Science Is Trump actually losing mental competence?

He is backpedaling

He doesn't want to look the fool when nothing comes of the Russia/Trump conspiracy theories.

 

https://news.grabien.com/story-cnn-goes-rampage-against-susan-rice-bombshell-instructs-view

Just wow.

 

https://spectator.org/the-media-gives-short-schiff-to-obamagate/

Once a story starts hurting the Dems, reporters drop it.

 

http://thehill.com/policy/national-...d-testify-under-oath-about-unmasking-of-trump

Paul: Susan Rice should testify under oath about Trump unmasking

 

And more

http://dailycaller.com/2017/04/03/s...roduce-detailed-spreadsheets-involving-trump/

Former President Barack Obama’s national security adviser Susan Rice ordered U.S. spy agencies to produce “detailed spreadsheets” of legal phone calls involving Donald Trump and his aides when he was running for president, according to former U.S. Attorney Joseph diGenova.

“What was produced by the intelligence community at the request of Ms. Rice were detailed spreadsheets of intercepted phone calls with unmasked Trump associates in perfectly legal conversations with individuals,” diGenova told The Daily Caller News Foundation Investigative Group Monday.

“The overheard conversations involved no illegal activity by anybody of the Trump associates, or anyone they were speaking with,” diGenova said. “In short, the only apparent illegal activity was the unmasking of the people in the calls.”

Other official sources with direct knowledge and who requested anonymity confirmed to TheDCNF diGenova’s description of surveillance reports Rice ordered one year before the 2016 presidential election.

 

http://www.rollingstone.com/politic...-that-brutalizes-the-clinton-campaign-w477978

At the end of Chapter One, which is entirely about that campaign's exhausting and fruitless search for a plausible explanation for why Hillary was running, writers Allen and Parnes talk about the infighting problem.

"All of the jockeying might have been all right, but for a root problem that confounded everyone on the campaign and outside it," they wrote. "Hillary had been running for president for almost a decade and still didn't really have a rationale."

Allen and Parnes here quoted a Clinton aide who jokingly summed up Clinton's real motivation:

"I would have had a reason for running," one of her top aides said, "or I wouldn't have run."

The beleaguered Clinton staff spent the better part of two years trying to roll this insane tautology – "I have a reason for running because no one runs without a reason" – into the White House. It was a Beltway take on the classic Descartes formulation: "I seek re-election, therefore I am... seeking re-election."
​

Let's hear more about this dementia thing.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...cd6118e1409_story.html?utm_term=.cdd34a887d52

 

Donald Trump has 'dangerous mental illness', say psychiatry experts at Yale conference
Mental health experts say President is 'paranoid and delusional'

Donald Trump has a “dangerous mental illness” and is not fit to lead the US, a group of psychiatrists has warned during a conference at Yale University.

Mental health experts claimed the President was “paranoid and delusional”, and said it was their “ethical responsibility” to warn the American public about the “dangers” Mr Trump’s psychological state poses to the country.

Speaking at the conference at Yale’s School of Medicine on Thursday, one of the mental health professionals, Dr John Gartner, a practising psychotherapist who advised psychiatric residents at Johns Hopkins University Medical School, said: “We have an ethical responsibility to warn the public about Donald Trump's dangerous mental illness.”

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...s-president-unfit-james-gartner-a7694316.html

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/17/opinion/is-it-time-to-call-trump-mentally-ill.html

But the attempt to diagnose a condition in President Trump and declare him mentally unfit to serve is misguided for several reasons.

First, all experts have political beliefs that probably distort their psychiatric judgment. Consider what my mostly liberal profession said of Senator Barry Goldwater, the Republican nominee for president in 1964, right before the election. Members of the American Psychiatric Association were surveyed about their assessment of Goldwater by the now-defunct Fact magazine. Many savaged him, calling him “paranoid,” “grossly psychotic” and a “megalomaniac.” Some provided diagnoses, like schizophrenia and narcissistic personality disorder.

They used their professional knowledge as a political weapon against a man they had never examined and who certainly would never have consented to their discussing his mental health in public.

Goldwater sued (successfully) and, as a result, in 1973 the A.P.A. developed the Goldwater Rule. It says that psychiatrists can discuss mental health issues with the news media, but that it is unethical for them to diagnose mental illnesses in people they have not examined and whose consent they have not received.

Contrary to what many believe, this rule does not mean that professionals must remain silent about public figures. In fact, the guidelines specifically state that mental health experts should share their knowledge to educate the public.

So while it would be unethical for a psychiatrist to say that President Trump has narcissistic personality disorder, he or she could discuss common narcissistic character traits, like grandiosity and intolerance of criticism, and how they might explain Mr. Trump’s behavior. In other words, psychiatrists can talk about the psychology and symptoms of narcissism in general, and the public is free to decide whether the information could apply to the individual.

This may seem like splitting hairs, but it isn’t. Diagnosis requires a thorough examination of a patient, a detailed history and all relevant clinical data — none of which can be gathered from afar.

/thread (and the stupidity behind it)

 

Except when you're posting about Hillary?

 

Maybe those who support her and post this blather might look in the mirror.

 

He uses information whether it is accurate or non valuable. USS aircraft carrier Carl Vinson 3000 miles away from the Korean peninsula is a good example.

 

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/th...er-carl-vinson-korea-saga-what-happened-20278

April 9:

The 3rd Fleet Public Affairs office released a press statement on April 9 which read, “Adm. Harry Harris, commander, U.S. Pacific Command, has directed the Carl Vinson Strike Group to sail north and report on station in the Western Pacific Ocean.”

The press statement said that the carrier strike group left Singapore one day prior.

That same day, Reuters wrote that a U.S. official said the Vinson was moving into the Western Pacific near the Korean peninsula because “we feel the increased presence is necessary.”

In the wake of that report, The Associated Press, citing the Pentagon, wrote, “A Navy carrier strike group is moving toward the Western Pacific Ocean to provide a physical presence near the Korean Peninsula.”

In both the Reuters and AP reports, the movement of the Vinson to waters near Korea was called a “show of force.” There is no indication of an arrival date in either post, but a New York Times article hinted that it would be arriving around the time North Korea celebrated the “Day of the Sun” on April 15.

The NYT, citing military and intelligence officials, wrote, “The timing of the of the ship movements was also intended to anticipate a milestone event coming up on the Korean Peninsula: the anniversary on Saturday of the birth of Kim Il-sung, North Korea’s founder and the grandfather of the country’s current leader, Kim Jong-un.”

U.S. Pacific Command signaled that the purpose of redirecting the ship was related to North Korea’s frequent provocations, which include multiple missile launches in recent weeks.

“U.S. Pacific Command ordered the Carl Vinson Strike Group north as a prudent measure to maintain readiness and presence in the Western Pacific,” said Commander Dave Benham, “The number one threat in the region continues to be North Korea, due to its reckless, irresponsible and destabilizing program of missile tests and pursuit of a nuclear weapons capability.”

April 11:

Secretary of Defense James Mattis downplayed the Vinson’s movements, stating that the ships deployment was not intended as a show of force.

“There’s not a specific demand signal or specific reason we’re sending her up there,” Mattis said at a press conference, adding, “She’s stationed in the Western Pacific for a reason. She operates freely up and down the Pacific, and she’s on her way up there because that’s where we thought it was most prudent to have her at this time.”

Mattis also mentioned that the Vinson would not be taking part in joint exercises with Australia; however, Voice of America, citing military officials, later reported that the exercises would still be held, but on an accelerated basis — signaling that perhaps the carrier could still get up north in time for North Korea’s big day.

“It would be unlikely the Vinson [carrier strike group] wouldn’t arrive before the April 15 Day of the Sun, the annual holiday that celebrates the birth of North Korea founder Kim il-Sung,” USNI News reported.

 

Anything's possible, but puh leez he's clearly not, and clearly has political enemies who will make any claim at all regardless of truth.

Trump is about a year older than Clinton.