"Ask the experts.
In a new book published this week, "The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump," a group of 27 psychiatrists and mental health experts warn that “anyone as mentally unstable as this man should not be entrusted with the life-and-death-powers of the presidency.” Seemingly in defiance of the American Psychiatric Association’s "Goldwater rule," which states “it is unethical for a psychiatrist to offer a professional opinion [on a public figure] unless he or she has conducted an examination and has been granted proper authorization for such a statement,” the various and very eminent contributors paint a picture of a president who has “proven himself unfit for duty.”
Stanford University psychologist Philip Zimbardo — of the famous Stanford prison study — suggests the “unbalanced” Trump is a “specific personality type:
an unbridled, or extreme, present hedonist” and
“narcissist.”
Psychiatrist Lance Dodes, a former Harvard Medical School professor, says Trump’s
“sociopathic characteristics are undeniable”
and his speech and behavior show signs of
“significant mental derangement.”
Clinical psychologist John Gartner, a 28-year veteran of John Hopkins University Medical School, argues that Trump is a
“malignant narcissist” and
“evinces the most destructive and dangerous collection of psychiatric symptoms possible for a leader.”
For Gartner, the “catastrophe” of a Trump presidency “might have been avoided if we in the mental health community had told the public the truth, instead of allowing ourselves to be gagged by the Goldwater rule.”"
https://theintercept.com/2017/10/07/worried-about-trumps-mental-stability-the-worst-is-yet-to-come/
43 comments:
Amazingly enough, if they’re right, there’s an actual mechanism to deal with this. It’s constitutional even.
As one who did not support Trump, do you have much doubt that he is unfit for office?
Do you think it's likely the GOP would admit it and take action?
How do you think strong Trump supporters would react? With violence?
Dan
Until I see similar unprofessional diagnoses of Hillary Clinton, I reject this as the crap it is. Also, does the report indicate the political leanings of these "professionals"?
I would further suggest that Dan likely got a tingle up his leg when he saw this story, his hatred of Trump is so strong. Likely this hatred indicates mental disorder in Dan.
As one who didn’t support Trump, I didn’t think he was fit for office so I didn’t vote for him.
I have no idea what is likely or not, I do know that the GOP doesn’t have nearly the ability to force unanimity as the DFL, so who knows.
I think strong Trump supporters would be unhappy, just like strong supporters of any candidate would.
With violence, really? That’s just stupid. Might there be some whack jobs, sure. But nothing like the violence we’ve seen from the left when things don’t go their way recently.
To really take this seriously, I’d want to know some background on these guys. Especially political activities and what party they support.
I’d feel more comfortable with this, if I didn’t know that the same folks wouldn’t immediately start the same type of thing against Pence v
My point would be that, had Trump run as a Democrat (and truly, the man isn't a conservative or a republican, he's an opportunist and a charlatan), I would of course call his behavior for what it is: He is acting in a deranged, out of control, confused and dangerous manner, it doesn't matter what his politics are, I'm talking about his words.
I can easily say that if Trump were the Democrat candidate, of course I'd be saying the same things about him!
Which is my point in asking you the question: Do you have much of a doubt that he is unfit for office, regardless of politics?
What difference does it make what these experts have to say? I'm asking you just as a lay person: Does he not seem deranged/out of control/dangerously unfit?
And while we hate the idea of a Pence (or Paul Ryan) presidency, of course we wouldn't say the same things about either of those guys. They're not the ones lying, making stuff up, acting like an out of control five year old, showing no signs of adult moral and ethical and rational stability.
Now, we might question their involvement in shielding/propping up a man who was wholly unfit for office, but we wouldn't say that they are mentally troubled in the sense that Trump shows himself to be.
Oh, by the way, this isn't a problem of a few dozen experts doubting Trump's fitness...
"Over 60,000 people identifying themselves as mental health professionals have signed a petition stating that ‘Donald Trump manifests a serious mental illness that renders him psychologically incapable of competently discharging the duties of President of the United States’, going on to call for his removal from office."
From a Psychology Today story critical of those who've signed the petition...
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/talking-about-men/201708/why-labelling-president-trump-mentally-ill-is-wrong
Clearly half the nation thought he was "fit enough" to lead the nation since they elected him over a woman they felt was clearly "less fit" to lead the nation.
Yet while I await the dropping of the other shoe (his winning the primary having been the first), I note that this "unfit" man has, as president, nominated a number of Constitutionally sound people to various levels of federal courts. Here's a list of accomplishments for the first six months of his presidency. While some of them are of the same type that people like you thought were legitimate of Obama, in that it isn't easy to directly connect good things with specific policies, most of them are the direct result of actions he's taken or intend to take. In short, good things are happening BECAUSE this "unfit" man is president, acting in a manner that demonstrates some level of fitness for the job.
More recently...like today...I read that he has...well, here's how the WaPo put it:
"The Trump administration issued a rule Friday that sharply limits the Affordable Care Act's contraception coverage mandate, a move that could mean many American women would no longer have access to birth control for free."
Right there we're talking some "fit" thinking. Why any woman would need me to pay for their birth control has never been explained...especially since not engaging in sexual intercourse is absolutely free.
"The new regulation, issued by the Health and Human Services Department, allows a much broader group of employers and insurers to exempt themselves from covering contraceptives such as birth control pills on religious or moral grounds."
Wow! How "unfit" an action to take in allowing one to exercise one's liberty in how they do business!!!
Of course, "fit" people, like Hillary and Obama, have no problem forcing others to pay for the killing of the unborn, because that's what morally "fit" people do.
I’ve said from the get go that Thrump isn’t conservative and never has been. I’ve said from the beginning that he isn’t fit to be president. I didn’t need some “experts” to tell me what I’ve been saying for over a year.
Having said that,if these “experts” are politically motivated wouldn’t it call their motivation into question?
But, thanks for acknowledging that you’d go right after Pence without even giving him a chance. I appreciate the honesty.
Once again, there is a constitutional proces to remove a president who’s mentally unfit. I’m waiting for it to get used.
Craig, you said you fear that we'd just start "the same type of thing against Pence..."
I responded, "we might question their involvement in shielding/propping up a man who was wholly unfit for office, but we wouldn't say that they are mentally troubled in the sense that Trump shows himself to be."
That is, NO, we would not start the same type of thing. We wouldn't say that Pence is talking like a mentally unstable man, because he isn't. But rather than acknowledge that, you changed it to say, "thanks for acknowledging you'd go right after Pence without even giving him a chance..."
But is that what I said?
No, it's literally not.
Saying "We MIGHT question their involvement in propping up Trump..." and this is only a fit thing to do. Why WOULDN'T those who recognize Trump's obvious lack of mental and emotional wellness to do the job question if anyone in his administration was covering up Trump's crazy?
Again, if Trump were a Dem acting as crazy as he is as a Republican, I'd expect people to look into his team.
I'm consistent, that way. The point is preventing a man lacking in basic mental stability from doing harm as a leader. And I hope we do follow the process. Certainly, MANY GOP types have questioned his basic fitness - Cruz, McCain, Bush, etc, etc. But I'm not certain what it will take to get those who are in a position to do something about it to act.
In the meantime, there's nothing at all inappropriate in standing up and being counted as those calling for the GOP to take the steps they should be taking and following that constitutional process. Will you join those of us calling for that?
Or are you more of a "wait and see how bad/crazy he gets" before doing something?
Marshall, if it turns out that Trump truly is as bat shit crazy as he appears, will you feel any regret in your support for him? Will you feel foolish at all for not recognizing the signs of basic unfitness/lacking in basic mental health?
When I said the same sort of thing, I was reiterating a point I’ve made elsewhere. You and the anti Trump crowd won’t simply stop if Trump leaves. Y’all will find something about Pence that you decide is disqualifying and start over with that. Of course your comment about not being happy with Pence or Ryan, just reinforces that point.
I’m just curious, what would be worse. Someone who is “mentally ill” to some degree beyond their control, or someone who is corrupt?
You and the anti Trump crowd won’t simply stop if Trump leaves.
Well, clearly, I think the policies of a Pence or Ryan White House would be atrocious, and their morals entirely questionable. But we are bound to legalities and would abide by legalities. We can't just demand them be removed because we don't like their policies.
what would be worse. Someone who is “mentally ill” to some degree beyond their control, or someone who is corrupt?
Well, with Trump, you get the double bang: Someone who presents as being mentally ill AND someone who is clearly corrupt (albeit perhaps law-abiding). I mean, he has cheated people (legally, or barely legally) out of their money regularly and over his entire adult life. The man is a pig of the worst sort.
I think Clinton was power-hungry and that led her to make what I consider bad and stupid choices, but even then, in my estimation there is no comparison on the corruption charts between her and Trump. She was a petty thief to Trump's sick and perverted master criminal (albeit, generally within the confines of the law... except the times where he lost his cases and used his money to pervert the system).
As to "mentally ill," this is one concern I have with pointing out Trump's mental instability. One can be dealing with mental illnesses in their lives and not necessarily be unfit for work (obviously) or even unfit for office. But Trump's mental illnesses are to a dangerous degree.
It's one thing to suffer from depression. It's quite another to cause others to suffer with one's malignant narcissism and sociopathy.
"Marshall, if it turns out that Trump truly is as bat shit crazy as he appears, will you feel any regret in your support for him? Will you feel foolish at all for not recognizing the signs of basic unfitness/lacking in basic mental health?"
This question is ludicrous for a number of reasons, which I'll get to momentarily. But first, there's this: You supported a woman who now is talking to anyone who'll listen and telling them that of all the various reasons she lost the election, her own incompetence and repulsive character were not among them. Nothing mental about that at all.
As to your ludicrous question, if it turned out that some medical/psychiatric person with a close relationship to Trump not only found him to be mentally unfit for office, but also that he was mentally unfit from the beginning, I would feel bad about having cast my vote for him rather than that other loon you supported. But the signs I found to be a compelling reason to reject him in the primaries were simply his character. Neither you nor I are capable of making sound and rational judgements about the mental stability of anyone we don't know personally, and you far less than I. In your case, you're not seeing mental impairment. You're seeing whatever you want to see in order to justify and rationalize your hatred of the man...very mental in my estimation.
But we're still left with what we knew at the time of the election. I continue to stand by my decision that I had clearly chosen the lesser of two evils, one of which were going to be the POTUS when it was all said and done. I chose wisely based on that information at the time. What's more, his actions to this point have proven that choice to be the sound choice it was, despite my reservations that will likely never subside until after he's legitimately out of office. Again, I'm not fully supportive of all he plans on accomplishing, but to this point, he's done well especially given the lunatic behavior of those who oppose him for not being Hillary or Bernie. Those people exist on both sides of the ideological divide.
Now, as a manifestation of your own dysfunction, you are jumping up and down with glee at the prospect of a couple dozen likely leftist shrinks suggesting nasty things about Trump's mental state. Like a lefty loon, you take it as proof.
1. Marshall, according to the one report, over 60,000 mental health workers are concerned that Trump is suffering from severe mental health issues.
2. It doesn't take a surgeon to look at a fellow who's bleeding and say, "huh, he has been wounded..." It may not be a diagnosis - it's not - but it's recognition that some times, the data on display is sufficient to say there's a problem. Are you suggesting you've never been around a person with mental illness that you recognized it for what it was, even if you didn't have a diagnosis?
Perhaps you haven't. But the experts and professionals in the field (and I'm in the field, as are many of my colleagues and community) have been around.
3. What these experts are saying and what many of us recognized at the time was that, at the time of the campaign, it was sufficiently evident that he was a troubled, troubled man... that, or that he was faking being mentally ill with some degree of skill (which is do-able). In either case, it should have been a disqualifier.
Now, I don't blame people who aren't in the field for not recognizing what was obvious to most of us... too much, but at the same time, if you see a man on the subway in the summer with a winter jacket on who has urinated on himself and is in an argument with himself... you recognize it as mental illness. It seems rational and educated adults should have been in a place to recognize these rather obvious signs.
Neither you nor I are capable of making sound and rational judgements about the mental stability of anyone we don't know personally
This is demonstrably untrue, as in my example of the man on the subway illustrates. Even you would recognize that. People with a modicum of experience and education in mental health should be able to recognize warning signs. They were there, they still are.
Which is why I asked Craig, Is it the case that you truly are not sure that he has mental difficulties?
Maybe that's what this is all about. Maybe you all never had psychology classes in school and it truly takes having been exposed to at least some education on the matter. I don't know. You tell me.
According to this site, there roughly 550,000 mental health professionals in the US...
https://psychcentral.com/lib/mental-health-professionals-us-statistics/
If over 60,000 mental health workers/professionals signed that document, that's more than one in ten. And that's not counting people like me who did not sign it, nor any of my co-workers (that I'm aware of). It's also not counting those who, being aware of the standing rule against commenting on the mental health of politicians, wouldn't sign it for that reason, even if they do think there's evidence of his mental problems.
This is not some tiny fraction of professionals in the field, it's a large number and, I suspect, the number would be larger if a survey were taken.
Do you suspect some vast Mental Health professionals conspiracy?
I suspect most, if not all of these "professionals" are Hillary supporters.
I suspect some of them are Bernie supporters.
I suspect you have no idea of what you're talking about and what passes for you as being "in the field" still does not qualify you to make such an "observation" with any credibility, given your own irrational hatred for the man.
I also suspect that this 10% contains many workers/"professionals" that are also not qualified to make such long distance diagnoses.
I suspect the percentage of that 60K who are actually doctors in their field brings the total down substantially and they disparage the term "professional" by suggesting they can accurately identify mental issues in Trump from afar.
I suspect that if Prof. Irwin Corey insisted Trump was crazy, you'd count that as validation of your irrational hatred for the man.
So, to summarize:
1. No, you have NO experience or education or authority or expertise in the field of mental health
2. Hell, you wouldn't even recognize a mentally ill man who was peeing himself and yelling an incoherent conversation with a wall
3. Nonetheless, despite a complete ignorance and absolutely no experience on the topic, you are guessing - entirely without a single bit of evidence - that all 60,000 + of those who DO have experience in the field are doing it for political reasons, not because there is reason to support such a conclusion...
Does that sum it up correctly?
And to add yet another guess...
4. You don't trust "experts" or those with education, knowledge and/or experience in a field and think you are smarter than all such "experts," which is why you write "experts" in scare quotes any time someone who DOES have more knowledge and experience than you in a field disagrees with your ignorant opinions...
Is that about right?
So, what’s worse? Corruption or mental illness?
FYI, the Clinton Foundation manipulation of events in Haiti is pretty epic corruption.
Generally speaking I'd take a person with mental illness over one who is corrupt. BUT it depends on the mental illness and the degree of impact.
A sociopath who is homicidal and/or suicidal is not someone I want to be responsible for nuclear weapons. So, it really depends.
Do you disagree?
Dan
That’s not really what I asked, but I’d virtually always prefer someone with a mental illness which they didn’t choose over someone who has chosen corruption.
I don't know what specific charges you're leveling at the CF but I do know that the US has long had problematic relationships with Haiti and nearly all of our neighbors to the south and many of our policies (getting involved in various wars and starting various wars and supporting various thugs) do smack of corruption and colonialism. This is part of my problems with the Clintons, to be sure, but with most of our politicians and their policies towards Latin America and the Caribbean.
Back to Trump and his mental illness and his corruption... both combined to make him a thoroughly unfit candidate for president - even moreso than a typical Clinton or Bush-type. I think this is part of the reason why the authors called their book, "The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump." It's just so far beyond the pale that any comparison to even the worst of our politicians (think Reagan or Bush) is just not apt.
You quite literally asked:
what’s worse? Corruption or mental illness?
My literal answer is, IT DEPENDS. It depends on the level of corruption and the impact of the mental illness to determine "what is worse?" Certainly, neither are ideal.
Do you disagree? Do you understand my answer and how it is a direct and literal response to your question?
So, to summarize:
1. Never so much as hinted I have any experience with mental health to an extent that would justify making judgements about anyone, much less the president, from afar. My point was that YOU don't have enough, either, but that you're driven by an irrational hatred for Trump.
2. I totally recognize your mental dysfunction, manifested here in your hatred of Trump so irrational that you desperately grasp at whatever validated your irrational response to him. It's obvious, in fact.
3. It's reasonable, especially among those in a field that has failed to provide scientific justification for dropping favored sexual behaviors from the DSM, to suppose political motivation is more than just possible...it's quite likely.
4. I put "experts" in quotation marks in response to your putting up these likely politically motivated "professionals" to justify the irrational hatred you hold for Trump. Experts to you are those who validate your preconceived notions. It's the same with all lefties trying to make a case they find favorable. By virtue of agreement, one is expert in their field. Those who disagree are, because of their disagreement with your "experts", are not themselves experts in their field.
And by the way, I've offered no opinion on Trump's level of mental health. Thus, there's no "ignorance" put forth by me on the subject. If by "ignorant opinion" you refer to my opinion of this book you hold up as gospel, you don't even address the opinion I have...which is that I have no opinion while the motivations of these "professionals" are in doubt. The most important being their political motivations. Find me data on that question, and then we can move on to whether or not I'd do well to take the word of these "experts" and "professionals" with more than a grain of salt.
Regarding the Clintons and Haiti, Slate(I’m pretty sure. Not a conservative publication) did a lengthy piece a while back specifically chronicling the Clinton Foundation shenanigans in Haiti. But, rigging contracts for friends and donors, and influencing presidential elections were a couple of major things. But if you’d rather make excuses for them, it’s ok.
As for corruption/mental illness, I suspect that your answer would be fluid and not independent if the parties involved.
Marshall...
1... My point was that YOU don't have enough, either
And my point is that you, by your own apparent admission, is that you are entirely ignorant of the topic. You wouldn't recognize a person with a mental illness if they were peeing on you and licking your face because they thought they were a puppy. At least, that seems what you're saying.
And so, IF you are wholly ignorant of the mental health field, IF you have no experience or education or knowledge on the topic,
THEN how do you know that I "don't have enough, either..."?
The answer appears to be: You don't. You are completely ignorant of the topic and you are bashing experts in the field NOT because you know even a single thing about the topic, but because of your own biases and ignorances.
Fair enough, but at least be honest and admit that you're basing this on nothing but ignorance.
No more comments, please Marshall, until you admit: I am completely ignorant of the topic, I have no experience or education on matters of mental health, so please take my wild-ass hunches with a huge grain of salt.
Or words to that effect.
Craig, "rather make excuses for them..."? What excuses? Read VERY closely and try to understand (seriously, brother, you simply can't be this stupid):
A. I DO NOT KNOW WHAT YOU ARE SPEAKING OF about the Clintons and Haiti. I am UNFAMILIAR with the story.
Do you understand this?
B. GIVEN A, then, I AM NOT DEFENDING THE CF or HC on the topic of what they/she did or did not do in Haiti. I have zero opinion on matters that I am not familiar with.
Do you understand this?
C. I AM NOT A FAN or a DEFENDER of HC. She wasn't a completely "out there" moral pervert or emotionally disturbed in the sense that Trump obviously is/was, but that does not mean i'm defending her. I DID NOT LIKE CLINTON, the candidate (and I am indifferent to Clinton, the woman).
Do you understand this?
Stop writing asinine comments that have no bearing on what I've said. It makes me question, if not your mental health, at least your reading comprehension.
~Dan
Really, you didn’t support Clinton? Do you want me to go back and pull some of your comments.
But, hey it’s all right, it’s just Haiti, who cares if the Clintons managed to get richer, make their donors richer, and interfere with an election or so. As long as you don’t know about it, it’s cool.
No, I was not a fan or a supporter of Clinton.
She was CLEARLY the only candidate of the two options that was not insane or corrupt beyond use, but that she wasn't as awful as the pervert, cheat, liar and mentally ill Trump is a low bar. I was a "supporter" in that sense, but not in the sense that I thought she was a great candidate.
And, I, for one, care about Haiti. But I'd posit that those who try to abuse stories and twist truths and who USE Haiti to tell these lies and heap this abuse probably don't care about Haiti. They're partisan hacks who value party over Truth or the poor of Haiti. For these sorts of people, Haiti is just a tool to try to attack others.
I say, Shame on those sort of people for trying to exploit Haiti for cheap political points.
And I'm looking back at my blog, searching on Clinton. Here's the first several comments I found (from way back in 2008) mentioning "Clinton..." (Noting that these are mostly about Bill, but it's also referencing "the Clintons" as a couple...)
"For many of us, we think the Clintons are part of the Problem. The Clinton years were very much part of a troubled system that encourages corruption..."
"What is it with the Clintons and their defenders? They're acting positively... Republican. (Forgive me, my Republican friends.)"
"Yuck.
It's for reasons like this that we desperately need campaign and political reform."
"All in all, I'd have to say congratulations to the Obama administration, and I guess, even our current Congress, for at least keeping their collective noses clean, as compared to recent administrations/eras (Reagan/Bush/Bush AND Clinton)."
"Just give the Dems a gun and let them shoot themselves in the foot now... You give them a broken Republican Party and the Dems are STILL trying to mess up what should be a shoo-in.
Well, at least the Dems are being even-handed. Sure, they'd win in a landslide if they offer just about anyone but Hillary, but where'd the challenge be in that?"
"I think Clinton is finished. Someone let her know, please?"
"I find it laughable to find Clinton or McCain trying to brand Obama as an elitist."
+++++
I looked and looked, but can't find any posts I made where I indicated I was a supporter of Clinton. I have many entries where I criticize both Clintons as corrupt and problematic. In fact, even I was quite surprised at how often I criticized the Clintons!
Now, you can admit that, "Yes, Dan, you clearly have criticized the Clintons as corrupt and problematic over the years, that is documented and anyone can read it." and admit you misspoke.
Or you can lie and make up stuff.
I will gladly also point out that I HAVE defended Clinton against false charges, but in that case, I'm defending Truth, not Clinton because, as my words clearly show, I am not a supporter nor a fan of the Clintons.
I didn’t say you hadn’t ever criticized the Clintons, just that you’d been prett vocally supportive of Hillary the last go around.
If I didn’t know better, I’d guess that you were just trying to suggest that the Clinton Foundation corruption was somehow manufactured and isn’t actually true.
Google
Clinton Foundation Haiti Slate and you’ll get a couple of articles right off the top of the results. Of course, you can try to write off Slate, but they’re clearly not right wing.
just that you’d been prett vocally supportive of Hillary the last go around.
Recognizing that, compared to the pervert disaster, Trump, she was the only option is not hardly what one would call "supportive."
Defending her against stupid false attacks is not "supportive."
Do you recognize that defending against false claims is a strike in favor of Truth, not in favor of the target of the lies?
So, no, you can not support the hunch that I was "pretty vocally supportive of" Clinton, not with my words. "Supportive of her" would be, "Wow, what a great candidate! Things will be so much better once she's elected!"
It didn't happen.
So, you think that calling someone corrupt, part of the problem, the Dems are "shooting themselves in the feet" by nominating her... you think that indicates support?
You really DO have a problem with reading comprehension, don't you?
Tell you what, Craig: Find EVEN ONE quote from me where I am "pretty vocally supportive" of Clinton and I will apologize for doubting your claim. Hey, it's possible. Given the perverted shipwreck that was the Conservative/GOP candidate, I may have actually fawned at her candidacy in comparison.
But I don't think I did and I don't think you can find even one "pretty vocally supportive" comment I've made.
So, if you find one, I'll apologize for doubting your memory and if YOU can't find even one, you will apologize for making an erroneous claim.
That is your challenge. Support your claim, apologize, or cease commenting on this post, and your false claim will just sit there.
I’d guess that you were just trying to suggest that the Clinton Foundation corruption was somehow manufactured and isn’t actually true.
While I have no great opinion one way or the other of the CF, I have just pointed out how I repeatedly have called into question the Clinton's corruption nature/history. Given that, why would I say it isn't actually true?
You're manufacturing stuff from cheese cloth that the data does not support.
~Dan
Craig, you made a charge and said, "Do you want me to go back and pull some of your comments."
I told you, yes. If you are going to make BS claims, I expect you to back them up. Especially when I provide data to the contrary (i.e., I can show you that I've been critical of the Clintons, I can't find where I've been supportive of HC, other than defending against false or silly charges).
So, until you back up your claim or withdraw it with an apology, no more posts. It doesn't have to be much of an apology. A simple, "Well, I thought it was obvious... but now that I'm pushed on it, I can't support the claim, not off the top of my head... maybe I was wrong. I'll let you know if I find otherwise. In the meantime, I withdraw the charge with my apologies..."
You know, just be responsible for your words.
In the meantime, you keep pushing that I'm vaguely defensive of the CF or of Clinton. With Clinton, part of the problem is that conservatives have thrown out so many foolish and stupidly false charges, that it does become difficult to keep track of the fake news coming from the conservatives vs any actual problems.
Consider the Snopes file on the Clinton Foundation...
http://www.snopes.com/tag/clinton-foundation/
When you cry wolf (i.e., report fake, false, lying news) so many times, it becomes difficult to take any claims seriously.
So, at any rate, when you can you know, actually support what you say (like a rational, respectful adult) or withdraw the claim, no comments.
I insist.
"Like her or not, she is the only qualified and serious candidate in this election."
4 · July 5, 2016 at 8:43pm
"Clinton, for her part, is at least smart and qualified,"
July 6, 2016
"Of the two, there is no choice," (referring to Clinton and Trump
July 6, 2016
That all sounds pretty supportive to me. But, please bring on the semantic arguments and excuses. OH, I'd argue that voting for her could be construed as pretty supportive of her.
I could waste more time looking for stuff, but I have a job to find and other more valuable things to do, than continue to pander to your graceless impatience.
Before you reflexively delete these, consider. I did not vote for Trump, have been actively and frequently speaking against tromp, yet you continue to claim I support him. You, suggest that you did not support Clinton, yet you voted for her. If nothing else that seems to indicate some level of support.
Saying "Clinton is not as bad as the perverted lying cheating monster, Trump, therefore, I'll vote for her..." is not a ringing peal of support. Saying she's smart is not a ringing vote of support. Hell, I think that John McCain, Condi Rice, um... probably Mitt Romney... ummm... probably, let's see... oh, Gov. Kasich are all at least relatively smart Republicans. Also each one of those is fundamentally fit for office. But that's not to say that I support them.
The thing is, the GOP/conservatives/white evangelicals and racists all set up a man SO fundamentally unfit for office that, of course, people had to vote against him if they were opposed to stupidity, lies, perversions, racism or basic human decency and supportive of not having a man who presents as having severe mental disorders.
None of which is a ringing endorsement for Clinton.
You misspoke, Craig. Too bad you're not man enough to admit it.
Oops, I never said “ringing endorsement”, I said “pretty vocally supportive”, so as long as you don’t arbitrarily try to change what I said I’m ok saying that public support of Clinton seems reasonably close to what I actually said.
If you felt like you had to change “pretty vocally supportive” to “ringing endorsement” to save face, that says plenty right there.
Oh, and voting for someone is definitely “supportive”, telling people you voted for them is “vocally supportive”.
Yeah, I’m good. I don’t need semantic sleight of hand to avoid keeping my promise.
Reasonable, ONLY to you, Craig.
Anyone else can read what I wrote and not conclude, "Oh, Dan is a supporter of John McCain and George W Bush, because they are not the idiot-perverts that Trump is..." because my words don't support such a conclusion.
Try to be serious and come up with something, you know, actually substantive instead of painfully banal next time.
~Dan
Yes , you’re right. It’s painful to watch and have to point out your shift. It’s painful to watch you promising to do something, then trying to come up with a semantic dodge to avoid doing what you promised. What’s banal is your habit of doing this kind of thing. Switching terms, moving the goal posts, breaking promises. It’s all expected and old news.
I didn’t dig through your social media, so you’d apologize, I knew you wouldn’t before I started, I did it because I said I would.
Marshall continues to comment after being asked not to (at least, until he admits that, by his own apparent admission, he is completely ignorant and uneducated and inexperienced on the topic of mental health and a reasonable person can admit that they are ignorant and uneducated and wholly inexperienced in an area and warn others to take his uneducated, ignorant opinion for what it's worth.
Craig thinks that "she's corrupt" and "yuck" are signs that I have been "pretty vocally supportive" of Clinton and neither of these two gentlemen appear to understand basic human communication on this topic. Since they have nothing further to say on the topic worth note and no other commenters are posting, I'm closing comments on this post.
If you have something constructive to say on the topic, just let me know and I'll be glad to post it.
Post a Comment