A group of “law makers” apparently met last month in America to discuss Donald Trump's mental health. This is an old trick of the extreme Left, perfected by Russia, to question the mental health of their opponents and, if possible, confine them to a psychiatric institution. Joe Stalin was very good at it. Mental hospitals in Russia were full of his opponents. The not very well known ones were simply knocked off.

All of the “more than a dozen” people 'concerned' about Trump's mental health were Democrats, except for one sick puppy Republican. None were named apart from a fancifully named Bandy X. Lee, a trick cyclist, who warned that Trump was “going to unravel”. His “rush of tweeting” was used as evidence of this possibility.

That would put most people on a list of nut jobs these days.

Oh, and the scribbler responsible for the article in “The Hill” yabbered that “Trump appeared to slur his words during a speech announcing the U.S. would recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.”

Case proved!

This had to happen. It's is a normal attack from the types of people determined to drive the West backwards into something reminiscent of the old Soviet Union and present day China and North Korea.

ttbn,

Remember the dire warning about how the US stock market was going to tumble under President Trump?

Seems that it is doing OK!!

No, it didn’t “have to happen”.

Bush Jr. was despised by many of his opponents, yet I don’t recall anyone questioning his mental health. It is Trump’s textbook narcissistic behaviour that spurs questions. He is the only one responsible for attracting such speculation, so far as I can tell.

Rest assured, though, Trump himself has assured us that he is mentally stable and, “like, really smart”:

“....Actually, throughout my life, my two greatest assets have been mental stability and being, like, really smart.” (http://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/949618475877765120)

Yes Is Mise. Just about everything they have said about Trump has been proven wrong, right from the start, when they were absolutely sure that he would never be president.

An insane Trump is still far better than Hilary. Ha ha. Anyone seen US employment figures lately? I thought not. Hatred certainly blinds. Just ask AJ.

That is correct, runner. Hatred certainly is a perception-distorting emotion. Idolatry, too, will distort one's perception. Nothing 'trumps' dispassionate and rational thinking.

runner,

Here's a fact check on the US employment figures, the extent to which Trump has influenced them, and chances that his policies could have made any difference this early in the piece, given the expected lag (I even made sure the source was conservative for you):

http://fortune.com/2017/08/10/donald-trump-jobs-numbers-fact-check

Dear runner,

I certainly have seen the latest US employment figures and this first full year under Trump have seen below average employment growth compared each of Obama's last six years.

It is too early to be definitive but it does look as though the rot has started to set in particularly if you further break the figures down into six month blocks. While the last two months are still marked as preliminary the period from July to Dec 2017 was the first time new jobs has dropped below 1,000,000 in 12 blocks.
https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0000000001?output_view=net_1mth

Yes runner I might be mistaken in my calculations but it appears your idol has delivered the weakest job creation figures in seven years. Might be time to stop licking his boots for a moment if you have it in you.

Idolatry is a bitch and non-biblical from memory.

Luckily, we are now confident that Trump is a stable genius. Not too many geniuses proclaim that they are geniuses, except in a sort of self-deprectatory way, having a go at themselves. Clearly, they're not all that stable. So at last, we have a stable genius in charge of the US. And to a large extent, of the world.

CHU.

For the kiddies, that means: Christ help us.

Runner, speaking of which: Thomas Alva Edison experimented with two thousand materials to find a filament for an electric light bulb, and failed each time. Someone suggested that he must have felt a complete failure. 'No', he said, "I now know of two thousand ways which don't work."

Hilary wouldn't have worked. Trump obviously isn't working. There are a multitude of ways which don't work. We keep looking, like Edison.

Will we find anybody better in 2020 ?

Michelle Obama perhaps ?

Joe

The memes have already starting rolling in thick and fast:

http://i.imgur.com/POqvTFD.jpg

... for those of us young enough to remember the '90s cartoon characters, Beavis and Butthead.

(No, that wasn't a typo.)

Dont worry boys i have many flaws but no chance of making Trump an idol. Just refreshing we have not got those who hate Israel and are part of the gw deceit in powe. I think you can see clearly from the tantrums from those worshipping Hilary what idolatry looks like. What a bunch of self entitled brats many of which now cant suck on the public purse through lies. Yeah Trump is fallen just like you and me but what a breath of fresh air after Obama.

Runner,

Oy.

As I tried to point out above, there are rarely just two options: A and B, A being Hillary and B being Trump in this case. Both are crap. There may be more than two thousand kinds of crap. There's a lot of it in the world, which is not just either/or, one thing OR the other, good/bad.

Surely there must be many who would make better US presidents in 2020 ? Surely.

Live in hope.

Joe

"yet I don’t recall anyone questioning his mental health."

http://www.amazon.com/Bush-Couch-Inside-Mind-President/dp/B006CDP11W

and lots of other examples.

There are two issues here:

1. To the 'thinking' of many so-called progressives, their views are so obviously correct that any and all who disagree must be either evil or stupid. So all Republican are so categorised. To this 'thinking' Nixon was evil. Reagan a fool. Bush a bit of both. Bush the Younger a fool. GW says he's "misunderestimated". What a fool. Obama says Austrians speak Austrian - down the memory hole/nothing to see here. Its always been thus, leaving poor 'progressives' scratching their heads when the likes of Reagan turns out to be successful. Ho can a fool be successful they ponder. And never work it out....and never learn.

2. As the Russian collusion meme unravels and starts to threaten the Clintons and other Democrat leaders, the left and the MSM (sorry for the tautology) need to change the narrative. The Russia thing was always a bust and diversion just as this rubbish is. And when it fails to go anywhere, the usual followers will be left scratching their heads.

It was always thus.

What irony, that those who believe in the fantasy of a global, utopian, world
and that modern right wing politicis is more Facist and dangerous,than the incredibly authoritarian, brutally Fascist, Islamic religion.

Just who is mad, the ones who believe the above delusions or Donald Trump.

Hi Cherful,

Or both ?

Cheers,

Joe

I'm certainly not across any of Mr TRUMP'S economic or fiscal achievements? What does concern me, is his latest little foray with the North Korean Leader, Kim Jong-UN claiming his 'red' nuclear button (that's apparently strategically placed on his desk), is bigger than Kim's?

I'm old enough to remember Mr John KENNEDY's standoff with the USSR Premier Nikita KHRUSHCHEV over the USSR's intention to base Nuclear Missiles on Cuban soil. And the careful and somewhat measured dialogue and rhetoric both parties engaged in, at that time. Later it was claimed by those in the Pentagon, at no time in history did the World come so close to a full scale nuclear war, then at that precise period in the early 1960's.

I therefore wonder, if we were to juxtapose the current two geniuses; Messrs D. TRUMP & Kim Jong-UN; into exactly the same circumstances, as those we all nervously confronted in the early sixties, whether the world as we know it, would still exist? Or just an accumulation of fine dust circling the moon.

I not sure I care how great an economist Mr TRUMP is or isn't. It's his emotional stability, coupled with the enormous (military) power he has at his disposal, that concerns me.

Dear runner,

Oh no you don't young fella. You have gone to some fake news site like Fox and have taken at face value their Trump-washed appraisal of the US employment figures and raised them here to show what a magnificent man your emperor supposedly is.

I in turn gave you a direct link to the US figures which show he has no clothes on and all you can do is bang on about Hillary.

You see this is how these things work, if you tout supposedly strong employment figures as an endorsement of Trump but they turn out to be the weakest in 12 blocks then it must follow that they now condemn him.

Yet not a peep from you, no retraction, no acceptance you were talking through your arse, nothing. That my friend is what idolatry looks like.

Pathetic adulation from a petulant propagandist for Trump. Thoroughly unbecoming if it wasn't so laughable.

I'm not totally supportive of Obama's presidency and legacy, especially in foreign affairs, but Trump isn't fit to be in the same room as him much less the Whitehouse.

Its way too early in the administration to be making judgements pro or con on economic issues. After all, the tax cuts haven't even taken effect yet!

Sure SR can find some stats that look less than ideal. On the other hand I could point to the unemployment stats showing a fall in the (Seas) Unemployment Level by over 1 million people (12.3%) since Trump took over. Or higher economic growth rates. Or higher stock market. Or record low black unemployment rates.

But again, way too early either way.

On the other hand, in terms of foreign policy, Trump is acing it.

________________________________________________________________

"Trump isn't fit to be in the same room as him[Obama]"

I'm not sure we ought to be advocating racial segregation these days. :)

Lowest African unemployment rate ever Steelie. Dont let facts get in the way of your narrative of hatred.

O Sung Wo
What Kennedy did in the 60’s with the Russians is to be admired.
He said, you cross that line and we will fight.
Something America seems to be lacking these days, Always bowing to the ridiculous demands
Of nations worldwide.
Because of this they have lost the respect they once had.
Trump has faced Kim Jung down, this is the correct approach to those who seek to
Intimidate.
There is no danger in Trump facing him down. Kim is not going to give up his selfish, luxury life for anyone.
He knows he will be dead in minutes if he fires a missile at America.
What astounds me is people fearing the situation wanting to bow and scrape to Kim Jung.
Trump is right in facing him head on. That will put a spanner in the games he plays.
And he is playing games, seeing how far he can go and how much he can get away with.
His uncertainty about Trump, is the safest thing in the situation.

Hi Jo

I haven't heard anything that makes me think Trump is mental.
Narcissistic is possible.

Hi Cherful,

I agree that Trump is not mental, crazy or whatever. He may be a touch psychopathic (or perhaps he just doesn't care about other people), certainly he is narcissistic, a bully and a braggart. He may not be all that less intelligent than the average man in the street (at least his IQ may be in that 90-110 range), but he seems to be lazy when it comes to studying the fine detail of the multitude of issues that any President would have to deal with. He certainly prefers to play golf with his sycophants than deliberating matters of state.

Clearly he is impetuous, reckless with his snap-decisions and Tweets and ready to abandon anybody who crosses him. He looks after himself, after all. He inherited big money, perhaps a billion in today's money, and has kicked that up to a few billion: nothing amazing there, compared to, say, Frank Lowi or Harry Triguboff. Of course, we can't know what his businesses are earning without seeing his tax returns.

Surely there would be better alternatives to either him or Clinton in 2020 ?

Cheers,

Joe

Dear runner,

Lowest African unemployment figures ever?

You really are a gift that keeps on giving aren't you my little friend.

Firstly the topic is American unemployment figures not African.

Secondly the rate currently stands at 4.1% which is the tale end of an incredible effort by Obama to bring the US back from the disaster of the global financial crisis fueled in quite some measure by the deregulation brought in by the Bush administration.

Obama took the reins in early 2009 and within a year had started the downward trend in unemployment figure that had culminated in sub 5% figures.

Click the 10 year button to get the whole story.

http://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/unemployment-rate

By any measure Trump slowed the rate of improvement in the figures and they have now bottomed out.

But the best figures EVER? Your idolatry know no bounds does it? The rate was lower in 2001 and in the years 1965 to 71 as well as in 1954. A bald face lie for your idol?

On your knees young chap and repent to your God for the lies and deceit which you have brought to this thread. Shame!

Dear mhaze,

You wrote;

“Sure SR can find some stats that look less than ideal.”

These were not 'some stats'. Runner raised employment figures and I went directly to the most authoritative source to show he was totally wrong. It is hard to imagine how much more direct I could have been.

I think that it's worth noting that there is no
real evidence as nobody is speaking publicly
who has examined the President. There is of course
the 25th Amendment that allows a President to be
removed from office if his colleagues think he is
incapable of carrying out his duties. However the
25th Amendment has never been used to depose a
sitting President.

In Donald Trump's case only a major psychotic breakdown
would result in him being removed from office.
Gossip and innuendo is not going to do it.

That Trump has Narcissistic Personality Disorder is not just a possibility, it's a certainty, and one need only read his tweets to see that he satisfies at least seven of the nine signs of NPD, when only five are required:

- Exaggerates own importance;
- Is preoccupied with fantasies of success, power, beauty, intelligence or ideal romance;
- Believes he or she is special and can only be understood by other special people or institutions;
- Requires constant attention and admiration from others;
- Has unreasonable expectations of favorable treatment;
- Takes advantage of others to reach his or her own goals;
- Disregards the feelings of others, lacks empathy;
- Is often envious of others or believes other people are envious of him or her;
- Shows arrogant behaviors and attitudes.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/conditions/narcissistic-personality-disorder

A touch of narcissism can be useful in a leader, and help to reassure the public when a show of confidence is needed. Heck, sometimes it's even required just to rise through the ranks of a world as cut-throat as politics (you'd probably find that most of the world's leaders throughout history were narcissistic to at least some small extent).

But when narcissism extends into a fullblown disorder, as Trump's evidentally does, then it is just downright dangerous. Which is probably why the White House is allegedly spending much of its time just trying to contain the man-child.

Former Harvard Law School Professor Alan Dershowitz
stated that - "If you don't like someone's politics
you can rail against him, campaign against him,
but you don't use the psychiatric system against him."

He said that people who thought the 25th Amendment of
the US Constitution would end the Trump Presidency
were putting "hope over reality."

That only a major psychotic breakdown would result in
this happening.

It is interesting how some psychologists can be so frivolous as to ignore their training, to side-step professional ethics and presume to arrive at a diagnosis, particularly one so serious, without the target's consent and no interview or tests. And no care for the future of the target either!

They make it obvious that they could be easily replaced by a cheap machine with the simplest of programs. Quacks. Sloppy science.

Maybe they need to make the choice between being a politician or following their previous calling. Because they are undoing the work of the many and are bringing the science of psychology into disrespect.

Everybody 'gets' that some will never accept the result of the presidential election where it didn't go their way.

As for Trump, it is part of his public persona (groomed through his real estate days) that he is awkward and difficult to negotiate with. Where he is apparently random and does not perceive any responsibility to act 'nice', the other party might have to concede some valuable ground. He does use standover tactics, but usually open, publicly, unlike some.

Now, what about 'neurotic' Hillary Clinton? Hmmm and her propensity to lie and then there is that military problem.

Or closer to home, there is the passing parade on Q&A.

Perhaps the ABC has it right, it is all just light entertainment and dumbed down to occupy serially bored voyeurs and the slack brained. - Who will never be obliged to think or provide for themselves where there is a 'Wonderful Centrelink' tree to support them and others to take care of their shelter, safety and even the consequences of their drunken bonking.

My lies and deceit ah Steelie. When did regressives ever start believing in absolutes. Again you r hatref allows you to twist facts in order to back your flawed narrative. Good to see you demonstrate that you do believe in absolutes. Always fascinating to see regressives contradict themselves. No absolute truth but somone lying? Well well. Give Donald some credit Steelie. Go on.

The following link from the New England Journal
of Medicine raises some interesting questions:

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1714828#t=article

leoj,

Many psychologists are actually biting their tongues when it comes to Trump, because it’s considered unethical to diagnose an individual without having at least one session with them. Trump, however, puts himself out there on a daily basis for the whole world to see, making his narcissism rather obvious to them all. This has sparked debate in psychological circles regarding exactly when it should be unethical to diagnose an individual without sitting down with them.

Foxy’s link is very relevant here.

You conservative folk should follow Trump on Twitter. It’s a fascinating site to behold, and the Murdoch news certainly isn’t reporting on any of his bizarre behaviour there. At least not from what I can tell going by my daily perusing of Google News.

Interestingly I note LEOJ made a comparison with Hillary CLINTON and some of her odd and mendacious behaviour? Look I really wouldn't know whether Mr TRUMP was truely mentally ill or otherwise - similarly with Mrs CLINTON.

If one were to view his conduct, together with some of the strange statements he's made, quite dispassionately since he became President, wouldn't the red warning flags, from the population at large, begin to wave?

Even his rhetoric is at times almost child like, as if his vocabulary was so limited he couldn't actually find an appropriate word in which to use. Alternatively, he was speaking to, and trying awfully hard to connect with a class of ten year old students. All of this from a self-confessed 'genius'.

Then again, who am I to pass judgement on a man who's made a substantial quid, and cleverly manipulated his wealth, to ensure he has billions of dollars snookered away. Is this the true marque of a mentally unbalanced individual.

I guess the only people who would have any idea of his level of sanity are those who work closest to him. his advisors, Chief of Staff, Secret Service detail etc. These people have the ability to observe him closely over many hours of interaction with him. Those at least, that he hasn't already dismissed!

A J Philips,

With respect, you are not coming across as a sceptical person.

Our own world values can get in the road. So write them down. Not here, just a suggestion.

Foxy's link? The worldview of the author and SFA else. Absolute trash.

o sung wu,

As you probably realise, I have no political oar in the water. I am amazed and concerned how easily the social networks, Twitter etc, can be used to froth people up and to make an issue out of nothing.

I can remember, though few others here seem capable of any recollection, of how an Australian PM, it was PM Rudd, could be targeted for similar abuse and at the hands of his own people, and how effective that was.

A working BS detector is a valuable tool. So is ensuring that one has a range of RELIABLE information sources that ALSO include the 'other side' as one may perceive it from time to time. I imagine that some, or is it many?, may fail to find evidence and allow their brain to find patterns where none exist.

How I wish that our education system taught scepticism. Of course that could threaten the political correct myths and factoids that are being taught at the behest of sly political interests.

Just imagining though, how a mob of detectives might be led today. It must be damned hard to stop them shooting off on wild goose chases. How to hold back and get the evidence first huh? (just shortening out some steps for brevity). How might they ever lay a hand on a grub like Ivan Milat?

Funny how the regressives sprouted Rudd as being the best thing since sliced bread. How could you possibly trust their judgement on sanity. See they have the moral giants (sorry deviants ) of Hollywood preaching morality.

SR,

Runner was talking about African-American unemployment rates. This was following my mentioning them. (I'll leave you to advise whether you misunderstood this deliberately or because you struggle to follow a thread).

So yes indeed, the BLS, who you call "the most authoritative source" did indeed announce a few days back that the black unemployment rate is the lowest ever measured (ie since 1972). Also that the Hispanic unemployment rate is among the lowest and trending down.

As to the statistics you mentioned, I wasn't disagreeing. I was merely pointing out that, of the dozen or so stats available from the BLS on employment/unemployment you chose to highlight the one that most suited your prejudices

Dear A.J. Philips,

I'm pleased that you found my link to The New England
Journal of Medicine (NEJM) relevant. I deliberately
choose it because of its impartiality. It presented
views from both sides.

The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) as you
probably know is a weekly medical journal published by
the Massachusetts Medical Society. It is among the most
prestigious peer-reviewed Medical Journals as well as the
oldest continuously published one.

It employs a highly rigorous peer-review and editing process
to evaluate manuscripts for scientific accuracy, novelty,
and importance...Of the thousands of research reports
submitted each year, about 5% are eventually published in
NEJM.

It goes without saying that Trump is narcissistic. You'd have to be to even consider seeking that job. How could anyone think that they both deserve, and are capable of being, the most powerful person on the planet without being narcissistic. I'd venture that you'd struggle to find any leader since Caesar who wouldn't pass AJ's little test.

Read the list of traits with the Obamessiah in mind and see how narcissistic he was. eg:

"Exaggerates own importance;" Obama thought his nomination "was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal" .

Read (with an open mind) Obama's auto-biography and see if he is anything other than a narcissist. Check out the errors and fabrications in that book and have the diagnosis confirmed.

People like AJ might not be able to remember Obama's more narcissistic moments having memory-holed them, much like they conveniently forget that this same tactic was used against Bush the Younger and all previous Republican leaders. Its called the Goldwater rule for a reason - hint Goldwater was a conservative which for some means that he was, by definition, mentally ill.

This whole thing is just another diversion. The Russia story didn't pan out. The Trump as Hitler thing blew up. Trump is incompetent falls apart was he gets things done. Since the left can't fight on the policies they need something else to give them hope that "beautiful things" are ahead. They'll latch onto this until something better or at least different comes along.

"If President Trump Is Mentally Unstable, Let’s Hope It’s Contagious"...http://lidblog.com/president-trump-mental-problems/

Hi there LEOJ...

Point taken I've been appropriately rebuked, therefore I apologise to you and everyone else, for making a presumption without first, establishing the facts!

Interestingly, my own squad when attempting to discover the author of a crime, with scant evidence available, would often, all go off at a tangent in other words 'brainstorming' with what facts that were available, and had been corroborated, validated and verified by us.

You might also be quite surprised what falls out of the tree, when vigorously shaken. Another small advantage investigators have over the perpetrator; they (suspects) don't know, precisely how much the police know, nor is it incumbent upon police to share that knowledge with a suspect.

In most investigations I've led, I prefer the gently and polite approach when conducting preliminary interviews with suspects. Allaying any fears they may harbour, that we're suspicious of them. I also like moments of silence, a pause in the interview (15/25 secs) many offenders like to fill these moments, with talk of some kind, indicating their level of nervousness. Even 'boob rats' I've had my sights on, find these pauses in the Q & A process, manifestly uncomfortable. They prove nothing other than 'wrong footing' suspects.

I've no knowledge of Mr TRUMPS mental or physical health. Other than what I've seen and heard. However prima facie I think the guy is at least problematic.

A bit of light relief provided by David Scammel in the Spectator:

"There's not a lot to lot to love about Donald Trump but these commentators want to be seen not loving him more than anyone else".

Dear mhaze,

Why are you struggling with this?

Runner originally asked;

“Anyone seen US employment figures lately?”

Not unemployment, not African/american unemployment, nor any other derivative. Purely employment which is what I directly responded to.

For you to say; “I was merely pointing out that, of the dozen or so stats available from the BLS on employment/unemployment you chose to highlight the one that most suited your prejudices” is complete rot. It does not say a thing about my prejudices because I used the statistic most directly related to the question at hand. For you to say I should have explored less directly applicable stats says far more about your own prejudices wouldn't you agree?

Now I'm going to type slowly here in the hope you may get your head around a very important point. The counter ratios of employed vs unemployed are not in complete lockstep. You can have falling employment and falling unemployment at the same time because of other factors.

The US economy needs 150,000 jobs to be added each month to be growing. The December figures of 148,000 do not quite get there. So why is there a drop in unemployment especially in African/american unemployment? Well one factor is the markedly increasing school retention rates within black communities because of policies implemented by the Obama administration. Another is the number of baby boomers moving out of the job market.

So at the moment the “Job Creation” promises of Trump are not being met. For people like you and runner to hang your collective hats on unemployment figures to praise him is disingenuous at best and downright deceitful at worst. He doesn't hold a candle to Obama's job creation efforts.

The stockmarket gains indicate paper wealth is being created. This isn't translating into jobs or stronger wages but rather profits for the most wealthy.

Just look at Trump's achievements listed by Steve Kates on Catallaxy Files today to see how smart he really is.

Dont worry Steelie i don't expect an apology from you. I know regressives usually can only spend other people's money and apologize on behalf of wicked white males.

Dear runner,

Whoa hold on a moment young fella, why did you think I owed you an apology?

It surely can't be for showing your emperor has no clothes, I mean what did you expect? That I would fall to the ground along side you and lick his other boot then sing glory to god in harmony when he bent over?

Well I'm not sorry to disappoint mate. You will just have to get over it.

The figures show he delivered worse yearly job creation figures than Obama managed in all of his entire second term. By your measure he is a failure. If your idolatry doesn't permit you to acknowledge that fact then obviously I can't help you but one thing is for sure, you don't deserve any apology.

leoj,

Why would I be sceptical of Trump’s narcissism when he has given me absolutely no reason to believe that he is not a narcissist? I’ll tell you what I WOULD be sceptical of, any claims that Trump was NOT a narcissist.

As for Foxy’s link, did you even read it? The author wasn’t just presenting his worldview. He was exploring the Goldwater rule and whether there was a case for change with regards to it - precisely what I mentioned in my last post to you.

--

mhaze,

It wasn’t my “little test”. It was an APA checklist.

<<People like AJ might not be able to remember Obama's more narcissistic moments having memory-holed them …>>

No, people like AJ don’t remember them because the examples are far less frequent (and for damn-near any other leader throughout history, so far as I can see). To pass it off as mere bias at work is either dishonest, or evidence of an even stronger bias at work.

<<… much like they conveniently forget that this same tactic was used against Bush the Younger and all previous Republican leaders.>>

No, I didn’t forget them. I had bit of a google and have no memory of anything I found. To me, Bush was best known for his Bushisms:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/bushisms/2000/03/the_complete_bushisms.html

(Try compiling a list that long for Clinton or Obama (or any other ex-president, for that matter), Trump looks set to thrash Bush, however.)

Don’t mistake me for some Obama fan who is hand-wringing or frothing at the mouth over a Trump presidency. I understand full well why Trump was elected.

If I’m a fan of anything, then it is the steady and frequently flow of humour Trump provides us with. Bush Jr. gave us much of the same (albeit in a far more endearing way), and I was genuinely disappointed when he had to clear the White House because I knew I was going to miss the Bushisms. I even spoke once of looking forward to the possibility of similar entertainment in the event that Trump won the presidency:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18285#324812

He has not disappointed.

AJ Philips,

Yes, I did read the article and the responses to it. You and I differ on what constitutes evidence, especially where professionals and standards, ethics too, are involved.

I have no oar in the water either way on this, no political interest.

However I would like to see some universities and professional bodies take action where science is being brought into disrepute as in this case. Joe Public recognises what is going on here. It is shameful. It is how the credibility of science is eroded and people start to reject public vaccination campaigns for instance - which is not an extreme example at all.

On Trump, by all means criticise his policies. But there is no call to set the baying hounds of psychology against him. That just proves that his opponents recognise there is likely no substance to their own argument and they are relying on poisoning the well against Trump via a personality attack.

leoj,

I don't think the article Foxy linked to was evidence of anything. To me, it was just a discussion which raised some interesting points.

<<You and I differ on what constitutes evidence, especially where professionals and standards, ethics too, are involved.>>

How do you figure that? I don't think opinions are evidence of anything (as you seem to think I do), and I don't think the Goldwater rule should change. However, I do think the question of whether mental health experts have a duty to warn people when a leader has a mental illness or personality disorder is an interesting one, and warrants further discussion.

<<On Trump, by all means criticise his policies.>>

I have. I have spoken about the potentially disastrous effects a Muslim ban would have (by giving ISIS was that want and increasing the chances of radicalising young Muslims in the US); I've spoken about how Trump's selection of countries for his Muslim ban conveniently skipped the countries in which he has business interests (With Saudi Arabia being one of the biggest exporters of terrorists).

We could go on for days about bad and poorly thought-through many of his policies are. But when a leader behaves in bizarre ways, it is worth asking why - especially if it could negatively impact their country, let alone the rest of the world. In my opinion, brushing such questions off as ad hominem, desperation, or a standard tactic, in a case as extreme as Trump's, comes off as defensive.

My comments here are not partisan-driven as mhaze and yourself are keen to dismiss them has. I thought Kevin Rudd showed signs of NPD (albeit far less extreme), yet I don't think GW Bush had any psychological or personality disorders (which I have now found that he too was accused of, but you apparently really had to be watching close to see them). Furthermore, it appears my 'at least 7 our of 9' traits was conservative. Here's a video showing him fulfill all nine:

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/donald-trump-mental-illness-narcisissm-us-president-psychologists-inauguration-crowd-size-paranoia-a7552661.html

SR,

"Runner originally asked;

“Anyone seen US the employment figures lately?”.
Yes. But 'employment figures' is a catch-all phrase. If I say it was hot at the end of December, only someone with an agenda would seek to prove that wrong by looking at the literal end ie 31/12. Equally here.

Now SR, I've noted previously your rather tenuous grasp of statistics (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17749&page=0#314330) so I won't vex you too much longer.

But your rationalisations as to why Trump has been reducing unemployment rates is, to put it mildly, utter BS. Go back and look at the BLS statistics for (Seas) Employment-Population Ratio and (Seas) Labor Force Participation Rate to find that the former has increased under Trump and the latter has remained essential unchanged since 2012. So your claims that "Another [reason] is the number of baby boomers moving out of the job market" are unfounded and the victory of wishful-thinking over data.

But I did get a laugh from this .."Well one factor is the markedly increasing school retention rates within black communities because of policies implemented by the Obama administration." So in your anti-Trump hysteria, any problems with employment are caused by Trump and any improvements (in the same period!!) are caused by the Obamessiah. But you're not prejudiced? Giggle!

I'll probably loose you here, but there is a problem with the numbers. IT doesn't really make sense that the participation rate is rising, the unemployment rate and numbers are falling, while the employment numbers are stagnant. As I understand it, one explanation for this is that the employment numbers are based on surveys of employers. Given that there are a large number of illegals in the US workforce and that Trump/ICE are gearing up to go after them and their employers, it is said that these employers are, often, no longer counting the illegals in the survey responses. This, it is opined, is the reason for the apparent problems in the employment numbers when all the other employment related stats are moving as expected in a growing/booming economy.

AJ,

Having originally asserted that Bush the Younger wasn't assailed with claims of mental illness, AJ now advises that "I have now found that he too was accused of [it]".

Miraculously he 'found' this AFTER I'd pointed it out and offered an appropriate URL. You're welcome.

As usual we are now told that the accusations against Bush were minor but this time its different. Of coarse in the Bush years, when it ws pointed out that the left had used the same tactics against Reagan we were told that this time its different. and in the Reagan years it was different to the Goldwater accusations. The more things change....

A lack of historic understand, memory and understanding always leads to a belief that this time its different.

As to the attempts to deny Obama's narcissism:

"Steve Hilton, one of [David] Cameron’s closest advisers...[said]: “My old boss, former British prime minister David Cameron, thought Obama was one of the most narcissistic, self-absorbed people he’d ever dealt with.

“Obama never listened to anyone, always thought he was smarter than every expert in the room, and treated every meeting as an opportunity to lecture everyone else. This led to real-world disasters, like Syria and the rise of Isis.”

But the real world did not matter to the elites, Hilton said. “For them, it’s all about style and tone, not substance and results. Donald Trump offends the elites aesthetically, like a piece of art that’s not to their taste."

Yes disasters like Isis. But that's now down the memory-hole. Instead we're supposed to fret that banning such people from coming to our shores will upset them.

This sums it all up:

http://ace.mu.nu/archives/trump%20russia%20baby.jpg

AJ Philips, "I don't think the article Foxy linked to was evidence of anything. To me, it was just a discussion which raised some interesting points"

Yes and as we seem to agree, it needs to be read in conjunction with the posted comments - which is the purpose of the publiching the articles (and some may miss that)

AJ Philips, "I don't think opinions are evidence of anything (as you seem to think I do), and I don't think the Goldwater rule should change. However, I do think the question of whether mental health experts have a duty to warn people when a leader has a mental illness or personality disorder is an interesting one, and warrants further discussion"

I am OK with that too and I agree that opinions are just that where evidence is not given (and tested) in support. Yes, I was starting to wonder if you were in danger of losing the mental curiosity that is I believe on of the hallmarks (and enjoyable characteristic) of the thinking human :)

Psychiatrists and psychologists are not in the very best position to be seen taking sides. The disciples are already plagued with allegations of being willing and compliant guns for hire. There is evidence to cause concern that some of those allegations may be true. Examples can be found in (say) the relationship between some professionals and workers' compensation employers/insurers.

There is also recent evidence of some social psychologists of academic stature and from prestigious US universities, bragging like schoolboys about their influence in 'nudging' voters in the US Presidential campaign. Using the findings of psychology, of the essentials that make us human, to manipulate voters on a large scale is NOT ethical, it's about ego and of course it is up to other professionals in their university to bring them into line - which in some cases is very slow happening and could be linked to the source/s of grants.

One of a few typos, 'disciples' should be disciplines.

Nice touch there, mhaze.

<<Miraculously he 'found' this AFTER I'd pointed it out and offered an appropriate URL.

Yeah, “miraculously”, as if you’d caught me fibbing and forced me to concede something I had always known. No, sorry, but you’re still the only one here who has been caught out telling porky pies (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7880#243969).

I never knew of such accusations against Bush Jr. After the link you provided, I Googled, “george w bush mental fitness”, and came up with virtually nothing. Thinking to myself, “SURELY mhaze wouldn’t exaggerate!”, I refined my search to between the years 2000 to 2008, and a small handful of relevant articles appeared (which is why I said to leoj that one would have had to have been paying very close attention).

Your portrayal of the criticisms of Trump as just being ‘same sh!t, different day’, is a gross exaggeration. Trump attracts more criticism because his behaviour is troubling and sometimes downright bizarre. Bush, on the other hand, was mostly just a blubbering doofus.

Regarding Obama, yes, we’ve both noted that a leader would need to be narcissistic to get to where they are. But there is ‘narcissistic’, and then there’s full-blown NPD. You seem deeply upset by the suggestion that Trump falls into the latter category, and your emotive use of the of the label, “Obamessiah”, suggests that you are getting rather emotional and defensive (I could call Trump "Drumpf", since that’s his family’s real surname and sounds far less flattering, but I’d rather my delivery come across as a little more dispassionate than that).

<<Instead we're supposed to fret that banning such people from coming to our shores will upset them.>>

If you marginalise and demonise an entire demographic by sending them the message that their people are no longer welcome, then you will ensure that rates of criminal behaviour (and radicalisation, where Islam is concerned), within that demographic, will rise. That’s not scaremongering, that’s a fact.

Mhaze
<Instead we're supposed to fret that banning such people from coming to our shores will upset them.>

Well said! it’s the same as the,islamaphobia, rubbish. They attack us, so the main problem is
our Islamaphobia.
Trump is right to ban people coming from countries,who have large numbers of hostile enemy agents. It’s commonsense. The rest is just Muslim propaganda.

Trump is the most sane of any of them to do this.

Love his, “Little Rocket Man Taunt”. He calls Kim King Kong’s bluff, and low and behold
Little Rocket man, attends a diplomatic talk in South Korea.
There are too many people today, who want to grovel and say,” how can we stop you threatening us.”
Strong force is the only thing these people respect and the thought, that it is they who may come
off the worst,is the only thing that makes them pull their horns in.

Trump is a straight shooter,language wise, and it is wonderful to not have the constant waffling
and smoke screens put up by so many in politics. It is revealing to see them spit their dummies in rage, because Trump won’t bow to their devious societal manipulations.

I don’t idolise Trump, I see too easily his flawed side. And I don’t like his attitude to women,
But on the good side he has socked the truth right out into the ballpark.
Fake News, registered so accurately in people’s mind, it has become a catch cry

Dear mhaze,

Lordy, lordy young lad what on earth are we to do with you? And I wouldn't advise touting your tenuous grasp of GW statistics because it is an embarrassment.

You wrote;

“But 'employment figures' is a catch-all phrase. If I say it was hot at the end of December, only someone with an agenda would seek to prove that wrong by looking at the literal end ie 31/12. Equally here.”

Which is precisely why I earlier said “this first full year under Trump have seen below average employment growth compared each of Obama's last six years”. However you want to slice this Trump's first years record on job creation is sub-par compared to Obama.

During Obama's term high-school drop out rates for black students dropped from 14% to 7%. The White House Initiative on Educational Excellence for African Americans among others certainly assisted.

But let's get down to brass tacks. The Congressional Research Office makes these observations;

“the employment-population ratio also do not provide information about job flows (i.e., whether a drop in employment represents more people exiting employment or fewer new entrants).”

Outside direct employment the two main factors influencing this ratio were flagged as;

“the large baby boomer cohort has started to retire, and younger individuals are spending more time in school or otherwise delaying labor market entry”

So are you now going to label this source BS too? http://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R44055.pdf

What will be interesting is next year's Employment-Population Ratio figures. If they don't continue the upward trend that they had under Obama then it will be yet another indication Trump is a dud. But due to the fore mentioned demographic reasons it is unlikely to ever reach 07 levels of 63%. Will Trump's policies stymie this climb?

And how on earth do you get to claim the workforce participation rate is increasing from this graph?
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000

Just for a bit of light relief:

http://www.spectator.com.au/2018/01/the-fine-art-of-political-juxtaposition/

SR,

1. Baby boomers retiring and kids extending their education cause the participation rate to fall all else being equal. But the participation rate isn't falling. So there are offsetting factors. You've got the logic completely arse about.

2. "And how on earth do you get to claim the workforce participation rate is increasing".....I didn't. Re-read my post.

3. "I wouldn't advise touting your tenuous grasp of GW statistics"...anyone interested could re-read that thread and see just how little you understood of the issue at the time ie the so-called hiatus. But brazenly asserting the opposite might convince some...maybe even yourself.

4. "What will be interesting is next year's Employment-Population Ratio figures....."

My first comment on this issue in this thread was "Its way too early in the administration to be making judgements pro or con on economic issues." Glad to see you've caught up.

There are two economies ....the one that societies depend on for social cohesion....and the black economy
The black economy is growing proportional to the influx of migrants.
The migrants do not initiate the black economy but are the basis for it just as public servants are the basis for the social economy.
What the US does matters very little to the Australian standard of living other than the consumption of real life 'merican TV, so being preoccupied with what Trump does or says is a merely a distraction and choice of amusement.
The standard of living will continue to rise for the immigrants while that of the home grown will drop with govt. 'free money' being handed out at a rate impossible to sustain.
The resentment against the migrants will continue to rise which will only slow the integration and promote more enclaves and once these enclaves are established you've got buckley's in achieving reintegration with Chinatown and Little Italy being examples.
Small minds in govt. can only product a small minded social structure no matter how much the concept of multi culture is promoted. An artificial word used to describe an artificial society
White Australia is dead, both politically and socially, which is ironic as it was never white in it's origins by way of the indigenous.
Trump's mental state is an indicator as to where the 'merican public is situated, and Australians seem to want to follow suit whilst espousing self determination in defending the hole in the ground that is Australia.

Foxy,

This article from The Spectator is more relevant to Australia. Trump? One could wonder instead about the mentality and lack of principles of the Australian politicians polishing the leather seats in its federal parliament,

"Losing our perspective"
"The truth is, that a politically well-organised and immensely powerful grievance industry, pushed by what former prime minister John Howard calls ‘minority fundamentalists’, has a different view of how the world should look. Having captured the legislature it is now intent on turning society’s belief system upside-down.
....

Alas, it is a mythical utopia. Any government big enough to give people all that they want is big enough to take all that they have. The redistributive measures employed, ensure bigger government, greater state dependence, less personal freedom, declining economic activity and poverty for the masses – the very environment in which slavery and discrimination thrive.

We are not well served by our leaders. They lack principle and would rather surrender to the forces of intolerance than defend the values on which our free society is based. Perhaps it’s time to reunite with those who are still brave enough to wish us ‘happy Christmas’."
http://www.spectator.com.au/2017/12/losing-our-perspective/

LEOJ my friend; you've just uttered probably one of the truest statements I've heard on this august Site; '...We are not well served by our leaders. They lack principle and would rather surrender to the forces of intolerance than defend the values on which our free society is based...'. Yup, all so true sadly.

AJ,

"caught me fibbing".

No, I wasn't suggesting you were fibbing. I just wanted to prompt you into acknowledging where your new-found knowledge about Bush came from...ie me. Just nudging you to do the right thing :)

"and a small handful of relevant articles appeared "

There is an inherent problem with basing one's evaluation of the relevant importance of historic events on the number of Google hits you get on a search. Much better to do the actual research if it matters, or better still pay attention at the time. Coincidentally, I was reading this article (http://ricochet.com/484752/beginning-end-history/) yesterday which had this prescient warning about this exact practice...."And with their reliance on the electronic record, a non-permanent and easily changeable source, we will inch closer to the days of Orwell’s nightmare vision of The Ministry of Truth. History will be bent to serve whatever purpose the present requires."

I'm sure its the type of thing you'll continue to do because its easy and usually delivers the type of answers you'd prefer. But its wrong. For example a search on "Wounded Knee massacre" will yield 3 times more results than a search on "Katyn massacre". I'll leave you to decide if that reflects their relative historic importance.(Just used this example because I'm currently doing additional research on new Katyn data)

"Trump attracts more criticism because his behaviour is troubling and sometimes downright bizarre."

No he attracts what you perceive to be more attention because he is a greater threaten to the left. They have no way to fight him other than to try to overturn the election via these silly assertions about his mental state. Its rubbish and they know it, even though the followers (no names mind you :) fall for it. Check the video of his recent DACA conference to see how wrong the claims of his incapacity are: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2018/01/09/full_replay_president_trump_makes_a_deal_on_immigration_reform.htm

I use the term Obamessiah to mock the way many of his devoted followers feel about him. When he said the seas would stop rising they believed it. When he said he was the smartest person in any room, they believed it. News casters said they got shivers up their leg just watching him. And yet, he was/is a disaster domestically and, especially, in foreign policy terms. As it becomes more and more obvious, I just like tweeking their noses.

"If you marginalise and demonise an entire demographic ....[and so on].."

So you have this particular demographic that you let into the country and a (small?) proportion of them want to kill and maim the citizenry in the name of religion. IF you continue to bring in more members of that demographic, you will certainly import more numbers of these religious zealots. But, according to this way of thinking you enunciate, we have to continue to bring in these zealots because if we don't then some of the demographic that haven't yet turned to zealotry will do so. So either way we end up with more religious warfare on our streets. Brilliant idea!!

"You seem deeply upset by the suggestion that Trump falls into the latter category, "

Not upset in the least. I know its a load of rubbish and will blow over as soon as the next excuse for overturning the election is discovered.

STOP PRESS:
Brandy X Lee, the 'psychiatrist' who started this whole 'Trump is mentally ill" meme has just been outed as having lost her licence to practice psychiatry in 2015.

But fear not AJ. In a year or three, when you'll be able to assert that she never had any influence by doing a Google and finding that she's barely mentioned. I'm sure the algorithms are already at work and the memory-holes are being run day and night.

Last night I watched a couple of U tube videos of the behaviour of the US media as the realisation dawned on them, that Trump had been elected. This was what went to air from the election night studios.

I had not bothered with this before as I was not that interested, but the shock & horror they displayed was very enlightening. No wonder the TV & News papers are going out backwards. Playing to a limited left ratbag audience can't be good for profitability.

I started wondering if the owners, & share holders realise just how much of their audience has had enough lefty propaganda, & is disappearing at a considerable rate of knots, & why?

Quite a few friends, some who would watch TV news programs from 5.00 PM to 7.30PM are now watching none. The net is proving a much better source, & I now only tune if to see the weather map, & programs like the 7.30 report, once required viewing became such trashy propaganda vehicles, they had to die.

Even the documentaries that have been so good on SBS have become nothing more than anti white/western value propaganda since they started local production.

They are killing themselves, with now only the soaps keeping them alive. They will not be missed.

we would be certainly better off and save billions if we were to get rid of the tax funded leftist propoganda machine of abc/sbs. Have they distanced themselves from that white hating racist muslim women yet?

Dear runner,

It is a tossup really isn't it. The ABC and SBS vs the billions in tax breaks we give to those very Christian institutions which did so much sexual damage to our most vulnerable. Ending the tax exempt status of religious organisations gets my vote.

Found a conscience have we steelie. Where on earth did that come from? Oh I see its only activated with your hatred towards your Maker. Fancy you being able to call child abuse wrong. One of your high priest who appear on the abc (Singer) thinks its ok to have sex with animals. Hmm!

Dear mhaze,

You wrote;

“Baby boomers retiring and kids extending their education cause the participation rate to fall all else being equal. But the participation rate isn't falling. So there are offsetting factors. You've got the logic completely arse about.”

Good lord, really?

So you now accept it seems that this are not BS as you previously claimed. Well that is progress of a sort. Of course the logic is sound if you were prepared to do even a modicum of reading. The participation rate had been steadily rising through Obama's term after the GFC but is only half way to the pre-crisis levels. Retiring baby boomers and lower dropout rates have slowed that momentum. Remember though that those seeking work are included in the participation figures. There is a group who aren't included though and they are the so-called “discouraged workers”, those who do not have a job and who are not seeking one. If their numbers were to return to pre-GFC levels both the participation rate and the unemployment rate would rise.
http://www.businessinsider.com.au/unemployment-rate-if-discouraged-workers-came-back-2014-1?r=US&IR=T

I agree that a years worth of figures is not going to give a definitive picture of how this administration is performing, particularly as the momentum of the Obama initiatives will make a proper assessment

In the end the only substantive figure we can rely on at the moment as somewhat indicative is job creation. Trump is not proving to be a standout but that may well change.

My apologies, mhaze.

On re-reading your post, it does indeed appear you were merely expressing butthurt over the fact that you were not credited for bringing the criticism of Bush Jr.’s mental fitness to my attention. Sorry for neglecting to credit you for prompting my later discoveries.

<<There is an inherent problem with basing one's evaluation of the relevant importance of historic events on the number of Google hits you get on a search.>>

Only I wasn't evaluating the importance of historic events. So, your example with the ‘massacre’ searches is irrelevant.

Relying on the number of hits in a Google search IS problematic, though. There may simply be more webpages containing the words one searched for, for example. However, I made it clear in my last post that I was counting relevant articles, not the number of hits:

“... a small handful of relevant articles appeared.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=8085#251099)

Which is why I took a look at the actual results in the first 10 or so pages (you’ll note, too, that when you specify a date range, Google doesn’t show the number of hits).

A further problem, when using a past date range as I did, is that some webpages and websites won’t exist anymore. So I searched “Y2K bug” between the years 1995 to 1999 and was presented with an abundance of RELEVANT results:

http://www.google.com.au/search?q=monica+lewinsky+affair&tbs=cdr:1,cd_min:1995,cd_max:1999&ei=a2tYWqrqA4ex0gTv64XADg&start=10&sa=N&biw=1745&bih=863

Not analogous, you reckon? Two totally different issues? Okay, let’s try, “monica lewinsky affair” with the same date range:

http://www.google.com.au/search?q=y2k+bug&tbs=cdr:1,cd_min:1995,cd_max:1999&ei=f2pYWsrIEonQ0AT78rfIDw&start=20&sa=N&biw=1745&bih=863

Again, plenty of results. Despite your protestations, my use of Google searches appears to have been adequate for the purpose of the exercise.

<<No [Trump] attracts what you perceive to be more attention because he is a greater threaten to the left.>>

In what way?

<<[The Left] have no way to fight [Trump] other than to try to overturn the election via these silly assertions about his mental state.>>

Why is Trump so much harder to fight than any other former POTUS? The same mechanisms are all in place. Let me guess, it's his unmatched "stability" and "genius"? *Snigger*

Continued...

...Continued

<<Its rubbish and they know it, even though the followers (no names mind you :) fall for it.>>

I don’t give a damn what they say. I go purely by my own observations. I have fallen for nothing. I've been aware of Trump's grandiose narcissism for a long time now, and I'm not the only one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3yBGE80covk

Yes, I understand why you call Obama “Obamessiah”. The clue is right there in the label. The label still sounds very emotive, though. What do you think of the cult following Trump has? As he himself points out, he could shoot someone in the street and he still wouldn’t lose votes.

<<So either way we end up with more religious warfare on our streets. Brilliant idea!!>>

Possibly, in the short term at least. No-one said a solution would be easy, but there are less inflammatory ways of dealing with the situation:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LV7eVvph69Y

I didn’t propose any ideas, by the way. I simply pointed out why Trump’s was terrible.

<<I know its a load of rubbish and will blow over as soon as the next excuse for overturning the election is discovered.>>

Oh, you KNOW this, do you? How? Because the other side would benefit from it? That would be some rather fallacious thinking.

http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/9/Ad-Hominem-Circumstantial

Trump’s Narcissism and probable NPD have been a big topic since he first started running for president, so I don’t see why you should think it would blow over. Talk of it may die down, but it will always be there.

<<In a year or three, when you'll be able to assert that she never had any influence by doing a Google and finding that she's barely mentioned.>>

Well, it seems I’ve discredited that one.

<<I'm sure the algorithms are already at work ...>>

Time to get that tinfoil hat out.

Of course, those two links to Google searches should be the other way around.

The left may well question Trumps mental state.

One thing is for sure, we don't have to question the lefts honesty, the answer is there for all to see.

AJ,

Irrespective of how diligent you were in your Google research, the fact remains that you were misled by that research in regards to Bush and the attacks on his mental capacity to lead.

Your failure to adequately note that, will mean that in the future you'll be similarly misled...and you can't always rely on my being around to set you straight. :)

The fact is Google leans left and will always give you the results it thinks you should have. That's why I stopped using it ages ago.

You might want to mollify you naivety by thinking its a conspiracy theory and I'm sure that if you use Google to research Google's bias you'll be reassured but, for example....http://dailycaller.com/2018/01/09/googles-new-fact-check-feature-almost-exclusively-targets-conservative-sites/

or

http://www.wired.com/story/james-damores-lawsuit-is-designed-to-embarrass-google/amp

"I don’t give a damn what they say. I go purely by my own observations. I have fallen for nothing."

Oh I do seem to recall you've fallen for a few "beautiful things".

SR,

"So you now accept it seems that this are not BS as you previously claimed."

No I didn't make that claim. I said your use of the figures was BS not the figure themselves.

You tried (unsuccessfully) to claim that the falling unemployment rate was due to these people dropping out of the work-force. I pointed out that the increasing participation gave the lie to your assertions...that the unemployment rate was falling even while more people were seeking work.

That is why you got the logic exactly arse-about.

How was I mislead, mhaze?

<<Irrespective of how diligent you were in your Google research, the fact remains that you were misled by that research in regards to Bush and the attacks on his mental capacity to lead.>>

I first stated that I did not recall any attacks on Bush’s mental fitness (note that I didn’t say that there were none):

“Bush Jr. was despised by many of his opponents, yet I don’t recall anyone questioning his mental health.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=8085#250955)

Further to that, it appears (as revealed by my Google searches) that the questioning of Bush’s mental fitness were nowhere near as frequent or widespread as they are concerning Trump - as you tried to make out.

<<Your failure to adequately note that, will mean that in the future you'll be similarly misled ...>>

So, my failure to notice something (which I was not even looking for) puts me at risk of being misled? Not necessarily. My openness to the possibility, that there were still some criticisms of Bush Jr.’s mental fitness, of which I was not aware (as evident in my wording), demonstrates that I was not misled about anything.

Claiming that your opponents have been misled seems to be a common tactic of yours.

<<The fact is Google leans left and will always give you the results it thinks you should have.>>

Think about what it is that you’re suggesting here: you’re suggesting that Google has adjusted their algorithms to reduce the number of results returned for searches attempting to gauge the extent to which the questioning of Bush Jr.’s mental fitness occurred while he was in office.

I seriously doubt that. That's a pretty specific claim you're making there.

Wouldn’t it be more left-leaning to return a disproportionate number of results showing that Bush Jr.’s mental fitness was questionable?

Time to get that tinfoil hat out.

<<You might want to mollify you naivety by thinking its a conspiracy theory …>>

No, I think I've demonstrated the unlikeliness of such algorithms and the extent to which your thinking is paranoid.

Continued...

...Continued

<<Oh I do seem to recall you've fallen for a few "beautiful things".>>

Once again, you assume I fell for something. No, I made my own judgement calls there, too, and ones I am not ashamed of for reasons already specified.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=19087#340061

Again, I will never feel embarrassed for giving people too much credit, even if you think I should. You think sexual assault and bragging about committing it isn't such a big deal? Fine. I disagree.

Shame: that's another tactic of yours, isn't it? According to you, your opponents should be ashamed of something they said in the past; have been “led up the garden path”; or both. Such is the modus operandi of the partisan political hack, I suppose.

What gets up the nose of the regressives the most is that Trump statements often show up the hypocrisy of the left. Quite entertaining.

A slight correction, mhaze.

<<Irrespective of how diligent you were in your Google research, the fact remains that you were misled by that research in regards to Bush and the attacks on his mental capacity to lead.>>

It appears that you were questioning the accuracy with which my Google search results reflected the extent to which Bush Jr.’s ability to lead was questioned during his presidency.

That being the case, all I can really do here is again point to the unlikelihood that Google’s alleged left-leaning algorithms are responsible here:

“Think about what it is that you’re suggesting here: you’re suggesting that Google has adjusted their algorithms to reduce the number of results returned for searches attempting to gauge the extent to which the questioning of Bush Jr.’s mental fitness occurred while he was in office.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=8085#251364)

Again, there's some pretty damn specific forethought on Google's behalf there (tailored specifically to make life more difficult for you here on OLO, no less). That’s even more unlikely than the suggestion from phanto once that I spoke fondly of my Christian days on OLO for years so that I could link back to those posts in the off chance that someone like him would supposedly discover that I was actually bitter about my days as a Christian and needed to cover the fact up:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7844#242441

You lot will try anything on.

Churchill (and probably others) said "Those who fail to learn from history are condemned to repeat it."

Generally the history is of the larger world-scope variety. The encouragement is learn from the appeasement movement or the Thucydides dilemma, or the errors of Versailles. But it can equally be applied to the individual scale. If you fail to learn from your past mistakes, then you'll make them again.

If you, even having noted an error, seek to minimise or rationalise it away as an aberration, then you've failed to learn and a repeat is close to a certainty

Maze,

The Spaniard (and later American) George Santayana.

Oh please, mhaze, don’t keep us all hanging, will you. Tell us what this supposed error is.

<<If you, even having noted an error, seek to minimise or rationalise it away as an aberration, then you've failed to learn and a repeat is close to a certainty>>

It can’t be my failure to notice something I was not even looking for and which, evidently, one had to be paying fairly close attention to notice. After all, I did not claim that Bush Jr.’s mental fitness was not questioned, only that I did not recall anyone questioning his mental fitness. There was no error there.

You're trying desperately to portray that as a mistake on my behalf, aren't you? Why's that? So you can shove this one in my face for a whole year, too, whenever your arguments go south?

Keep it up for long enough, mhaze, and it will blow up in your face as badly as it did the last time.