President Trump & Sec. 4 of the 25th Amendment

[boedicca]

Many of these apply to Bubba Clinton, hiLIARy Clinton and Barack Obabble.

Just sayin'.

Off topic ^^^ though most pols will be characterized in this way, by those with biases.

I doubt very few exhibit the same extreme behaviors and actions taken by Trump since he began his quest to the White House. In my opinion he is unfit to hold the power given to him, and needs to be evaluated by professionals, before he does more damage to our nation and its people.

Of course I'm biased, I don't trust Trump and I've posted many times that I believe he is inept, incompetent, insincere and self serving.

I'm flabbergasted that any patriot supports him and defends him. His treatment of others is horrific, his promises hollow and his concern for others the definition of false pathos.

What is on topic is that these type of diagnoses are only valid based on qualified specialists examining the individual.

That hasn't happened; so all you are doing is maligning someone for political purposes.

Bullshit. Qualified professionals making this diagnosis rely on the records and interviews available form parents, siblings, spouse(s), teachers, Police and Probation Officers, Medical & Military records, Etc., and the behavior which is presented at the time of the referral.

Why do you post lies, and on matters of which you have no understanding?

This. And political opponents' spin isn't on your list of acceptable diagnostic sources.

Today, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) reiterates its continued and unwavering commitment to the ethical principle known as "The Goldwater Rule." We at the APA call for an end to psychiatrists providing professional opinions in the media about public figures whom they have not examined, whether it be on cable news appearances, books, or in social media. Armchair psychiatry or the use of psychiatry as a political tool is the misuse of psychiatry and is unacceptable and unethical.

APA Calls for End to 'Armchair' Psychiatry

trump has been around for decades & there are some drs that are willing to override that 'rule' because capt. crazy pants is really that nuts.

How on earth do you sleep at night?

 

[playtime]

IMO, Trump manifests Cluster B Personality Disorders, thus, he feels he does not need to prepare himself for tasks he is not familiar with, he actually believes he can con everyone; he will continue these behaviors, until the day he leaves office, to believe he can outsmart or destroy those who dare to challenge him. Below Are characteristics which may describe Trump's behavior as President, during the campaign, when seeking the nomination and during his years as a real estate/casino owner.

301.7 Antisocial Personality Disorder (PD):

• Aggression against people
• Often starts fights
• Uses power against others
• Showed Cruelty to people
• Force sex upon someone

301.50 Histrionic P.D.

• Discomfort when not the center of attention
• Relationships often fraught with inappropraite seductive or sexually provocative behavior
• Expressions of emotions that are shallow (false pathos)
• Speech which is vague and lacks detail (Crooked Hillary)
• Overly Dramatic
• Easily suggestible

301.81 Narcissistic P.D.

• Grandiose sense of self-importance
• Preoccupation with fantasies of beauty, brilliance, power or limitless success
• Believe that personal uniqueness renders him fit only for associations with people or institutions of rarefied status
• Need for excessive admiration
• A sense of entitlement, expects favorable treatment or automatic granting of his own wishes.

Those who watch Trump, listen to his words and read his tweets may agree with this assessment of The President. Those who do not are fully free to offer a rebuttal

Many of these apply to Bubba Clinton, hiLIARy Clinton and Barack Obabble.

Just sayin'.

Off topic ^^^ though most pols will be characterized in this way, by those with biases.

I doubt very few exhibit the same extreme behaviors and actions taken by Trump since he began his quest to the White House. In my opinion he is unfit to hold the power given to him, and needs to be evaluated by professionals, before he does more damage to our nation and its people.

Of course I'm biased, I don't trust Trump and I've posted many times that I believe he is inept, incompetent, insincere and self serving.

I'm flabbergasted that any patriot supports him and defends him. His treatment of others is horrific, his promises hollow and his concern for others the definition of false pathos.

What is on topic is that these type of diagnoses are only valid based on qualified specialists examining the individual.

That hasn't happened; so all you are doing is maligning someone for political purposes.

there are many psychologists on the record that have diagnosed him based on the very obvious signs that somethin' just ain't right & to totally deny it as if he is normal is both political & a mental illness itself.

psychologists trump - Google Search

Those psychologists are the professional equivalent of the social scientists who opine about Glowball Worming.

^^^

 

[martybegan]

You are trying to use mechanism designed to remove a president due to real mental defect or something like a heart attack that puts them in a coma to remove a legally elected sitting president for purely political reasons.

Um, no, the 25th Amendment was put into place SPECIFICALLY for this reason.

The problem is, too many people who KNOW Trump is unfit for the presidency are hoping to advance their own agendas while the rest of us are rubbernecking at the train wreck.

It was never intended to remove a President for political reasons, which in this case is what it would be used for.

You not liking him or his politics does not mean he is unfit.

Yet morons like you still try to promote that narrative, either that you believe it in your addled minds, or you see it as the best method of removing him via coup.

 

[Wry Catcher]

IMO, Trump manifests Cluster B Personality Disorders, thus, he feels he does not need to prepare himself for tasks he is not familiar with, he actually believes he can con everyone; he will continue these behaviors, until the day he leaves office, to believe he can outsmart or destroy those who dare to challenge him. Below Are characteristics which may describe Trump's behavior as President, during the campaign, when seeking the nomination and during his years as a real estate/casino owner.

301.7 Antisocial Personality Disorder (PD):

• Aggression against people
• Often starts fights
• Uses power against others
• Showed Cruelty to people
• Force sex upon someone

301.50 Histrionic P.D.

• Discomfort when not the center of attention
• Relationships often fraught with inappropraite seductive or sexually provocative behavior
• Expressions of emotions that are shallow (false pathos)
• Speech which is vague and lacks detail (Crooked Hillary)
• Overly Dramatic
• Easily suggestible

301.81 Narcissistic P.D.

• Grandiose sense of self-importance
• Preoccupation with fantasies of beauty, brilliance, power or limitless success
• Believe that personal uniqueness renders him fit only for associations with people or institutions of rarefied status
• Need for excessive admiration
• A sense of entitlement, expects favorable treatment or automatic granting of his own wishes.

Those who watch Trump, listen to his words and read his tweets may agree with this assessment of The President. Those who do not are fully free to offer a rebuttal

Many of these apply to Bubba Clinton, hiLIARy Clinton and Barack Obabble.

Just sayin'.

Off topic ^^^ though most pols will be characterized in this way, by those with biases.

I doubt very few exhibit the same extreme behaviors and actions taken by Trump since he began his quest to the White House. In my opinion he is unfit to hold the power given to him, and needs to be evaluated by professionals, before he does more damage to our nation and its people.

Of course I'm biased, I don't trust Trump and I've posted many times that I believe he is inept, incompetent, insincere and self serving.

I'm flabbergasted that any patriot supports him and defends him. His treatment of others is horrific, his promises hollow and his concern for others the definition of false pathos.

What is on topic is that these type of diagnoses are only valid based on qualified specialists examining the individual.

That hasn't happened; so all you are doing is maligning someone for political purposes.

there are many psychologists on the record that have diagnosed him based on the very obvious signs that somethin' just ain't right & to totally deny it as if he is normal is both political & a mental illness itself.

psychologists trump - Google Search

Those psychologists are the professional equivalent of the social scientists who opine about Glowball Worming.

Once again you've posted a claim based on you biases as a truth. It is clear you are dishonest, and a hypocrite - Grow up!

 

[Wry Catcher]

You are trying to use mechanism designed to remove a president due to real mental defect or something like a heart attack that puts them in a coma to remove a legally elected sitting president for purely political reasons.

Um, no, the 25th Amendment was put into place SPECIFICALLY for this reason.

The problem is, too many people who KNOW Trump is unfit for the presidency are hoping to advance their own agendas while the rest of us are rubbernecking at the train wreck.

It was never intended to remove a President for political reasons, which in this case is what it would be used for.

You not liking him or his politics does not mean he is unfit.

Yet morons like you still try to promote that narrative, either that you believe it in your addled minds, or you see it as the best method of removing him via coup.

Your premise is total bullshit. He is unfit, and malicious; he is guilty of malfeasance, misfeasance and non feasance. He spends more time playing golf, tweeting attacks on the press, law enforcement and HRC! He spends his days obstructing the investigation on how Russia's cyber attack on America happened and how it can be stopped in the future. He has done nothing to do the job you voted him to do.

He has not done anything to make America Great, in fact he has damaged our brand around the world, and created the most chaotic and divided nation since 1861. On second thought, this is probably what you voted for him to do.

 

[eagle1462010]

You are trying to use mechanism designed to remove a president due to real mental defect or something like a heart attack that puts them in a coma to remove a legally elected sitting president for purely political reasons.

Um, no, the 25th Amendment was put into place SPECIFICALLY for this reason.

The problem is, too many people who KNOW Trump is unfit for the presidency are hoping to advance their own agendas while the rest of us are rubbernecking at the train wreck.

It was never intended to remove a President for political reasons, which in this case is what it would be used for.

You not liking him or his politics does not mean he is unfit.

Yet morons like you still try to promote that narrative, either that you believe it in your addled minds, or you see it as the best method of removing him via coup.

Your premise is total bullshit. He is unfit, and malicious; he is guilty of malfeasance, misfeasance and non freasance.

Here is a Legend.....................







In his OWN MIND............

 

[martybegan]

You are trying to use mechanism designed to remove a president due to real mental defect or something like a heart attack that puts them in a coma to remove a legally elected sitting president for purely political reasons.

Um, no, the 25th Amendment was put into place SPECIFICALLY for this reason.

The problem is, too many people who KNOW Trump is unfit for the presidency are hoping to advance their own agendas while the rest of us are rubbernecking at the train wreck.

It was never intended to remove a President for political reasons, which in this case is what it would be used for.

You not liking him or his politics does not mean he is unfit.

Yet morons like you still try to promote that narrative, either that you believe it in your addled minds, or you see it as the best method of removing him via coup.

Your premise is total bullshit. He is unfit, and malicious; he is guilty of malfeasance, misfeasance and non freasance.

Big words from a small little man.

Again, unfit doesn't mean "me don't like him, fuh fuh fuh, me use big words to look smartzer, fuh fuh fuh"

You are a fucking joke.

 

[eagle1462010]

 

[eagle1462010]

Wry Catcher seems to have the symptoms of the above disorder...........

Why......................CAUSE I SAY SO

 

[eagle1462010]

 

[Wry Catcher]

You are trying to use mechanism designed to remove a president due to real mental defect or something like a heart attack that puts them in a coma to remove a legally elected sitting president for purely political reasons.

Um, no, the 25th Amendment was put into place SPECIFICALLY for this reason.

The problem is, too many people who KNOW Trump is unfit for the presidency are hoping to advance their own agendas while the rest of us are rubbernecking at the train wreck.

It was never intended to remove a President for political reasons, which in this case is what it would be used for.

You not liking him or his politics does not mean he is unfit.

Yet morons like you still try to promote that narrative, either that you believe it in your addled minds, or you see it as the best method of removing him via coup.

Your premise is total bullshit. He is unfit, and malicious; he is guilty of malfeasance, misfeasance and non freasance.

Here is a Legend.....................







In his OWN MIND............

Take your idiot-gram and stuff it in a hole (if there is room since that is where you head is all the time);

Even a bird brain wonders how anyone can remain so ignorant and stuck in denial as do you and the 14 others who claim to believe Trump is competent.

But I suspect you're too dishonest to acknowledge the truth, and the truth is Trump is inept and incompetent; he is obstructing justice and has done nothing to prevent future efforts by foreign powers to influence our elections.

 

[boedicca]

Many of these apply to Bubba Clinton, hiLIARy Clinton and Barack Obabble.

Just sayin'.

Off topic ^^^ though most pols will be characterized in this way, by those with biases.

I doubt very few exhibit the same extreme behaviors and actions taken by Trump since he began his quest to the White House. In my opinion he is unfit to hold the power given to him, and needs to be evaluated by professionals, before he does more damage to our nation and its people.

Of course I'm biased, I don't trust Trump and I've posted many times that I believe he is inept, incompetent, insincere and self serving.

I'm flabbergasted that any patriot supports him and defends him. His treatment of others is horrific, his promises hollow and his concern for others the definition of false pathos.

What is on topic is that these type of diagnoses are only valid based on qualified specialists examining the individual.

That hasn't happened; so all you are doing is maligning someone for political purposes.

there are many psychologists on the record that have diagnosed him based on the very obvious signs that somethin' just ain't right & to totally deny it as if he is normal is both political & a mental illness itself.

psychologists trump - Google Search

Those psychologists are the professional equivalent of the social scientists who opine about Glowball Worming.

Once again you've posted a claim based on you biases as a truth. It is clear you are dishonest, and a hypocrite - Grow up!

Here you go hun, although I doubt you can do the math:


Consider the statement "The IPCC report concluded that there is a human influence on climate. This was
supported by almost 4,000 authors and reviewers." The popular mythology - and one that IPCC never tries to
correct - is that those 4,000 supported the findings but this is an exaggeration on a massive scale because all they
really supported, by virtue of their work, was the creation of the report. The IPCC is allowing, or perhaps even
encouraging, an ambiguity to be misinterpreted, and it's not for the first time either, but I digress.
But how many individuals were involved? Was it 4,000 or some other number?
The IPCC said in its flyer for its Fourth Assessment Report (4AR)
2500+ Scientific Expert Reviewers
800+ Contributing Authors
450+ Lead Authors...
[note 1]
so immediately the figure drops from 4,000 to 3,750. But look a little closer and that figure is not correct either.
Each of the three IPCC Working Groups (WGs) assembles its own lists of authors and reviewers, making six
lists in all. Based on those lists of reviewers and on a previous list of authors that I had already extracted from
the start of each chapter of the report (and each "Summary for Policy makers" and "Technical Summary") the
total number of authors and reviewers for each working group is as follows:
WG I - 595 authors, 624 reviewers
WG II - 400 authors, 1169 reviewers
WG III - 251 authors, 469 reviewers
Based on thee figures the total number of reviewers was 2262 and the number of authors is 1246. The former is
well short of the IPCC's 2500 but the latter is near enough to the claimed 1250.
The IPCC's Synthesis Report is an amalgam of the issues raised by the contributions from the 3 working groups
so authoring of this report is rather like making a summary and one would expect that if a reviewer was serious
about examining the draft IPCC documents then he or she would focus on the working group's contributions.
Let's put that aside for the moment and include the number of authors given in the annexes to the Synthesis
Report - 41 authors and 243 reviewers (one of whom is recorded twice).
That latter figure of 243 is very interesting because the Annex in which they are listed tells us:
Consistent with IPCC Rules and Procedures, the draft SYR was sent for formal review to over
2,400 individual experts as well as to the 193 member governments of the IPCC.
It seems likely that the drafts sent to 193 governments were seen by at least one person and given that no
governments are among the list of reviewers we probably should assume that any reviewers acting on behalf of
their governments are listed under their own name. This leaves us with the question of why the draft of the
Synthesis Report received comments from only 243 reviewers, which is fewer than 10% of the people who were
invited to comment.
At this point the total number of reviewers and authors appear to be 2505 and 1287, both of which are very close
to the IPCC's stated figures, but all is not what it seems to be

(snip)

And now for the remaining breakdown:

Internet web site "Climate Resistance"
[note 4]
has ascertained the qualifications and fields of expertise for the
authors of the contributions from the 3 working groups where those authors are from the USA or United
Kingdom. The following table is a condensed version of its findings about the number of authors from each area
of expertise:
Working Group I
- (303 from the USA or UK)
215 climate science (assumption for all authors associated with 2 key climate institutes in each country)
24 atmospheric physics
27 geophysics or geology
4 statistics
8 mathematics/physics
8 engineering
2 biology/ecology
1 history of science
1 computer science
1 economy
1 agronomy
1 lawyer who claims to also be skilled in oceanography
8 unknown
3

Working Group II
- (121)
10 geophysics, climate science, hydrology or climate modelling
17 earth/atmospheric sciences
2 modelling/statistics
7 geography
6 epidemiology
10 biology/ecology
5 zoology, entomology or biology
5 public health and policy
10 engineers or in insurance and risk management
12 economics
28 social science
1 full-time activist (and 1 part time)
1 website-design
1 network administration
2 administrative assistant
5 unknown
Working Group III
- (66)
14 physics, chemistry or engineering
2 biochemisty or geochemistry
5 forestry ecology, or soil science
4 engineering disciplines
2 law
7 social science
20 economics
12 unknown
Climate Resistance also points out that various of the above people appear to be graduates, PhD candidates or
recent recipients of PhDs, so it's drawing a long bow to claim that they are world experts in their fields.
According to Climate Resistance "... across WGI, II and III, we have a very generous 314 contributors among
the 510 we sampled who can reasonably be described as scientific experts."
If the findings of Climate Resistance are accurate it would mean that much of the report was written by people
with dubious qualifications in the relevant fields. Maybe the IPCC's "2500+ scientific expert reviewers" restore
the credibility of the report but it's difficult to see how that could be because my earlier document
[see note 3]
showed that the number of reviewers for the second draft of any WG I chapter did not exceed 100 and that many
reviewers' comments were rejected. It would seem that the views of those "experts" were often rejected in
favour of the views of authors who may have been less than expert in the subjects they discussed.
It is all very well to claim that the reviewers were experts but can we have faith in the credibility of those
reviewers or were they biased in some way?
Even a quick read of the lists of reviewers shows that many of the 2890 individuals had clear vested interests for
commenting on the IPCC report. If the IPCC report was a recommendation related to financial matters its
authors and reviewers would be expected to declare any pecuniary interest but apparently the IPCC thinks it's
okay not to mention these interests despite its authors and reviewers potentially benefiting from government
policies that are made in light of the IPCC's findings.
Among the authors and reviewers of each component of the IPCC 4AR there were an assortment of universities
that might be receiving funding for research that assumes a human influence on climate, and of course
government and semi-government authorities that are driven by government policies. There were also
representatives from an assortment of other organizations with a strong self-interest in this subject.
The Synthesis Report provides an example of the diversity of partisanship among its reviewers. Some of these
people are clearly associated with specific industries, such as oil (
OMV Exploration and Production
and
Saudi
Aramco
) and the international airline industry (
ICAO
), and perhaps both industries were cautious of the potential
detrimental impacts on their businesses.
4

(snip)

The evidence shows that the claim of "4000 scientific experts supported the IPCC's claims" is dishonest in
almost every word. There were
not
4000 people, but just under 2900; they were
not
all scientists; and it seems
that they were
not
all experts. There is only evidence that about 60 people explicitly supported the claim,
although that might not mean much given the vested interests and lack of impartiality of many authors and
reviewers. As mentioned at the start of this document the "support" can only be said to apply to the document as
a whole and is by virtue of the input of authors and reviewers.
Perhaps the claim of 4000 scientific experts supporting the IPCC is a popular but false interpretation of the
IPCC's statements, but if that is the case then the IPCC's failure to correct that error only serves to tarnish its
reputation even further.

http://mclean.ch/climate/docs/IPCC_numbers.pdf

Now go to the working group lists and add up all the social scientists, economist, lawyers - iow non-climate-physics-geo scientists/engineers. That amount totals more than the 60 actual people who supported the report. The only reason for them to be involved was to suck up funding, so of course they supported the IPCC.

 

[Wry Catcher]

You are trying to use mechanism designed to remove a president due to real mental defect or something like a heart attack that puts them in a coma to remove a legally elected sitting president for purely political reasons.

Um, no, the 25th Amendment was put into place SPECIFICALLY for this reason.

The problem is, too many people who KNOW Trump is unfit for the presidency are hoping to advance their own agendas while the rest of us are rubbernecking at the train wreck.

It was never intended to remove a President for political reasons, which in this case is what it would be used for.

You not liking him or his politics does not mean he is unfit.

Yet morons like you still try to promote that narrative, either that you believe it in your addled minds, or you see it as the best method of removing him via coup.

Your premise is total bullshit. He is unfit, and malicious; he is guilty of malfeasance, misfeasance and non freasance.

Big words from a small little man.

Again, unfit doesn't mean "me don't like him, fuh fuh fuh, me use big words to look smartzer, fuh fuh fuh"

You are a fucking joke.

for the record, my entire post which you did not include was this:

Your premise is total bullshit. He is unfit, and malicious; he is guilty of malfeasance, misfeasance and non feasance. He spends more time playing golf, tweeting attacks on the press, law enforcement and HRC! He spends his days obstructing the investigation on how Russia's cyber attack on America happened and how it can be stopped in the future. He has done nothing to do the job you voted him to do.

He has not done anything to make America Great, in fact he has damaged our brand around the world, and created the most chaotic and divided nation since 1861. On second thought, this is probably what you voted for him to do.

First: I don't see any words and average 9th grader would not understand. Did you complete the 9th grade, or quit school after the 5th?

Second: I'm 6' 2", 230 pounds and have never been called little. Of course you meant that as a personal attack, As a supervisor and as a manager I made sure those in my units got the credit for what they did well, and I took the heat when (rarely) they fucked up. In fact most of those I supervised moved up in the agency, and today the Chief worked for me for a number of years.

Finally: You're an asshole whose knowledge is underwhelming, and whose character is flawed for some reason not explicable.

 

[martybegan]

You are trying to use mechanism designed to remove a president due to real mental defect or something like a heart attack that puts them in a coma to remove a legally elected sitting president for purely political reasons.

Um, no, the 25th Amendment was put into place SPECIFICALLY for this reason.

The problem is, too many people who KNOW Trump is unfit for the presidency are hoping to advance their own agendas while the rest of us are rubbernecking at the train wreck.

It was never intended to remove a President for political reasons, which in this case is what it would be used for.

You not liking him or his politics does not mean he is unfit.

Yet morons like you still try to promote that narrative, either that you believe it in your addled minds, or you see it as the best method of removing him via coup.

Your premise is total bullshit. He is unfit, and malicious; he is guilty of malfeasance, misfeasance and non freasance.

Big words from a small little man.

Again, unfit doesn't mean "me don't like him, fuh fuh fuh, me use big words to look smartzer, fuh fuh fuh"

You are a fucking joke.

for the record, my entire post which you did not include was this:

Your premise is total bullshit. He is unfit, and malicious; he is guilty of malfeasance, misfeasance and non feasance. He spends more time playing golf, tweeting attacks on the press, law enforcement and HRC! He spends his days obstructing the investigation on how Russia's cyber attack on America happened and how it can be stopped in the future. He has done nothing to do the job you voted him to do.

He has not done anything to make America Great, in fact he has damaged our brand around the world, and created the most chaotic and divided nation since 1861. On second thought, this is probably what you voted for him to do.

First: I don't see any words and average 9th grader would not understand. Did you complete the 9th grade, or quit school after the 5th?

Second: I'm 6' 2", 230 pounds and have never been called little. Of course you meant that as a personal attack, As a supervisor and as a manager I made sure those in my units got the credit for what they did well, and I took the heat when (rarely) they fucked up. In fact most of those I supervised moved up in the agency, and today the Chief worked for me for a number of years.

Finally: You're an asshole whose knowledge is underwhelming, and whose character is flawed for some reason not explicable.

Actually lets go to a mod and see that you edited your post AFTER I responded to it. That you claim otherwise makes you the gutless prick we all know from your postings. m

You are a small man who uses big words and long winded paragraphs of NOTHING to make yourself seem "smarter".

And admit you edited the post, or I will go to the mods and see what shakes out.

 

[eagle1462010]

You are trying to use mechanism designed to remove a president due to real mental defect or something like a heart attack that puts them in a coma to remove a legally elected sitting president for purely political reasons.

Um, no, the 25th Amendment was put into place SPECIFICALLY for this reason.

The problem is, too many people who KNOW Trump is unfit for the presidency are hoping to advance their own agendas while the rest of us are rubbernecking at the train wreck.

It was never intended to remove a President for political reasons, which in this case is what it would be used for.

You not liking him or his politics does not mean he is unfit.

Yet morons like you still try to promote that narrative, either that you believe it in your addled minds, or you see it as the best method of removing him via coup.

Your premise is total bullshit. He is unfit, and malicious; he is guilty of malfeasance, misfeasance and non freasance.

Here is a Legend.....................







In his OWN MIND............

Take your idiot-gram and stuff it in a hole (if there is room since that is where you head is all the time);

View attachment 183697

Even a bird brain wonders how anyone can remain so ignorant and stuck in denial as do you and the 14 others who claim to believe Trump is competent.

But I suspect you're too dishonest to acknowledge the truth, and the truth is Trump is inept and incompetent; he is obstructing justice and has done nothing to prevent future efforts by foreign powers to influence our elections.

Are you ANGRY.......................

You seem ANGRY that none of us care what you think...............

Should you be in ANGER MANAGEMENT CLASS.........

Or PERHAPS we can schedule you an appointment with a Psychiatrist to get the help you most certainly need.......

 

[Wry Catcher]

Off topic ^^^ though most pols will be characterized in this way, by those with biases.

I doubt very few exhibit the same extreme behaviors and actions taken by Trump since he began his quest to the White House. In my opinion he is unfit to hold the power given to him, and needs to be evaluated by professionals, before he does more damage to our nation and its people.

Of course I'm biased, I don't trust Trump and I've posted many times that I believe he is inept, incompetent, insincere and self serving.

I'm flabbergasted that any patriot supports him and defends him. His treatment of others is horrific, his promises hollow and his concern for others the definition of false pathos.

What is on topic is that these type of diagnoses are only valid based on qualified specialists examining the individual.

That hasn't happened; so all you are doing is maligning someone for political purposes.

there are many psychologists on the record that have diagnosed him based on the very obvious signs that somethin' just ain't right & to totally deny it as if he is normal is both political & a mental illness itself.

psychologists trump - Google Search

Those psychologists are the professional equivalent of the social scientists who opine about Glowball Worming.

Once again you've posted a claim based on you biases as a truth. It is clear you are dishonest, and a hypocrite - Grow up!

Here you go hun, although I doubt you can do the math:


Consider the statement "The IPCC report concluded that there is a human influence on climate. This was
supported by almost 4,000 authors and reviewers." The popular mythology - and one that IPCC never tries to
correct - is that those 4,000 supported the findings but this is an exaggeration on a massive scale because all they
really supported, by virtue of their work, was the creation of the report. The IPCC is allowing, or perhaps even
encouraging, an ambiguity to be misinterpreted, and it's not for the first time either, but I digress.
But how many individuals were involved? Was it 4,000 or some other number?
The IPCC said in its flyer for its Fourth Assessment Report (4AR)
2500+ Scientific Expert Reviewers
800+ Contributing Authors
450+ Lead Authors...
[note 1]
so immediately the figure drops from 4,000 to 3,750. But look a little closer and that figure is not correct either.
Each of the three IPCC Working Groups (WGs) assembles its own lists of authors and reviewers, making six
lists in all. Based on those lists of reviewers and on a previous list of authors that I had already extracted from
the start of each chapter of the report (and each "Summary for Policy makers" and "Technical Summary") the
total number of authors and reviewers for each working group is as follows:
WG I - 595 authors, 624 reviewers
WG II - 400 authors, 1169 reviewers
WG III - 251 authors, 469 reviewers
Based on thee figures the total number of reviewers was 2262 and the number of authors is 1246. The former is
well short of the IPCC's 2500 but the latter is near enough to the claimed 1250.
The IPCC's Synthesis Report is an amalgam of the issues raised by the contributions from the 3 working groups
so authoring of this report is rather like making a summary and one would expect that if a reviewer was serious
about examining the draft IPCC documents then he or she would focus on the working group's contributions.
Let's put that aside for the moment and include the number of authors given in the annexes to the Synthesis
Report - 41 authors and 243 reviewers (one of whom is recorded twice).
That latter figure of 243 is very interesting because the Annex in which they are listed tells us:
Consistent with IPCC Rules and Procedures, the draft SYR was sent for formal review to over
2,400 individual experts as well as to the 193 member governments of the IPCC.
It seems likely that the drafts sent to 193 governments were seen by at least one person and given that no
governments are among the list of reviewers we probably should assume that any reviewers acting on behalf of
their governments are listed under their own name. This leaves us with the question of why the draft of the
Synthesis Report received comments from only 243 reviewers, which is fewer than 10% of the people who were
invited to comment.
At this point the total number of reviewers and authors appear to be 2505 and 1287, both of which are very close
to the IPCC's stated figures, but all is not what it seems to be

(snip)

And now for the remaining breakdown:

Internet web site "Climate Resistance"
[note 4]
has ascertained the qualifications and fields of expertise for the
authors of the contributions from the 3 working groups where those authors are from the USA or United
Kingdom. The following table is a condensed version of its findings about the number of authors from each area
of expertise:
Working Group I
- (303 from the USA or UK)
215 climate science (assumption for all authors associated with 2 key climate institutes in each country)
24 atmospheric physics
27 geophysics or geology
4 statistics
8 mathematics/physics
8 engineering
2 biology/ecology
1 history of science
1 computer science
1 economy
1 agronomy
1 lawyer who claims to also be skilled in oceanography
8 unknown
3

Working Group II
- (121)
10 geophysics, climate science, hydrology or climate modelling
17 earth/atmospheric sciences
2 modelling/statistics
7 geography
6 epidemiology
10 biology/ecology
5 zoology, entomology or biology
5 public health and policy
10 engineers or in insurance and risk management
12 economics
28 social science
1 full-time activist (and 1 part time)
1 website-design
1 network administration
2 administrative assistant
5 unknown
Working Group III
- (66)
14 physics, chemistry or engineering
2 biochemisty or geochemistry
5 forestry ecology, or soil science
4 engineering disciplines
2 law
7 social science
20 economics
12 unknown
Climate Resistance also points out that various of the above people appear to be graduates, PhD candidates or
recent recipients of PhDs, so it's drawing a long bow to claim that they are world experts in their fields.
According to Climate Resistance "... across WGI, II and III, we have a very generous 314 contributors among
the 510 we sampled who can reasonably be described as scientific experts."
If the findings of Climate Resistance are accurate it would mean that much of the report was written by people
with dubious qualifications in the relevant fields. Maybe the IPCC's "2500+ scientific expert reviewers" restore
the credibility of the report but it's difficult to see how that could be because my earlier document
[see note 3]
showed that the number of reviewers for the second draft of any WG I chapter did not exceed 100 and that many
reviewers' comments were rejected. It would seem that the views of those "experts" were often rejected in
favour of the views of authors who may have been less than expert in the subjects they discussed.
It is all very well to claim that the reviewers were experts but can we have faith in the credibility of those
reviewers or were they biased in some way?
Even a quick read of the lists of reviewers shows that many of the 2890 individuals had clear vested interests for
commenting on the IPCC report. If the IPCC report was a recommendation related to financial matters its
authors and reviewers would be expected to declare any pecuniary interest but apparently the IPCC thinks it's
okay not to mention these interests despite its authors and reviewers potentially benefiting from government
policies that are made in light of the IPCC's findings.
Among the authors and reviewers of each component of the IPCC 4AR there were an assortment of universities
that might be receiving funding for research that assumes a human influence on climate, and of course
government and semi-government authorities that are driven by government policies. There were also
representatives from an assortment of other organizations with a strong self-interest in this subject.
The Synthesis Report provides an example of the diversity of partisanship among its reviewers. Some of these
people are clearly associated with specific industries, such as oil (
OMV Exploration and Production
and
Saudi
Aramco
) and the international airline industry (
ICAO
), and perhaps both industries were cautious of the potential
detrimental impacts on their businesses.
4

(snip)

The evidence shows that the claim of "4000 scientific experts supported the IPCC's claims" is dishonest in
almost every word. There were
not
4000 people, but just under 2900; they were
not
all scientists; and it seems
that they were
not
all experts. There is only evidence that about 60 people explicitly supported the claim,
although that might not mean much given the vested interests and lack of impartiality of many authors and
reviewers. As mentioned at the start of this document the "support" can only be said to apply to the document as
a whole and is by virtue of the input of authors and reviewers.
Perhaps the claim of 4000 scientific experts supporting the IPCC is a popular but false interpretation of the
IPCC's statements, but if that is the case then the IPCC's failure to correct that error only serves to tarnish its
reputation even further.

http://mclean.ch/climate/docs/IPCC_numbers.pdf

Now go to the working group lists and add up all the social scientists, economist, lawyers - iow non-climate-physics-geo scientists/engineers. That amount totals more than the 60 actual people who supported the report. The only reason for them to be involved was to suck up funding, so of course they supported the IPCC.

Wow, you should run for the US Senate, I bet the oil companies will bankroll you!

Climate misinformer: John McLean

Your boy didn't even make the top 10!

Before the Flood - Top 10 Climate Deniers

 

[eagle1462010]

Trump Isn't Crazy

Trump's consensus diagnosis among amateur, at-a-distance diagnosticians is Narcissistic Personality Disorder. They have reviewed the DSM definition (which I wrote) and found him to meet all the criteria: grandiose self-importance; preoccupations with being brilliant and successful; feeling special and having to hang out with special people; requiring constant admiration; feeling entitled; being exploitive; lacking empathy; being envious; and being arrogant. Bingo. Trump is all this in spades.

But they ignore the further requirement that is crucial in defining all mental disorders—the behaviors also must cause clinically significant distress or impairment.

Trump is clearly a man singularly without distress and his behaviors consistently reap him fame, fortune, women, and now political power. He has been generously rewarded, not at all impaired by it.

Trump isn't crazy.

The psychiatrists and psychologists who are now publicly diagnosing Trump feel compelled by the higher call of national interest to break any restrictions against diagnosis at a distance. But the argument fails because their diagnosis is poorly informed and simply wrong.

Please stop calling Trump mentally ill and please stop talking about psychiatric evaluations or impeachment. This embarrasses us more than it does Trump. And the people around Trump are even more dangerous than he in the long run.

 

[boedicca]

What is on topic is that these type of diagnoses are only valid based on qualified specialists examining the individual.

That hasn't happened; so all you are doing is maligning someone for political purposes.

there are many psychologists on the record that have diagnosed him based on the very obvious signs that somethin' just ain't right & to totally deny it as if he is normal is both political & a mental illness itself.

psychologists trump - Google Search

Those psychologists are the professional equivalent of the social scientists who opine about Glowball Worming.

Once again you've posted a claim based on you biases as a truth. It is clear you are dishonest, and a hypocrite - Grow up!

Here you go hun, although I doubt you can do the math:


Consider the statement "The IPCC report concluded that there is a human influence on climate. This was
supported by almost 4,000 authors and reviewers." The popular mythology - and one that IPCC never tries to
correct - is that those 4,000 supported the findings but this is an exaggeration on a massive scale because all they
really supported, by virtue of their work, was the creation of the report. The IPCC is allowing, or perhaps even
encouraging, an ambiguity to be misinterpreted, and it's not for the first time either, but I digress.
But how many individuals were involved? Was it 4,000 or some other number?
The IPCC said in its flyer for its Fourth Assessment Report (4AR)
2500+ Scientific Expert Reviewers
800+ Contributing Authors
450+ Lead Authors...
[note 1]
so immediately the figure drops from 4,000 to 3,750. But look a little closer and that figure is not correct either.
Each of the three IPCC Working Groups (WGs) assembles its own lists of authors and reviewers, making six
lists in all. Based on those lists of reviewers and on a previous list of authors that I had already extracted from
the start of each chapter of the report (and each "Summary for Policy makers" and "Technical Summary") the
total number of authors and reviewers for each working group is as follows:
WG I - 595 authors, 624 reviewers
WG II - 400 authors, 1169 reviewers
WG III - 251 authors, 469 reviewers
Based on thee figures the total number of reviewers was 2262 and the number of authors is 1246. The former is
well short of the IPCC's 2500 but the latter is near enough to the claimed 1250.
The IPCC's Synthesis Report is an amalgam of the issues raised by the contributions from the 3 working groups
so authoring of this report is rather like making a summary and one would expect that if a reviewer was serious
about examining the draft IPCC documents then he or she would focus on the working group's contributions.
Let's put that aside for the moment and include the number of authors given in the annexes to the Synthesis
Report - 41 authors and 243 reviewers (one of whom is recorded twice).
That latter figure of 243 is very interesting because the Annex in which they are listed tells us:
Consistent with IPCC Rules and Procedures, the draft SYR was sent for formal review to over
2,400 individual experts as well as to the 193 member governments of the IPCC.
It seems likely that the drafts sent to 193 governments were seen by at least one person and given that no
governments are among the list of reviewers we probably should assume that any reviewers acting on behalf of
their governments are listed under their own name. This leaves us with the question of why the draft of the
Synthesis Report received comments from only 243 reviewers, which is fewer than 10% of the people who were
invited to comment.
At this point the total number of reviewers and authors appear to be 2505 and 1287, both of which are very close
to the IPCC's stated figures, but all is not what it seems to be

(snip)

And now for the remaining breakdown:

Internet web site "Climate Resistance"
[note 4]
has ascertained the qualifications and fields of expertise for the
authors of the contributions from the 3 working groups where those authors are from the USA or United
Kingdom. The following table is a condensed version of its findings about the number of authors from each area
of expertise:
Working Group I
- (303 from the USA or UK)
215 climate science (assumption for all authors associated with 2 key climate institutes in each country)
24 atmospheric physics
27 geophysics or geology
4 statistics
8 mathematics/physics
8 engineering
2 biology/ecology
1 history of science
1 computer science
1 economy
1 agronomy
1 lawyer who claims to also be skilled in oceanography
8 unknown
3

Working Group II
- (121)
10 geophysics, climate science, hydrology or climate modelling
17 earth/atmospheric sciences
2 modelling/statistics
7 geography
6 epidemiology
10 biology/ecology
5 zoology, entomology or biology
5 public health and policy
10 engineers or in insurance and risk management
12 economics
28 social science
1 full-time activist (and 1 part time)
1 website-design
1 network administration
2 administrative assistant
5 unknown
Working Group III
- (66)
14 physics, chemistry or engineering
2 biochemisty or geochemistry
5 forestry ecology, or soil science
4 engineering disciplines
2 law
7 social science
20 economics
12 unknown
Climate Resistance also points out that various of the above people appear to be graduates, PhD candidates or
recent recipients of PhDs, so it's drawing a long bow to claim that they are world experts in their fields.
According to Climate Resistance "... across WGI, II and III, we have a very generous 314 contributors among
the 510 we sampled who can reasonably be described as scientific experts."
If the findings of Climate Resistance are accurate it would mean that much of the report was written by people
with dubious qualifications in the relevant fields. Maybe the IPCC's "2500+ scientific expert reviewers" restore
the credibility of the report but it's difficult to see how that could be because my earlier document
[see note 3]
showed that the number of reviewers for the second draft of any WG I chapter did not exceed 100 and that many
reviewers' comments were rejected. It would seem that the views of those "experts" were often rejected in
favour of the views of authors who may have been less than expert in the subjects they discussed.
It is all very well to claim that the reviewers were experts but can we have faith in the credibility of those
reviewers or were they biased in some way?
Even a quick read of the lists of reviewers shows that many of the 2890 individuals had clear vested interests for
commenting on the IPCC report. If the IPCC report was a recommendation related to financial matters its
authors and reviewers would be expected to declare any pecuniary interest but apparently the IPCC thinks it's
okay not to mention these interests despite its authors and reviewers potentially benefiting from government
policies that are made in light of the IPCC's findings.
Among the authors and reviewers of each component of the IPCC 4AR there were an assortment of universities
that might be receiving funding for research that assumes a human influence on climate, and of course
government and semi-government authorities that are driven by government policies. There were also
representatives from an assortment of other organizations with a strong self-interest in this subject.
The Synthesis Report provides an example of the diversity of partisanship among its reviewers. Some of these
people are clearly associated with specific industries, such as oil (
OMV Exploration and Production
and
Saudi
Aramco
) and the international airline industry (
ICAO
), and perhaps both industries were cautious of the potential
detrimental impacts on their businesses.
4

(snip)

The evidence shows that the claim of "4000 scientific experts supported the IPCC's claims" is dishonest in
almost every word. There were
not
4000 people, but just under 2900; they were
not
all scientists; and it seems
that they were
not
all experts. There is only evidence that about 60 people explicitly supported the claim,
although that might not mean much given the vested interests and lack of impartiality of many authors and
reviewers. As mentioned at the start of this document the "support" can only be said to apply to the document as
a whole and is by virtue of the input of authors and reviewers.
Perhaps the claim of 4000 scientific experts supporting the IPCC is a popular but false interpretation of the
IPCC's statements, but if that is the case then the IPCC's failure to correct that error only serves to tarnish its
reputation even further.

http://mclean.ch/climate/docs/IPCC_numbers.pdf

Now go to the working group lists and add up all the social scientists, economist, lawyers - iow non-climate-physics-geo scientists/engineers. That amount totals more than the 60 actual people who supported the report. The only reason for them to be involved was to suck up funding, so of course they supported the IPCC.

Wow, you should run for the US Senate, I bet the oil companies will bankroll you!

Climate misinformer: John McLean

Your boy didn't even make the top 10!

Before the Flood - Top 10 Climate Deniers

Here's a wee clue: if you don't already have a fur coat, buy a good used one on EBay before the Great Global Cooling is widely understood.

 

[JoeB131]

It was never intended to remove a President for political reasons, which in this case is what it would be used for.

You not liking him or his politics does not mean he is unfit.

No, his senility, general stupidity and mental instability is what makes him unfit.

Yet morons like you still try to promote that narrative, either that you believe it in your addled minds, or you see it as the best method of removing him via coup.

This is a guy who fires his secretary of state via Tweet. Right before he is supposed to go into nuclear negotiations with another power.

The 25th Amendment was designed for EXACTLY this contingency. The problem is, the GOP will resist it until Trump has driven their party and the country over the cliff.

 

[JoeB131]

Actually lets go to a mod and see that you edited your post AFTER I responded to it. That you claim otherwise makes you the gutless prick we all know from your postings. m

You are a small man who uses big words and long winded paragraphs of NOTHING to make yourself seem "smarter".

And admit you edited the post, or I will go to the mods and see what shakes out.

Wow, Marty, you are spending a lot of time whining to the Mods...