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.

 

Did Liberals Forget About The Goldwater Rule?

page: 7
53
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 8 2018 @ 03:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: EvidenceNibbler
You seem to think know I am a person who...


...was wrong about the Goldwater Rule.

Fixed that.




posted on Jan, 8 2018 @ 04:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: EvidenceNibbler
a reply to: TinySickTears

Is there not some checks in place already for if the President goes crazy?

There must be.


25th Amendment, for starters.


Yes there are options if he was actually crazy and it wasn't just a left-wing pipe dream since the Russian collusion myth went nowhere.


The OP asked if there was a means; I provided the constitutional means.

I didn't comment on whether or not it will, or whether I think it should, be used.

Thanks.


You provided an answer and I expanded upon it, since the point I made in my post directly applies to the reason why many people ask the question you asnwered.

I didn't say you commented on whether you think it should be used.

You're welcome.



posted on Jan, 8 2018 @ 04:31 PM
link   
a reply to: EvidenceNibbler

Leftists are hilarious...we saw this strategy coming months ago and called it when Trump was elected. They would try to call Trump crazy and use the 25th amendment, but you do know his cabinet members have to say he is crazy too. That would never work, it will only make Dems look more unhinged and desperate.



posted on Jan, 8 2018 @ 04:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: EvidenceNibbler
a reply to: TinySickTears

Is there not some checks in place already for if the President goes crazy?

There must be.


25th Amendment, for starters.


Yes there are options if he was actually crazy and it wasn't just a left-wing pipe dream since the Russian collusion myth went nowhere.


The OP asked if there was a means; I provided the constitutional means.

I didn't comment on whether or not it will, or whether I think it should, be used.

Thanks.


You provided an answer and I expanded upon it, since the point I made in my post directly applies to the reason why many people ask the question you asnwered.

I didn't say you commented on whether you think it should be used.

You're welcome.


You offered an irrelevant (and also factually incorrect) opinion in an attempt to troll and bait, after I answered a question put forth by the OP using a Constitutional fact.

Your comment (opinion) is therefore (and still) irrelevant to the answer I provided.




posted on Jan, 8 2018 @ 04:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: EvidenceNibbler
a reply to: TinySickTears

Is there not some checks in place already for if the President goes crazy?

There must be.


25th Amendment, for starters.


Yes there are options if he was actually crazy and it wasn't just a left-wing pipe dream since the Russian collusion myth went nowhere.


The OP asked if there was a means; I provided the constitutional means.

I didn't comment on whether or not it will, or whether I think it should, be used.

Thanks.


You provided an answer and I expanded upon it, since the point I made in my post directly applies to the reason why many people ask the question you asnwered.

I didn't say you commented on whether you think it should be used.

You're welcome.


You offered an irrelevant (and also factually incorrect) opinion in an attempt to troll and bait, after I answered a question put forth by the OP using a Constitutional fact.

Your comment (opinion) is therefore (and still) irrelevant to the answer I provided.



It was absolutely a relevant comment, since there's no real evidence he's crazy. That's not factually incorrect. That actually renders the 25th Amendment irrelevant right now. Since the mental health issue is fake, they can't use it to remove the president. And if you felt trolled by the observation that they aren't gonna be able to use that to remove Trump, you might be the one that's mentally unstable.
edit on 8 1 18 by face23785 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 8 2018 @ 05:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: EvidenceNibbler

In brief it says it is unethical for medical professionals to diagnose any public official...


Wrong. It states that only APA members should not diagnose politicians without seeing them.


Listen, this forum only needs one Phage not two.



posted on Jan, 8 2018 @ 05:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: Wardaddy454
Listen, this forum only needs one Phage not two.


He asked me to handle it since he's on PTO at the moment.



posted on Jan, 8 2018 @ 05:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Wardaddy454
Listen, this forum only needs one Phage not two.


He asked me to handle it since he's on PTO at the moment.


Well ok, just stop doing it so well.



posted on Jan, 8 2018 @ 06:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
As has already been explained to you on previous threads.....


The Goldwater rule clashes with the duty to warn, many mental health professionals believe that Trump is a danger and as such the public deserve to be warned of this.

They have not yet made a absolute disagnosis but dementia is the leading thought.
So what they are saying is that dementia makes people dangerous?
That's laughable if anything people with dementia are only a danger to themselves.
Don't you think that these so called professionals all vote Democrat?
A bigot maybe but shouldn't all politicians be bigots?I know that I want only to vote for bigots,someone who won't change their opinions to appease the public,that don't agree with them,someone who holds dear their views with strength of conviction.
Trump ticks those boxes,I don't think that's a bad thing.
If the voters want to vote for someone like that so be it,that's what democracy is all about but I think half the population forgets that when they end up on the losing side.

edit on 8/1/2018 by glen200376 because: Spelling



posted on Jan, 8 2018 @ 06:26 PM
link   
a reply to: face23785

I never said there was "evidence."

The Op asked if there was a [legal] means for removing a president who is potentially mentally unfit. I provided a Constitutional answer for removal of a sitting US President, if in fact it is deemed a sitting US President is mentally or physically unable to perform his duties. That means is the 25th amendment.

I never said there was reason as of yet, or that Trump should be, just that the 25th provides for that.

Period.



posted on Jan, 8 2018 @ 06:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Liquesence

That author's attitude is exactly the issue I was warning about in my thread on "Mental Illness" a month ago.

Her creative use of language is being utilized specifically to violate the civil rights of someone and harm their reputation with false labels purely because they "secretly don't like" that targetted individual.

Bandy Lee clearly exhibits a very high dangerousness level.
edit on 1/8/2018 by muzzleflash because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 8 2018 @ 06:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: glen200376

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
As has already been explained to you on previous threads.....


The Goldwater rule clashes with the duty to warn, many mental health professionals believe that Trump is a danger and as such the public deserve to be warned of this.

So what they are saying is that dementia makes people dangerous?
That's laughable if anything people with dementia are only a danger to themselves.


Yeah, but this one has a really big button, like, I mean really big, even bigger NoKo...

Plus his a genius, a really stable genius...



posted on Jan, 8 2018 @ 06:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: Liquesence
a reply to: face23785

I never said there was "evidence."

The Op asked if there was a [legal] means for removing a president who is potentially mentally unfit. I provided a Constitutional answer for removal of a sitting US President, if in fact it is deemed a sitting US President is mentally or physically unable to perform his duties. That means is the 25th amendment.

I never said there was reason as of yet, or that Trump should be, just that the 25th provides for that.

Period.






Yeah and I didn't dispute that. Period. People are asking about the 25th Amendment because they want to try to remove Trump through a baseless "mentally unstable" myth since the Russian collusion myth went nowhere. The 25th isn't gonna be used. It's a #resist pipe dream from crybabies who can't accept a 14 month old election. That's a completely relevant point to make considering that's the entire reason people are bringing up the 25th Amendment. Do you deny that? Do you think people are just bringing it up because they wanted a lesson on Constitutional history?



posted on Jan, 8 2018 @ 06:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
It began with rapist then it became tax cheat, then it became racist,then it became Russian puppet,and a year later after throwing everything including the kitchen sink. Today it's nuts.


If the shoe fits....




posted on Jan, 8 2018 @ 06:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Subaeruginosa

He was elected by the people though.

If people don't like that they should present a candidate and start preparing for the next election, unless of course the Democrats aren't serious and just figure Trump can have a 2nd term without a fight.

The clock is ticking and less than 3 years exist to campaign and turn this around. So why waste time with trivial stuff like this? Hmmmm.



posted on Jan, 8 2018 @ 06:36 PM
link   
a reply to: muzzleflash

I didn't say I agreed with Dr. Lee. I simply quoted her own stated reason for publicly speaking about Trump as justified.

In fact, I tend to disagree with her argument regarding Section 7.3 and Trump (that it is simply an assessment on dangerousness and not an opinion on Trump. It is an opinion, regardless of how she couches it).


Her creative use of language is being utilized specifically to violate the civil rights of someone


No one's civil rights are being violated.



posted on Jan, 8 2018 @ 06:37 PM
link   
a reply to: face23785

I don't want to call Trumps opposition mentally ill, because I know many of them from years on here. They are sane, and good people.

But I do wish that his opposition would take a few moments to check themselves. To consider how their position looks to independants. In the end neither the left nor the right can win an election in which the center decides to engage. Combined the left and the right (along with a few centrists who feel duty bound to vote) only account for about 40% of the nation. If the entire nation actually got engaged.....

I'd hope the liberal plan isn't to use pure smear tactics to attract the centrist. Many of us don't try to participate as it is. INsults aren't gonna do it.



posted on Jan, 8 2018 @ 06:38 PM
link   
a reply to: face23785

In this case even discussing the 25th Am (on these grounds in this context) is absurdity.

Trumps the same guy he always is. He's normal and we'll be fine if people chill out and think logically for once.



posted on Jan, 8 2018 @ 06:40 PM
link   
a reply to: face23785

Yeah and I didn't dispute that. Period. People are asking about the 25th Amendment because they want to try to remove Trump through a baseless "mentally unstable" myth since the Russian collusion myth went nowhere. The 25th isn't gonna be used. It's a #resist pipe dream from crybabies who can't accept a 14 month old election. That's a completely relevant point to make considering that's the entire reason people are bringing up the 25th Amendment. Do you deny that? Do you think people are just bringing it up because they wanted a lesson on Constitutional history?


You're not even worth talking to any longer.

Good night.



posted on Jan, 8 2018 @ 06:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: Liquesence

No one's civil rights are being violated.


I agree but *if* Trumps right to legally possess a firearm were removed as a result of this "call", the rights would be violated.




top topics



 
53
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join