@hightor,
Thank you Hightor. I don’t have the energy to do that, every time they make baseless statements, but I’m glad someone does.
@coldjoint,
https://able2know.org/topic/551783-5#post-7067358
@BillRM,
Now you're talking.
Yes indeed. Reeducation in labor camps is the proper way to deal with progressivism.
Lindsey Graham Says Young Black People 'Can Go Anywhere' in South Carolina, as Long as They're Conservative
In other words: As long as they know their place.
https://www.newsweek.com/lindsey-graham-south-carolina-young-black-jaime-harrison-1538026
In a candidate forum with the South Carolina Senate race contenders, Senator Lindsey Graham has said he did not believe there was systemic racism in his state, insisting young black people would be safe, "as long as they're conservative."
Graham made the comment during what was initially going to be another head-to-head debate on Friday with Democratic contender, Jaime Harrison.
The format for the televised event was changed after Graham had refused a request by Harrison to take a coronavirus test beforehand. Instead, both candidates were questioned for 30 minutes each on a range of issues, laying out their pitches for the state's voters.
@hightor,
hightor wrote:
Quote:Putting a career criminal and self-confessed quid pro Joe like Biden up as a candidate, was an admission of defeat by the DNC.
The guy isn't a "career criminal", FFS, you can't show me one indictment, let alone a conviction. And the DNC didn't "put up" Biden as a candidate; he chose to run and people voted for him.
Quote:In four years, they've done three fifths of sweet **** all for the American people,
so expect another four years of that same lack-luster performance from them.
The Democrats weren't in control of anything until they won the House in '18 so there wasn't much they could have done before that. Since '19, Pelosi has delivered hundreds of bills to the Senate for action and they've been kept bottled up by McConnell. If they manage to take the Senate, hold the House, and elect Biden you'll see some action. Like reversing every one of Trump's executive orders, rejoining the Paris Accords, and beginning to repair relations with allies.
Exactly!
Although trying to reason with Builder seem like a lesson in futility.
@revelette1,
revelette1 wrote:What I am amazed about is Trump's seeming recovery. If those experimental drugs and his high powered medicine cocktails really got him cured like he says, it should be made readily available to the rest of the country despite ability to pay. I personally feel resentment when they talk about his miraculous progress considering the rest of the country mounting deaths. And then him talking about how it compares to the flu was just piling on for more resentment.
If they test safe and effective, and they can be manufactured in large quantities, they will be made available.
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:
If they test safe and effective, and they can be manufactured in large quantities, they will be made available.
Not really. There is still a long way to go. Because even if Mr.Trump genuinely made miraculous progress in his recovery, his "success" lacks statistical power, which will not justify manufacturing in large quantities.
@coldjoint,
Quote:People get it but very few actually die or suffer long term consequences.
Very few people die in highway accidents as well, less than 40,000 in 2019. Nevertheless, we do all we can to prevent fatalities. Mandating seat-belt use isn't all that different from mandating face masks. We also re-design roads and require safety features in automobiles. Obviously driving isn't that deadly — maybe we should suspend annual vehicle inspections, driver's education, and speed limits. Hell, what's another 100,000 casualties, at least we retain our f*cking freedoms.
https://twitter.com/mommamia1217/status/1314920970688311298
Tweet text: ❤️🧡💛ᗰia💚💙💜
@mommamia1217
ⒻⓊⓃ ⒻⒶⒸⓉ
#HunterBiden was the head of the World Food Program that just received the Nobel Peace Prize.
While trump’s sons were slaughtering endangered species and stealing from charities, #JoeBiden’s son works to feed the hungry.
Image
CNN
@CNN
This year's Nobel Peace Prize has been awarded to the World Food Programme for its "efforts to combat hunger" and its "contribution to bettering conditions for peace in conflict-affected areas."
https://cnn.it/3iOo5WS
Edit: changed title for more accuracy. Hunter Biden was Chairman of World Food Program USA from approximately 2013-2019.
@bobsal u1553115,
World Food Program USA "is a U.S.-based non-profit organization dedicated to building support within the U.S. for the United Nations World Food Programme (WFP)" but otherwise not related to the UN-organisation (see: "Program" vs "Programme"). Only the latter got the Nobel prize.
The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump
by Bandy Lee, M. D.
©2017
The Issue is Dangerousness, Not Mental Illness
by James Gilligan, M.D.
pp. 170-179
Psychiatrists in America today have been told by two different official organizations that they have two diametrically opposite professional obligations, and that if they violate either one, they are behaving unethically. The first says they have an obligation to remain silent about their evaluation of anyone if that person has not given them permission to speak about it publicly. The second says they have an obligation to speak out and inform others if they believe that person may be dangerous to them, even if he is in has not given permission to do so. The first standard is the Goldwater rule of 1973, which prohibits psychiatrists from authoring a professional opinion in public about the mental health of anyone whom they have not personally examined. The second is the Tarasoff decision, which in 1976 ruled that psychiatrists have a positive obligation to speak out publicly when they have determined, or should have determined, an an individual is dangerous to another person or persons, in order to warn the potential victim(s) of danger they are then and then set in motion a set of procedures that will help protect a potential victim(s).
From both an ethical and a legal standpoint, the second of those two rulings trumps the first.
...we have a positive obligation to warn the public when we have reason to believe, based on our research with the most dangerous people our society produces, that a public figure, by virtue of the action he takes, represents a danger to the public health - whether or not he is mentally ill.
An intellectual precursor to the Goldwater rule was a comment that one of the most influential and brilliant German intellectuals made not long ago before the rise of Hitler. In his essay on "Science as a Vocation," Max Weber argued that intellectuals and scholars should not offer political opinions or say anything that could be regarded as "partisan." They could talk about politics in general, but they should not say anything that could be taken as support for or opposition to any particular party or politician.
I have always been troubled by that opinion, because it appears to me to have encouraged the intellectual and professional leaders of Germany to remain silent, even in the face of enormous and unprecedented danger. It does not seem to me that the German Psychiatric Association of the 1930s deserves any honor or credit for remaining silent during Hitler's rise to power. On the contrary, it appears from our perspective today to have been a passive enabler of the worst atrocities he committed – as were most German clergymen, professors, lawyers, judges, physicians, journalists, and other professionals and intellectuals who could have, but did not, speak out when they saw a blatantly obvious psychopath gaining the power to lead their country into the worst disaster in its history. Our current president does not have to be a literal reincarnation of Hitler - and I am not suggesting that he is – in order for the same principles to apply to us today.
The issue that we are raising is not whether Trump is mentally ill. It is whether he is dangerous. Dangerousness is not a psychiatric diagnosis.
President Trump may or may not meet the criteria for any of the diagnosis of mental disorders defined in the diagnostic and statistical Manual of the American Psychiatric association, or for many of them, but that is not relevant to the issue we're raising here.
Also, the most reliable data for assessing dangerousness often do not require, and are often not attainable from, interviewing the individuals about whom we are forming an opinion. The most reliable data may come from the person's family and friends and, just as important, from police reports; criminal histories; medical, prison, and judicial records; and other publicly available information from third parties. However, in Trump's case, we also have many public records, tape recordings, video tapes recording and his own public speeches, interviews, and "tweets" of his numerous threats of violence, incitement to violence, and both of violence that he himself acknowledges having committed repeatedly and habitually.
Sometimes a person's dangerousness is so obvious that one does not need professional training in either psychiatry or criminology to recognize it. One does not need to have had 50 years have professional experience in assessing the dangerousness of violent criminals to recognize the dangers of a president who: 1) asks what the point of having thermonuclear weapons is if we cannot use them. 2) urges our governments to use torture or worse against our prisoners of War. 3) urged that five innocent African American youth be given the death penalty for a sexual assault even years after it had been proven beyond a reasonable doubt to have been committed by someone else.
4) boasts about his ability to get away with sexually assaulting women because of his celebrity and power. 5) urges his followers at political rallies to punch protesters in the face and beat them up so badly that they have to be taken out on stretchers. 6) suggests that his followers could always assassinate his political rival, Hillary Clinton, if she were elected president or, at the very least, throw her in prison. 7) believes he can always get away with whatever violence he does commit. He said, "I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn't lose voters."
While Trump has not yet succeeded in undoing the rule of law to such a degree as to become a dictator, it is clear that he speaks the language of dictatorship. Only dictators assassinate or imprison their personal political rivals and opponents.
Trump did not confess that he personally assaulted women himself; he boasted that he had. That is, he acknowledged having done so repeatedly, and gotten away with it, not as an expression of personal feelings of guilt and remorse for having violated women in this way but, rather, as a boast about the power his celebrity had given him to force women to submit to his violation of their dignity and autonomy.
If psychiatrists with decades of experience doing research on violent offenders do not confirm the validity of the conclusion that many non-psychiatrists have reached, that Trump is extremely dangerous – indeed, by far the most dangerous of any president in our lifetimes - then we are not behaving with appropriate professional restraint and discipline. Rather, we are either being incompetent or are responsible, or both.
The United States has been blessed with a little over two centuries of democracy. That is actually a rather short period in comparison with the millennia of monarchy. However, it is long enough to have made most of us complacent, and perhaps overconfident, with respect to the stability of our democracy. In fact, if we are prone to making a mistake in this regard, we are far more likely to underestimate the fragility of democracy than we are to become unnecessarily alarmist about it.
If we are silent about the numerous ways in which Donald Trump has repeatedly threatened violence, incited violence, or boasted about his own violence, we are passively supporting and enabling the dangerous and naive mistake of treating him as if he were a "normal" president or a "normal" political leader. He is not, and it is our duty to say so, and to say it publicly. He is unprecedentedly and abnormally dangerous.
Our role here is not so much to warn the public ourselves, but merely to heed the warnings Trump himself has already given us, and to remind the public about them.
In that regard, one final clarification is in order. Trump is now the most powerful head of state in the world, and one of the most impulsive, arrogant, ignorant, disorganized, chaotic, nihilistic, self-contradictory, self-important, and self-serving.
@oristarA,
oristarA wrote:Not really. There is still a long way to go. Because even if Mr.Trump genuinely made miraculous progress in his recovery, his "success" lacks statistical power, which will not justify manufacturing in large quantities.
The testing that the medicines are undergoing will provide the statistical power.
Many of these medicines are being manufactured in large quantities even before testing proves them safe and effective. That way they will be all ready to distribute as soon as testing proves that they are worthwhile.
@coldjoint,
coldjoint wrote:
This disease is just not as deadly as we are led to believe. The CDC published survival rates proving that. People get it but very few actually die or suffer long term consequences.[/color]
Mr.Trump lies. He knew the virus was "deadly stuff" but downplayed it. (
Source), which has turned America's probable triumph into America's woeful tragedy.
You can't read CDC's rate that way. The death rate in China is 3 per million, yet more than 500 per million in the United States, which is reported by the New England Journal of Medicine, one of the most prestigious medical journals in the world. Mr. Trump's unwise downplaying has made America grievous again.
A federal judge (U.S. District Court Judge J. Nicholas Ranjan, appointed to bench by President Trump),in Pennsylvania today emphatically rejected the Trump campaign’s attempt to limit the use of drop boxes and other efforts to expand voter access, saying that Republicans failed to even make a "speculative" case that such procedures will lead to fraud.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
:
Case 2:20-cv-00966-NR Document 574 Filed 10/10/20
Quote:Judge Ranjan ruled that “the problem” with the case brought by the plaintiffs — the Trump campaign — was that their allegations of fraud were “not “concrete,” which gave them no standing in federal court.
“While plaintiffs may not need to prove actual voter fraud, they must at least prove that such fraud is ‘certainly impending,’” he added. “They haven’t met that burden.”
He also rejected the Trump campaign’s effort to reverse the state’s directive that county boards of elections not reject ballots “where the voter’s signature does not match the one on file.”
Quote:The Trump campaign will soon file an appeal in the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, said Matthew Morgan, the Trump campaign’s general counsel, in an email.
NYT
