Trump's dangerous narcissistic personality - Part 2, with questions

[DerSchweik]

What you call "visceral, inordinately irrational hatred" is nothing more than a very real concern for the health and well being of both the nation and the president.

Is that so?

Um.... curious - you took what I said personally. Why? I mean, it wasn't directed at you - or even at the poster whose post I quoted to state what I did.

 

[Yttrium]

The visceral, inordinately irrational hatred for President Trump by so many on the far left is quite a phenomenon to observe

Are there any far left types around here?

 

[DerSchweik]

Are there any far left types around here?

Oh, I imagine there are a few around here or there.

 

[eclipsenow]

Is that so?

Um.... curious - you took what I said personally. Why? I mean, it wasn't directed at you - or even at the poster whose post I quoted to state what I did.

Yet you bypass the opening post with quotes from the psychiatrists, bypass the actual content of my last reference and what that reporter was focusing on, and just ad hom the despair in the writing?

 

[DerSchweik]

Yet you bypass the opening post with quotes from the psychiatrists, bypass the actual content of my last reference and what that reporter was focusing on, and just ad hom the despair in the writing?

It was a general observation concerning something I tend to see in many places, not just here.

Not sure what you mean about "ad hom[ing] the despair in the writing." Anyway, it wasn't an ad hominem. It was, as I said, merely an observation.

Are you asserting there ISN'T a visceral hatred for President Trump?

 

[DerSchweik]

Yes, this is just an ad hom. We are concerned for the nation, and then the Denier in Chief gets up and says there's nothing to worry about.

You're from Australia. I question your concern for our nation.
It's not an "ad-hom" if it's true. "Denier-in-Chief" - that's hardly a rational label.
Early on he did say there's nothing to worry about. He since changed that position.
Early on Pelosi said there's nothing to worry about as well - encouraging her minions to Chinatown.
Does your opinion of Trump extend to Pelosi et. al. as well?

 

[Speedwell]

It was a general observation concerning something I tend to see in many places, not just here.

Not sure what you mean about "ad hom[ing] the despair in the writing." Anyway, it wasn't an ad hominem. It was, as I said, merely an observation.

Are you asserting there ISN'T a visceral hatred for President Trump?

That's about it. There is strong feeling, but characterizing as hatred is a mistake on the part of his supporters, who can think of no other reason to disapprove of a man they can find no fault with.

 

[JackRT]

Is that so?

Um.... curious - you took what I said personally. Why? I mean, it wasn't directed at you - or even at the poster whose post I quoted to state what I did.

Because I felt it to be incorrect.

 

[DerSchweik]

That's about it. There is strong feeling, but characterizing as hatred is a mistake on the part of his supporters, who can think of no other reason to disapprove of a man they can find no fault with.

Aren't you doing the same thing by presuming to judge his supporters as incapable of finding any fault in him?

 

[DerSchweik]

Because I felt it to be incorrect.

Ok, fair enough.

 

[Speedwell]

Aren't you doing the same thing by presuming to judge his supporters as incapable of finding any fault in him?

I didn't say they are incapable of it. It appears to me that they have chosen not to. I suppose out of approval of his policies and his manner of carrying them out.

 

[eclipsenow]

You're from Australia. I question your concern for our nation.

I'm also a geek interested in super-power tech.
I'm also a Christian aware that people and groups I care about could be hurt or killed by the general mishandling of this pandemic.
I'm also a citizen of the world, interested in developing global democratic systems like reforming the UN (over the next few centuries).

"Denier-in-Chief" - that's hardly a rational label.

It's rational, but it's not unemotional. I'm quite happy to admit he makes me angry, and denies climate science and denied the pandemic.

So what do you have to say about having a Delusional Narcissist as President?

Early on he did say there's nothing to worry about. He since changed that position.

That's unforgivable in an exponential explosion of viral vectors sweeping through your land.

Early on Pelosi said there's nothing to worry about as well - encouraging her minions to Chinatown. Does your opinion of Trump extend to Pelosi et. al. as well?

1. Quote?
2. She's not President.
3. What advice was she getting vs what advice was Trump getting?

 

[Pommer]

Correct - that's what I meant, and if my context or typo's said Bernie, then it must have been a tired thing.

Bernie has his “Norman, coordinate!” moments too, but no, not the stutter.

Is Bob Newhart still “funny”? His career was MADE on his “stutter”, which he did have, though his was more like, you know, like words or phrases you say while thinking of what to say, next.

 

[Pommer]

Yes, this is just an ad hom. We are concerned for the nation, and then the Denier in Chief gets up and says there's nothing to worry about.

Well “the lie” is supposed to be BIG!

 

[Pommer]

I'm Ordo-Liberal / Social-Liberal, which I define as ...
"Civil Rights, Social Justice and State funded welfare in a Market Economy."
So please take your 'far left' and hurl it far left of me. There is a place for the market, but it is not at the expense of public health during a pandemic as President Trump has made apparent in his many nonsensical mutterings. How anyone can defend his missing 6 weeks is beyond me.
View attachment 276697

That picture sure could use some “golf-days” up in ‘nere.

 

[Pommer]

Are there any far left types around here?

The Right thinks that Single-payer health coverage is a step towards “Government Controls Everything!!1!”

While that might be an extreme “left-wing” position, it’s also the upshot of the Far Right’s goals.

 

[Radagast]

Although the mainstream media have largely refused to name Trump’s disordered mind, a cohort of mental health professionals have been consistently sounding the alarm.

The American Psychiatric Association states that it is unethical for psychiatrists to give a professional opinion about public figures whom they have not examined in person, and from whom they have not obtained consent to discuss their mental health in public statements. The AMA has a similar rule.

So the fact that this "cohort" has breached medical ethics is one reason to ignore them. Their obvious political bias is another. The fact that several psychiatrists have debunked the accusations is a third.

 

[Pommer]

The American Psychiatric Association states that it is unethical for psychiatrists to give a professional opinion about public figures whom they have not examined in person, and from whom they have not obtained consent to discuss their mental health in public statements. The AMA has a similar rule.

So the fact that this "cohort" has breached medical ethics is one reason to ignore them. Their obvious political bias is another. The fact that several psychiatrists have debunked the accusations is a third.

I agree. Scientists and Medical Professions should ought not to call into question the competency of the President, ANY President, if they have not been invited to do so by a court, or, say, the Vice-President, to do “due diligence” with possible 25th Amendment Protocols.

 

[eclipsenow]

1. They were disturbed enough to say it.
2. Many are not part of the AMA or America, but are outside observers shaking their heads at the behaviour of the world's only superpower.
3. The Titanic

 

[eclipsenow]

I agree. Scientists and Medical Professions should ought not to call into question the competency of the President, ANY President, if they have not been invited to do so by a court, or, say, the Vice-President, to do “due diligence” with possible 25th Amendment Protocols.

So the 25th Amendment is purely hypothetical?