Reply With Quote
She didn't cancel, bro. They gave her seat away, and a congressman testified it's not the first time.
One could draw the same conclusions reading your posts pre and post inauguration.
She didn't cancel, bro. They gave her seat away, and a congressman testified it's not the first time.
What does that have to do with something barely more than a year back? You posted this twice in a row too; tell us how it's that important to you.
(shrugs)
Watch the videos. Don't take anybody's word for it. or not. Dismiss the claim because you don't like it? You should be better than that. either it has something to it or not.
Regardless of whether or not Trump is in the beginning stages of dementia, we probably should allow for a process to periodically have the president evaluated, yes?
Why so? Is it possible that any given 74 year old might be in the beginning stages of dementia?
yes or no.
It makes a case for periodic evaluation of the president for mental illness. Should the person capable of launching nuclear strikes be required to be evaluated periodically?
Or it could be a case of an incredibly unqualified, may be uniquely unqualified president being overwhelmed by the job and engaging in Panic talking. It's a thing.
Sure. Still, shouldn't we regularly test the person capable of ending human civilization with nuclear weapons for signs of mental instability?
Of course we could. It's a hazardous path though. Who's doing the evaluating and why are the tough spots
I'm not asking about "could". I am asking about "should". Easy enough to pick a team of doctors.
Which is the greater risk? That we might accidentally remove a president, or allow a mentally unstable person to end human civilization?
If the current occupant had a "D" behind his name, I have little doubt that the crowd working so hard to pooh-pooh this would say yes. That alone should give you some pause, although the implications of that are beyond what I am trying to get at here.
The voluminous evidence for Trash's mental degradation is obvious to professionals and non-professionals
And the professionals have ignored the Goldwater rule to go on record against Trash as a serious threat to America and Americans
Im saying could because the questions I raised, and seemingly confirmed by you, give me pause.
What's the threshold for such an evaluation? Who sets it? What are the criteria? And why in the world would I entrust a hype partisan organization to make these determinations fairly?
Now, that being said, a regimen of regularly scheduled exams/evaluations framework seems a place to start... Not an Ad Hoc call to arns as it appears
Going full re . The American people voted. Deal with it.
Should the person capable of launching nuclear strikes be required to be evaluated periodically? Not a hard question to answer.
It will be impossible for him to answer. Dude will himself.
I predict he will not answer it. He will fall back on [smiley][derision] when pressed...
Were you calling for Obama to be required to be evaluated periodically?
I doubt he did when W was president either. Call him ageist if you like, but I'd be for that kind of evaluation regardless of age. It's never a problem until it's a problem.
You know why. You are diagnosing him. What qualifies you for that?
No. Obama never gave any indication of any illness, and was too young to present much of a risk.
I would support it though. Doesn't matter what political party the president is.
Quid pro quo.
I think he should be diagnosed professionally. I am not qualified, merely alarmed. I have seen dementia close up, and the early warning signs are relatively easy to detect.
Should the person capable of launching nuclear strikes be required to be evaluated periodically? Not a hard question to answer.
Then it becomes a large problem. I can post pictures from Nagasaki and Hiroshima to drive the seriousness of the subject home.
Some people like the president joking about this, but this is too serious to take lightly.
Threshold is being sworn in. One cognitive evaluation per year, starting Jan 20th.
Panel of 3 doctors selected by AMA using whatever best practice neurologic standards are in place at the time. I would be happy with full results being private if docs certify mental health.
That is a matter of opinion. I think giving billions of dollars in cash on pallets to Iran in the middle of the night is crazier than anything Trump has done as president. Should we make it a requirement to be tested? And if choosing FBI agents to investigate collusion causes such an uproar - can you imagine choosing a psychiatrist to evaluate the president who could possibly overturn the will of millions of Americans?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions