'Bathroom Bill' proponent misgenders opponent in VA GOP sponsored mailer

[Mike M (the other one)]

(10-30-2017, 04:14 PM)Benton Wrote: Since when are humans plants or minerals?

[*]

I dunno? I try to stick to examples that are documented. I'm not responsible for backing up your comments, only my own.

Boomer in Pittsburg thinks he's a dog, his wife thinks he's crazy. I'm on his wife's side there.

Trees and Minerals? Are you referring to naturekin?

Even Lucy has a disorder, he's asking to be referred to as your majesty, that's Royalkin or Godkin.

I don't discriminate, I pick on everyone equally, including myself.

[*bfine32*]

(10-30-2017, 04:14 PM)Benton Wrote: Since when are humans plants or minerals?

When they identify as such?

[Dill]

(10-30-2017, 01:06 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Except you are stating they have a mental disorder, which may be your opinion, but do you have the credentials to back it up? It's no different than people trying to diagnose Trump with mental conditions when they don't know his whole situation. It's disrespectful, it's hostile, and it's unnecessary. That may be what some voters want, but for those of us that prefer civility, it's not.

I agree with your assessment of attacks on Roem. They play on homophobia to sway an election. Disrespectful, hostile, etc.

But the question of diagnosing Trump may be somewhat different.

I just got a copy of The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump, edited by Brandy X. Lee, Clinical professor of Law and Psychiatry at Yale School of Medicine.  The book compiles essays from 27 other psychiatrists and mental health experts.  One is not a health expert, but Tony Schwartz, the guy who wrote The ARt of the Deal for Trump.
https://www.amazon.com/Dangerous-Case-Donald-Trump-Psychiatrists/dp/1250179459/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1509430241&sr=8-1&keywords=the+dangerous+case+of+donald+trump

The thesis of the book is that in a case like Trump, there is a "duty to warn" which over rules the Goldwater Rule; when a public official with so much power so manifestly presents a textbook case of malignant normality,  then mental health professionals should not keep silent.

Part II comprises six essays which wrestle with the question of professional ethics and the unusual threat Trump poses.  

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(10-30-2017, 12:12 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Still here..... just don’t make us call a candidate A woman when they are clearly not.

Writes the guy pretending to be a libertarian.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(10-30-2017, 12:10 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Deciding to not play along with make believe and a candidate’s mental disorders is not hostile. It’s telling the truth to the voters.

Last time I checked that was what voters wanted.

You expect us to play along with your fantasy that giving out the day and month of your anniversary is a security breach which will put your safety at risk while giving out your full date of birth and thanking everyone who wished you happy 41st birthday on September 10th.

LMAO

[StLucieBengal]

(10-31-2017, 01:43 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Writes the guy pretending to be a libertarian.

What does this have to do with the price of tea in China ?

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(10-31-2017, 10:17 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: What does this have to do with the price of tea in China ?

I thought it was obvious. You expect us to play along with your fantasies.

(10-30-2017, 12:10 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Deciding to not play along with make believe and a candidate’s mental disorders is not hostile. It’s telling the truth to the voters.

Last time I checked that was what voters wanted.

But, complain about not playing along with other's fantasies.

Which begs the question, if you're not going to play along with other's make believe why should we play along with your make believe?