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