50,000 psychologists have signed petition saying Trump unfit to be president:

[Missouri_Mike]

I tend to agree with the 50,000 psychologists referred to in the New Yorker magazine article but that still leaves the question of whether Trump is more fit to serve than a liberal.

Given that liberals have destroyed our families, schools, religion, healthcare system, and driven our corporations off shore with their taxes,unions and regulations it seems clear that Trump is still by far the better choice.

Not sure this means anything concerning Trump but it sure has me questioning the mental health community.

 

[Richard-H]

Sorry, Richard, but Donald Trump is a garden variety con man. And I've never yet met or heard of a con artist who wasn't as stupid as a bag of hammers.

Sure, Donald Trump is a con man. He is also like quite a lot a people I grew up with on Long Island.

(I grew up about 5 miles from where Trump grew up).

His narcissism, his constant lying, his con games are a mental illness. Being normal in a sick culture means that you are sick.

It's a dog eat dog world...only if you choose to be a dog!

 

[Correll]

I tend to agree with the 50,000 psychologists referred to in the New Yorker magazine article but that still leaves the question of whether Trump is more fit to serve than a liberal.

Given that liberals have destroyed our families, schools, religion, healthcare system, and driven our corporations off shore with their taxes,unions and regulations it seems clear that Trump is still by far the better choice.

Liberalism dominated American politics between 1932 and 1980 - the time when America became the greatest nation in history.

Liberalism has had a substantive amount of political power since 1980 - the time that America has remained the greatest nation in history.


In short, your assertion that liberalism is destroying our country is just plain stupid as stupid gets.

The American people were the richest in the world in Colonial times.

America the nation grew it's economy to be the largest in the world in the 1800s.


Your words are simply delusional.

Really? The American people were wealthier than the British, French and Spanish during colonial times?

You gotta be kidding!

America was a rural backwater before WWII. It wasn't until post WWII industrialization that the U.S. became an economic super power.

You are simply ignorant.


Economic history of the United States - Wikipedia


"The colonial economy differed significantly from that of most other regions in that land and natural resources were abundant in America but labor was scarce.

From 1700 to 1775 the output of the thirteen colonies increased 12 fold, giving the colonies an economy about 30% the size of Britain's at the time of independence. Population growth was responsible for over three-quarters of the economic growth of the British American colonies. The free white population had the highest standard of living in the world."

As your quote says, the American colonies economy was 30% the size of Britain's.

I don't consider a larger but poorer population a sign of greatness or anything to be proud of.

Do your really believe that American colonists had a higher standard of living than European Royalty?

That is an absurd strawman. Comparing the average American to Kings and Queens is A. nonsense and B, not at all what I said.

Does Free White population include indentured servants and slaves? Does it include farmers?

You're actually asking me to explain the meaning of the word "Free"?

You are trying to distract from the fact that you were wrong, with semantic games. I will not coddle you and pretend that you are A. unaware of common english terms and b. unable to use an online dictionary.

Knock off your shit.

I'm sure that there were some landowning white men that had a very high standard of living, bit the majority were subsistence.

Your position is A contrary to linked source and B based on nothing but your need to put America down, except for dems.

 

[Billy000]

Female sexuality is more fluid, but no outside influences can change or.

1. I've seen male homosexuals play similar games.

2. The Party Line for you lefties is that NOTHING can change sexuality. It is "born this way". I've seen men and women change, and sometimes even change BACK. If Change is possible, this a. invalidates many (most) of liberal positions on the subject and b. validates the possibility of an outside influence changing it.

Oh Christ you haven't seen shit. Am I supposed to believe you have closely interviewed these people and cross referenced? Bullshit.

THe woman in question was a close personal friend.

I knew her early in college when she was dating an older man, and sometimes made out with me.

I knew her when she had an ugly breakup with him and "discovered" that she was gay.

I knew her for years afterwards, thought several lesbian relationships.

I reconnected shortly after she got pregnant and married the father.

They were together for a long time and had three(?) children.

When they divorced I asked her, if she was to start dating again, would it be with a woman or a man.

She admitted that it would probably be with a man.


She is not the only one I saw such back and forth behavior, contradicting their stated preferences, just the most extreme.

All of that makes her bisexual. Problably pansexual if anything.

I tried that argument. She insisted that once she went lesbian, that she realized that her previous relationships were, her trying to be something she was not-ish.

Then with the passage of time and who knows what factors, she just changed back.

It's very common for gay people to not be certain they are gay until a later age because heterosexuality is such a common norm.

 

[Richard-H]

Liberalism dominated American politics between 1932 and 1980 - the time when America became the greatest nation in history.

Liberalism has had a substantive amount of political power since 1980 - the time that America has remained the greatest nation in history.


In short, your assertion that liberalism is destroying our country is just plain stupid as stupid gets.

The American people were the richest in the world in Colonial times.

America the nation grew it's economy to be the largest in the world in the 1800s.


Your words are simply delusional.

Really? The American people were wealthier than the British, French and Spanish during colonial times?

You gotta be kidding!

America was a rural backwater before WWII. It wasn't until post WWII industrialization that the U.S. became an economic super power.

You are simply ignorant.


Economic history of the United States - Wikipedia


"The colonial economy differed significantly from that of most other regions in that land and natural resources were abundant in America but labor was scarce.

From 1700 to 1775 the output of the thirteen colonies increased 12 fold, giving the colonies an economy about 30% the size of Britain's at the time of independence. Population growth was responsible for over three-quarters of the economic growth of the British American colonies. The free white population had the highest standard of living in the world."

As your quote says, the American colonies economy was 30% the size of Britain's.

I don't consider a larger but poorer population a sign of greatness or anything to be proud of.

Do your really believe that American colonists had a higher standard of living than European Royalty?

That is an absurd strawman. Comparing the average American to Kings and Queens is A. nonsense and B, not at all what I said.

Does Free White population include indentured servants and slaves? Does it include farmers?

You're actually asking me to explain the meaning of the word "Free"?

You are trying to distract from the fact that you were wrong, with semantic games. I will not coddle you and pretend that you are A. unaware of common english terms and b. unable to use an online dictionary.

Knock off your shit.

I'm sure that there were some landowning white men that had a very high standard of living, bit the majority were subsistence.

Your position is A contrary to linked source and B based on nothing but your need to put America down, except for dems.

So your saying that because a minority (Free White landowning Men), enjoyed a higher standard of living, the society as a whole was wealthier.

Your so full of shit, as is the opinion in that wikipedia article.

It may be said that colonists had a higher standard of living than they would have had if they had stayed in Europe. The overall wealth wasn't close to that of Europe.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Not sure this means anything concerning Trump but it sure has me questioning the mental health community.

come on we have to admit that Trump is mentally unfit even when as conservatives we pray he can implement his generally conservative policies.

 

[Richard-H]

Liberalism dominated American politics between 1932 and 1980 - the time when America became the greatest nation in history.

Liberalism has had a substantive amount of political power since 1980 - the time that America has remained the greatest nation in history.


In short, your assertion that liberalism is destroying our country is just plain stupid as stupid gets.

The American people were the richest in the world in Colonial times.

America the nation grew it's economy to be the largest in the world in the 1800s.


Your words are simply delusional.

Really? The American people were wealthier than the British, French and Spanish during colonial times?

You gotta be kidding!

America was a rural backwater before WWII. It wasn't until post WWII industrialization that the U.S. became an economic super power.

You are simply ignorant.


Economic history of the United States - Wikipedia


"The colonial economy differed significantly from that of most other regions in that land and natural resources were abundant in America but labor was scarce.

From 1700 to 1775 the output of the thirteen colonies increased 12 fold, giving the colonies an economy about 30% the size of Britain's at the time of independence. Population growth was responsible for over three-quarters of the economic growth of the British American colonies. The free white population had the highest standard of living in the world."

As your quote says, the American colonies economy was 30% the size of Britain's.

I don't consider a larger but poorer population a sign of greatness or anything to be proud of.

Do your really believe that American colonists had a higher standard of living than European Royalty?

That is an absurd strawman. Comparing the average American to Kings and Queens is A. nonsense and B, not at all what I said.

Does Free White population include indentured servants and slaves? Does it include farmers?

You're actually asking me to explain the meaning of the word "Free"?

You are trying to distract from the fact that you were wrong, with semantic games. I will not coddle you and pretend that you are A. unaware of common english terms and b. unable to use an online dictionary.

Knock off your shit.

I'm sure that there were some landowning white men that had a very high standard of living, bit the majority were subsistence.

Your position is A contrary to linked source and B based on nothing but your need to put America down, except for dems.

Oh and BTW - In comparing the wealth of the colonies to that of Europe, comparing the wealth of Royalty to that of the colonists is EXACTLY the point!

Since all the wealth in Europe was concentrated into the Royalty, it's the ONLY way to make a fair comparison.

If you said that the wealth of the average colonist was greater than the wealth of the average European, you'd be correct...because the Royalty had all the wealth in Europe. That's why people came to America.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

It's very common for gay people to not be certain they are gay until a later age because heterosexuality is such a common norm.

and because people are not always clearly one or the other hence treatment can be very helpful to determine orientation as can culture! You know there is something very sick in American culture when there is more energy to get gay people together than to get straight people together.

 

[Billy000]

It's very common for gay people to not be certain they are gay until a later age because heterosexuality is such a common norm.

and because people are not always clearly one or the other hence treatment can be very helpful to determine orientation as can culture! You know there is something very sick in American culture when there is more energy to get gay people together than to get straight people together.

When gay people realize they are gay, they stay gay.

 

[Richard-H]

It's very common for gay people to not be certain they are gay until a later age because heterosexuality is such a common norm.

and because people are not always clearly one or the other hence treatment can be very helpful to determine orientation as can culture! You know there is something very sick in American culture when there is more energy to get gay people together than to get straight people together.

In an economy where employers have ever increasing demands on employee education, training and job skills. Young people are not able to get married and start a family until they are much older than natural biology dictates. The result is that young people view sexual relations as extraordinary and erotic, rather than natural and for the purpose of procreating. This is the roots of why there's an increase in not only homosexuality, but of other forms of erotic sexuality.

 

[Correll]

1. I've seen male homosexuals play similar games.

2. The Party Line for you lefties is that NOTHING can change sexuality. It is "born this way". I've seen men and women change, and sometimes even change BACK. If Change is possible, this a. invalidates many (most) of liberal positions on the subject and b. validates the possibility of an outside influence changing it.

Oh Christ you haven't seen shit. Am I supposed to believe you have closely interviewed these people and cross referenced? Bullshit.

THe woman in question was a close personal friend.

I knew her early in college when she was dating an older man, and sometimes made out with me.

I knew her when she had an ugly breakup with him and "discovered" that she was gay.

I knew her for years afterwards, thought several lesbian relationships.

I reconnected shortly after she got pregnant and married the father.

They were together for a long time and had three(?) children.

When they divorced I asked her, if she was to start dating again, would it be with a woman or a man.

She admitted that it would probably be with a man.


She is not the only one I saw such back and forth behavior, contradicting their stated preferences, just the most extreme.

All of that makes her bisexual. Problably pansexual if anything.

I tried that argument. She insisted that once she went lesbian, that she realized that her previous relationships were, her trying to be something she was not-ish.

Then with the passage of time and who knows what factors, she just changed back.

It's very common for gay people to not be certain they are gay until a later age because heterosexuality is such a common norm.

That's the Party Line she (and others) were told and believed and tried to live.

Hell, it's the one I believed until I got to know some homosexuals for an extended period and observe that their behavior did not match that.

 

[Kondor3]

He may not be fit...but guess what ?

He is the president.

And will be for the next 3.5+years..

Doubtful.

If he keeps going at the rate he's been going in the first 100-120 days...

He'll be tossed-out on his ear by his own Party, before the one-year mark...

Either as unfit under the 25th, or having been impeached and convicted...

President Mike Pence will be stuck batting clean-up...

 

[Correll]

The American people were the richest in the world in Colonial times.

America the nation grew it's economy to be the largest in the world in the 1800s.


Your words are simply delusional.

Really? The American people were wealthier than the British, French and Spanish during colonial times?

You gotta be kidding!

America was a rural backwater before WWII. It wasn't until post WWII industrialization that the U.S. became an economic super power.

You are simply ignorant.


Economic history of the United States - Wikipedia


"The colonial economy differed significantly from that of most other regions in that land and natural resources were abundant in America but labor was scarce.

From 1700 to 1775 the output of the thirteen colonies increased 12 fold, giving the colonies an economy about 30% the size of Britain's at the time of independence. Population growth was responsible for over three-quarters of the economic growth of the British American colonies. The free white population had the highest standard of living in the world."

As your quote says, the American colonies economy was 30% the size of Britain's.

I don't consider a larger but poorer population a sign of greatness or anything to be proud of.

Do your really believe that American colonists had a higher standard of living than European Royalty?

That is an absurd strawman. Comparing the average American to Kings and Queens is A. nonsense and B, not at all what I said.

Does Free White population include indentured servants and slaves? Does it include farmers?

You're actually asking me to explain the meaning of the word "Free"?

You are trying to distract from the fact that you were wrong, with semantic games. I will not coddle you and pretend that you are A. unaware of common english terms and b. unable to use an online dictionary.

Knock off your shit.

I'm sure that there were some landowning white men that had a very high standard of living, bit the majority were subsistence.

Your position is A contrary to linked source and B based on nothing but your need to put America down, except for dems.

So your saying that because a minority (Free White landowning Men), enjoyed a higher standard of living, the society as a whole was wealthier.

Your so full of shit, as is the opinion in that wikipedia article.

It may be said that colonists had a higher standard of living than they would have had if they had stayed in Europe. The overall wealth wasn't close to that of Europe.

Neither I nor the linked source I posted said anything about "Free White Men".


Your inability to understand what is mean by three common English words strung together is incredible.

Free white population.

Indeed, it is not credible. YOu are the one full of shit and trying to hide that fact.


The free white population of Colonial America was not a minority, and having a majority of the population being wealthier does indeed mean that the society as a whole was wealthier.


If by "overall wealth" you mean, in Absolute GDP numbers, then yes, the far larger European populations has far larger economies.

per capital though, America was already number one, WAY before you thought.


Even in Absolute GDP numbers, American was number one WAY before you thought.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

It's very common for gay people to not be certain they are gay until a later age because heterosexuality is such a common norm.

and because people are not always clearly one or the other hence treatment can be very helpful to determine orientation as can culture! You know there is something very sick in American culture when there is more energy to get gay people together than to get straight people together.

In an economy where employers have ever increasing demands on employee education, training and job skills. Young people are not able to get married and start a family until they are much older than natural biology dictates. The result is that young people view sexual relations as extraordinary and erotic, rather than natural and for the purpose of procreating. This is the roots of why there's an increase in not only homosexuality, but of other forms of erotic sexuality.

wow that is off the wall by 1000 miles!! Yes economy is bad, people marry later, but I don't see why it would change sexual desires or directions unless the culture changed so that everybody was made to feel free and non judgemental about sex so gays could be freed! What determined sexual direction for 1000 years was culture not the state of the economy.

 

[Correll]

It's very common for gay people to not be certain they are gay until a later age because heterosexuality is such a common norm.

and because people are not always clearly one or the other hence treatment can be very helpful to determine orientation as can culture! You know there is something very sick in American culture when there is more energy to get gay people together than to get straight people together.

When gay people realize they are gay, they stay gay.

Do you actually KNOW any gay people? Cause if you do, who are you trying to NOT think of?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

When gay people realize they are gay, they stay gay.

wrong!! NY Times recently ran an article saying that most gay men still decide to stay in their hetersexual looking marriages because on balance its a better lifestyle for them. There is no reason to assume they were miserable in their marriages. Lots of people get more love from a friend than from a spouse indicating that a relationship is not all about sex anyway!
It must be tough for Billy to be gay and not know anything about being gay except the party line!!

 

[Billy000]

It's very common for gay people to not be certain they are gay until a later age because heterosexuality is such a common norm.

and because people are not always clearly one or the other hence treatment can be very helpful to determine orientation as can culture! You know there is something very sick in American culture when there is more energy to get gay people together than to get straight people together.

When gay people realize they are gay, they stay gay.

Do you actually KNOW any gay people? Cause if you do, who are you trying to NOT think of?

I've known plenty. Some people are gay. Some are bi. Some are unsure because sexuality can be fluid in SOME people. I'm sure you're straight right? Are you sure you are? Same logic applies.

 

[Correll]

He may not be fit...but guess what ?

He is the president.

And will be for the next 3.5+years..

Doubtful.

If he keeps going at the rate he's been going in the first 100-120 days...

He'll be tossed-out on his ear by his own Party, before the one-year mark...

Either as unfit under the 25th, or having been impeached and convicted...

President Mike Pence will be stuck batting clean-up...

Your words are nonsense.

 

[Correll]

It's very common for gay people to not be certain they are gay until a later age because heterosexuality is such a common norm.

and because people are not always clearly one or the other hence treatment can be very helpful to determine orientation as can culture! You know there is something very sick in American culture when there is more energy to get gay people together than to get straight people together.

When gay people realize they are gay, they stay gay.

Do you actually KNOW any gay people? Cause if you do, who are you trying to NOT think of?

I've known plenty. Some people are gay. Some are bi. Some are unsure because sexuality can be fluid in SOME people. I'm sure you're straight right? Are you sure you are? Same logic applies.

If sexuality is fluid, then your side's claim that it is set by birth, or "when gay people realize they are gay, they stay gay".


You are jumping all over the place.


I asked you who you were trying to NOT think of, that didn't match your stated view on the subject.

Tell us about him or her, and how he/she jumped around sexuality wise.

 

[Billy000]

It's very common for gay people to not be certain they are gay until a later age because heterosexuality is such a common norm.

and because people are not always clearly one or the other hence treatment can be very helpful to determine orientation as can culture! You know there is something very sick in American culture when there is more energy to get gay people together than to get straight people together.

When gay people realize they are gay, they stay gay.

Do you actually KNOW any gay people? Cause if you do, who are you trying to NOT think of?

I've known plenty. Some people are gay. Some are bi. Some are unsure because sexuality can be fluid in SOME people. I'm sure you're straight right? Are you sure you are? Same logic applies.

If sexuality is fluid, then your side's claim that it is set by birth, or "when gay people realize they are gay, they stay gay".


You are jumping all over the place.


I asked you who you were trying to NOT think of, that didn't match your stated view on the subject.

Tell us about him or her, and how he/she jumped around sexuality wise.

When it comes to fluidity, it applies to bisexuality. It just isn't always 50/50. So yes, it is programmed at birth. It just isn't concrete. That means you can't condition or program them to be gay or straight, right? . No such therapy exists. No such environmental influence will turn someone straight. This only applies to SOME people.

Again, are you straight? How sure are you?