Three Professors of Psychiatry call for "neuropsychiatric evaluation"

[WilliamSeger]

I don't know what the prestige wrote and I don't care. I'm going after your sophistry that states are arbitrary when discussing national elections as if the.nation isn't arbitrary lines on the ground.

I believe I developed my "sophistry" into an actual point about giving land mass extra voting power in selecting a president. Can you say what the hell your point is?

 

[fuelair]

Of course he is mentally ill. That is self-evident. Without the money he would be in involuntary treatment.

Full disclosure: I am not a psychologist nor do I play one on TV. But I know looney and He is it!!!!!!!!

 

[BobTheCoward]

I believe I developed my "sophistry" into an actual point about giving land mass extra voting power in selecting a president. Can you say what the hell your point is?

Your point has a lot of problems. You call the lines arbitrary when they are not.
Some are certainly idiosyncratic but that isn't the same thing. You called it undemocratic without establishing why it is a bad thing.

 

[fuelair]

Please, this is all partisan bias. Donald Trump is every bit as sane, rational, and in touch with reality as his friend Kanye West.

Close maybe but Trump is, I think, the worse off of the two................

 

[fuelair]

We also need to remove a senator from the less populated states for the same reason. Or increase the number for the bigger population states. In other words, the Midwestern xtians need to lose the excess of power they were given and get only their fair share of things. They should not be able to hold back the cultural development of the country because it hurts their widdle feewings!!!!!

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I agree that a psych evaluation and pre-emptive impeachment (?) is not a solution, but folks who think such questions are arising from the collective butthurt of sore losers are way off the mark.

This is not about the loss of an election (especially the loss of a candidate most of us were "meh" about anyway). It's about handing the reins of the world's foremost superpower to someone (a) not even remotely qualified to take them and (b) who lives in a reality of his own construction.

I'd so love to be proven wrong about this but I've seen nothing to suggest that this can end well. I can't see anything to do about it though but hold on tight and hope for the best.

The facts being that you are willing to discard the result of an election when it doesn't go your way.

No, see what The Shrike said above. That's as precise as it gets.

 

[BobTheCoward]

We also need to remove a senator from the less populated states for the same reason. Or increase the number for the bigger population states. In other words, the Midwestern xtians need to lose the excess of power they were given and get only their fair share of things. They should not be able to hold back the cultural development of the country because it hurts their widdle feewings!!!!!

You moved real quick to claim the mantle of progress.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

A state isn't any less arbitrary than a nation.

Pretty much in the 21st century US, it is. Trump isn't going to be POTUS of Canada.

It's very convenient for right wingers to count electoral votes and states. In a democracy, the majority (with some restrictions imposed by the courts) is supposed to rule.

You guys know damn well if the gerrymandering, the disproportionate representation in the Senate, and the fact a candidate who lost by almost 3 million votes was about to be installed as POTUS you'd all be screaming bloody murder. So stop pretending.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Pretty much in the 21st century US, it is. Trump isn't going to be POTUS of Canada.

It's very convenient for right wingers to count electoral votes and states. In a democracy, the majority (with some restrictions imposed by the courts) is supposed to rule.

You guys know damn well if the gerrymandering, the disproportionate representation in the Senate, and the fact a candidate who lost by almost 3 million votes was about to be installed as POTUS you'd all be screaming bloody murder. So stop pretending.

Not a Republican or right winger by any measure.

 

[WilliamSeger]

Your point has a lot of problems. You call the lines arbitrary when they are not.
Some are certainly idiosyncratic but that isn't the same thing.

Actually, I said the people living within a state were an arbitrary group for the purpose of selecting the president of the whole nation, even if it is a pragmatic and rational group for other purposes. It's not an arbitrary group for selecting a state government, for example, just as the people living within a nation's boundary are not an arbitrary group for selecting the president of that nation. You're not making much sense.

You called it undemocratic without establishing why it is a bad thing.

Well, gee, I guess I assumed it was obvious: If it's not one man, one vote, then it isn't democratic.

And anyway, I was asking what is your point?

 

[BobTheCoward]

Actually, I said the people living within a state were an arbitrary group for the purpose of selecting the president of the whole nation, even if it is a pragmatic and rational group for other purposes. It's not an arbitrary group for selecting a state government, for example, just as the people living within a nation's boundary are not an arbitrary group for selecting the president of that nation. You're not making much sense.




Well, gee, I guess I assumed it was obvious: If it's not one man, one vote, then it isn't democratic.

And anyway, I was asking what is your point?

First, it isn't obvious why democracy is a good thing, or even if it is a good thing, why it is the only principle that has value in deciding a government.

It isn't clear why a state as a whole is an arbitrary unit in national elections.

I don't have a point. I don't understand your point and I want you to clarify.

 

[Ziggurat]

I agree that a psych evaluation and pre-emptive impeachment (?) is not a solution, but folks who think such questions are arising from the collective butthurt of sore losers are way off the mark.

This is not about the loss of an election (especially the loss of a candidate most of us were "meh" about anyway). It's about handing the reins of the world's foremost superpower to someone (a) not even remotely qualified to take them and (b) who lives in a reality of his own construction.

I'd so love to be proven wrong about this but I've seen nothing to suggest that this can end well. I can't see anything to do about it though but hold on tight and hope for the best.

This is just special pleading.

 

[Ziggurat]

To do a proper diagnose you need more than observe somebody from a distance. But there are warning signs. And those warning signs are what you underplay. Those warning sign could lead to something or to nothing. The point is that to ignore warning signs when that same person will shape foreign policy, is utterly moronic.

No. The point is that the time to consider this is before the election, and the people to consider it are the voters. And voters came to a conclusion already. This is yet another attempt to undo the results of the election, nothing more.

 

[mijopaalmc]

No. The point is that the time to consider this is before the election, and the people to consider it are the voters. And voters came to a conclusion already. This is yet another attempt to undo the results of the election, nothing more.

Proving someone in unfit to serve doesn't undo the election results; it just demonstrates that someone unfit to serve was elected.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Not a Republican or right winger by any measure.

So you're fine with the current lack of democratic representation?

 

[Giz]

For god sake, bad candidates come and go. This poor-loser wrecking ball stuff has the potential to cause long-term damage the country.

Do you not think that the republicans would respond in kind in the future? Shouldn't you take a hint from Obama and applaud a smooth transition of power as an example of mature democracy?


"Elections have consequences"
- B. Obama

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

This is just special pleading.

Oh for pity's sake.

Special Pleading is a fallacy in which a person applies standards, principles, rules, etc. to others while taking herself (or those she has a special interest in) to be exempt, without providing adequate justification for the exemption.

Not even close.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

For god sake, bad candidates come and go. This poor-loser wrecking ball stuff has the potential to cause long-term damage the country.

Do you not think that the republicans would respond in kind in the future? Shouldn't you take a hint from Obama and applaud a smooth transition of power as an example of mature democracy?


"Elections have consequences"
- B. Obama

Obama and his 'can't we all get along' is one of the most disappointing positions he's taken.

 

[Giz]

Obama and his 'can't we all get along' is one of the most disappointing positions he's taken.

I think you misspelled "statesmanlike" positions.

 

[mijopaalmc]

For god sake, bad candidates come and go. This poor-loser wrecking ball stuff has the potential to cause long-term damage the country.

Do you not think that the republicans would respond in kind in the future? Shouldn't you take a hint from Obama and applaud a smooth transition of power as an example of mature democracy?


"Elections have consequences"
- B. Obama

I was only pointing out that declaring Trump to be unfit to serve is not the same thing as nullifying the election results. The election still happened, and trumpet still elected.