The New American Politics thread

[station]

Originally Posted by AcGold

Do you not understand? I'm not trying to say the election is rigged. I'm saying many of the people in this thread are hypocrites willing to sling mud while crying afoul at the same time.

If this were a normal left-right election I would totally agree with you. That stuff was rampant on the left during the Bush years and on the right during the Obama years. This is Trump we're talking about though. Questioning the insane ramblings and cry-baby finger pointing of a narcissist-would-be-dictator is not exactly slinging mud. Nor is it blindly following a media narrative as he says these crazy / ignorant / offensive things himself on a daily basis. I think you have to cut people some slack when they're just trying to make some sense of the world of Trump. I myself don't believe there was a conspiracy or master plan other than ~All Trump, all the time~. However I'm sure he and others will milk all the free advertising for everything it's worth.

[Swift]

That when a conspiracy theory comes from the right, it is ridiculed, but that when it comes from the left, it's considered plausible - Trump's TV station, Trump being backed by the Clintons as a prank, Trump has no intention of trying to win and will drop out before it's over, etc.

Why are we quicker to believe those or lend any credence to them?

[troutman]

Diagnosing Mental Illness in Presidential Candidates

http://theness.com/neurologicablog/i...al-candidates/

A recent editorial on Medscape Psychiatry by Nassir Ghaemi asks a very interesting question, Is Psychoanalyzing Our Politicians Fair Game?

As Ghaemi also points out in detail, psychiatric diagnoses exist on a spectrum from scientifically solid to vaguely pragmatic. Schizophrenia, for example, is a well established diagnosis with some clear features and we understand a fair amount about its pathophysiology (although it is a complex category of diseases). Narcissistic personality disorder, on the other hand, lacks the same level of scientific validity. It was almost removed from the DSM V for lack of evidence, but was kept in for pragmatic reasons. Is it fair to give a public figure a diagnosis that is not even scientifically valid?

For psychiatrists there is the Goldwater Rule, which constrains psychiatrists from publicly commenting on the mental health of public figures. The general public has no such constraints, only decency.

I do agree with Ghaemi who concludes that in extreme cases there may be a duty as a citizen to comment on the mental health of a public figure. Professionals should only comment if they have access to sufficient documentation to inform their opinions, and if they restrict their opinions to scientifically valid and uncontroversial diagnoses.

For non professionals my opinion is a lot simpler – stop. Do not make armchair diagnoses of public figures. Chances are, you have no idea what you are talking about. The risk is even greater that you are just following your political bias, you are likely using a mental illness diagnosis as a pejorative, and you are likely just psychologizing the usual range of human behavior.

But here’s the thing – you don’t have to couch your opinions in fake clinical terms you don’t really understand. Just give your opinion of someone’s behavior and temperament in non-clinical terms.

It’s OK to say that Trump is a self-serving, ambitious, childish egomaniac with a thin skin, a penchant for bull####, and an apparent utter disregard for facts and expertise. That is clearly just your opinion from his public behavior.

Don’t say, however, that Trump has a narcissistic personality disorder, is a pathological liar, is “clinically” anything, or is a psychopath. These are diagnoses that you are not qualified to make, you likely don’t have a working knowledge of the scientific basis for these diagnoses and their utility and accuracy in clinical use.

Further, you don’t know Donald Trump. You know his public persona, and largely what the media choose to show.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Cameron Swift

That when a conspiracy theory comes from the right, it is ridiculed, but that when it comes from the left, it's considered plausible - Trump's TV station, Trump being backed by the Clintons as a prank, Trump has no intention of trying to win and will drop out before it's over, etc.

Why are we quicker to believe those or lend any credence to them?

This is a fair point, I guess... I don't credit any of those theories. But there is obviously a range of realism; any conspiracy theory will be more or less likely than another. For example, the number of people required to be involved in the conspiracy and keep it a secret is a key aspect of this.

So for example, no, I don't believe that he's backed by the Clintons, but it's more likely than a grand conspiracy to rig the election, which is an order of magnitude crazier.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by Cameron Swift

That when a conspiracy theory comes from the right, it is ridiculed, but that when it comes from the left, it's considered plausible - Trump's TV station, Trump being backed by the Clintons as a prank, Trump has no intention of trying to win and will drop out before it's over, etc.

Why are we quicker to believe those or lend any credence to them?

I think most of the Trump theories have been ridiculous on purpose, mostly because Trump himself is ridiculous, so outrageous theories about him are more likely to be true than the average person, even if they're still unlikely. However the the Trump TV station is tied into his lack of intention of winning. And his lack of intention of winning is pretty strongly backed by his approach so far, including being outspent on TV ads by both Jill Stein and Gary Johnson. He hasn't taken this election cycle seriously like a candidate who truly wants to win.

Beyond that there's a lot of lefties who believe 9/11 was an inside job, that are anti-vaxers, that believe in NWO theories too, and other such stupidity. I don't think anyone has suggested the right has a lockdown on crazy. I do think the right produces more crazy theories than the left though. Is there anything even remotely close to the left wing equivalent of Breitbart, in terms of actually being a massive media presence? Not a chance.

[GGG]

The celebrity endorsement of quackery through mainstream television (Jenny Mcarthy, Dr. Oz etc). Has a pretty significant mainstream presence that actually kills people. The anti-science on the left is in the short term more dangerous then any of the conspiracies on the right.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Anti-vax is the rare conspiracy that the crazies from the left and the crazies from the right agree with (see Presidential candidates Donald Trump and Jill Stein). 9/11 is another one, but they disagree as to what the conspiracy is.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Anti-vax is the rare conspiracy that the crazies from the left and the crazies from the right agree with (see Presidential candidates Donald Trump and Jill Stein). 9/11 is another one, but they disagree as to what the conspiracy is.

Jill Stein is awful, but not anti-vax

[troutman]

https://www.rawstory.com/2016/08/eve...-its-a-scream/
http://www.avclub.com/article/twitte...ent-cnn-241312

"Knock knock."
"Who's there?"
"Says."
"Says who?"
"THE POLLS. ALL OF THEM."

[Fighting Banana Slug]

Originally Posted by troutman

Diagnosing Mental Illness in Presidential Candidates

http://theness.com/neurologicablog/i...al-candidates/

A recent editorial on Medscape Psychiatry by Nassir Ghaemi asks a very interesting question, Is Psychoanalyzing Our Politicians Fair Game?

As Ghaemi also points out in detail, psychiatric diagnoses exist on a spectrum from scientifically solid to vaguely pragmatic. Schizophrenia, for example, is a well established diagnosis with some clear features and we understand a fair amount about its pathophysiology (although it is a complex category of diseases). Narcissistic personality disorder, on the other hand, lacks the same level of scientific validity. It was almost removed from the DSM V for lack of evidence, but was kept in for pragmatic reasons. Is it fair to give a public figure a diagnosis that is not even scientifically valid?

For psychiatrists there is the Goldwater Rule, which constrains psychiatrists from publicly commenting on the mental health of public figures. The general public has no such constraints, only decency.

I do agree with Ghaemi who concludes that in extreme cases there may be a duty as a citizen to comment on the mental health of a public figure. Professionals should only comment if they have access to sufficient documentation to inform their opinions, and if they restrict their opinions to scientifically valid and uncontroversial diagnoses.

For non professionals my opinion is a lot simpler – stop. Do not make armchair diagnoses of public figures. Chances are, you have no idea what you are talking about. The risk is even greater that you are just following your political bias, you are likely using a mental illness diagnosis as a pejorative, and you are likely just psychologizing the usual range of human behavior.

But here’s the thing – you don’t have to couch your opinions in fake clinical terms you don’t really understand. Just give your opinion of someone’s behavior and temperament in non-clinical terms.

It’s OK to say that Trump is a self-serving, ambitious, childish egomaniac with a thin skin, a penchant for bull####, and an apparent utter disregard for facts and expertise. That is clearly just your opinion from his public behavior.

Don’t say, however, that Trump has a narcissistic personality disorder, is a pathological liar, is “clinically” anything, or is a psychopath. These are diagnoses that you are not qualified to make, you likely don’t have a working knowledge of the scientific basis for these diagnoses and their utility and accuracy in clinical use.

Further, you don’t know Donald Trump. You know his public persona, and largely what the media choose to show.

So true. It seems self-evident that neither a layperson nor professional can provide an accurate diagnosis of someone they have never met. I will (and believe have in the past) use the bolded language, as that does sum up my opinion nicely.

[PsYcNeT]

So the most recent Trump hashtag is pretty amazing.

[Knut]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

Jill Stein is awful, but not anti-vax

She certainly panders to the Anti-vax crowd though

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Hes

She certainly panders to the Anti-vax crowd though

And while clearly states she thinks vaccines are very important, courts their vote by saying these companies are corrupt and patients should be able to choose for their children in the same breath. Her version of Trump's

"I'm not against them, but people are saying..."

[PsYcNeT]

She's not anti-vax, but she is anti-WiFi, much like Canada's equally crazy Green Party leader.

[Fire of the Phoenix]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

She's not anti-vax, but she is anti-WiFi, much like Canada's equally crazy Green Party leader.

Seriously? Anti-WiFi is a thing?

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by Fire of the Phoenix

Seriously? Anti-WiFi is a thing?

Here's a super scientific and totally not made up bull#### article from the totally trustworthy website Global Healing Center:

http://www.globalhealingcenter.com/n...-dangers-wifi/

[ResAlien]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

Here's a super scientific and totally not made up bull#### article from the totally trustworthy website Global Healing Center:

http://www.globalhealingcenter.com/n...-dangers-wifi/

Johnny Mnemonic was a documentary? Who'd have thunk it.

If not for a pragmatic party switch by Bernie then Stein would probably not even be in the public eye since Sanders would have likely been their nominee.

[Fire of the Phoenix]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

Here's a super scientific and totally not made up bull#### article from the totally trustworthy website Global Healing Center:

http://www.globalhealingcenter.com/n...-dangers-wifi/

Jesus Christ, I would've just assumed that was satire if I stumbled across it on my own.

[wittynickname]

Originally Posted by Cameron Swift

That when a conspiracy theory comes from the right, it is ridiculed, but that when it comes from the left, it's considered plausible - Trump's TV station, Trump being backed by the Clintons as a prank, Trump has no intention of trying to win and will drop out before it's over, etc.

Why are we quicker to believe those or lend any credence to them?

I don't know that the concept of Trump plotting an exit plan of starting his own media network is a conspiracy theory so much as speculation. Even Trump must see the writing on the wall, and of course he would make some kind of plan for the future. He didn't manage his wealth without looking to make the best out of bad situations. The rest of them are clearly ridiculous notions, and I don't think anyone in this thread has given any credence to those ideas.

As far as the conspiracy theory that elections are being rigged? If Trump is concerned about rigged elections he should talk to the GOP about their gerrymandered districts, that's as close to rigging as you get in US elections.

He's claiming if he loses Pennsylvania, it's rigged. Pennsylvania hasn't gone Republican in a presidential race in nearly 30 years, and Hillary is already up considerably in polls here. If he loses Pennsylvania--it's not really even that much of a surprise, much less a conspiracy.

[Senator Clay Davis]

I don't know if anyone saw this, but an artist put up nude statues of Trump in 5 major cities (NYC, LA, SF, CLE, SEA). NSFW because no one should see this without knowing they're going to see it

NSFW!

NSFW!

Well the New York City Parks Department responded with this beauty.