Trump quotes Alan Dershowitz saying consideration of 25th Amendment ‘despicable’

[noonereal]

You know, some people actually care about the Constitution and respecting Democracy. Not some power grab. This is America for goodness sakes. Not Venezuela.

Some may feel that the power grab has already occurred. Certainly a fair perspective.

Putin, through his Trumpets is attempting to bring down the USA from within.

Is it not patriotic and morally compelling to use all tools to fight this?

 

[j-mac]

LOL Stop complaining that Putin fooled us by behaving like an angel while plotting our demise. He's a conniving, lying scumbag. Why do you think Trump admires him so much? Besides I thought you guys wanted us to give Russia a chance now? Trump sure does and says so every time it comes up. Obama tried that and was burned badly no doubt, but at least he levied heavy painful sanctions on Russia for Crimea to send a message to Putin. The problem is that Putin has been a very bad boy lately and we cannot deal with him in good faith until he admits his crimes against the U.S. elections and withdraws from Crimea. Until then we must do everything in our power to sanction him and cut him off from the rest of the world.

Lol....heavy sanctions....yeah by refusing to aid the Ukrainians, I'm sure that taught Putin a lesson....:roll:

Sent from my SM-T587P using Tapatalk

 

[j-mac]

Some may feel that the power grab has already occurred. Certainly a fair perspective.

Putin, through his Trumpets is attempting to bring down the USA from within.

Is it not patriotic and morally compelling to use all tools to fight this?

Yep, by using triggered Democrats...We appreciate your admission of complicity in Putin's plot.

Sent from my SM-T587P using Tapatalk

 

[Hatuey]

Well, there is the Report of the Miller Commission (1988):

https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1000&context=twentyfifth_amendment_reports

Then there is this CRS Report for Congress (1999):

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc//RS20260.pdf

Historically, the promulgation of the 25th Amendment began in 1956 thanks the "secret" heart attack President Eisenhower had. It then gained actual traction when Kennedy was assassinated, Johnson became President and he had a heart attack (November 22, 1963) with no VP in office in case he passed away. The Senate began to look into it. In 1965 Congress began actively working on resolutions which eventually became the 25th Amendment. That's as far as I have gotten at this time with a cursory search, although I wish I could have found the various Congressional debates between 1956 and 1965 to give a firmer foundation.

The bottom line is that "Unable to perform the duties" originally referred to a medical problem of some kind.

You've literally posted that the 25th amendment is not dependent on the president being sick to be used - it is also independent of why the executive believes it is being used.

It is dependent on the president being fit. Whether this invalidates the election - it does not - is irrelevant because it is a constitutional amendment.

How are you still arguing that use of the guidelines in an amendment can be unconstitutional based on reports to congress and the president's beliefs?

Are you alright? Lol.

Sent from Trump Plaza's basement using Putin's MacBook.

 

[sangha]

How so?...hiding behind "whataboutism" as if all history before Jan. 20, 2017 is pathetically weak, and shows that you know your position won't hold to historical scrutiny....

Sent from my SM-T587P using Tapatalk

Your whataboutism fails because no matter how much you search my posts, you will never find one me describing Russia as anything but an enemy

If only we could say the same about the president you try to defend

 

[sangha]

Do you really think that the 25th was envisioned to cover, or be used to remove a president you don't like?

Sent from my SM-T587P using Tapatalk

It applies to a president who cannot fulfill his obligations to the nation due to his obligations to a foreign enemy

 

[MauiMan]

Any credible mental health professional would never diagnose without meeting with a subject....you fall for hackery because it's what you want to believe...

Sent from my SM-T587P using Tapatalk

Your argument is flawed in that you did not read the book or even read a synopsis of the book, in which that issue is discussed and addressed. You attack my character instead—also a logic flaw (ad hominem). You have proven nothing.

 

[Saladin4]

Alan Douchebag looks and sounds senile...Surprised he is still alive.....

 

[j-mac]

Your argument is flawed in that you did not read the book or even read a synopsis of the book, in which that issue is discussed and addressed. You attack my character instead—also a logic flaw (ad hominem). You have proven nothing.

Why should I waste my time with triggered hackery?

"Psychiatrists should never provide professional opinions in the media about public figures they have not personally examined, the American Psychiatric Association reiterated in a statement. The association was reminding members about what is known as “The Goldwater Rule” — a guideline penned in 1973 after more than 1000 psychiatrists went public with views about US presidential candidate Barry Goldwater’s fitness to hold office, calling him, among other things, “a dangerous lunatic.”

Is it ever ethical for doctors to diagnose patients they haven’t examined?

 

[MauiMan]

Why should I waste my time with triggered hackery?

"Psychiatrists should never provide professional opinions in the media about public figures they have not personally examined, the American Psychiatric Association reiterated in a statement. The association was reminding members about what is known as “The Goldwater Rule” — a guideline penned in 1973 after more than 1000 psychiatrists went public with views about US presidential candidate Barry Goldwater’s fitness to hold office, calling him, among other things, “a dangerous lunatic.”

Is it ever ethical for doctors to diagnose patients they haven’t examined?

Yes, you have a valid argument. The Goldwater rule is the informal name given to section*7 in the American Psychiatric Association's (APA) Principles of Medical Ethics.

However, the American Psychoanalytic Association (APsaA), a different organization from the APA, sent a letter on June 6, 2017, that highlighted differences between the APA and APsaA ethical guidelines, stating that "The American Psychiatric Association's ethical stance on the Goldwater Rule applies to its members only. APsaA does not consider political commentary by its individual members an ethical matter."

There is also an ethical duty to warn the public:

John Gartner, a practicing psychologist, and the leader of the group Duty to Warn, stated in April 2017 that: "We have an ethical responsibility to warn the public about Donald Trump's dangerous mental illness."

Donald Trump has 'dangerous mental illness', say psychiatry experts at Yale conference | The Independent

 

[j-mac]

Yes, you have a valid argument. The Goldwater rule is the informal name given to section*7 in the American Psychiatric Association's (APA) Principles of Medical Ethics.

However, the American Psychoanalytic Association (APsaA), a different organization from the APA, sent a letter on June 6, 2017, that highlighted differences between the APA and APsaA ethical guidelines, stating that "The American Psychiatric Association's ethical stance on the Goldwater Rule applies to its members only. APsaA does not consider political commentary by its individual members an ethical matter."

There is also an ethical duty to warn the public:

John Gartner, a practicing psychologist, and the leader of the group Duty to Warn, stated in April 2017 that: "We have an ethical responsibility to warn the public about Donald Trump's dangerous mental illness."

Donald Trump has 'dangerous mental illness', say psychiatry experts at Yale conference | The Independent

I don't care what he hides behind...His using his status as a psychologist to launch an uninformed psychiatric opinion on someone he has never met, simply because he opposes him politically is IMHO, malpractice, and should have his licences reviewed.

 

[Moon]

The language is "unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office." A president compromised by a hostile foreign power would certainly fall into that bucket.

No, that person could still discharge the powers and duties of the office, but they would be making decisions and taking actions at the direction of a foreign power. I believe the correct avenue for that is impeachment, not redefining what the 25th amendment was intended to remedy.

 

[Deuce]

Despite all the utterances to the contrary right?

The motives are political in nature not inability to do the job. You need to make the distinction between doing the job and doing the job the way progressives want it done.

You wanted Obama gone because he was black. Utterances supported this! Doesn't even have to be yours. I can pick any random vague caricature of a conservative, right?

I want Trump removed from office because he's a criminal. You want a criminal to stay in power. Agree to disagree.

 

[Deuce]

I don't care what he hides behind...His using his status as a psychologist to launch an uninformed psychiatric opinion on someone he has never met, simply because he opposes him politically is IMHO, malpractice, and should have his licences reviewed.

"I demand he be punished for wrongthink!"

Of course you'd say that. Ya boy Donny just got done demanding "retribution" because SNL made fun of him.

 

[j-mac]

"I demand he be punished for wrongthink!"

Of course you'd say that. Ya boy Donny just got done demanding "retribution" because SNL made fun of him.

Yep, and I said that was thin skinned and wrong...Try to keep up will you?

 

[Deuce]

Yep, and I said that was thin skinned and wrong...Try to keep up will you?

You demanded retribution against doctors who give an opinion you don't like. Thin skinned and wrong?

 

[OpportunityCost]

You wanted Obama gone because he was black. Utterances supported this! Doesn't even have to be yours. I can pick any random vague caricature of a conservative, right?

I want Trump removed from office because he's a criminal. You want a criminal to stay in power. Agree to disagree.

I wanted Obama gone because I didn't support his policies. Your first sentence is just baiting bull****. Agree that your argument is a piece of ****.

 

[Deuce]

I wanted Obama gone because I didn't support his policies. Your first sentence is just baiting bull****. Agree that your argument is a piece of ****.

Excellent, because it's literally your argument I was using.

 

[j-mac]

You demanded retribution against doctors who give an opinion you don't like. Thin skinned and wrong?

Apples and basketballs....

 

[OpportunityCost]

Excellent, because it's literally your argument I was using.

My arguments have not a damned thing to do with race. Put your stupid argument back in the dumpster fire where you got it.

 

[MauiMan]

I don't care what he hides behind...His using his status as a psychologist to launch an uninformed psychiatric opinion on someone he has never met, simply because he opposes him politically is IMHO, malpractice, and should have his licences reviewed.

Oh, it’s not uninformed—Trump’s behaviors are in full public view. But, I respect your right to an opinion.

 

[j-mac]

Oh, it’s not uninformed—Trump’s behaviors are in full public view. But, I respect your right to an opinion.

Well, thank you for allowing me to have my opinion....And if the learned psychologist has never interviewed the person they are diagnosing, then they are quacks in my book.

 

[Hatuey]

Well, thank you for allowing me to have my opinion....And if the learned psychologist has never interviewed the person they are diagnosing, then they are quacks in my book.

Yeah, not like they could look at a direct feed of that person's filtered and unfiltered thoughts written down in short form and posted on a website to draft an idea of what that person might be like psychologically and determine the state of their mental health.

Lol, crazy shrinks, that kinda technology don't exist.


Sent from Trump Plaza's basement using Putin's MacBook.

 

[j-mac]

Yeah, not like they could look at a direct feed of that person's filtered and unfiltered thoughts written down in short form and posted on a website to draft an idea of what that person might be like psychologically and determine the state of their mental health.

Lol, crazy shrinks, that kinda technology don't exist.


Sent from Trump Plaza's basement using Putin's MacBook.

In cases of no political coniderations, depending on the circumstances, a generalized opinion can be formed, but not an determinative diagnosis....The only reason for the psychologist to write the book and appear on Maddow, was to smear, not in any concern for the man's mental health.

 

[Hatuey]

In cases of no political coniderations, depending on the circumstances, a generalized opinion can be formed, but not an determinative diagnosis....The only reason for the psychologist to write the book and appear on Maddow, was to smear, not in any concern for the man's mental health.

Oh I'm agreeing.

It's not like these guys have a feed into how the president's thoughts are being expressed every hour through text. The technology to capture thoughts a person thinks about do not currently exist. It would be impossible to tell anyone's mental state from afar - I mean, you'd have to have a camera aimed at that person whenever they so much as eat ice cream to get a full picture. You'd have to have hundreds of people paid for the sole purpose of capturing every word that person says in public. Questions would have to be asked more than once and recorded. It'd be a mess - you'd even have to have people with microphones and cameras everywhere that person goes.

You're right, not like psychologists would really use that technology to form an opinion.

What's your background in psychology, anyways? You seem pretty well versed in what is and isn't possible with psychology.


Emailed from Trump Plaza's basement using Putin's MacBook.