Jump to content

The First Trump Impeachment Thread


Recommended Posts


  • Replies 3.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

You have long ago proven yourself to be intellectually dishonest and resistant to facts and reason.

Interesting thing about this.     Shokin was widely viewed as a corrupt prosecutor by almost all of our allies.  It was widely known within our our foreign policy team that he actually neede

You would invoke Alan Dershowitz to defend Donald Trump.  He defended Epstein and procured his sweetheart deal that allowed him to continue raping children. Epstein pled the 5th when as

Posted Images

2 hours ago, knapplc said:

 

Maybe he should... you know... do his job instead of tweeting?

Actually my thought was that  there are some people in the admin, who got to know that Trump is mentally imbalanced - you don't tweet like this wtout being a little :ahhhhhhhh :blink:  wacko.  They should do their job and bring up Amend 25 Article 4.  Yea, I know it ain't going to happen but as @schriznoeder said, "But a guy can dream, right??"

  • Plus1 1
Link to post
2 minutes ago, TGHusker said:

Actually my thought was that  there are some people in the admin, who got to know that Trump is mentally imbalanced - you don't tweet like this wtout being a little :ahhhhhhhh :blink:  wacko.  They should do their job and bring up Amend 25 Article 4.  Yea, I know it ain't going to happen but as @schriznoeder said, "But a guy can dream, right??"

 

 

The problem with this analysis is that for psychologists, you can't make this analysis without an interview of sorts. As someone in the field, even if I think his behavior is bizarre, I would not feel comfortable making any statements about competence or ability to function. Below from the American Psychological Association ethics code. 

 

"

9.01 Bases for Assessments
(a) Psychologists base the opinions contained in their recommendations, reports, and diagnostic or evaluative statements, including forensic testimony, on information and techniques sufficient to substantiate their findings. (See also Standard 2.04, Bases for Scientific and Professional Judgments.)

(b) Except as noted in 9.01c, psychologists provide opinions of the psychological characteristics of individuals only after they have conducted an examination of the individuals adequate to support their statements or conclusions. When, despite reasonable efforts, such an examination is not practical, psychologists document the efforts they made and the result of those efforts, clarify the probable impact of their limited information on the reliability and validity of their opinions, and appropriately limit the nature and extent of their conclusions or recommendations. (See also Standards 2.01, Boundaries of Competence, and 9.06, Interpreting Assessment Results.)

(c) When psychologists conduct a record review or provide consultation or supervision and an individual examination is not warranted or necessary for the opinion, psychologists explain this and the sources of information on which they based their conclusions and recommendations."

 

You're hearing a lot more about the diagnosis stuff from psychiatrists who have (arguably) less expertise in diagnosis. Their training focuses more on the biological influences of behavior. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post

7 minutes ago, Huskerzoo said:

 

 

The problem with this analysis is that for psychologists, you can't make this analysis without an interview of sorts. As someone in the field, even if I think his behavior is bizarre, I would not feel comfortable making any statements about competence or ability to function. Below from the American Psychological Association ethics code. 

 

"

9.01 Bases for Assessments
(a) Psychologists base the opinions contained in their recommendations, reports, and diagnostic or evaluative statements, including forensic testimony, on information and techniques sufficient to substantiate their findings. (See also Standard 2.04, Bases for Scientific and Professional Judgments.)

(b) Except as noted in 9.01c, psychologists provide opinions of the psychological characteristics of individuals only after they have conducted an examination of the individuals adequate to support their statements or conclusions. When, despite reasonable efforts, such an examination is not practical, psychologists document the efforts they made and the result of those efforts, clarify the probable impact of their limited information on the reliability and validity of their opinions, and appropriately limit the nature and extent of their conclusions or recommendations. (See also Standards 2.01, Boundaries of Competence, and 9.06, Interpreting Assessment Results.)

(c) When psychologists conduct a record review or provide consultation or supervision and an individual examination is not warranted or necessary for the opinion, psychologists explain this and the sources of information on which they based their conclusions and recommendations."

 

You're hearing a lot more about the diagnosis stuff from psychiatrists who have (arguably) less expertise in diagnosis. Their training focuses more on the biological influences of behavior. 

That settles it    (Seriously, we are all arm chair QBs providing our political wisdom and wishes from our far away secret hideouts)

giphy.gif

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
15 minutes ago, Huskerzoo said:

 

 

The problem with this analysis is that for psychologists, you can't make this analysis without an interview of sorts. As someone in the field, even if I think his behavior is bizarre, I would not feel comfortable making any statements about competence or ability to function. Below from the American Psychological Association ethics code. 

 

"

9.01 Bases for Assessments
(a) Psychologists base the opinions contained in their recommendations, reports, and diagnostic or evaluative statements, including forensic testimony, on information and techniques sufficient to substantiate their findings. (See also Standard 2.04, Bases for Scientific and Professional Judgments.)

(b) Except as noted in 9.01c, psychologists provide opinions of the psychological characteristics of individuals only after they have conducted an examination of the individuals adequate to support their statements or conclusions. When, despite reasonable efforts, such an examination is not practical, psychologists document the efforts they made and the result of those efforts, clarify the probable impact of their limited information on the reliability and validity of their opinions, and appropriately limit the nature and extent of their conclusions or recommendations. (See also Standards 2.01, Boundaries of Competence, and 9.06, Interpreting Assessment Results.)

(c) When psychologists conduct a record review or provide consultation or supervision and an individual examination is not warranted or necessary for the opinion, psychologists explain this and the sources of information on which they based their conclusions and recommendations."

 

You're hearing a lot more about the diagnosis stuff from psychiatrists who have (arguably) less expertise in diagnosis. Their training focuses more on the biological influences of behavior. 

No offense to you or all the hard work you put in but anyone with half a brain can tell Trump ain't right in the head. That diagnosis may not satisfy the required technical benchmarks but I'll never believe it's wrong either. But then I also think people who commit mass shootings are effed in the head too.

  • Plus1 5
Link to post
1 minute ago, JJ Husker said:

But then I also think people who commit mass shootings are effed in the head too.

 

Welcome to leaning left.  It's okay to assume Trump is mentally unstable because he tweets a lot, but not okay to say there is a correlation between Mental Illnesses and mass shootings.

  • Plus1 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post

So, on the way to work this morning and listening to NPR, they were interviewing a GOP Senator.  Sorry, I didn't catch the name.  It really summed up the defense GOP is taking on this and how they are talking in circles.  Anyone listening though could tell the interviewer was doing a good job of showing the idiocy of the guy's argument.


First, he said that he hasn't seen anything that would change his mind to vote for removal.  He was asked about voting against witnesses.  He said that will be decided after he hears the opening arguments.  But, so far, he doesn't hear anything "new".  He was asked, there has been new information in the last week.  He said that the Republicans haven't presented anything new on the Senate Floor. 

 

It went round and round from there.  Republicans are going to say nothing new was presented.  But...they aren't allowing anything new to be presented.

  • Plus1 2
Link to post

50 minutes ago, Redux said:

 

Welcome to leaning left.  It's okay to assume Trump is mentally unstable because he tweets a lot, but not okay to say there is a correlation between Mental Illnesses and mass shootings.

 

I think it's okay to talk about the correlation between mental illness and mass shootings. It's unavoidable and mandatory, and I've seen a version of it in coverage of every mass shooting; the troubled life, the cry for help, people ignoring the signs from mental health professionals. The tricky part is that people without mental illness still commit horrible crimes, and people within the huge mental illness spectrum don't deserve the stigma of Future Mass Shooter. I think most people get that, right? 

 

Trump is mentally unstable for many reasons, increasingly corroborated by people who worked closely with him. The part of him that Tweets 150 times a day — the most powerful man in the world obsessed with even the most petty criticism — is just icing on the cake of paranoid narcissism. 

  • Plus1 2
Link to post
25 minutes ago, teachercd said:

Biden (who is losing his mind) vs Trump (Who is losing his mind) would make for some cringe worthy viewing!

 

 

fwiw...i think the people surrounding biden would be much better then the people trump surrounds himself with.  

  • Plus1 2
Link to post
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.






×
×
  • Create New...