I watched it on Youtube last night after reading all day about how badly Trump came out. I thought, 'wait, where's the
-
-
DeepConvection — 9 years ago(February 17, 2017 09:47 AM)
It all stems from the same Bernays propaganda and this is quite easily demonstrable.
They're just the same tactics being used all over again. They've been updated and refined a bit, but they're the same fundamental tactics used almost a century ago.
For those interested, this multiple-award-winning BBC documentary entitled The Century of the Self explains exactly what we're seeing today:
The Century of the Self
http://www.imdb.com/board/10432232/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1"All great truths begin as blasphemies."
- George Bernard Shaw
-
Sandoz — 9 years ago(February 17, 2017 08:55 AM)
While I agree there is an globalist oligarchy who control things, thinking Trump is some kind of savior who's going to combat them is the height of foolishness.
He's already proven with his appointees and the initial roll-backs on regulations he's ordered that he's doing their bidding as much as any other corporate politician-stooge would have.
"I was cured all right!" -
DeepConvection — 9 years ago(February 17, 2017 09:41 AM)
I'm a Bernie supporter. I disliked Trump about as much as I did Hillary a year and a half ago.
While I still think Bernie is better than both of them, the globalist oligarchy's media started using the same Bernays propaganda tactics against Trump as they did against Bernie and other honest politicians like Dr. Ron Paul (R) and Dennis Kuchinich (D). That's when I knew to pay more attention to what Trump was actually saying rather than what I was being told.
Sure enough, they were going overboard trying to destroy Trump with misquotes, fake headlines, and half truths. At least one study later proved it.
Media Out To Destroy Trump? Study Finds 91 Percent Of News Coverage Is Negative
"Even when they were critical of Hillary Clinton for concealing her pneumonia, for example, or mischaracterizing the FBI investigation of her e-mail server network reporters always maintained a respectful tone in their coverage," read the study. "This was not the case with Trump, who was slammed as embodying 'the politics of fear,' or a 'dangerous' and 'vulgar' 'misogynistic bully' who had insulted vast swaths of the American electorate."
http://www.ibtimes.com/media-out-destroy-trump-study-finds-91-percent-news-coverage-negative-2437262
There's plenty more where that came from too.
When the oligarchy's media is in a virtual lockstep on policy and politicians, that's typically when you know they're doing it for their benefit, not yours. They've all been in virtual lockstep about how constant wars are great, about how losing our rights for security is great, about how losing our jobs to outsourcing is great. These things only benefit the oligarchy. These things only make the wealth gap even larger.
So when the oligarchy's media hates Trump while Trump kills the oligarchy's secretive TPP, that's a great indicator that he's actually fighting for the people this time around.
The TPP, Hillary's "gold standard of trade deals" was the ultimate FU to the middle and lower classes. It not only would have outsourced even more jobs, it would have stripped us of our rights, allowing globalist corporations to regulate our government. That means if we ever had any safety regulation whatsoever which hurt globalist profits, our government could be sued to get that regulation overturned. Before long we would have said goodbye to the EPA, food regulations, and just about any other safety regulation imaginable."All great truths begin as blasphemies."
- George Bernard Shaw
-
Darkramj — 9 years ago(February 17, 2017 09:20 AM)
Remember that the people who call him 'unhinged' support rioting, intimidation and violence as a means of political discourse.
It's possible they don't know what a hinge is and are using words they heard in the news.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it. G.K. Chesterton -
The-Original-Pinky — 9 years ago(February 17, 2017 09:21 AM)
I am a moderate Democrat. I do not support rioting and intimidation. Intimidation is actually a far-right political tactic.
And I can assure you, Mr. Trump is not mentally competent. It is quite apparent that he suffers from mental illness.
Life can be arbitrary and comes without a warranty. -
Darkramj — 9 years ago(February 17, 2017 09:34 AM)
You support it by not policing or addressing it. You say, "yeah violence is wrong, but Trump did (whatever)".
And I can assure you, Mr. Trump is not mentally competent. It is quite apparent that he suffers from mental illness.
I'm sure you cannot. You neither have the training nor the opportunity to make even suggesting such a diagnosis valid, clinically or otherwise. I have no doubt I'm far more equipped to understand legitimate mental health diagnostic and treatment standards and practices than you can surpass with the word assure.
Every human being you will ever meet exhibits traits you will find listed as symptoms of mental illness or disorder. That is why clinical references are only for use by trained professionals. Even those who breach their professional code of ethics and conduct, breaking the Goldwater rule, to express their political views.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it. G.K. Chesterton -
The-Original-Pinky — 9 years ago(February 17, 2017 09:38 AM)
I, personally, do no such thing. And it's a well-known fact that the Republicans practice intimidation. Saw it the last two national elections at polling places where authorities had to be called to remove them.
Funny how each side always brings of failings of the other, when they are guilty of the same sh!t themselves!
Mr. Trump is assuredly mentally unstable. He has an overabundance of mental illness traits, not a few.
Life can be arbitrary and comes without a warranty. -
Darkramj — 9 years ago(February 17, 2017 09:49 AM)
I, personally, do no such thing.
You're doing it now.
He has an overabundance of mental illness traits, not a few.
Which is NOT how an actual mental illness is identified or diagnosed. Someone who knew that could possibly assure me. Someone who assigns a mental illness on anybody based on how your perception of their behavior coincides with a list of symptoms is entirely ignorant of psychological disciplines. You FIRST demonstrate severe inabilities to function which are not due to external factors, THEN you diagnose what the cause is. There is no functionality scale in which Trump scores low enough to warrant an eval, he's President and prior to that ran businesses for decadesthose kinds of things rate high. Behavior is not the key.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it. G.K. Chesterton -
DeepConvection — 9 years ago(February 17, 2017 10:06 AM)
If you are truly aware of identifying and diagnosing mental illness, then you are also already aware that it isn't even possible without in-depth personalized testing. No psychiatrist in the world can diagnose anyone without it.
The View host Joy Behar begs Dr. Phil to diagnose Trump as a narcissist
On Thursdays The View, host Joy Behar begged guest Dr. Phil to diagnose President Donald Trump with a mental disorder. As soon as he appeared at the table, Behars first question was if Trump had narcissism and if that made him fit to be President.
Dr. Phil didnt take the bait in labeling Trump as a narcissist, but went through a list of common character traits of narcissists instead. Behar then gleefully checked off each one as reminiscent of Trumps personality.
After that, Dr. Phil explained that many people shared these traits, even some seated at this table.
http://www.imdb.com/board/bd0000082/thread/265805697?d=265805697#265805697"All great truths begin as blasphemies."
- George Bernard Shaw
-
Darkramj — 9 years ago(February 17, 2017 10:43 AM)
No psychiatrist in the world can diagnose anyone without it.
To be precise, no psychiatrist in the world can make a clinically valid or ethical diagnosis of anyone without it.
There's no law against it, but it is a violation of Sec. 7.3 of the APA code of ethics. That code is violated from time to time, but the MH community consistently distances itself from instances of licensed professionals that diagnose public figures without a clinical evaluation/assessment and assures it is a clinically invalid form of personal expression and not an authoritative statement of any kind.
Unfortunately, people who want to hear it simply cite the author's prestigious degree and give no thought whatever to the fact that the statement itself invalidates said prestige entirely. It's a pure abuse of authority by letter and spirit.
Furthermore, in the event that such an instance results in damages to the subject of the statement, the APA will sever all ties and allegiance, withdrawing all legal support and even subjecting the professional to a board of ethics review in the event the statement is found to be slanderous or libelous. I.E., the Mental Health community takes abuses of the perceived authority it's members have akin to medical professionals very, very seriously.
There's often a lot of debate whether this ethical standard requires a professional to act against their conscience. But the rule is maintained because the profession recognizes that one's conscience does not circumvent or bypass clinically thorough procedure, meaning that without a clinical evaluation of the person in question the conscience is not sufficiently informed.
Dr. Phil's response is in keeping with that code.
The Original Pinky is just not amicable to facts he/she doesn't like.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it. G.K. Chesterton -
Darkramj — 9 years ago(February 17, 2017 10:26 AM)
I am well aware of identifying and diagnosing mental illness. This man has key traits.
You are obviously not. Someone well aware objectively answers if the person has a problem before answering what it's pathology is. When someone walks into a therapists office, the 'if' question is usually a given.
There is no amount of traits a person exhibits the forgoes the question, only an inability to have a productive life allows you to examine traits resulting in that inability.
Without establishing any inability to function due to cognition or mental faculty, you can't diagnose a mental illness on someone even if they believe they are a unicorn. And FYI, you don't get to pick the function at random. Inability to broker peace in the Middle East, or not choosing to be polite to critics isn't a valid inability.
You can try to assign an illness on someone because you don't like them or what they do or how they talk or even everything about them. You can try because you want them to fail. You can try because you wish they would go away.
But that'll only work with those as uninformed as you arehence the power the media has over regular people.
To reiterate, no number of traits is enough for a diagnosis. It's necessary to identify key inabilities to function which are not due to external factors or circumstances. Since he is functional, every trait in the book will not overrule it. In fact, using traits alone to determine a problem instead of using them to guide in the diagnosing and treatment of one can result in losing your license.
You aren't aware. Sorry, it only works your way in movies and in bars.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it. G.K. Chesterton -
Darkramj — 9 years ago(February 17, 2017 11:03 AM)
Not according to any clinically valid method of determination.
None.
And you are supporting the violence by choosing to talk about anything else before definitively objecting to it. The best you come up with is generically disagreeing with it, then definitively and specifically attack your target of choice.
Being on the same side, that makes you a passive enabler. If you were to declare that you'd rather vote Republican than see your fellow Americans perpetrate violence to promote a Democrat or just to object to an administrationthen you are very much with them.
I for one would gladly support a democrat or liberal if the alternative is violence. I would gladly Ghandi-up to my ideological opposite if the only thing we had in common was the virtue of civility if I felt that most like-minded to me did not value it. There is a time for violence, but my political views do not determine what that time will be.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it. G.K. Chesterton -
DeepConvection — 9 years ago(February 17, 2017 10:49 AM)
They're not even doing that. They could stick to the facts, but they don't. They're lying to you about what he says.
Donald 'Mexicans Are Rapists' Trump Goes to Mexico
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/donald-mexicans-are-rapists-trump-goes-to-mexico-w437379
^ Of course he never said that, but it makes for a great headline when you want to fool people into hating Trump.
Media Out To Destroy Trump? Study Finds 91 Percent Of News Coverage Is Negative
"Even when they were critical of Hillary Clinton for concealing her pneumonia, for example, or mischaracterizing the FBI investigation of her e-mail server network reporters always maintained a respectful tone in their coverage," read the study. "This was not the case with Trump, who was slammed as embodying 'the politics of fear,' or a 'dangerous' and 'vulgar' 'misogynistic bully' who had insulted vast swaths of the American electorate."
http://www.ibtimes.com/media-out-destroy-trump-study-finds-91-percent-news-coverage-negative-2437262"All great truths begin as blasphemies."
- George Bernard Shaw
-
DeepConvection — 9 years ago(February 17, 2017 09:56 AM)
Remember that the people who call him 'unhinged' support rioting, intimidation and violence as a means of political discourse.
Yeah, the corporate oligarchy obviously does as they're the primary cause of it. The media has tremendous power to sway opinions and actions, especially over those who aren't informed enough to know any better."All great truths begin as blasphemies."
- George Bernard Shaw
-
Darkramj — 9 years ago(February 17, 2017 11:10 AM)
I studied this to some extent, Wikipedia has a good primer about it and could be a very useful insight into why, given the influence of media conglomerates, we can never allow a popular vote in a modern democracyever.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-step_flow_of_communication
I remember this subject every time a commercial says, "news you can trust".
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it. G.K. Chesterton