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.
No, it's not necessary for a liberal candidate, it's already established they are suffering from mental illness.
Do you think any individual who wants to be POTUS should have a independent psychiatric evaluation done?
originally posted by: EvidenceNibbler
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin
No, it's not necessary for a liberal candidate, it's already established they are suffering from mental illness.
Do you think any individual who wants to be POTUS should have a independent psychiatric evaluation done?
originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
originally posted by: EvidenceNibbler
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin
No, it's not necessary for a liberal candidate, it's already established they are suffering from mental illness.
Do you think any individual who wants to be POTUS should have a independent psychiatric evaluation done?
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?
Well being liberal is not a mental illness.
No.
So again do you think all presidents should have a independent psychiatric evaluation done as part of their annual medical checks?
originally posted by: EvidenceNibbler
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin
Well being liberal is not a mental illness.
No.
So again do you think all presidents should have a independent psychiatric evaluation done as part of their annual medical checks?
originally posted by: EvidenceNibbler
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin
Well being liberal is not a mental illness.
No.
So again do you think all presidents should have a independent psychiatric evaluation done as part of their annual medical checks?
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
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.
originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
originally posted by: EvidenceNibbler
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin
Well being liberal is not a mental illness.
No.
So again do you think all presidents should have a independent psychiatric evaluation done as part of their annual medical checks?
Ridiculous and absurd. Not to mention throwing mud into already muddy waters.
This is backed by Scientology, but there does seem to be some truth in it.
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
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.
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.
originally posted by: EvidenceNibbler
originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
originally posted by: EvidenceNibbler
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin
Well being liberal is not a mental illness.
No.
So again do you think all presidents should have a independent psychiatric evaluation done as part of their annual medical checks?
Ridiculous and absurd. Not to mention throwing mud into already muddy waters.
Just as ridiculous as all the cries of "Trump is crazy"
The implication therein is that some citizens can have their rights suspended without probable cause.
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.