Did Liberals Forget About The Goldwater Rule?

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

Do you think any individual who wants to be POTUS should have a independent psychiatric evaluation done?

No, it's not necessary for a liberal candidate, it's already established they are suffering from mental illness.

originally posted by: EvidenceNibbler
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

Do you think any individual who wants to be POTUS should have a independent psychiatric evaluation done?

No, it's not necessary for a liberal candidate, it's already established they are suffering from mental illness.

Well being liberal is not a mental illness.

So again do you think all presidents (and presidential nominees) should have a independent psychiatric evaluation done as part of their annual medical checks?

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin

originally posted by: EvidenceNibbler
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

Do you think any individual who wants to be POTUS should have a independent psychiatric evaluation done?

No, it's not necessary for a liberal candidate, it's already established they are suffering from mental illness.

Well being liberal is not a mental illness.

So again do you think all presidents should have a independent psychiatric evaluation done as part of their annual medical checks?

No.

They are citizens, and without any probable cause I can't imagine why we would require them to undergo medical tests, and have them disclosed publicly.

Unless someone wants to claim that they aren't citizens, or that they are "more equal" citizens. In the US, we don't support such notions.

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

Well being liberal is not a mental illness.

So again do you think all presidents should have a independent psychiatric evaluation done as part of their annual medical checks?

No.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

To be fair I am not even saying it has to be made public but the health of both candidates was a big part of the last election and I think in general it should be mandatory that they are of sound mind and body to carry out the duties of being POTUS.

But if you disagree that’s fine, I can understand the other side of the argument.

I also think though it’s something else Trump could do to end some of the speculation around him just now

originally posted by: EvidenceNibbler
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

Well being liberal is not a mental illness.

So again do you think all presidents should have a independent psychiatric evaluation done as part of their annual medical checks?

No.

Ridiculous and absurd. Not to mention throwing mud into already muddy waters.

originally posted by: EvidenceNibbler
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

Well being liberal is not a mental illness.

So again do you think all presidents should have a independent psychiatric evaluation done as part of their annual medical checks?

No.

You back to those memes again, seems to be where you run to hide once you realise you have either lost the argument or just simply lack the ability to participate in the debate.

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin
This is backed by Scientology, but there does seem to be some truth in it.
Not a fan of they psychiatric community by and large myself.

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

To be fair I am not even saying it has to be made public but the healths of both candidates was a big part of the last election and I think in general it should be mandatory that they are of sound mind and body to carry out the duties of being POTUS.

But if you disagree that’s fine, I can understand the other side of the argument.

I also think though it’s someth else Trump could do to end some of the speculation around him just now

Candidate health is always a smear used in elections. The fact is, their medical condition is none of our business. I know we like to make up ridiculous reasons to believe we have a right to know....but we don't. They are citizens, and have a right to medical privacy.

If humans didn't tend to be rather simple minded little beasties, our electoral process could be far more rewarding and enlightening for our country. Unfortunately, they aim for the middle, which means we get either Trump or Hillary. From there it can't really improve...and as we see, it can really only devolve.

If the cries of "mental illness" were simple ad hominem, it could be shrugged off. But its not. Now we have politically biased professors violating their own ethics, and making people think that valid questions are being raised. Again...because the average person just isn't bright enough to understand stuff like the ethical rules professionals act under, and because (after swigging down some Brawndo), they think overturning our nation to support a political rivarly makes sense.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: Liquesence
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

stated by people in this profession gets turned into headlines like

Yeah, on the one hand it's concerning, and one of the reasons for, I suppose, section 7.3: because that opinion is used thusly. We've all seen that movie before, everyone says you're nuts because you act it, and try to lock you up, etc, but you're really not nuts. And we all know what headlines can...

Then again, also a tactic seen in third world dictatorships is the attempt by a head of state to silence critics, including the press, when less than favorable opinions are published.

But tit for tat doesn't make America better.

If you think he is a third world dictator, your best bet is to lure independants with rational arguments.

If i decide to vote in 2020, and that was today, there's a good chance i'd vote Trump. Not because I approve of him insomuch as because his opposition has made him at least palatable in comparison.

Neither does reactionary voting, or voting for spite.

I never said he was a third world dictator, and I really have no argument one way or the other on this topic, at this point. I was correcting the OP while also clarifying.

This thread is simply about the Section 7.3, the 'goldwater rule.' That states opinions about public figures should not be made without evaluation; some psychiatrists say they are not making an opinion about him, but the dangerousness of the situation, even though it's still inadvertently an opinion.

I really have no 'side' insofar as this is concerned. I really don't care.

But yes, psychiatrists should abide by Section 7.3. I also think Trump is nutz.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: EvidenceNibbler
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

Well being liberal is not a mental illness.

So again do you think all presidents should have a independent psychiatric evaluation done as part of their annual medical checks?

No.

Ridiculous and absurd. Not to mention throwing mud into already muddy waters.

Just as ridiculous as all the cries of "Trump is crazy"

a reply to: EvidenceNibbler

This is backed by Scientology, but there does seem to be some truth in it.

hmmmm.....

backed by scientology.....does seem to be some truth in it.....

Scientology and truth, two words that don't belong in the same sentence.

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

Give it a watch, there's some indisputable evidence contained within the video.
Don't shoot the messengers.

The Citizens Commission on Human Rights International (CCHR) is a nonprofit organization established in 1969 by the Church of Scientology and psychiatrist Thomas Szasz,[1][2][3] headquartered in Los Angeles, California. Its stated mission is to "eradicate abuses committed under the guise of mental health and enact patient and consumer protections."[4] Many critics regard it as a Scientology front group whose purpose is to push the organization's anti-psychiatric agenda

Personally, I know very little of what Scientology is about. Just lump it in with most other religions, which have their own special kind of crazy also.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

I think you make some fair points but I personally believe that anyone who is going to be running a entire country should be subject to a full physical and psychiatric assessment to ensure that he or she is fit for the job.

Its not really even a left/right or partisan issue for me I just think that any presidential nominee (and any leader of a state for that matter) should be assessed to establish that they are physically and mentally stable enough to preform their duties.

I guess like a lot of times in politics it comes down to personal beliefs.

I do also understand the sentiment that a individuals health should be private, however I think that when it comes to the leader of the country, where it is in the public opinion then their should be some information available. Personally I think that it should be a independent physical and psychiatric assessment, the full details do not need to be made public just a simple declaration that the individual is or is not fit enough to preform the duties of president

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

I think you make some fair points but I personally believe that anyone who is going to be running a entire country should be subject to a full physical and psychiatric assessment to ensure that he or she is fit for the job.

The implication therein is that some citizens can have their rights suspended without probable cause. That is a slippery slope that doesn't really seem to have any real benefit. In 200+ years the only time its really been relevant was now, when political rivals want to smear someone.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Liquesence

And its making me more and more supportive of a man that I really don't like.

That's what they don't realize. This is the net effect outside of left-wing echo chambers. Most voters aren't hyperpartisan nuts, and they despise this nonsense.

Keep doubling down Dems, those midterms are coming up fast.

originally posted by: EvidenceNibbler

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: EvidenceNibbler
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

Well being liberal is not a mental illness.

So again do you think all presidents should have a independent psychiatric evaluation done as part of their annual medical checks?

No.

Ridiculous and absurd. Not to mention throwing mud into already muddy waters.

Just as ridiculous as all the cries of "Trump is crazy"

An eye for an eye, while the world goes blind

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

The implication therein is that some citizens can have their rights suspended without probable cause.

Not really, its just saying that if you have progressive dementia or have suicidal tendencies, are prone to psychotic episodes or whatever then you are not going to be able to undertake the role of POTUS.

I think its quite sensible.

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

The implication therein is that some citizens can have their rights suspended without probable cause.

Not really, its just saying that if you have progressive dementia or have suicidal tendencies, are prone to psychotic episodes or whatever then you are not going to be able to undertake the role of POTUS.

I think its quite sensible.

and opens the door for extreme abuse.

Don't you remember that we still have the CIA to deal with here? Its not like they don't have a known history of killing people then painting a picture that they were insane.

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

I'm with you seeing as how whoever is sitting in the big chair is head of the free world.
I don't think a physical and mental exam is asking too much. People have had to go through evaluations for far less important jobs