|
|
Post by mrpastelito on Nov 21, 2016 12:44:03 GMT
Could you please stop with that pathetic frothing? Thank you.
|
|
|
|
Post by gwynthegriff on Nov 21, 2016 13:36:30 GMT
Well, I'm sure that JC will appreciate being described as "young"  Being described as "young" by Carlton means anyone who can't remember white five pound notes. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 21, 2016 14:13:08 GMT
Yup things getting confusing. As they March a silent protest perhaps a-la-Northern Ireland  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 21, 2016 15:59:23 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on Nov 21, 2016 16:39:33 GMT
Nobody on here likes Illinois Nazis. If I may expand on the question, if a court rules, for example, that a Black elector must be permitted to vote, or a gay couple must be permitted to marry, or an Illinois Nazi must be permitted to march, do Forum members feel that the judgement should be upheld, if need be by legal force? Yes of course. Why even ask the question? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 21, 2016 19:44:18 GMT
Guess she doesn't want a shot at the presidency... ever.
|
|
|
|
Post by Adam in Stroud on Nov 21, 2016 20:25:26 GMT
Well, of course one can see/hear someone and come to the conclusion that they're 'a bit odd', 'not quite right in the head', or whatever other colloquial expression that you want to use. I saw a man a couple of weeks ago having an animated and incoherent conversation with himself and concluded that perhaps he may have some mental health issue(s). That, however, is a world away from making any kind of diagnosis of a particular mental illness/personality disorder. And anyway we all know what Khunanup is doing here. He's completely politically opposed to Trump and the sort of people that he has appointed, which is all well and good. But it is not enough for him to simply say that, and instead he must insist that there is something, and something very specific at that, wrong with Trump, presumably to show just how opposed he is. The result is that mental illness is once again reduced to an insult and a joke. Normally I'd agree with you. But Tony Schwartz forcefully argued that on the basis of extensive observation of Trump when writing "The Art of the Deal", Trump fitted the profile of a sociopath according to standard definitions. Of course, he's not a doctor either. And I'm not sure if "sociopath" is a recognised medical diagnosis to fit alongside, say, paranoid schizophrenic. But I don't think this is a routine insult or "vulgar abuse"; well-founded or not, there is a fear that Trump is liable to behave in ways that are quite scary due to his personality as opposed to his political beliefs. You may discount that fear but I think the fear will be a factor in global and US politics, as may be the reality. The observation that many, many highly successful business leaders have the characteristics that are supposed to characterise psychopaths is not new and is certainly not confined to Trump - e.g. Jon Ronson "the Psychopath Test" (which I've never read so may be balls for all I know.) |
|
Khunanup
Lib Dem
Portsmouth Liberal Democrats
Posts: 11,997
|
Post by Khunanup on Nov 21, 2016 21:04:13 GMT
Khunanup has had a bad couple of years. First his party got royally violated, then Brexited then Trumped. At least his aunt is in good health. I got reelected, started a new job and I'm now married to a yoga instructor so all in all not as bad as you're making out.  Oh and Trump is a sociopath, it's not an insult, it's just a fact. |
|
|
|
Post by An Sionnach Flannbhuí on Nov 21, 2016 22:02:19 GMT
What does your last sentence mean? How does a 'chicken shoot' differ from the more popular 'turkey shoot' or the once popular 'shooting fish in a barrel'? How does a dubious new administration of characters you strongly dislike lead of itself to any sort of shoot? By which I understand you to mean it will be easy to pick them off and destroy? You have been singularly poor at this contest so far! They will be hoisted by the own petards. Is that clear enough for you? But they won't. Riling smug liberals to apoplexies at transgressing self-imposed norms is rather their raison d'etre. Did it have to get this far for you to realise your pearl-clutching without arguments either for or agin damned well created this? |
|
|
|
Post by An Sionnach Flannbhuí on Nov 21, 2016 22:16:17 GMT
Well, of course one can see/hear someone and come to the conclusion that they're 'a bit odd', 'not quite right in the head', or whatever other colloquial expression that you want to use. I saw a man a couple of weeks ago having an animated and incoherent conversation with himself and concluded that perhaps he may have some mental health issue(s). That, however, is a world away from making any kind of diagnosis of a particular mental illness/personality disorder. And anyway we all know what Khunanup is doing here. He's completely politically opposed to Trump and the sort of people that he has appointed, which is all well and good. But it is not enough for him to simply say that, and instead he must insist that there is something, and something very specific at that, wrong with Trump, presumably to show just how opposed he is. The result is that mental illness is once again reduced to an insult and a joke. Normally I'd agree with you. But Tony Schwartz forcefully argued that on the basis of extensive observation of Trump when writing "The Art of the Deal", Trump fitted the profile of a sociopath according to standard definitions. Of course, he's not a doctor either. And I'm not sure if "sociopath" is a recognised medical diagnosis to fit alongside, say, paranoid schizophrenic. But I don't think this is a routine insult or "vulgar abuse"; well-founded or not, there is a fear that Trump is liable to behave in ways that are quite scary due to his personality as opposed to his political beliefs. You may discount that fear but I think the fear will be a factor in global and US politics, as may be the reality. The observation that many, many highly successful business leaders have the characteristics that are supposed to characterise psychopaths is not new and is certainly not confined to Trump - e.g. Jon Ronson "the Psychopath Test" (which I've never read so may be balls for all I know.) An individual to whom you are politically opposed is, quite possibly, a sociopath and psychopath. Only possibly. Thanks to the diagnosis of renowned Dr. Adam in Stroud. Yet the said psychopath just garnered 61 million votes. Perhaps they're all cranks too. So, yes, "sociopath" and "paranoid schizophrenic" are routine insults when faced with someone you've never met, even if a non-doctor has met him. Forgive those not caught up in the cult of anti-Trump for being sceptical and sarcastic about the diagnosis of the non-doctor. Do you really not see how this cod-analysis, celeb-condemnation and self-righteous grasping for cheap ways to undermine Trump only enhanced his support? Do you not see how the perception Trump faced hatchet job after hatchet job from holier-than-thou high-and-mighty twerps only enhanced the idea he was being battered unjustly? To show you what I mean, read Trump's Wikipedia page, then read Black Lives Matter's Wikipedia page. Trump's page is a triumph of any Wikipedia editor slipping in any controversy, however long dead, in as supposed "reasonable content" which just adds up to a drip-drip-drip of crap. Black Lives Matter's page is on the other hand (ahem) a whitewash (no pun intended) of excuses and hand-waving which ends up largely devoted to criticising BLM's detractors. Anyone with a sense of reality sees the two, sees the bias, and compensates accordingly. |
|
|
|
Post by Adam in Stroud on Nov 21, 2016 22:43:47 GMT
Normally I'd agree with you. But Tony Schwartz forcefully argued that on the basis of extensive observation of Trump when writing "The Art of the Deal", Trump fitted the profile of a sociopath according to standard definitions. Of course, he's not a doctor either. And I'm not sure if "sociopath" is a recognised medical diagnosis to fit alongside, say, paranoid schizophrenic. But I don't think this is a routine insult or "vulgar abuse"; well-founded or not, there is a fear that Trump is liable to behave in ways that are quite scary due to his personality as opposed to his political beliefs. You may discount that fear but I think the fear will be a factor in global and US politics, as may be the reality. The observation that many, many highly successful business leaders have the characteristics that are supposed to characterise psychopaths is not new and is certainly not confined to Trump - e.g. Jon Ronson "the Psychopath Test" (which I've never read so may be balls for all I know.) An individual to whom you are politically opposed is, quite possibly, a sociopath and psychopath. Only possibly. Thanks to the diagnosis of renowned Dr. Adam in Stroud. Yet the said psychopath just garnered 61 million votes. Perhaps they're all cranks too. So, yes, "sociopath" and "paranoid schizophrenic" are routine insults when faced with someone you've never met, even if a non-doctor has met him. Forgive those not caught up in the cult of anti-Trump for being sceptical and sarcastic about the diagnosis of the non-doctor. Do you really not see how this cod-analysis, celeb-condemnation and self-righteous grasping for cheap ways to undermine Trump only enhanced his support? Do you not see how the perception Trump faced hatchet job after hatchet job from holier-than-thou high-and-mighty twerps only enhanced the idea he was being battered unjustly? To show you what I mean, read Trump's Wikipedia page, then read Black Lives Matter's Wikipedia page. Trump's page is a triumph of any Wikipedia editor slipping in any controversy, however long dead, in as supposed "reasonable content" which just adds up to a drip-drip-drip of crap. Black Lives Matter's page is on the other hand (ahem) a whitewash (no pun intended) of excuses and hand-waving which ends up largely devoted to criticising BLM's detractors. Anyone with a sense of reality sees the two, sees the bias, and compensates accordingly. Come on Foxy. Try reading what I've said again and try to relate your post to anything I've actually said rather than just going off on one. |
|
|
|
Post by mrpastelito on Nov 21, 2016 22:53:05 GMT
Trump probably just fancies her, and who can blame him (for that). |
|
|
|
Post by An Sionnach Flannbhuí on Nov 21, 2016 23:01:59 GMT
An individual to whom you are politically opposed is, quite possibly, a sociopath and psychopath. Only possibly. Thanks to the diagnosis of renowned Dr. Adam in Stroud. Yet the said psychopath just garnered 61 million votes. Perhaps they're all cranks too. So, yes, "sociopath" and "paranoid schizophrenic" are routine insults when faced with someone you've never met, even if a non-doctor has met him. Forgive those not caught up in the cult of anti-Trump for being sceptical and sarcastic about the diagnosis of the non-doctor. Do you really not see how this cod-analysis, celeb-condemnation and self-righteous grasping for cheap ways to undermine Trump only enhanced his support? Do you not see how the perception Trump faced hatchet job after hatchet job from holier-than-thou high-and-mighty twerps only enhanced the idea he was being battered unjustly? To show you what I mean, read Trump's Wikipedia page, then read Black Lives Matter's Wikipedia page. Trump's page is a triumph of any Wikipedia editor slipping in any controversy, however long dead, in as supposed "reasonable content" which just adds up to a drip-drip-drip of crap. Black Lives Matter's page is on the other hand (ahem) a whitewash (no pun intended) of excuses and hand-waving which ends up largely devoted to criticising BLM's detractors. Anyone with a sense of reality sees the two, sees the bias, and compensates accordingly. Come on Foxy. Try reading what I've said again and try to relate your post to anything I've actually said rather than just going off on one. You lot will continue to lose until you learn that I have not "gone off on one". You have accused Trump of being a psychopath. You have no evidence, he just is. 'Tony Schwartz' (who he?) says he is. Then there's some guff about high-flying businessmen passing a psychopath test. Then you claim this, particularly, is not a routine insult or vulgar abuse. Against who else in the political world would calling them a psychopath not be "a routine insult or vulgar abuse"? Ah - but - it's special, Trump deserves it, I almost hear you say.... Imagine if this talk had been deployed against Hillary Clinton. It would have been a smear. You really cannot see why this generates a backlash. As a Remainer I see it is why Remain lost. But I see also why Trump might well win a second term. |
|
|
|
Post by Adam in Stroud on Nov 21, 2016 23:28:19 GMT
You lot will continue to lose until you learn that I have not "gone off on one". You have accused Trump of being a psychopath. You have no evidence, he just is. 'Tony Schwartz' (who he?) says he is. Then there's some guff about high-flying businessmen passing a psychopath test. Then you claim this, particularly, is not a routine insult or vulgar abuse. Against who else in the political world would calling them a psychopath not be "a routine insult or vulgar abuse"? Ah - but - it's special, Trump deserves it, I almost hear you say.... Imagine if this talk had been deployed against Hillary Clinton. It would have been a smear. You really cannot see why this generates a backlash. As a Remainer I see it is why Remain lost. But I see also why Trump might well win a second term. No, I haven't. Not in the post. Go and read it. I don't say you've gone off on one because you say something supportive of Trump, but because you're not reading what I've said, but what you think I've said. And because I generally find what you capable say at very least interesting whereas your post to me was a rant. Khunanup called Trump a sociopath. @pieandmash objected on the grounds that this was using mental health as an insult. I've agreed that this should generally be out of line but that in Trump's case people who know him well have made the same accusation. Pie made a pretty reasonable response to that. Toys remained within prams on all sides. Tony Schwartz is the author of "Trump: The Art of the Deal". He spent a long time working with Trump to write the book. He was considered acceptable enough to Trump at the time to write something that was a massive PR boost for Trump. He describes Trump as, in his words, a sociopath. I've specifically pointed out that he is not medically qualified, but I think it is an interesting comment to make from his perspective. I've also made the point that the perception of Trump as unstable is relevant whether or not its true. This may come as shock to you, but there are quite a lot of people who have been successful politically and otherwise while being very damaged individuals and, yes, some of them have been sociopaths. And no, that doesn't mean that Trump is one, but the fact that X people voted for him is not a bar to him being one. And the point of Ronson's book is that psychopathy is not bar to business or other success - that the characteristics can be very useful. Which is presumably why the human race keeps producing them - it is not an evolutionary weakness. I too can see why Trump might win a second term. I also see perfectly well that his supporters see all criticism of him as unfair; it doesn't always make it so. FWIW Hillary Clinton was accused of much worse things including criminal offences such that she should be in jail. Did that produce a backlash or claims of unfairness? Well, possibly it did, in that she got more votes than Trump. Not enough to propel her to power though. |
|
|
|
Post by Devil Wincarnate on Nov 21, 2016 23:39:16 GMT
Moderator's notice. The sociopath discussion is clogging up the thread, so kindly stop it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 21, 2016 23:40:26 GMT
Trump probably just fancies her, and who can blame him (for that). Trump likely just rubber stamped it. Its a tactically brilliant move by Bannon: Appoint someone who seems like they come from the other end on the political spectrum (and is even a "three-in-one" diversity pick) but in reality is completely in line with the administration's international perspective where it matters (the treat from Islam, Russia etc.). They tried anti-Muslim minority outreach with the "Republican Hindu Coalition", and Bannon has described Modi's election as part of a "global revolt" of the "centre-right" (which to him includes UKIP, FN, PVV, and AfD..) against "jihadist Islamic fascism". Bannon thinks there are too many skilled Asian-American immigrants in the USA, but Indian Hindus could be made a (partial) exception to this. The Trump administration will be anti-Chinese, so pro-Indian would be logical. Gabbard may have endorsed Sanders, but she is also a BJP connected blue dog with a military background. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 21, 2016 23:51:15 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Adam in Stroud on Nov 21, 2016 23:55:23 GMT
Well she's certainly easier on the eye than John Bolton! Well, you say that, but surely we've all learn to be careful about received opinion. There may be a lot of shy Bolton fanciers out there. How about a poll? |
|
Sibboleth
Labour
'Sit on my finger, sing in my ear, O littleblood.'
Posts: 15,998
|
Post by Sibboleth on Nov 22, 2016 0:26:42 GMT
Gabbard is... strange. Not much point in trying to work out what's going on there tbh.
|
|
|
|
Post by curiousliberal on Nov 22, 2016 3:54:25 GMT
Come on Foxy. Try reading what I've said again and try to relate your post to anything I've actually said rather than just going off on one. You lot will continue to lose until you learn that I have not "gone off on one". You have accused Trump of being a psychopath. You have no evidence, he just is. 'Tony Schwartz' (who he?) says he is. Then there's some guff about high-flying businessmen passing a psychopath test. Then you claim this, particularly, is not a routine insult or vulgar abuse. Against who else in the political world would calling them a psychopath not be "a routine insult or vulgar abuse"? Ah - but - it's special, Trump deserves it, I almost hear you say.... Imagine if this talk had been deployed against Hillary Clinton. It would have been a smear. You really cannot see why this generates a backlash. As a Remainer I see it is why Remain lost. But I see also why Trump might well win a second term. You don't have to imagine. Just go back a few tens of pages in the thread and you'll see @pjones banging on about #hillaryshealth. The election of Trump has, contrary to those who believe it identical to Brexit proclaim, shown just how powerful identity politics and smear tactics can be. The demographics game is a very dangerous one for the Republicans to play in the long run, though, because unless Trump does manage to go full fascist - and I don't think he will - it will royally backfire for them (due to ethnic and education-related factors). FYI I don't think the racialisation of US politics is a good thing even if it brings about victories for the party I support, but if it continues, the Republicans have only themselves to blame. |
|
