Before January 6th 2021

This blog is about the video I posted in the op.

If you can't, or don't want to watch it, it's not a problem, Ozzie.

If you feel that there are grounds to report this blog and feel it's your duty to do so, that's not a problem either.

I respectfully request that you stop trying to review the video that you said was too lenthy for you to watch.

I respect your decision as a woman also.

But feel free to report this blg to the mods if you feel it's your duty to do so.

If you can't, or don't wish to watch the video, it's not a problem, Ozzie. (You are supporting my opinion.)

If you would like to watch it, feel free to challenge my reason for posting it. (It's very well presented)

If you would like to read more about why I posted it, feel free to wade through all the off topic comments you and others have posted, or watch the video and contribute something meaningful and on topic to the discussion.

The amount of time you've spent posting off topic, you could have watched it by now.

If you want to comment on it, watch it. It's very simple.

If not, please stop posting off topic.

What was batant propaganda?

Did you only see 'a litany of his lies, absurdities, stupidity'?

I saw the examples of lies, absurdites and stupidity as exactly that: they exemplified the personality traits significant to the specific diagnosis. They were the evidence cited to back the argument of Trump's dangerousness. I didn't see them as being listed for the sake of manipulating, or influencing public opinon simply because they were lies, absurdities and stupidity.

What did you think about the shifts in the Goldwater Rule and how psychiatrists originally wary of commenting on Trump's dangerousness instituted the Tarasoff Rule to create the organisation 'Duty To Warn'?

What did you think of the Malignant Narcissist diagnosis? Is supported by the evidence, or is it invalidated by not being incuded in the APA's DSM-5-TR?

Shorty after Trump was elected the Goldwater Rule went from a two line recommendation to a two page enforcement. I think it was John Gartner, the first psychiatrist in the video, who visited the last surviving creator of the Goldwater Rule who stated it was never meant to be binding, or inhibit free speech. It was meant to stop spurious, unevidenced speculation.

Psychiatrist Bandy Lee was the first to embrace the duty to warn concept regarding Trump's dangerousness early on in his presidency, but she found most of her peers were to afraid of losing their reputations and licenses if they spoke out. It seems the movement had gained a lot of momentum in the three years inbetween That's a practical and ethical paradigm shift within this field that has been noted in the video.

Why do you think the diagnosis can have no legal consequence? In the video the very first interviewee describes the in depth assessments that military personnel must pass if they are to be responsible for nuclear weapons, and yet the president of the US currently only needs to be voted in by the people. Why can't that change such that all presidential candidates are assessed as potential Commanders in Chief? There are so many legal suits and changes going on in the US political system to make the democratic process less fragile. Shouldn't this be one of them?

Perhaps the film being around for three years without swaying Trump supporters is because it's not merely an exercise in propaganda as you suggested earlier. Perhaps it's not aimed at Trump supporters: surely psychiatrists who are fully aware of Trump's successful techniques would use techniques that are likely to reach Trump supporters themselves, if that were the case. In the video they, and the filmmakers appear to be aiming at a different demographic, that is those with a certan level of education and understanding. Do you really think that they are not skilled enough in their own fields to pitch appropriately to their target audience?

If we assume, therefore that the video is intentinally pitched at a particular target group, or groups, who are their taret audience and what is their aim?

A good point, but I didn't get the impression that speaking out was just about being judged by history. The driving force appears to be what it says in the tin - a duty to warn. If the target audience isn't Trump supporters, who are they attempting to warn and why?

I was shocked, but not surprised about J6. Once Trump started talking about being the president for more than two terms, it was clear something might happen, but perhaps the Duty To Warn folk had a better idea of when and how. The timing of the film's release perhaps suggests that their intended audience were those involved in the democratic process.

I can count the number of times I've heard the word used in the UK without taking my second mitten off. I'd use the wrd 'peers' as I did earlier.

Does that mean it can never be? America does regard itsef as a world leader, after all.

Are you whippng me to death for my beliefs, there...?

I'm glad you're enjoying yourself, so am I.
Neither am I, whichever country.
This blog isn't about Biden. It's about the video I cited in the op.

Have you watched it before coming on here and criticising me?
If no one is allowed to talk about another country without being perfect themselves, there would be no communication between any country.

Having said that - NHS, equal rights, employment rights, abolition of the death penaty, universal suffrage - we might not be perfect, but we do lead the US by example in many ways.

It's each person's, or each country's choice whether to have the sense to look at what other people, or countries are doing well, though. We can't force you to be nice to each other.

Finally, a bit on topic. Trump did indeed target that demographic very cleverly. Unfortunately, they seem to believe he has emotional empathy for them, when actually it was a calculated move based on cognitive empathy alone. That's all part and parcel of his personality disorder.

This blog isn't about Eisenhower.

He was also found liable in a rape case and sadistically seperated children from their parents as an attempted deterrent to illegal immigration.

The question is what advantage was it to him to sign those executive orders given his inability to emotinally empathise? What work did he actually do to help people beyond lifting a pen and signing the order. Surely any credit for laborious, potentially dangerous investgations and rescues shoud go to the many who did the work?

I've run out of room, but feel free to continue contributing if your comments are on topic..

Just because you used the word 'orange' doesn't mean that I missed the Biden reference.

Chancer has a blog about the Biden impeachment investigation. Go take your grievance over there, you cheeky bugger.

Thanks for the feedback.

My head is still rattling from it. Half of me is thinking it's so outlandish it's got to be a propagandist conspiracy theory, the other half of me is seeing it as (legal?) campaign strategising that explains a lot about Trump et al's reaction to losing.

I watched that interview earlier and couldn't help thinking that Raffensperger comes across as a bit Asperger.

Good luck with trying to get him to break mathematical, or any other rules for a social agenda.