EPTHe does constantly lie. That much is indisputable, and it's disqualifying. Going for a 'he seems to be suffering from dementia' based on occasional slurring (which can happen to many people and doesn't have to mean dementia) or him 'forgetting' stuff (which he only does when it's something he wants to lie about) is a stupid attack because it moves the discussion from something no sane and observant person can dispute (trump constantly lies) into something uncertain. Not to mention that attempting to diagnose people is best reserved to professionals.
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 1523
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets. Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread | ||
Liquid`Drone
Norway28804 Posts
He does constantly lie. That much is indisputable, and it's disqualifying. Going for a 'he seems to be suffering from dementia' based on occasional slurring (which can happen to many people and doesn't have to mean dementia) or him 'forgetting' stuff (which he only does when it's something he wants to lie about) is a stupid attack because it moves the discussion from something no sane and observant person can dispute (trump constantly lies) into something uncertain. Not to mention that attempting to diagnose people is best reserved to professionals. | ||
|
Belisarius
Australia6233 Posts
Somewhere out there is a sympathetic biopic from 2120 about a rich old man whose early-onset dementia convinced him to run for president, and then it actually works and he spends the next four years brazening it out while getting more and more confused. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On June 03 2019 05:31 Gorsameth wrote: You mean like not knowing what country you father was born in? Oh wait, he did that to. Again, another thing he's done before and will do in the future. Next thing you know, you'll claim crowd size lies are a new symptom of dementia rofl. | ||
micronesia
United States24777 Posts
That's not to say I generally disagree with the statements that "either truth makes Trump unfit." | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On June 03 2019 06:21 micronesia wrote: The concern over the president possibly having dementia (or the early stages of it) is not necessarily a political/partisan one. Liquid'Drone, you are assigning to concerned people the objective of starting a discussion solely to make the president look indisputably bad. That certainly is true for some, but doesn't need to be true for others. For example, it's possible me focusing my posts more on how Trump can't be trusted because of his personality will do more damage to his defense against a possible impeachment hearing or simply the 2020 election. Asking a question about whether or not he's suffering from a condition which may explain his behavior could possibly muddy the waters regarding the other focus and actually make it easier for die-hard Trump supporters to map a route to re-election. However, I may still pursue Trump's physical health because my posting in political threads is not singularly inspired by a desire to see Trump removed from office by election or impeached. To assume otherwise is counterproductive. That's not to say I generally disagree with the statements that "either truth makes Trump unfit." On June 03 2019 06:06 Liquid`Drone wrote: yeah agreed, to me this is almost approaching 'hillary is suffering from some terrible illness look at her nearly fainting and needing help to enter her car' territory. He does constantly lie. That much is indisputable, and it's disqualifying. Going for a 'he seems to be suffering from dementia' based on occasional slurring (which can happen to many people and doesn't have to mean dementia) or him 'forgetting' stuff (which he only does when it's something he wants to lie about) is a stupid attack because it moves the discussion from something no sane and observant person can dispute (trump constantly lies) into something uncertain. Not to mention that attempting to diagnose people is best reserved to professionals. I mean, I guess the people going on about Hillary's health could also have been genuinely concerned with it, and not using it for political/partisan reasons. Micronesia, would you say people that saw Hillary collapse and wondered about her physical conditions included perhaps high numbers of just "concerned people" and we shouldn't really think the people harping on it were doing anything besides exhibiting genuine concern? These comments do come after psychiatrists alleging psychological unfitness from a distance argued for 25th amendment removal, as well as Pelosi and cabinet whispers (anonymous NYT author) calling for 25th amendment removal. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
+ Show Spoiler [further comments] + I've gotten a lot of flack for thinking Trump isn't the true source or fuel for media hatred. He's just using that ripe ground for political ends, and doing so in such a brash and indiscriminate way to earn the pushback (as we see in the Markel one, that's earned backlash). I don't think the problem is solvable if the only two responses are "but Trump is worse" and "it's justified given current dangers." Trump's out of office in two or four years, but these modern journalistic norms are from people who stay. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22415 Posts
The end. | ||
|
Sermokala
United States14143 Posts
| ||
|
ThaddeusK
United States233 Posts
| ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18306 Posts
Danglars spinning this as "daily beast is trash, therefore Trump calling NYT trash is justified" is some good footsoldiering! | ||
|
Sermokala
United States14143 Posts
| ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Sermokala
United States14143 Posts
| ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24020 Posts
On June 03 2019 06:06 Liquid`Drone wrote: yeah agreed, to me this is almost approaching 'hillary is suffering from some terrible illness look at her nearly fainting and needing help to enter her car' territory. He does constantly lie. That much is indisputable, and it's disqualifying. Going for a 'he seems to be suffering from dementia' based on occasional slurring (which can happen to many people and doesn't have to mean dementia) or him 'forgetting' stuff (which he only does when it's something he wants to lie about) is a stupid attack because it moves the discussion from something no sane and observant person can dispute (trump constantly lies) into something uncertain. Not to mention that attempting to diagnose people is best reserved to professionals. imo the last 20 some odd posts fall into this "stupid attack because it moves the discussion from something no sane and observant person can dispute (trump constantly lies) into something uncertain." The thing is that it's cathartic, Shambala mentioned this before. It's not conducive to discussion imo and is more emblamatic of a refusal to engage with the serious issues and instead focus on something they think they can win at ("Trump's terrible!"). As you point out though, by wandering into the armchair psychology, they shoot themselves in the foot. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On June 03 2019 10:27 GreenHorizons wrote: imo the last 20 some odd posts fall into this "stupid attack because it moves the discussion from something no sane and observant person can dispute (trump constantly lies) into something uncertain." The thing is that it's cathartic, Shambala mentioned this before. It's not conducive to discussion imo and is more emblamatic of a refusal to engage with the serious issues and instead focus on something they think they can win at ("Trump's terrible!"). As you point out though, by wandering into the armchair psychology, they shoot themselves in the foot. The thread would be better off if people discussed Trump’s bitchin’ new haircut instead. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
| ||
|
Toadesstern
Germany16350 Posts
On June 03 2019 06:56 Danglars wrote: In media land, the Daily Beast went after who they think originally made the doctored Pelosi slurred speech video. It's some African American forklift operator. His full name was published (some might say doxxed), along with his probation status and the borough of New York City where he works. This is where I think the current debate happens. How much of this is newsworthy, and how much goes too far? How much does this feed the "enemy of the state"-style media attacks, and how much does the media not earn the moniker? https://twitter.com/JamesAGagliano/status/1135246550748282881 + Show Spoiler [further comments] + I've gotten a lot of flack for thinking Trump isn't the true source or fuel for media hatred. He's just using that ripe ground for political ends, and doing so in such a brash and indiscriminate way to earn the pushback (as we see in the Markel one, that's earned backlash). I don't think the problem is solvable if the only two responses are "but Trump is worse" and "it's justified given current dangers." Trump's out of office in two or four years, but these modern journalistic norms are from people who stay. tbf I think that kind of thing is something people in the US should overthink in general. Not just in this case. Releasing names in media, be it print or TV rarely does anything for the story and even if someone did something horrible, say committed a crime or something like that I'll still argue that we don't need to hear the name of that person in 95% of the cases. That just leads to all kinds of horrible things including for the family of that person, friends etc who haven't done anything wrong. just in case it didn't get across since that was a bit of an aside from me. Yes I absolutely agree they should not have outed the guy. | ||
|
Ben...
Canada3485 Posts
On June 03 2019 06:21 micronesia wrote: Indeed. I am just as concerned about putting Biden in office. Both he and Trump are pretty darn old, and are in the age range where a fair number of different physical and mental ailments frequently start manifesting. A person who is in their 50s or early 60s usually won't be all that different after 4 years, but once they get past their 70s, they can start changing rapidly in very short periods of time. If Biden becomes the Democratic candidate and wins the election next year, he will be 78 when he is sworn into office. In Trump's case, he will be 74. In either case, they would be the oldest person sworn into office, beating out Reagan for his second term.The concern over the president possibly having dementia (or the early stages of it) is not necessarily a political/partisan one. Liquid'Drone, you are assigning to concerned people the objective of starting a discussion solely to make the president look indisputably bad. That certainly is true for some, but doesn't need to be true for others. For example, it's possible me focusing my posts more on how Trump can't be trusted because of his personality will do more damage to his defense against a possible impeachment hearing or simply the 2020 election. Asking a question about whether or not he's suffering from a condition which may explain his behavior could possibly muddy the waters regarding the other focus and actually make it easier for die-hard Trump supporters to map a route to re-election. However, I may still pursue Trump's physical health because my posting in political threads is not singularly inspired by a desire to see Trump removed from office by election or impeached. To assume otherwise is counterproductive. That's not to say I generally disagree with the statements that "either truth makes Trump unfit." I honestly believe that, just like there should be an upper age limit for having a driver's license (or at least yearly testing to show a person is still capable of driving safely), there should be an upper age limit for running for office, be it president or any other type of representative. For president, there's a lower limit, so I can't see why there shouldn't also be an upper limit. There should be no questions about the physical and mental capabilities for someone with a job that important. | ||
|
TheYango
United States47024 Posts
| ||
| ||
