Trump's Mental Health- We need to keep talking about this

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Yes, you are clearly more biased. You call me biased for relating the opinion of doctors, while you reject it out of jand based on nothing but your preconceptions. Yes, it is you who are more biased.

I don't listen to quacks..

and a doctor that claims to be able to diagnose someone from tv appearances is a

They're all quacks, eh? Haha...all doctors who give opinions you dont like are quacks, now. But no bias...no sir...

...all doctors who give opinions you dont like are quacks, now.

Didn't say that, did I?

I said doctors that make a diagnosis based on sound bytes and television appearances are quacks.

By your deflection, and lies, it's obvious you're running out of legs to stand on

That wasnt a deflection or a lie. You somehow know they are quacks, and you are obviously lying to state that the idea should be rejected out of hand for this. That is clearly not why you reject it. I doubt you even fool yourself with that hilariously transparent lie.

Obviously, when so many trained prpfessionals speak out, they are not all incompetent quacks. And tge APA does not strictly disagree that certain disorders CAN, in fact, be diagnosed from afar. They just dont think it should be done, in order to keep their field from being polticized.

But, somehow, you know better than the APA and the doctors. Haha, no. You're a Trumpkins, and you will say literally ANYTHING to dismiss this historical amount of criticism. He has turned your brain to tapioca.

You are the king of fallacious arguments, dude.

Sure. You just dont feel like saying why they are fallacious. We hear ya.

 

[OffensivelyOpenMinded]

I don't listen to quacks..

and a doctor that claims to be able to diagnose someone from tv appearances is a

They're all quacks, eh? Haha...all doctors who give opinions you dont like are quacks, now. But no bias...no sir...

...all doctors who give opinions you dont like are quacks, now.

Didn't say that, did I?

I said doctors that make a diagnosis based on sound bytes and television appearances are quacks.

By your deflection, and lies, it's obvious you're running out of legs to stand on

That wasnt a deflection or a lie. You somehow know they are quacks, and you are obviously lying to state that the idea should be rejected out of hand for this. That is clearly not why you reject it. I doubt you even fool yourself with that hilariously transparent lie.

Obviously, when so many trained prpfessionals speak out, they are not all incompetent quacks. And tge APA does not strictly disagree that certain disorders CAN, in fact, be diagnosed from afar. They just dont think it should be done, in order to keep their field from being polticized.

But, somehow, you know better than the APA and the doctors. Haha, no. You're a Trumpkins, and you will say literally ANYTHING to dismiss this historical amount of criticism. He has turned your brain to tapioca.

You are the king of fallacious arguments, dude.

Sure. You just dont feel like saying why. We hear ya.

Appeals to authority rather than arguing against the points he laid out.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

There are no mental health issues other than immature liberals being unable to accept the results of an election
The rest is shit slinging by a bunch who simply have failed to grow up and be of value to society

Pathologically lying is, in fact, a clinical, mental health issue. And doing it when you know everyone knows you are lying adds delusion to the mix.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

They're all quacks, eh? Haha...all doctors who give opinions you dont like are quacks, now. But no bias...no sir...

...all doctors who give opinions you dont like are quacks, now.

Didn't say that, did I?

I said doctors that make a diagnosis based on sound bytes and television appearances are quacks.

By your deflection, and lies, it's obvious you're running out of legs to stand on

That wasnt a deflection or a lie. You somehow know they are quacks, and you are obviously lying to state that the idea should be rejected out of hand for this. That is clearly not why you reject it. I doubt you even fool yourself with that hilariously transparent lie.

Obviously, when so many trained prpfessionals speak out, they are not all incompetent quacks. And tge APA does not strictly disagree that certain disorders CAN, in fact, be diagnosed from afar. They just dont think it should be done, in order to keep their field from being polticized.

But, somehow, you know better than the APA and the doctors. Haha, no. You're a Trumpkins, and you will say literally ANYTHING to dismiss this historical amount of criticism. He has turned your brain to tapioca.

You are the king of fallacious arguments, dude.

Sure. You just dont feel like saying why. We hear ya.

Appeals to authority rather than arguing against the points he laid out.

100% wrong, as anyone can read. I specifically delineated the fact that the APA and actual psychologists do not say these things cannot be diagnosed from afar, but rather that they SHOULDN'T. That speaks directly to a person with zero education or experience in this field saying they are wrong about this idea, and wrong about their diagnosis. It doesn't get anymore direct than that. So spare me.

And if you would like to call that argument to authority, be my guest. If you are feeling so smart and special, go ahead and debate it with one of the professionals. Nobody is stoppong you, except for your fragile ego, which will take quite the hit when you are not insulated by this clearinghouse of right wing jackoffs.

 

[OffensivelyOpenMinded]

Didn't say that, did I?

I said doctors that make a diagnosis based on sound bytes and television appearances are quacks.

By your deflection, and lies, it's obvious you're running out of legs to stand on

That wasnt a deflection or a lie. You somehow know they are quacks, and you are obviously lying to state that the idea should be rejected out of hand for this. That is clearly not why you reject it. I doubt you even fool yourself with that hilariously transparent lie.

Obviously, when so many trained prpfessionals speak out, they are not all incompetent quacks. And tge APA does not strictly disagree that certain disorders CAN, in fact, be diagnosed from afar. They just dont think it should be done, in order to keep their field from being polticized.

But, somehow, you know better than the APA and the doctors. Haha, no. You're a Trumpkins, and you will say literally ANYTHING to dismiss this historical amount of criticism. He has turned your brain to tapioca.

You are the king of fallacious arguments, dude.

Sure. You just dont feel like saying why. We hear ya.

Appeals to authority rather than arguing against the points he laid out.

100% wrong, as anyone can read. I specifically delineated the fact that the APA and actual psychologists do not say these things cannot be diagnosed from afar, but rather that they SHOULDN'T. That speaks directly to a person with zero education or experience in this field saying they are wrong about this idea, and wrong about their diagnosis. It doesn't get anymore direct than that. So spare me.

Do you even know what an appeal to authority fallacy is?

 

[Auld Phart]

Didn't say that, did I?

I said doctors that make a diagnosis based on sound bytes and television appearances are quacks.

By your deflection, and lies, it's obvious you're running out of legs to stand on

That wasnt a deflection or a lie. You somehow know they are quacks, and you are obviously lying to state that the idea should be rejected out of hand for this. That is clearly not why you reject it. I doubt you even fool yourself with that hilariously transparent lie.

Obviously, when so many trained prpfessionals speak out, they are not all incompetent quacks. And tge APA does not strictly disagree that certain disorders CAN, in fact, be diagnosed from afar. They just dont think it should be done, in order to keep their field from being polticized.

But, somehow, you know better than the APA and the doctors. Haha, no. You're a Trumpkins, and you will say literally ANYTHING to dismiss this historical amount of criticism. He has turned your brain to tapioca.

You are the king of fallacious arguments, dude.

Sure. You just dont feel like saying why. We hear ya.

Appeals to authority rather than arguing against the points he laid out.

100% wrong, as anyone can read. I specifically delineated the fact that the APA and actual psychologists do not say these things cannot be diagnosed from afar, but rather that they SHOULDN'T. That speaks directly to a person with zero education or experience in this field saying they are wrong about this idea, and wrong about their diagnosis. It doesn't get anymore direct than that. So spare me.

, but rather that they SHOULDN'T.

nuff said

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

That wasnt a deflection or a lie. You somehow know they are quacks, and you are obviously lying to state that the idea should be rejected out of hand for this. That is clearly not why you reject it. I doubt you even fool yourself with that hilariously transparent lie.

Obviously, when so many trained prpfessionals speak out, they are not all incompetent quacks. And tge APA does not strictly disagree that certain disorders CAN, in fact, be diagnosed from afar. They just dont think it should be done, in order to keep their field from being polticized.

But, somehow, you know better than the APA and the doctors. Haha, no. You're a Trumpkins, and you will say literally ANYTHING to dismiss this historical amount of criticism. He has turned your brain to tapioca.

You are the king of fallacious arguments, dude.

Sure. You just dont feel like saying why. We hear ya.

Appeals to authority rather than arguing against the points he laid out.

100% wrong, as anyone can read. I specifically delineated the fact that the APA and actual psychologists do not say these things cannot be diagnosed from afar, but rather that they SHOULDN'T. That speaks directly to a person with zero education or experience in this field saying they are wrong about this idea, and wrong about their diagnosis. It doesn't get anymore direct than that. So spare me.

Do you even know what an appeal to authority fallacy is?

I do. But I also know it is not necessarily a fallacy, when the authority is real, and the matter in question is one of opinion decided by tgose with the authority.

By the way, when you are done nipping at my ankles, you might want to teach the other guy what an argument is. Apparently, he thinks it means repeating the same, authoritative declaration over nand over.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

That wasnt a deflection or a lie. You somehow know they are quacks, and you are obviously lying to state that the idea should be rejected out of hand for this. That is clearly not why you reject it. I doubt you even fool yourself with that hilariously transparent lie.

Obviously, when so many trained prpfessionals speak out, they are not all incompetent quacks. And tge APA does not strictly disagree that certain disorders CAN, in fact, be diagnosed from afar. They just dont think it should be done, in order to keep their field from being polticized.

But, somehow, you know better than the APA and the doctors. Haha, no. You're a Trumpkins, and you will say literally ANYTHING to dismiss this historical amount of criticism. He has turned your brain to tapioca.

You are the king of fallacious arguments, dude.

Sure. You just dont feel like saying why. We hear ya.

Appeals to authority rather than arguing against the points he laid out.

100% wrong, as anyone can read. I specifically delineated the fact that the APA and actual psychologists do not say these things cannot be diagnosed from afar, but rather that they SHOULDN'T. That speaks directly to a person with zero education or experience in this field saying they are wrong about this idea, and wrong about their diagnosis. It doesn't get anymore direct than that. So spare me.

, but rather that they SHOULDN'T.

nuff said

No, not "'nuff said", because we are speaking about the truth value of what they are saying, not the ethics of saying it in the first place. Keep up!

 

[Auld Phart]

You are the king of fallacious arguments, dude.

Sure. You just dont feel like saying why. We hear ya.

Appeals to authority rather than arguing against the points he laid out.

100% wrong, as anyone can read. I specifically delineated the fact that the APA and actual psychologists do not say these things cannot be diagnosed from afar, but rather that they SHOULDN'T. That speaks directly to a person with zero education or experience in this field saying they are wrong about this idea, and wrong about their diagnosis. It doesn't get anymore direct than that. So spare me.

, but rather that they SHOULDN'T.

nuff said

No, not "'nuff said", because we are speaking about the truth value of what they are saying, not the ethics of saying it in the first place. Keep up!

true value?

if it had 'true value', they'd have no problem publishing their 'results', would they?

If it had 'true value', they'd publish articles on Trumps multitude of mental illnesses, in publications reviewed by their peers.

If it had 'true value', they, themselves, would be calling for his impeachment for being unfit, under article 25.

Sorry bud...

this has as much standing as their predictions on what play a quarterback is going to call next.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Sure. You just dont feel like saying why. We hear ya.

Appeals to authority rather than arguing against the points he laid out.

100% wrong, as anyone can read. I specifically delineated the fact that the APA and actual psychologists do not say these things cannot be diagnosed from afar, but rather that they SHOULDN'T. That speaks directly to a person with zero education or experience in this field saying they are wrong about this idea, and wrong about their diagnosis. It doesn't get anymore direct than that. So spare me.

, but rather that they SHOULDN'T.

nuff said

No, not "'nuff said", because we are speaking about the truth value of what they are saying, not the ethics of saying it in the first place. Keep up!

true value?

if it had 'true value', they'd have no problem publishing their 'results', would they?

If it had 'true value', they'd publish articles on Trumps multitude of mental illnesses, in publications reviewed by their peers.

If it had 'true value', they, themselves, would be calling for his impeachment for being unfit, under article 25.

Sorry bud...

this has as much standing as their predictions on what play a quarterback is going to call next.

Not 'true value'...."TRUTH value". As in, is it true or false?

And you could only claim that the legion of psychologists breaking with a decades old ethics standard to speak out has "no standing". And you only say something so ridiculous because of your bias.

 

[Auld Phart]

Appeals to authority rather than arguing against the points he laid out.

100% wrong, as anyone can read. I specifically delineated the fact that the APA and actual psychologists do not say these things cannot be diagnosed from afar, but rather that they SHOULDN'T. That speaks directly to a person with zero education or experience in this field saying they are wrong about this idea, and wrong about their diagnosis. It doesn't get anymore direct than that. So spare me.

, but rather that they SHOULDN'T.

nuff said

No, not "'nuff said", because we are speaking about the truth value of what they are saying, not the ethics of saying it in the first place. Keep up!

true value?

if it had 'true value', they'd have no problem publishing their 'results', would they?

If it had 'true value', they'd publish articles on Trumps multitude of mental illnesses, in publications reviewed by their peers.

If it had 'true value', they, themselves, would be calling for his impeachment for being unfit, under article 25.

Sorry bud...

this has as much standing as their predictions on what play a quarterback is going to call next.

Not 'true value'...."TRUTH value". As in, is it true or false?

And you could only claim that the legion of psychologists breaking with a decades old ethics standard to speak out has "no standing". And you only say something so ridiculous because of your bias.

is it true or false?

what a silly fucking question.

How can it be the truth, if they dont' talk to the man?

giving an opinion on his mental health based on what they see on tv is the epitome of a false diagnosis.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

Yes there have been other threads on this topic. Unfortunatly they have all fallaen by the wayside. Here are two:

New Bill Would Require Trump To Undergo Mental Health Evaluation

Why We Must Talk About Trump’s Mental Health

People have a short attention span and that is not good This is a subject that must not be ignored least we wake up to a once great nation the we no longer reccognize, or worse. Not convinced?? You might want to start with this:



Fortunatly, not all law makers are asleep at the switch on this:

Lawmaker Urges Trump's Cabinet To Have Him Undergo Mental Health Evaluation | HuffPost

A new resolution introduced in the House of Representatives would encourage the vice president and the Cabinet to have President Donald Trump undergo a physical and mental health exam to determine if he is stable enough to stay in office.

Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.) introduced the resolution on Friday. Should the results of said exam be unfavorable, the resolution calls for Vice President Mike Pence and members of the Cabinet to remove Trump from office.

The move would invoke the 25th Amendment, a rarely used constitutional provision that allows the vice president and a majority of Cabinet members to jointly remove the president from office and replace him with the vice president.

In April, A bill was introduced in the House to pt teeth in the 25th Amendment on Presidential Disability and Succession

Text - H.R.2093 - 115th Congress (2017-2018): Strengthening and Clarifying the 25th Amendment Act of 2017

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
April 14, 2017

Mr. Blumenauer introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL
To provide for an alternative body to transmit a written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office in accordance with the provisions of the 25th Amendment of the Constitution.

Lawmakers are clearly concerned
And now...This just in:

Democrats Are Calling Psychologists To Talk About Trump's Mental Health

member of the House Intelligence Committee is going where many of her colleagues have not: reaching out to people in the mental health field to talk about President Donald Trump.
“It’s one thing from my non-professional, non-clinical standpoint [to] believe that someone does not have the capacity to do the job, it’s another thing to talk to experts and [those] who can deal with mental psychosis on a daily basis, so I wanted to hear from them,” Rep. Jackie Speier, a California Democrat, told BuzzFeed News.

NO SANE OR RESPONSIBLE PERSON SHOULD WANT THIS MADNESS TO CONTINUE !

Study up on Separation of Powers. The only ones needing a mental health evaluation are liberals trying to remove Trump from Office and thinking they can write a law. First of all, its only a Bill until the President makes it a Law by signing it.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

100% wrong, as anyone can read. I specifically delineated the fact that the APA and actual psychologists do not say these things cannot be diagnosed from afar, but rather that they SHOULDN'T. That speaks directly to a person with zero education or experience in this field saying they are wrong about this idea, and wrong about their diagnosis. It doesn't get anymore direct than that. So spare me.

, but rather that they SHOULDN'T.

nuff said

No, not "'nuff said", because we are speaking about the truth value of what they are saying, not the ethics of saying it in the first place. Keep up!

true value?

if it had 'true value', they'd have no problem publishing their 'results', would they?

If it had 'true value', they'd publish articles on Trumps multitude of mental illnesses, in publications reviewed by their peers.

If it had 'true value', they, themselves, would be calling for his impeachment for being unfit, under article 25.

Sorry bud...

this has as much standing as their predictions on what play a quarterback is going to call next.

Not 'true value'...."TRUTH value". As in, is it true or false?

And you could only claim that the legion of psychologists breaking with a decades old ethics standard to speak out has "no standing". And you only say something so ridiculous because of your bias.

is it true or false?

was a silly fucking question.

How can it be the truth, if they dont' talk to the man?

giving an opinion on his mental health based on what they see on tv is the epitome of a false diagnosis.

Because it can be discerned from the things he says. Which, in case it didn't occur to you, is what would happen if he talked to them.

They are clearly saying it is so blatantly obvious, that they have a "duty to warn".

You call it "false" ( but that's not silly at all, because...hey, look over there, a shiny object!) without even a cursory attempt to examine their reasoning. That is clearly bias on your part, and it is irrational.

 

[Auld Phart]

nuff said

No, not "'nuff said", because we are speaking about the truth value of what they are saying, not the ethics of saying it in the first place. Keep up!

true value?

if it had 'true value', they'd have no problem publishing their 'results', would they?

If it had 'true value', they'd publish articles on Trumps multitude of mental illnesses, in publications reviewed by their peers.

If it had 'true value', they, themselves, would be calling for his impeachment for being unfit, under article 25.

Sorry bud...

this has as much standing as their predictions on what play a quarterback is going to call next.

Not 'true value'...."TRUTH value". As in, is it true or false?

And you could only claim that the legion of psychologists breaking with a decades old ethics standard to speak out has "no standing". And you only say something so ridiculous because of your bias.

is it true or false?

was a silly fucking question.

How can it be the truth, if they dont' talk to the man?

giving an opinion on his mental health based on what they see on tv is the epitome of a false diagnosis.

Because it can be discerned from the things he says. Which, in case it didn't occur to you, is what would happen if he talked to them.

They are clearly saying it is so blatantly obvious, that they have a "duty to warn".

You call it "false" ( but that's not silly at all, because...hey, look over there, a shiny object!) without even a cursory attempt to examine their reasoning. That is clearly bias on your part, and it is irrational.

Because it can be discerned from the things he says

his 'public' persona.

if they want to diagnose his mental health, they need to examine his private persona.

'Public' persona is an act.

'Private' persona is the person.

(psst, that goes for anyone)

which is why I laugh at you, and them.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

Liberals can't name any lies Trump has said.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

No, not "'nuff said", because we are speaking about the truth value of what they are saying, not the ethics of saying it in the first place. Keep up!

true value?

if it had 'true value', they'd have no problem publishing their 'results', would they?

If it had 'true value', they'd publish articles on Trumps multitude of mental illnesses, in publications reviewed by their peers.

If it had 'true value', they, themselves, would be calling for his impeachment for being unfit, under article 25.

Sorry bud...

this has as much standing as their predictions on what play a quarterback is going to call next.

Not 'true value'...."TRUTH value". As in, is it true or false?

And you could only claim that the legion of psychologists breaking with a decades old ethics standard to speak out has "no standing". And you only say something so ridiculous because of your bias.

is it true or false?

was a silly fucking question.

How can it be the truth, if they dont' talk to the man?

giving an opinion on his mental health based on what they see on tv is the epitome of a false diagnosis.

Because it can be discerned from the things he says. Which, in case it didn't occur to you, is what would happen if he talked to them.

They are clearly saying it is so blatantly obvious, that they have a "duty to warn".

You call it "false" ( but that's not silly at all, because...hey, look over there, a shiny object!) without even a cursory attempt to examine their reasoning. That is clearly bias on your part, and it is irrational.

Because it can be discerned from the things he says

his 'public' persona.

if they want to diagnose his mental health, they need to examine his private persona.

'Public' persona is an act.

'Private' persona is the person.

(psst, that goes for anyone)

which is why I laugh at you, and them.

See, that's another place you're probably wrong. It appars that Trump cannot even help himself. He doesn't seem to be able to string together coherent thoughts, and his reactions are predictable and compulsive.

Believe it or not, the people who have dedicated their lives to this science actually thought of that before you did. Shocking, I know. You might want to consider reading what they are writing, so you don't stay 10 steps behind through the entire national discussion.

 

[OffensivelyOpenMinded]

The APA has been politicized for quite some time, so their ranks have been dwindling in numbers, Fort Fun. If the majority of non-APA affiliated psychiatrists disagreed with the APA, what would you say?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The APA has been politicized for quite some time, so their ranks have been dwindling in numbers, Fort Fun. If the majority of non-APA affiliated psychiatrists disagreed with the APA, what would you say?

Disagreed with the APA....about what?

 

[OffensivelyOpenMinded]

The APA has been politicized for quite some time, so their ranks have been dwindling in numbers, Fort Fun. If the majority of non-APA affiliated psychiatrists disagreed with the APA, what would you say?

Disagreed with the APA....about what?

Now you want to play dumb.

 

[Auld Phart]

true value?

if it had 'true value', they'd have no problem publishing their 'results', would they?

If it had 'true value', they'd publish articles on Trumps multitude of mental illnesses, in publications reviewed by their peers.

If it had 'true value', they, themselves, would be calling for his impeachment for being unfit, under article 25.

Sorry bud...

this has as much standing as their predictions on what play a quarterback is going to call next.

Not 'true value'...."TRUTH value". As in, is it true or false?

And you could only claim that the legion of psychologists breaking with a decades old ethics standard to speak out has "no standing". And you only say something so ridiculous because of your bias.

is it true or false?

was a silly fucking question.

How can it be the truth, if they dont' talk to the man?

giving an opinion on his mental health based on what they see on tv is the epitome of a false diagnosis.

Because it can be discerned from the things he says. Which, in case it didn't occur to you, is what would happen if he talked to them.

They are clearly saying it is so blatantly obvious, that they have a "duty to warn".

You call it "false" ( but that's not silly at all, because...hey, look over there, a shiny object!) without even a cursory attempt to examine their reasoning. That is clearly bias on your part, and it is irrational.

Because it can be discerned from the things he says

his 'public' persona.

if they want to diagnose his mental health, they need to examine his private persona.

'Public' persona is an act.

'Private' persona is the person.

(psst, that goes for anyone)

which is why I laugh at you, and them.

See, that's another place you're probably wrong. It appars that Trump cannot even help himself. He doesn't seem to be able to string together coherent thoughts, and his reactions are predictable and compulsive.

Believe it or not, the people who have dedicated their lives to this science actually thought of that before you did. Shocking, I know. You might want to consider reading what they are writing, so you don't stay 10 steps behind through the entire national discussion.

Can't get you into online classes for Common Sense University,

also can't seem to get you to think for yourself.

you need both