#DiagnoseTrump

[Shadow Wolf]

Second, it takes the election power of the people and marginalizes it in lieu of restrictions the citizens may not agree with.

There are many things where it shouldn't matter what the citizens agree with or not. Science is outside of the realm of democracy. LBGT rights should not be up for a vote by the populace. In reality, we need various restrictions, and far more than we have now (such as, only those with a background and experience in education should be in positions of authority over education; likewise for science). A good example is Trump's appointment of DeVos for education secretary, and she should be barred from this position given her complete and total lack of experience with public education.

 

[Parchment]

The numbers I doubt are that high (or indicate anything more than they vote Democrat, probably and most likely over social issues), but with those fields, inherently the practitioners are going to have, for the most part, at least a socially Left-leaning inclination given they don't get the luxury telling gays they are wrong, poor people they are lazy bums who just need to try harder, or that immigrants are a blight on society. Much like how a doctor does not get to pick and choose their patients, but with psychology and psychiatry there is a tendency to work directly with the people Conservatives often condemn, fight against, and strip the rights of.

John Harvey Kellogg was a democrat, Graduated from the New York University School of Medicine, ran Battle Creek Sanitarium, advocated abstinence, liked yogurt enemas and mutilated young children's genitals so they would find sexual activity painful and wouldn't masturbate. Another shining example of where the measure of an enlightened mind is just a few letters and dots on a page.

 

[Revoltingest]

What does that tell ya?

That posters are prone to making up statistics ad hoc?

 

[Quetzal]

That posters are prone to making up statistics ad hoc?

Oh, I was expecting you to say that democrats were the super smart ones! I thought I had ya!

 

[Quetzal]

Do we actually know who Donald Trump is?

Fair point.

 

[Revoltingest]

Oh, I was expecting you to say that democrats were the super smart ones! I thought I had ya!

Did you actually believe my statistics?

 

[Quetzal]

There are many things where it shouldn't matter what the citizens agree with or not. Science is outside of the realm of democracy. LBGT rights should not be up for a vote by the populace. In reality, we need various restrictions, and far more than we have now (such as, only those with a background and experience in education should be in positions of authority over education; likewise for science). A good example is Trump's appointment of DeVos for education secretary, and she should be barred from this position given her complete and total lack of experience with public education.

I agree with you but let me re-emphasize my primary hesitation. In a perfect world would this work? Sure. But the question becomes how would this be implemented? I still see the possibility of abuse outweighing any potential rewards from it given our current political environment.

 

[Quetzal]

Did you actually believe my statistics?

Well, like I always say, there are three types of people in this world. Those who can do math and those who can't.

 

[Kuzcotopia]

It shouldn't be. We should expect, and have, our candidates to be of sound mind, educated, and free of potentially dangerous characteristics.

Well, it's the job of the electorate. Based on the polls, more disapprove of Trump than any other candidate. His polarizing appointments and lack of priority (twitter feuds and victory tours over intelligence briefings, for instance) won't add any more to his fold.

I do not think we need the seal of approval from psychologists. The process should have taken care of this. But the clear majority of decent, sane people in this country simply didn't come out to vote for a flawed, centrist candidate.

I hope this is a lesson learned for a generation. In 2020, we'll nominate an actual liberal to run against Trump, and we'll win.

 

[YmirGF]

In my mind, what would be the honest point? Trump supporters would excuse it, Trump condemners would whine about it and the end result would remain the same regardless.

I tend to agree. How many would accept a given psychiatric panel's findings? Like real people, psychiatrists are all over the board, from a mental health perspective too.

 

[Quetzal]

Well, it's the job of the electorate. Based on the polls, more disapprove of Trump than any other candidate. His polarizing appointments and lack of priority (twitter feuds and victory tours over intelligence briefings, for instance) won't add any more to his fold.

I do not think we need the seal of approval from psychologists. The process should have taken care of this. But the clear majority of decent, sane people in this country simply didn't come out to vote for a flawed, centrist candidate.

I hope this is a lesson learned for a generation. In 2020, we'll nominate an actual liberal to run against Trump, and we'll win.

This is a good post. We need to stop dwelling on what appears to be a certainty and work on local levels to help promote more viable candidates in the future.

 

[YmirGF]

I take your point but the man is getting the nuclear launch codes. Thats bigger than party politics and given his behaviour up to this point, I think anyone getting orders from Trump would like to know he's mentally sound to make those decisions. Admittedly its a conversation I don't want to have though because it shouldn't be an issue in the first place on top of the privacy issues even for someone holding public office.

Do we actually know who Donald Trump is? Given the amount of lying thats been going on, we haven't exactly vetted this guy properly. Its a massive failure of the democratic process that we are even in this situation at all.

I can just imagine the HOWLS of protest that would have occurred had anyone suggested this about the Hildebeast or Trump. Losers really need to get over their little selves.

 

[Quetzal]

I tend to agree. How many would accept a given psychiatric panel's findings? Like real people, psychiatrists are all over the board, from a mental health perspective too.

Exactly, and they are not immune to political bias, either. Fill a panel with those from the left and they will condemn him 20 ways to Sunday regardless of evidence. Of course, that goes the opposite way, too, if they happen to lean more to the right.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

John Harvey Kellogg was a democrat, Graduated from the New York University School of Medicine, ran Battle Creek Sanitarium, advocated abstinence, liked yogurt enemas and mutilated young children's genitals so they would find sexual activity painful and wouldn't masturbate. Another shining example of where the measure of an enlightened mind is just a few letters and dots on a page.

That was how many decades ago? A can assure you, since then, the Southern Democrats have went Republican and it's the Republicans who have the sexual hangups about masturbation, are bigger advocates of non-consensual genital modifications on children, and really get into Freud when it comes to attacking the LBGT community.

 

[YmirGF]

This is a good post. We need to stop dwelling on what appears to be a certainty and work on local levels to help promote more viable candidates in the future.

Likewise, the Democrats have failed miserably at the state and local levels. Even in the presidential election, Hillary didn't win the popular vote by a huge margin. What was it? About 1% of the electorate? Like, seriously, big fricken deal.

 

[Quetzal]

Losers really need to get over their little selves.

There is a collection of reasons for frustration that I am willing to excuse:

1. The progressive candidate got shammed out of the DNC.
2. The "liberal" candidate won the popular vote by 2.7 million and lost the election. (Old news, I know. Most of us are over it but it is worth mentioning on the list)
3. There is evidence that suggests possible outside influences. (Again, old news and not much happened here but it was salt on the wound so to speak)
4. The DNC were outed by WikiLeaks.

Now, number four, in particular, is good thing, but as a liberal/progressive this has been a very crappy year. As for me, I have lost a lot of faith in the party I would really like to support. Hillary as the candidate, really? As a progressive, we got shut out by our own party primary because the party believed they knew better and lost anyway.

So, is it time to move on? Yep! But, at the same time, calling folks losers or cry babies is not helpful and I think some of the concerns are genuine.

 

[Quetzal]

Likewise, the Democrats have failed miserably at the state and local levels. Even in the presidential election, Hillary didn't win the popular vote by a huge margin. What was it? About 1% of the electorate? Like, seriously, big fricken deal.

The party itself really took a dump on itself. It is frustrating because much of this could have been avoided but the DNC tried to over-correct and we wound up flipping the car.

 

[YmirGF]

There is a collection of reasons for frustration that I am willing to excuse:

1. The progressive candidate got shammed out of the DNC.
2. The "liberal" candidate won the popular vote by 2.7 million and lost the election. (Old news, I know. Most of us are over it but it is worth mentioning on the list)
3. There is evidence that suggests possible outside influences. (Again, old news and not much happened here but it was salt on the wound so to speak)
4. The DNC were outed by WikiLeaks.

Now, number four, in particular, is good thing, but as a liberal/progressive this has been a very crappy year. As for me, I have lost a lot of faith in the party I would really like to support. Hillary as the candidate, really? As a progressive, we got shut out by our own party primary because the party believed they knew better and lost anyway.

So, is it time to move on? Yep! But, at the same time, calling folks losers or cry babies is not helpful and I think some of the concerns are genuine.

Oh, I get that, Quetzal, and it is good to see that someone is rightly targeting the Democratic Party as bearing most of the blame for the losses. They backed a tired, boring war horse that should have been retired long ago, while blithely ignoring state and local elections (you know, the little people they supposedly represent most).

 

[Mindmaster]

Should Trump be subject to a psychatric evaluation before taking office? At the moment 34,000 psychologists and psychatrists agree.

#DiagnoseTrump

Do you think this is necessary?

Only the bad ones... No one is listening to them, lol.

Interesting fact....
98.3% of psychologists are Democcrats.
94.1% of psychiatrists are Democrats.
In my landlording experience, I find these figures on the low side.

Most psychiatrists and psychologists get into the field to manage there own mental issues or those of immediate loved ones. That being said, they are more likely to suffer from mental illness in general as a population. Maybe we shouldn't take our advice from them all the time.

In my opinion, Trump only offends the bottom half of the gene pool... Everyone else admires him, or is indifferent... I think he's just above average on intelligence, but he's good at extracting what he doesn't know from others. Some people low on the pole mistake pride for condescension, and it isn't the same thing. It all comes down to confirmation bias really, and we are all subject to it.

 

[Quetzal]

Oh, I get that, Quetzal, and it is good to see that someone is rightly targeting the Democratic Party as bearing most of the blame for the losses. They backed a tired, boring war horse that should have been retired long ago, while blithely ignoring state and local elections (you know, they little people they supposedly represent most).

One thing, going to what you were speaking about previously, is we (the left) really need to stop looking outwards when things like this happen. Creating scapegoats as a primary source when something goes wrong is not only unproductive, it is also inaccurate. Take the "Russian hacking" for example. That is a problem that needs to be solved. But did Hillary lose the election because of it? I doubt it, it would take a lot to convince me otherwise. So, instead of saying "We lost because the Russians took us for a spin" or "The electoral college is inaccurate", we should be saying "Maybe we should invest in a candidate that would win the election regardless." Taking a grass roots approach and becoming more active in local politics does 100000x more good than spamming memes on Facebook expecting things to change.

*drops mic*