It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Is Something Neurologically Wrong With Donald Trump?

page: 15
74
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 16 2018 @ 07:19 AM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

The thing people in a group can get weird and irrational. Just ask Boaty McBoatface and the Fred Durst Society of the Humanities and Arts.
One would assume that with, say a presidential election, they would take it a bit more serious. But we have no guarantee of that, do we? If we are all being honest with ourselves we know that the last couple of presidential elections were more reality TV shows than political campaigns to find the best candidate.
You know none of those people on either side of the latest election were the best the USA had to offer - and I know that. It was nothing other than a popularity contest. And with the current whispers doing the rounds - the next election is even going to be worse with a popular talk-show host in the running.
"So who are we going to vote for?" The popular talk-show host or the popular TV/Twitter personality? Why not make it even more interesting while we're at it and have Bob Dylan, Kanye West, Chris Pratt, Britney Spears and Dwayne Johnson to make it really interesting. And a Kardashian. Any Kardashian - doesn't really matter. And we're going to need Morgan Freeman.
"What about their politics?"
Weeelll... Something about lower taxes, peace in the Middle East, something immigrants, something GO USA!!!
"Well, that's not politics, is it."
No. But it doesn't really matter, does it? They're not real politicians, so that's better.
"But they're not qualified."
No they're not. But hey, the people will love the show - I mean election. And news ratings are going to be through the roof. Bet you the highest number of voters ever will show up.

I know - it's an exaggeration, but that is basically where we are now.

Which brings me back to my initial point. Yes, the constitution says pretty much anyone can be president as long as you're a US citizen over 35 y.o. And if the people like you - you've got the job. You would like to believe that people would be able to differentiate between someone that can do the job, and someone that is just entertaining or "different". Can they though? Collective identity is a very strange thing. Some of the very worst atrocities in history have been committed by crowds (e.g. religious pogroms, lynchings etc.). The point is that crowd behavior is neither intrinsically good nor bad, but is dependent upon the norms of the shared social identity of its members; and groupthink.
Trump aside, wouldn't you prefer that there should be some sort of "minimum qualification" that prevented Kim Kardashian from being your next president? Because you know people are going to vote for her even though we all know she couldn't possibly do the job - even those that voted for her. Hypothetically speaking.

And, I know this is considered blasphemy but - is it really "the voice of the people" if the majority of voices ask for Britney but the Electoral College say no you get Kim Kardashian?
edit on 16/1/2018 by Gemwolf because: Clarity




posted on Jan, 16 2018 @ 07:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: Kalixi
He's just the same as he always is

That's the problem. "Fat Stevie," "Dickie Durbin." He has the mind of a five year old. Dickie Durbin tattled on him so now he's not going to fix DACA to spite him.



posted on Jan, 16 2018 @ 07:45 AM
link   
a reply to: Gemwolf

The quality of candidates is a whole nuther issue.

Lol

But relying on the will of the people has worked Well enough i dont see a reason the change. Especially in favor of weaponizing a pseudoscience.



posted on Jan, 16 2018 @ 07:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: sdcigarpig
a reply to: shooterbrody

So when was Trump given a mental health evaluation, where he sat down with a fully qualified liscenced mental health person and a statement on record of such?

Contrary to what many are saying and thinking, the only time a doctor would even look at neurological health, is if there is a concern for such, and then it usually is brought up to said doctor by someone who would intimately know the person. Beyond that, and I have this on experience, doctors would not go into doing any sort of neurological testing or even looking at mental health, unless there is just cause that warrants such.


you have some evidence of a dr telling potus he needs an evaluation and him not getting it?



posted on Jan, 16 2018 @ 08:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Gemwolf

The quality of candidates is a whole nuther issue.

Lol

But relying on the will of the people has worked Well enough i dont see a reason the change. Especially in favor of weaponizing a pseudoscience.


Oh, but the will of the people has changed. It's called "the media" and "the Internet".



posted on Jan, 16 2018 @ 08:13 AM
link   
a reply to: Gemwolf

I also favor the crazed finger pointing of Iserbyte. I think we were miseducated into stupidity. Which makes the media even more applicable in your statement.

But she seems to tell a resonant story.



posted on Jan, 16 2018 @ 08:16 AM
link   
I guess another eay to put it: enough people kill themselves instead of getting help due in part to a stigma that this exercise is only going to worsen.



posted on Jan, 16 2018 @ 10:04 AM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

Do you not think that the stress of being President is sometimes a bit overwhelming for any person? Or that the President may or may not have a bit of a mental health issue?

Would it not be for the best that the person, whose finger is on the proverbial button, actually be mentally healthy as not to launch a nuclear weapon?

Would you not agree that in the past, that there has been times a sitting president should have had mental health, that they were either having a mental breakdown, or actually had a medical problem that not only could have but did affect their ability to make a decision and do the job, and that as a precaution, that such be given?

Don't you think it would be prudent that the president be given both physical and mental health evaluations, to ensure he is healthy and that no one ever have to exercise 25?



posted on Jan, 16 2018 @ 10:18 AM
link   
a reply to: Gemwolf

Actually it does. One would not want an active military person, in that position. Far too often, and one can see that in many different countries around the world, where the military has the final say. The idea is that a civilian leadership, where the person would be hesitant to get involved in a war where their child could end up getting shot. Course back then people were conscripted in times of need, though the draft has been done away with.

Though, during the Nixon presidency there was the one question that many thought, though few asked: Who had a check on the President when it came to the use of Nuclear weapons? And with good reason, at the time that was asked, Nixon was drinking heavily and was depressed.

3 Presidents later we end up with a president who had Alzheimer's, developing and starting, probably while the man was in office. Here again, this was a person who had some mental problems with the ability to launch a nuclear weapon. And really there is no check on that.

Even in the military, to launch a nuclear weapon, it requires 2 people to do such and to verify the commands, and act.

So why is the question of the President's mental health such a bad question, where within one life time there have been 2 presidents that have had mental health issues?



posted on Jan, 16 2018 @ 10:29 AM
link   
a reply to: sdcigarpig




Do you not think that the stress of being President is sometimes a bit overwhelming for any person? Or that the President may or may not have a bit of a mental health issue?

When coming from a position of politics no.
www.msnbc.com...
Sore losers that will do ANYTHING to remove the guy that beat her.
When we hear this from the vice president or those in his cabinet I will be happy to take this seriously.



Would it not be for the best that the person, whose finger is on the proverbial button, actually be mentally healthy as not to launch a nuclear weapon?

When this is more than just speculation or only your own partisan opinion it may actually be an issue, unless you have actual medical evidence that says otherwise. If you do, please by all means put it here for us to look into.




Would you not agree that in the past, that there has been times a sitting president should have had mental health, that they were either having a mental breakdown, or actually had a medical problem that not only could have but did affect their ability to make a decision and do the job, and that as a precaution, that such be given?

source for this please




Don't you think it would be prudent that the president be given both physical and mental health evaluations, to ensure he is healthy and that no one ever have to exercise 25?

well well well would you look at that
so you have some evidence of the vice president speaking of a problem? please by all means source that
until then all you have is a bs political strategy to unseat a properly elected potus because you disagree politically with him



posted on Jan, 16 2018 @ 11:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: sdcigarpig
...

So why is the question of the President's mental health such a bad question, where within one life time there have been 2 presidents that have had mental health issues?


And that is the whole point, isn't it?

It's fine if you ask what a president's country of birth is, because, you know - reasons. It's fine to accuse a president of being a Muslim, because reasons. It's fine to say his wife is a man, because, why not? It's fine to say a president is "unpresidential" because he salutes with a coffee cup in his hands.

But dear gods, don't ask about a president's mental health after a non-stop string of erratic behavior... That would be crazy, unpatriotic and pretty much treasonous.

If Trump was to leave office right now, and was replaced with someone with identical policies and ideologies just more - normal - I can guarantee that there would be less divisiveness, craziness and overall stupidity. Guarantee it.



posted on Jan, 16 2018 @ 11:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gemwolf
Trump aside, wouldn't you prefer that there should be some sort of "minimum qualification" that prevented Kim Kardashian from being your next president? Because you know people are going to vote for her even though we all know she couldn't possibly do the job - even those that voted for her. Hypothetically speaking.

In a perfect world maybe, but things obviously are anything but perfect.

The last real president was gunned down by TPTB a week after he stated publicly that he was going to expose them.

For that reason alone I see Trump as our first REAL president since JFK because he serves the people instead of TPTB.

All other presidents since JFK have been establishment puppets which is WHY they have all stayed alive.


We have been lied to. It’s as simple as that. The Warren Commission lied to us, and in my opinion, we have not had a real president in the white house since the JFK assassination, with the exception of Ronald Reagan, and they tried to kill him too.

JFK – Our last President?

Donald Trump fashions himself a populist, anti-establishment President in the mold of Andrew Jackson. Some key advisors have made the comparison directly. Rudy Giuliani, for example, has claimed that Trump’s win last November was “like Andrew Jackson’s victory. It was the people beating the establishment.”

President Trump, Meet the Real President Jackson


Teddy Roosevelt said:

“Behind the ostensible government sits enthroned an invisible government owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people...”


"Governments do not govern, but merely control the machinery of government, being themselves controlled by the hidden hand." ~ Benjamin Disraeli; Prime Minister of England


Past presidents of the United States and other high profile political leaders have repeatedly issued warnings over the last 214 years that the U.S. government is under the control of an “invisible government owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people.”

From Washington to JFK: Former Presidents Warn About Illuminati



edit on 1.16.2018 by Murgatroid because: Felt like it...



posted on Jan, 16 2018 @ 01:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Murgatroid

I do agree that Trump finally broke the mold of what a rubber-stamp politician should be. People wanted someone different. Someone that hasn't been muddied by the politics of Washington. I just don't know if Trump was the right person for that role. Nor can I with a clear conscience agree that he has the best interest of the people at heart. His ego doesn't allow it - it's all about Trump. Me good. Everything not pro-Trump bad.

What is (was?) needed, is a reluctant, humble president. Someone that realizes the enormity and importance of the task. A George Washington.
“If that may not be – I am, in the next place, earnestly desirous of searching out the truth, and knowing whether there does not exist a probability that the government would be just as happily and effectually carried into execution without my aid.

“I call Heaven to witness, that this very act would be the greatest sacrifice of my personal feelings & wishes that ever I have been called upon to make.”


A humble man is a man of the people.



posted on Jan, 16 2018 @ 02:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Gemwolf

My God that would be fantastic.

I don't think such a person would make it through the mud that the partisanship brings with it. Heaven forbid if someone ever have done anything even slightly off color. Any normal person, even the best of us, has stuff that could be dug out and paraded about to make you into the next Hitler.

Sane, normal people don't want that. We have made the idea of running for national office so untenable that only the most psychologically screwed up people among us are willing to go through it.



posted on Jan, 16 2018 @ 03:04 PM
link   
www.cnn.com...



Dr. Jackson said that while he "had no intention" of giving Trump a cognitive exam, the President specifically asked him to do one. "I didn't feel it was clinically indicated," he said. "The reason we did the cognitive assessment is plain and simple because the president asked me to do it," the doctor said. Trump passed the exam. "The President did exceedingly well on it," the doctor said. "That was not driven at all by any concerns I had. It was driven by the President's wishes and he did well on it." "There’s no indication that he has any kind of cognitive issues," Dr. Jackson said. "On a day-to-day basis, it has been my experience the president is very sharp. Very articulate when he speaks to me."

so that will just about wrap up this partisan issue



posted on Jan, 16 2018 @ 03:53 PM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

This is not coming from the point of politics. But from real facts. If you look at the before a person is elected as president and then after he is out of office, the years of the stress and being in that position is seen, and one can see it in every single president where there are before and after pictures. The person looks older, tired, and worn down, from the job. Being President it not easy. There is no one to share that burden, every aspect of that job weighs on the person heavily. So no that is not politics, but a fact.

And the point on a sane person launching a nuclear weapon, is not speculation. Ever hear about Harold Hering? He was the first person who brought that question to light, when no one else would. Nixon, who was president at the time, was drinking heavily and depressed over the Watergate Hearings, and he did indeed state about using nuclear weapons to kill.
www.businessinsider.com...
www.drmirkin.com...
So here you have a president who drinks heavily with some mental health issues, wanting to start a nuclear war.

Then there was the case of Ronald Reagan. The man was diagnosed with Alzheimer’s after leaving office. And anyone who has ever dealt with anyone who has been diagnosed with dementia, can tell you that by the time that the diagnosis is given, the person has been living with that for a few years. The signs were there, but most would attribute such to say old age. But the fact is that the man probably had the condition while still President of the USA.

The problem here is that when a person sees the same person every day, they do not notice at times any sort of problems. They tend to not see such. And that is human nature, however if they do not see the same person for say 2 weeks or longer, they notice the changes there. So if the cabinet or the Vice President sees the President every day, how would they notice? How would anyone?

The point being, that perhaps it would be a good idea to get into the law, that the president should be seen by a mental health professional, yearly if not more, if nothing more than to give him the kind of support to remain mentally healthy while sitting as the President.



posted on Jan, 16 2018 @ 04:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Gemwolf

There is a fine difference here. Points of law should be looked at. Funny how we can look and question one person, ignore the same issue on the next person when it is the exact same issue, only the places change.

And the last time I heard, there is no religious test to hold office in this country. In fact there really is nothing that states a person has to be this or that religion.

And being President, means that sometimes, one needs to act in a certain way, and not just buck tradition, or do things that are just way out of the ordinary. Actions and words, coming from a leader of a country, have real consequences that can ripple around the world, in some cases. And actions often speak louder than words.

Asking about the physical and mental fitness of a leader should not be crazy, rather it is something that everyone should be asking and wanting to know about. The last thing the country needs is a president that may drop down from say a heart attack, or becomes so depressed or worse, has a mental problem.



posted on Jan, 16 2018 @ 04:02 PM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

The funny thing is that we do not know what the doctor stated. And as long as the White House is going to lie about what the doctor stated or even put out a false statement who can say?

I do know that if it was a truthful statement from the doctor, at least his name would have been correct.



posted on Jan, 16 2018 @ 04:03 PM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

It's amazing. President Trump is healthier than most people in their 30s, and he's 71 years old.

Cursing, drinking diet coke, and eating at McDonald's can be good for the right person.


edit on 1/16/2018 by carewemust because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 16 2018 @ 04:03 PM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

Apparently he scored 30/30, I am going to assume then that it was a mini-mental state examination that he undertook.

Unless is see evidence otherwise then I cannot say that he did not score this in the test.

Although I am a little suspicious of anyone who says a 71 year old who has demonstrated the kind signs that Trump has demonstrated is going to get a perfect score. Its by no means a difficult test but I scored a 29 and I know someone who scored a 25, the test in itself is not a fully reliable indicator of cognitive impairment when done in isolation and like I said, a perfect score does raise a eyebrow.

I personally still believe he, and all Presidents, should undergo a full psychiatric examination.

Right now though if thats all we have to go on though I guess we have to concede for now that Trump is of sound mind, therefore we cannot explain his behaviours as him being cognitively impaired. Part of me kind of thinks that almost makes it worse.







 
74
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join