodan tried to get away with it and you backed him up on it. It’s flat-out false. As I also said before, you’d get laughed out of a formal debate for trying to pull that.
They did predict this, but President Camacho atleast new when to bate, and when not to.
We all know you read this part.
I’ll bet you didn’t read this part.
He did not say the book was bullshit. If you can find that quote, post it.
Why do you have no problem with Trump lying every time he speaks but an account of that lying is untruthful?
Thank you. I knew it was somehow my fault. I know you are busy. Thank you for taking the time out of your schedule to point out what a disappointment I am to you.
No need. Clothahump has publicly stated that large portions of his post were bullshit.
I’m not sure if you didn’t actually read my post, or if you’re trying to counter it with a straw man.
You know the adage about four people on different street corners watching the same accident, and having four different explanations of what happened? After the cop interviews them and writes up what he assesses happened, is what the cop wrote “bullshit?”
Clothahump is a former cop. I brought up that point in another thread and got no response.