Is Trump mentally ill? The US Republican Party is being urged to get him examined

I don't know how reliable that data is?But for arguments sake, what about the other 56%?

History is made by radical minorities, not passive majorities.

Of the green countries, only 2 converted without significant violence: Indonesia and Kazakhstan. Every other country was conquered, the men were killed and the women were raped and married off to the conquerors. This is where the Islamic practice of 1 man 4 wives saw most practice.

Reply 61

Galaxie501

15

Murricans have the choice between a candidate who's unfit to be president and a candidate whos even more unfit to be president. Common sense tells me to go for the lesser of two "evils" --- and thats clearly not Hillary.

No matter what happens in this election, Trump will be an important wakeup call for US politics.

I can understand people who vote for Trump out of necessity, but cant quite understand people that fully support Trump in all his views and stances.

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 62

saran23

6

Original post by KimKallstrom

To attempt to compare what is going on now with Muslims with the treatment of the Jews during Hitler's time is completely unhinged. You should be ashamed of yourself*

I am extremely sorry if I have hurt anyone.As a Tamilan, my people have faced first hand genocide and I know what it means to have lost loved ones. My people were tortured beyond imagination and now we have seeked refuge. I am son of a refuge and that genocide still haunts me as well as other Tamilians around the world. I am not ashamed of what I said. My point was that blaming a whole society is simply wrong.

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 63

math42

20

Original post by Galaxie501

Murricans have the choice between a candidate who's unfit to be president and a candidate whos even more unfit to be president. Common sense tells me to go for the lesser of two "evils" --- and thats clearly not Hillary.

No matter what happens in this election, Trump will be an important wakeup call for US politics.

I can understand people who vote for Trump out of necessity, but cant quite understand people that fully support Trump in all his views and stances.

Well technically they can vote third party. The notion of it being a wasted vote is silly to me because if you look at things on an individual level, your vote isn't going to make a difference anyway. So you might as well vote for someone you believe in.

Reply 64

41b

5

Original post by saran23

I am extremely sorry if I have hurt anyone.As a Tamilan, my people have faced first hand genocide and I know what it means to have lost loved ones. My people were tortured beyond imagination and now we have seeked refuge. I am son of a refuge and that genocide still haunts me as well as other Tamilians around the world. I am not ashamed of what I said. My point was that blaming a whole society is simply wrong.

They killed 80 million of us and wrecked our country.

Reply 65

SaucissonSecCy

16

How dare they? Why not examine the minds the politicians who supported mad wars in the middle east followed by open borders to millions of refugees? Which is exactly what the US electorate will get with Hillary.

Reply 66

Galaxie501

15

Original post by 1 8 13 20 42

Well technically they can vote third party. The notion of it being a wasted vote is silly to me because if you look at things on an individual level, your vote isn't going to make a difference anyway. So you might as well vote for someone you believe in.

Thats right, but votes are a product of collective thinking in the first place. Only if everyone in a democracy shares the mentality that their vote can make a difference, which it can collectively, will a 3rd party candidate have a chance.

That being said, the US electoral system is a mess. It it rigged against anyone that is not from the two main parties.

Reply 67

SaucissonSecCy

16

Pathologizing opinions and free speech. More 'liberals' who are totalitarian in temperament. It's a depressing, recurring theme of the 21st century.

Oh, and it won't work. More publicity for him, more desperation on their part. And they will lose.

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 68

Fango_Jett

17

Original post by Galaxie501

That being said, the US electoral system is a mess. It it rigged against anyone that is not from the two main parties.

It's a relic from the time people voted for the delegates who voted for the president. It's horribly broken and uneven today, giving people more voting power than before.

Someone can win the presidency with just 22% of the popular vote with the system right now.

Reply 69

Fango_Jett

17

Original post by Galaxie501

Common sense tells me to go for the lesser of two "evils" --- and thats clearly not Hillary.

No matter what happens in this election, Trump will be an important wakeup call for US politics.

I can understand people who vote for Trump out of necessity, but cant quite understand people that fully support Trump in all his views and stances.

Hahaha what? In what world isn't Hillary the lesser of two evils?

Trump doesn't have a coherent policy, but it's not surprising why they still vote for him in droves.

Trumpanzees simply don't care about policy, facts, or his voting record. Their ability to reason is so devolved that they only care if it's Trump. Trump could burn down an orphanage and his supporters would still justify his actions.

Reply 70

Galaxie501

15

Original post by Fango_Jett

It's a relic from the time people voted for the delegates who voted for the president. It's horribly broken and uneven today, giving people more voting power than before.

Someone can win the presidency with just 22% of the popular vote with the system right now.

It is. I strongly believe that there should be a maximum of 10 candidates in each presidency. The parties should not nominate their candidates, but the people should do that directly. That would also imply that there can be several candidates from the same party. If people want to have a Hillary and a Sanders running for president, why not?

There should be no more than two parts in each presidential election. 1) The public votes who the 10 nominees should be (There are several problems with this step, including the question how the public should choose from potentially thousands of applications) 2) The public votes a president from the 10 nominees.

Just my oppinion.

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 71

nulli tertius

21

Original post by Fango_Jett

Some states give the electoral votes to the party, and others to the candidates.

It is not clear that any attempt by states to "give" electoral votes is constitutional. The election in each state, irrespective of whose name appears on the ballot paper, is to choose electors to the Electoral College and any provision of state law that attempts to constrain to whom those electors bestow their votes may well be unconstitutional.

Electors are party loyalists. They will vote in accordance with the holder of the party ticket on the day they cast their electoral college ballot. A candidate could well die, quit or theoretically be dumped between general election day and the meetings of the electors.

Reply 72

nulli tertius

21

Original post by Yellow 03

The thing is, personality disorders are not a mental illness.

Psychiatry is the only medical discipline that has defined illness in terms of its treatability. Imagine if an oncologist said "I'm sorry you haven't got cancer because we cannot cure you". Of course a disordered personality is a mental illness

Reply 73

Fango_Jett

17

Original post by Galaxie501

It is. I strongly believe that there should be a maximum of 10 candidates in each presidency. The parties should not nominate their candidates, but the people should do that directly. That would also imply that there can be several candidates from the same party. If people want to have a Hillary and a Sanders running for president, why not?

Just my oppinion.

They do. It's called party primaries. The delegates are just a relic intermediary. It's not like the electoral college which is winner take all (except for a few states I think) There's nothing barring 2 candidates from the same party. People can still write in Sanders at the election booth. The Democrat's rules committee prohibits it, that's all.

Reply 74

Galaxie501

15

@Fango_Jett

Regarding your coment about Trump supporters:

There is a difference between an active Trump supporter and someone who votes for him because he/she thinks he's the lesser of two evils. Regardless of how informed or uninformed that vote may be.

Reply 75

Betelgeuse-

19

Godd the meltdown from Brexit was fantastic.. i dont think the world can survive a Trump presidency a few months later. It would be delicious, a real and very rare treat

Reply 76

Yellow 03

15

Original post by nulli tertius

Psychiatry is the only medical discipline that has defined illness in terms of its treatability. Imagine if an oncologist said "I'm sorry you haven't got cancer because we cannot cure you". Of course a disordered personality is a mental illness

Inability to "cure" is a characteristic of personality disorders but not the fundamental reason they are distinguished from a mental illness. There are, after all, types of mental illness that cannot be cured, such as some severe cases of depression. Historically, PDs were considered just variations within the normal spectrum of personality rather than a disease - they were not considered reflective of morbidity. This is recognised in many levels of society - if someone killed someone else just because they are a sociopath and like to kill for fun, this would not reduce their accountability in law, whereas it normally would if they were suffering from severe depression.

To me, this approach makes sense and I think it is a dangerous idea to treat sociopaths and narcissists as somehow suffering from an illness. But it seems that the tide of psychiatric opinion is more and more flowing in the direction you are advocating here, i.e. towards a view that sees such disorders as a disease that can be treated.