kurtster wrote: 

i'll admit it

i really, really wanted to believe the anti-war stuff

 miamizsun wrote: 
you got me there 

 kurtster wrote: 

well in his defense, obama told lies that people wanted to hear

and he was good at it

 ScottFromWyoming wrote: 
pretty much

 Red_Dragon wrote: 
yeah, like you can keep your doctor, ISIL is the JayVee team ... then there is the one about Bergdahl, the hero...

 Red_Dragon wrote: 
Someone who's worked for/with him said, not jokingly, that if you asked Donald Trump what time it was, he'd lie to you just to practice lying.

 black321 wrote:
That is true. Donnie Johnnie however, lies pretty much every time he opens his mouth; even when the lie is blindingly obvious. He has no connection to reality, no clue about anything. There is absolutely no reason to believe anything he says. Never has been.
 

 black321 wrote:
you just need to remember one thing

it's hopeless, it's all hopeless

 

 kurtster wrote:
There's some truth to this.  All politicians lie and deceive...is trump really any worse?  Bush lied about a war, Obama lied about our healthcare...

 kurtster wrote: 
Trump's abundance of lies, half-truths, "alternate facts" and his twisting of reality to fit his fantasy world is a huge problem. When you start your administration with the claim that your inauguration was the largest attended presidential inauguration and that you would have won the popular vote if not for the 3 - 5 million fraudulent votes cast for Clinton and you continue to maintain those views... your benefit of the doubt is long gone.

Of course Trump isn't afforded "the benefit of the doubt" nor should he be.

   

 kurtster wrote:

 
There is some legitimacy to pointing out double standards, but most, if not all, of that legitimacy is lost when calling them out becomes a one-way street.

 

    

 maryte wrote:
That was an observation of those comments in general, not your's.  I was remarking about how you were piling on about Trump making remarks that you thought were uninformed at the time of your comment.  We have since learned that the shooter was in a mental health facility from where he escaped while in the USAF.  Trump did have access to this information prior to his statement that everyone tore him up over thinking he was just making a rash statement.  Trump never had nor continues to have the benefit of the doubt. 

My reply
. 
kurtster wrote:
giving Trump the benefit of the doubt was blasted as well.  And the only thing I did was extend Trump the benefit of the doubt, nothing more.  All this went from there.

Many people have made posts of how Trump is mentally unfit and linked many articles by people who are professionals making a diagnosis of his mental state without ever having had personal contact with him which is unprofessional as I have been told.  As far as I can remember you have not made any posts of this nature.

Yeah it's a two way street.
 

 meower wrote: 
no worries

if it is lengthy or takes more than ten minutes it could be a week before i get to read it

but thanks   

 meower wrote: 
I'm curious too. I can see where there is a lot of complexity and anything regarding a true diagnosis for treatment or incarceration/confinement should be handled by professionals. But I'm pretty comfortable saying that anyone who shoots a bunch of people in a church (or at a concert, or a school, or a theater...) has something significantly wrong with the way they are functioning. We all acknowledge that there is a range of impact from any number of diseases, mental health is just one more. Saying the shooter had mental health issues doesn't mean that all people with mental health issues are bad or should be locked up. But it is certainly a factor that should be looked into. Much like his gun ownership - most gun owners don't shoot up a crowd, that doesn't mean there shouldn't be a look at some regulation.

 miamizsun wrote:

 
lots to say here, much of which should go in a different thread.

I'll cut and paste into mental health thread in a few minutes

 meower wrote: 
i think there are some transparency issues or conflicts of interest regarding the pharmaceutical industry and the health care industry

an example might be the over prescription of opioids (opioid abuse has been devastating here in florida and on a personal note i have a direct family member in recovery)

there are legit medications that are saving lives and they are getting better through technology (the digitization of biology = more precise diagnosis and treatments)

however over the years i've read and watched some info that may indicate some suspect mental diagnosis in the way criteria was compiled, verified and attributed

it seems that diagnosis can be much more difficult with mental illness (an example is my sister who was hit by a car and suffered a serious head injury-years later she developed schizophrenia and questioning her doctors is like crap shoot) 

it sounds like you have some faith in the dsm and i'd be interested on your take

peace

I do think that people need to spend sometime looking at the DSM and understanding better what we mean when we say "mental health disorder" or "mental illness"

 kurtster wrote:

 kurtster wrote: