Keith Olbermann: ‘Could Trump Pass A Sanity Test?’

[Pogo]

ben affleck doing keith olbermann - - Yahoo Video Search Results

When you're such a moron that even your fellow leftists make fun of you...why should anyone take you seriously?

Had you read the article you might have seen that the author did that. It was apparently the basis for writing this article.

Thanks....I have a short attention span when it comes to left wing propaganda....

Guess so, since it's not even about politics.
See what dem prejudicial blinders obscure?

I mean, if Keith Olbermann popped up and said "the final score in the Minnesota-Atlanta game is..." would you go hit mute and go ?

Y'all are weird.

Well, when one says Keith Olbermann, the image of a pre-school child in a rubber room comes to mind....so, there really are no prejudicial blinders since that's the perception he's created for himself.....

STILL doesn't have any effect on the content, now does it?

All you're doing is whining as an excuse to not-engage the topic. That's stupid. No matter what you think of a given source, they could just be right once in a while. If you discount them out of hand based on what their name is, then they're not the partisan hack --- you are.

No, not at all...just my desire to engage it.....

If you (had no) desire to engage it, you wouldn't have bothered even reading this thread.
And yet ............ here you are.

 

[Pogo]

ben affleck doing keith olbermann - - Yahoo Video Search Results

When you're such a moron that even your fellow leftists make fun of you...why should anyone take you seriously?

Had you read the article you might have seen that the author did that. It was apparently the basis for writing this article.

Thanks....I have a short attention span when it comes to left wing propaganda....

Guess so, since it's not even about politics.
See what dem prejudicial blinders obscure?

I mean, if Keith Olbermann popped up and said "the final score in the Minnesota-Atlanta game is..." would you go hit mute and go ?

Y'all are weird.

Well, when one says Keith Olbermann, the image of a pre-school child in a rubber room comes to mind....so, there really are no prejudicial blinders since that's the perception he's created for himself.....

STILL doesn't have any effect on the content, now does it?

All you're doing is whining as an excuse to not-engage the topic. That's stupid. No matter what you think of a given source, they could just be right once in a while. If you discount them out of hand based on what their name is, then they're not the partisan hack --- you are.

With all due respect, Pogo...it's not what "I" think of Keith Olbermann...my point is that he's such a bombastic tool that even his fellow liberals can't help but poke fun at him! Could Olbermann be right once in awhile? Perhaps. But given what an idiot he's been in the past...the chances of that being the case aren't all that great.

STILL irrelevant.
Just like the last guy -- if you're not into the topic.. then just move on to another one. Y'all whiners who enter a thread for no other reason than to trash the OP or trash the source (or both) --- without even lifting a mental finger to read what the topic IS --- are like petulant little crybabies. Y'all look ridiculous.

 

[Oldstyle]

So you start a thread with a title you KNOW will annoy anyone who supports Trump...but then complain when people respond negatively to it? Interesting...

 

[Pogo]

So you start a thread with a title you KNOW will annoy anyone who supports Trump...but then complain when people respond negatively to it? Interesting...

What thread are you talking about?

I just noted that -- even now, aside from one other post --- every post in her does nothing but whine "waaah I don't like the OP" or "waaah I don't like the author in the link". Y'all are afraid of the content.

 

[mamooth]

If you gave a personality test to the Trump fans, you'd find most of them scoring very high in authoritarianism.

That is, they don't like freedom or independent thought. They want to be part of a herd, being led by a strong daddy figure, who will bring the heavy hand of the state down on people they don't like.

If President Trump declared himself dictator-for-life, they'd all cheer. Deep down, they don't like democracy, being it means people they don't like get a voice.

 

[g5000]

What do you think?

I think if you gave that psychopath test to every politician, 80 percent of them would score as psychopaths.

Trump is the rule, not the exception.

 

[westwall]

Keith Olbermann has permanent PMS.

One minute? Wow, you're a fast reader. I salute you, sir.

Olbermann couldn't pass one so why waste time reading what that braindead ass has to say.

So y'all are afraid to read the content. That's my point here.

Either that, or you did read the content, find it inconvenient, have no counter to it, and so poison the well.

It's a toss-up.

Looking back, outside of my first post there's not a single post in this thread that actually addresses the topic. The moaners whine about the writer of the article, the groaners whine about the OP. Does anyone actually delve into topic any more?

No, I don't waste my time reading shit from neo Nazi's either. They are equally stupid. Olbermann has a long history of imbecility. Once again, you don't read Nazi BS, why do you read olbermanns idiocy?

So instead of considering the content you choose to go

I already noted that. Thanks for not playing. Way to use a message board.

Yes, olbermann is a boob. He is not stable. Thus his opinion on anything is as relevant as David Dukes is on anything. You won't read anything from Duke because he's a well known loon. The same applies to olbermann.

 

[westwall]

If you gave a personality test to the Trump fans, you'd find most of them scoring very high in authoritarianism.

That is, they don't like freedom or independent thought. They want to be part of a herd, being led by a strong daddy figure, who will bring the heavy hand of the state down on people they don't like.

If President Trump declared himself dictator-for-life, they'd all cheer. Deep down, they don't like democracy, being it means people they don't like get a voice.

You mean like you do? You who want to see climate change "deniers" killed? Look in the mirror when you make that claim dickhead.

 

[Pogo]

What do you think?

I think if you gave that psychopath test to every politician, 80 percent of them would score as psychopaths.

Trump is the rule, not the exception.

Probably so, but if you gave it to internet wags who come in to do nothing but troll you might need a whole new scale.

 

[Pogo]

One minute? Wow, you're a fast reader. I salute you, sir.

Olbermann couldn't pass one so why waste time reading what that braindead ass has to say.

So y'all are afraid to read the content. That's my point here.

Either that, or you did read the content, find it inconvenient, have no counter to it, and so poison the well.

It's a toss-up.

Looking back, outside of my first post there's not a single post in this thread that actually addresses the topic. The moaners whine about the writer of the article, the groaners whine about the OP. Does anyone actually delve into topic any more?

No, I don't waste my time reading shit from neo Nazi's either. They are equally stupid. Olbermann has a long history of imbecility. Once again, you don't read Nazi BS, why do you read olbermanns idiocy?

So instead of considering the content you choose to go

I already noted that. Thanks for not playing. Way to use a message board.

Yes, olbermann is a boob. He is not stable. Thus his opinion on anything is as relevant as David Dukes is on anything. You won't read anything from Duke because he's a well known loon. The same applies to olbermann.

Classic Poison the Well Fallacy. No point made.

 

[westwall]

Olbermann couldn't pass one so why waste time reading what that braindead ass has to say.

So y'all are afraid to read the content. That's my point here.

Either that, or you did read the content, find it inconvenient, have no counter to it, and so poison the well.

It's a toss-up.

Looking back, outside of my first post there's not a single post in this thread that actually addresses the topic. The moaners whine about the writer of the article, the groaners whine about the OP. Does anyone actually delve into topic any more?

No, I don't waste my time reading shit from neo Nazi's either. They are equally stupid. Olbermann has a long history of imbecility. Once again, you don't read Nazi BS, why do you read olbermanns idiocy?

So instead of considering the content you choose to go

I already noted that. Thanks for not playing. Way to use a message board.

Yes, olbermann is a boob. He is not stable. Thus his opinion on anything is as relevant as David Dukes is on anything. You won't read anything from Duke because he's a well known loon. The same applies to olbermann.

Classic Poison the Well Fallacy. No point made.

As is true every time you use it. Look in the mirror before you hurl accusations silly boy,.

 

[mamooth]

You mean like you do? You who want to see climate change "deniers" killed?

I haven never said such a thing.

None of the rational people here has ever said for such a thing.

So thanks for proving my point, concerning how Trump fans try to pin imaginary crimes on their political opponents to justify their own Stalinist actions.

Look in the mirror when you make that claim dickhead.

No, I'm looking at you.

You want Dr. Mann and other climate scientists sent to TheGulag for the crime of doing science you don't like.

You want Hillary Clinton imprisoned, despite the complete lack of any evidence of any lawbreaking.

Any other EnemiesOfTheParty that you'd like to have imprisoned or executed? All the other Trump fans here are letting their Stalinist freak flags fly proudly, so don't be shy, join right in.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I hope Trump deports Olbermann in the first boat out loaded with illegals

 

[buckeye45_73]

What do you think?

Short answer: probably not.

First, several important caveats. There is little worse and nothing cheesier than questioning the psychological stability of a public figure, especially a candidate for president, even in this case.

Except that in his year of campaigning, Donald Trump has called Lindsey Graham “a nut job,” Glenn Beck “a real nut job,” and Bernie Sanders “a wacko.” Trump has insisted Ben Carson’s got a “pathological disease,” and asked of Barack Obama: “Is our president insane?” He called Ted Cruz “unstable,” “unhinged,” “a little bit of a maniac,” and “crazy or very dishonest.” He also called the entire CNBC network “crazy.” He called Megyn Kelly“crazy”—at least six times.

Respectful reticence about aspersions and cliches and mental-health questions in a time in which mocking was seemingly slowly maturing into concern, died a long time ago in this presidential cycle—and it died at Donald Trump’s hands. Moreover, if the question is asked seriously and not gratuitously, just the examination might explain how Trump has seemingly survived dozens of moments that might each have been campaign-enders for almost anybody else. Why have we not asked if a given presidential candidate might be disqualified from office due to psychological reasons? Because we not only can’t see this forest for the trees, but each time we try, there are even more trees blocking our view. In the 24-hour news cycle, each successive John Yerkes Iselin moment is not registered cumulatively; it merely supplants the one from last week. Or yesterday. Or this morning.

This could also explain Trump’s seeming imperviousness to his own mind-bending campaign. Surely it must be exhausting to attack Mexicans (June 16, 2015), to attack John McCain (July 18), attack Muslims (December 7), attack the Pope (February 18, 2016), attack President Clinton (May 18), attack candidates who use a teleprompter (May 27) a day after you give a speech using a teleprompter (May 26). It’s got to be exhausting—unless, as the old joke goes, “No pain, no gain. And: no brain, no pain.”

Anyway.

The actual sanity test I found is called, by delicious coincidence, “The Hare Psychopathy Checklist.” Introduced by Canadian criminal psychologist Robert D. Hare in 1980, it is still in use, though with ever more diffuse and specific mental-health diagnoses, it is not without its critics. However, as a practicing therapist who walked me through it agreed, it serves as a kind of triage device to separate the injured from the tripping from the psychopathic.

And about that word. We seem to have completely muddied up sociopath and psychopath. Sociopath? Roughly speaking, think Ted Kaczynski, the Unabomber, living out there in his shack in the woods, feeling nothing for other humans and unable to interact with them, literally mailing it in. Psychopath? Think Ted Bundy, feeling nothing for other humans but having long ago learned how to expertly mimic relationships by being whatever he needed to be to whomever he needed to use, killing at least 30 women, serving as his own counsel and cross-examining a female witness, proposing marriage to her while she was on the stand—and getting her to say “yes.”

For each of the 20 items on the Hare Psychopathy Checklist, you’re supposed to assign the subject a 0, 1, or 2. The highest and most dangerous score is a 40. In the U.S., the accepted minimum score for possible psychopathy is 30.

So. Those are the rules. Let’s play the Freud:

MUCH MORE (w/VIDEOS): Keith Olbermann: ‘Could Trump Pass A Sanity Test?’

Delicious! Wow, there is so much more to this article. Personally, I don't think Trump could pass a "credible" sanity test - as least not to be President of the United States. I thought maybe Keith Olbermann was washed up - but not after this article. Go Keith!

Lakhota you really do set yourself up......Keith Olberman....couldn't pass a sanity test........that guy calling anyone crazy.....bwahahahahahahahajajajajajajaja

 

[regent]

Trump might do quite well on a sanity test as long as the questions were about
Trump.

 

[Mustang]

What do you think?

Short answer: probably not.

First, several important caveats. There is little worse and nothing cheesier than questioning the psychological stability of a public figure, especially a candidate for president, even in this case.

Except that in his year of campaigning, Donald Trump has called Lindsey Graham “a nut job,” Glenn Beck “a real nut job,” and Bernie Sanders “a wacko.” Trump has insisted Ben Carson’s got a “pathological disease,” and asked of Barack Obama: “Is our president insane?” He called Ted Cruz “unstable,” “unhinged,” “a little bit of a maniac,” and “crazy or very dishonest.” He also called the entire CNBC network “crazy.” He called Megyn Kelly“crazy”—at least six times.

Respectful reticence about aspersions and cliches and mental-health questions in a time in which mocking was seemingly slowly maturing into concern, died a long time ago in this presidential cycle—and it died at Donald Trump’s hands. Moreover, if the question is asked seriously and not gratuitously, just the examination might explain how Trump has seemingly survived dozens of moments that might each have been campaign-enders for almost anybody else. Why have we not asked if a given presidential candidate might be disqualified from office due to psychological reasons? Because we not only can’t see this forest for the trees, but each time we try, there are even more trees blocking our view. In the 24-hour news cycle, each successive John Yerkes Iselin moment is not registered cumulatively; it merely supplants the one from last week. Or yesterday. Or this morning.

This could also explain Trump’s seeming imperviousness to his own mind-bending campaign. Surely it must be exhausting to attack Mexicans (June 16, 2015), to attack John McCain (July 18), attack Muslims (December 7), attack the Pope (February 18, 2016), attack President Clinton (May 18), attack candidates who use a teleprompter (May 27) a day after you give a speech using a teleprompter (May 26). It’s got to be exhausting—unless, as the old joke goes, “No pain, no gain. And: no brain, no pain.”

Anyway.

The actual sanity test I found is called, by delicious coincidence, “The Hare Psychopathy Checklist.” Introduced by Canadian criminal psychologist Robert D. Hare in 1980, it is still in use, though with ever more diffuse and specific mental-health diagnoses, it is not without its critics. However, as a practicing therapist who walked me through it agreed, it serves as a kind of triage device to separate the injured from the tripping from the psychopathic.

And about that word. We seem to have completely muddied up sociopath and psychopath. Sociopath? Roughly speaking, think Ted Kaczynski, the Unabomber, living out there in his shack in the woods, feeling nothing for other humans and unable to interact with them, literally mailing it in. Psychopath? Think Ted Bundy, feeling nothing for other humans but having long ago learned how to expertly mimic relationships by being whatever he needed to be to whomever he needed to use, killing at least 30 women, serving as his own counsel and cross-examining a female witness, proposing marriage to her while she was on the stand—and getting her to say “yes.”

For each of the 20 items on the Hare Psychopathy Checklist, you’re supposed to assign the subject a 0, 1, or 2. The highest and most dangerous score is a 40. In the U.S., the accepted minimum score for possible psychopathy is 30.

So. Those are the rules. Let’s play the Freud:

MUCH MORE (w/VIDEOS): Keith Olbermann: ‘Could Trump Pass A Sanity Test?’

Delicious! Wow, there is so much more to this article. Personally, I don't think Trump could pass a "credible" sanity test - as least not to be President of the United States. I thought maybe Keith Olbermann was washed up - but not after this article. Go Keith!

As Captain Kirk said about Dr. McCoy when the doctor was carrying Spock's "katra," Trump is fruitier than a nut cake. Don't believe me? Look how he's gone after Ted Cruz (yet again) on the day after The Donald accepted the Republican nomination. I mean, why is he fighting a battle that is already over and doesn't matter anymore when he should be concentrating on the general election? This question is made even more puzzling since it's irrational for Trump to alienate Cruz supporters who he almost certainly needs to win. Now, that IS crazy!!!

 

[AmericanFirst1]

What do you think?

Short answer: probably not.

First, several important caveats. There is little worse and nothing cheesier than questioning the psychological stability of a public figure, especially a candidate for president, even in this case.

Except that in his year of campaigning, Donald Trump has called Lindsey Graham “a nut job,” Glenn Beck “a real nut job,” and Bernie Sanders “a wacko.” Trump has insisted Ben Carson’s got a “pathological disease,” and asked of Barack Obama: “Is our president insane?” He called Ted Cruz “unstable,” “unhinged,” “a little bit of a maniac,” and “crazy or very dishonest.” He also called the entire CNBC network “crazy.” He called Megyn Kelly“crazy”—at least six times.

Respectful reticence about aspersions and cliches and mental-health questions in a time in which mocking was seemingly slowly maturing into concern, died a long time ago in this presidential cycle—and it died at Donald Trump’s hands. Moreover, if the question is asked seriously and not gratuitously, just the examination might explain how Trump has seemingly survived dozens of moments that might each have been campaign-enders for almost anybody else. Why have we not asked if a given presidential candidate might be disqualified from office due to psychological reasons? Because we not only can’t see this forest for the trees, but each time we try, there are even more trees blocking our view. In the 24-hour news cycle, each successive John Yerkes Iselin moment is not registered cumulatively; it merely supplants the one from last week. Or yesterday. Or this morning.

This could also explain Trump’s seeming imperviousness to his own mind-bending campaign. Surely it must be exhausting to attack Mexicans (June 16, 2015), to attack John McCain (July 18), attack Muslims (December 7), attack the Pope (February 18, 2016), attack President Clinton (May 18), attack candidates who use a teleprompter (May 27) a day after you give a speech using a teleprompter (May 26). It’s got to be exhausting—unless, as the old joke goes, “No pain, no gain. And: no brain, no pain.”

Anyway.

The actual sanity test I found is called, by delicious coincidence, “The Hare Psychopathy Checklist.” Introduced by Canadian criminal psychologist Robert D. Hare in 1980, it is still in use, though with ever more diffuse and specific mental-health diagnoses, it is not without its critics. However, as a practicing therapist who walked me through it agreed, it serves as a kind of triage device to separate the injured from the tripping from the psychopathic.

And about that word. We seem to have completely muddied up sociopath and psychopath. Sociopath? Roughly speaking, think Ted Kaczynski, the Unabomber, living out there in his shack in the woods, feeling nothing for other humans and unable to interact with them, literally mailing it in. Psychopath? Think Ted Bundy, feeling nothing for other humans but having long ago learned how to expertly mimic relationships by being whatever he needed to be to whomever he needed to use, killing at least 30 women, serving as his own counsel and cross-examining a female witness, proposing marriage to her while she was on the stand—and getting her to say “yes.”

For each of the 20 items on the Hare Psychopathy Checklist, you’re supposed to assign the subject a 0, 1, or 2. The highest and most dangerous score is a 40. In the U.S., the accepted minimum score for possible psychopathy is 30.

So. Those are the rules. Let’s play the Freud:

MUCH MORE (w/VIDEOS): Keith Olbermann: ‘Could Trump Pass A Sanity Test?’

Delicious! Wow, there is so much more to this article. Personally, I don't think Trump could pass a "credible" sanity test - as least not to be President of the United States. I thought maybe Keith Olbermann was washed up - but not after this article. Go Keith!

Trump would pass easier than the Hildawhore.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Keith Olbermann: ‘Could Trump Pass A Sanity Test?’

Could Keith Olbermann?

 

[kiwiman127]

Olbermann?
Why, oh why do posters have to resort to using hyper-partisan resources for the bases of their posts? It kills a poster's creditability, faster one can say "oh shit"!

 

[Pogo]

So y'all are afraid to read the content. That's my point here.

Either that, or you did read the content, find it inconvenient, have no counter to it, and so poison the well.

It's a toss-up.

Looking back, outside of my first post there's not a single post in this thread that actually addresses the topic. The moaners whine about the writer of the article, the groaners whine about the OP. Does anyone actually delve into topic any more?

No, I don't waste my time reading shit from neo Nazi's either. They are equally stupid. Olbermann has a long history of imbecility. Once again, you don't read Nazi BS, why do you read olbermanns idiocy?

So instead of considering the content you choose to go

I already noted that. Thanks for not playing. Way to use a message board.

Yes, olbermann is a boob. He is not stable. Thus his opinion on anything is as relevant as David Dukes is on anything. You won't read anything from Duke because he's a well known loon. The same applies to olbermann.

Classic Poison the Well Fallacy. No point made.

As is true every time you use it. Look in the mirror before you hurl accusations silly boy,.

Excellent. Right back with a Tu Quoque/ad hom. That's a Double. Get 'em all in by midnight, win a prize.



It just sails over their heads....

Not to forget, you already know what my next line is, since we've been here before and here you are expecting different results...

---- Link?

This is the part where you run away whimpering. It's my favorite.