- cross-posted to:
- news@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- news@lemmy.world
Pelosi calls Trump āunhingedā and reveals exchange with doctors at 2019 memorial for top psychiatrist
In early 2019, at a memorial service for a prominent psychiatrist, a succession of ādoctors and other mental health professionalsā told Nancy Pelosi they were ādeeply concerned that there was something seriously wrongā withĀ Donald Trump, āand that his mental and psychological health was in declineā.
āIām not a doctor,ā the former speaker writes in an eagerly awaited memoir, ābut I did find his behaviors difficult to understand.ā
you donāt need a doctorate in psychology or psychiatry or any education at all to recognize that heās fucking psycho and getting worse
Unless youāre a fucking psycho and getting worse. Then he seems reasonable and rational.
No shit. Another news story that pretends to add some credence to what WE ALL KNEW ALL ALONG
Iād be worried, too, if he actually had any.
The Guardian Media Bias Fact Check Credibility: [Medium] (Click to view Full Report)
Name: The Guardian Bias: Left-Center
Factual Reporting: Mixed
Country: United Kingdom
Full Report: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-guardian/Check the bias and credibility of this article on Ground.News
Thanks to Media Bias Fact Check for their access to the API.
Please consider supporting them by donating.Footer
Beep boop. This action was performed automatically. If you dont like me then please block me.š
If you have any questions or comments about me, you can make a post to LW Support lemmy community.Fuuuuuuck all the way off with your little broken heart! We all had the free 2 week trial, itās dumb, please leave.
She was born in 1940 and is running for re-election last I heardā¦
If she listened to doctors sheād have retired a decade ago.
Itās the same shit as when Biden said this stuff, theyāre in a glass house and the only reason the walls are still standing is theyāre too old to lift a rock.
Sheās got a point, but the same point could be made about her, so itās hard to take her seriously.
Not really, no. That sheās too old and that Trump isnāt mentally fit can both be true at the same time. Thatās not how logic or reality work.
The difference is sheās saying:
People should listen to doctors about trump
And not
People should listen to doctors.
She canāt say the second one, because anyone thats seen her speak publicly recently can see sheās 84 years old and experiencing the same stuff any of us lucky enough to live that long will.
OK, so there are two options there.
One, is you listen to doctors about Trump being unfit but not about Pelosi being too old.
Two is you listen to doctors about Trump being unfit AND about Pelosi being too old.
In both of those scenarios you listen to doctors about Trump being unfit. So itās your prerogative to extend that to Pelosi or not, which I donāt particularly care about, but that doesnāt change the point about Trump.
Still not how logic or reality work.
My wife studied psychology in college and has tried numerous times to explain āconfirmation biasā to me in a way that I could come up with a conceivable example.
I think this is a good example of confirmation bias
Itās not confirmation bias, itās a rudimentary undersanding of how political messaging works.
Thatās a really confusing response. Rudimentary understandings of political messaging have nothing to do with logical fallacies or biases.
Letās first get this out of the way: I donāt think Iāve heard any credible doctors say that Pelosi is showing signs of concerning cognitive decline. Highly respected and trusted doctors have said that and more about Trump, on the other hand.
In no way are any of my statements intended to support Trump. Iāll take Pelosiās insider-trading any day over Trumpās attempts to incite a civil war for personal gain.
Getting back to the argument at hand, letās break things down into less loaded terms:
A is a trusted and respected source of information whose opinion must be taken into account. A says that B and C are problematic and should be replaced.
Factoring in what A has said, B and C have both been similarly weighed down by Aās analysis and both should be equally considered for replacement.
Now, letās consider other factors. After careful observation, youāve noticed that B has crapped itself and is on fire. C, on the other hand, appears to be fine.
When considering which to replace between B and C, the obvious answer is B and B absolutely should be thrown out and used as an example to avoid anything like B ever happening again. After this careful consideration, then you can factor in Aās opinion on C and decide if Aās opinion is concerning enough to follow.
What youāve suggested though is that because B is covered in shit and on fire, that Aās opinion of B must be taken seriously and any opinions of Aās about C carry less weight. Youāre letting Bās shit-n-fire status influence Aās validity.
You canāt do that, though. Well, you can, but your arguments wonāt be taken seriously and any influence you hoped to have in swaying peopleās opinions will actually serve counter to your intents.
So, while I donāt agree with @givesomefucks@lemmy.worldās āno uā sort of statement and worry about it eroding very serious concerns people should have about Trump, I have to say that youāre not helping. Your conclusion is correct: Trump is a shit-covered flaming sack of senility. But your argument of āAās equal opinions of B and C can be disregarded for C because B is badā provides ammo to those would claim, ādonāt listen to @MudMan@fedia.io, they use illogical and bad-faith arguments.ā
So, if doctors who are medically motivated, not politically, are saying that theyāre concerned about Trump and Pelosi, then you have to treat these concerns the same.
You can either
- redirect focus from the doctors to actual political messaging
- accept the opinions of doctors and then move on to political messaging
- dismiss the opinions of the doctors, which will weaken your argument, and then move on to political messaging
By trying to have your cake and eat it too, youāre revealing your unreliability and biases. Not only that, but your willingness to accept arguments against Trump and then disregard the same arguments against Pelosi, I believe youāre falling into the trappings of confirmation bias. If you want to disprove those arguments against Pelosi by showing that no credible news source has been approached by doctors who have argued anything about her except to disprove the edited ādrunk Pelosiā video, then thatās a great way to accept medical opinions and bolster arguments about political messaging.
But by saying āitās your prerogative to extend that [medical opinion] to Pelosi or not, which I donāt particularly care aboutā on the foundation of a ārudimentary understanding of how political messaging works,ā you are using your logic to shit the sheets while weāre all in bed together.
Clean up your arguments before you cause more damage.
I am not even dignifying that with the one line of engagement I gave to the previous one. Talk about not understanding messaging.
So itās your prerogative to extend that to Pelosi or not, which I donāt particularly care about, but that doesnāt change the point about Trump.
To clarify, I think anyone over 80 (even Bernie) is too old to hold important political office.
What Iām saying is when Pelosi says trump is too old, it means as much to the average person as if Trump says Pelosi is too old.
Anyone under 70 is free to shout it from the mountain tops. And even Jimmy Carter since heās not holding office.
Do you not understand why Pelosi saying this wonāt change a single personās mind?
The only people who tolerate hypocrisy, are voting trump.
Pelosi saying this wouldnāt change anybodyās mind if she was a teenager. Constant reinforcement from multiple sources and repeated reasons for the narrative to be present in media may change the perception over time.
The headline is the goal here. The headline exists, the goal is accomplished. Now you need a few hundred headlines like that one from different sources based on different causes.
Just to be absolutely clear, Pelosi was a major player in doing this exact thing to Biden. It was less than two weeks ago. We need to start having some object persistence at some point.
Pelosi saying this wouldnāt change anybodyās mind if she was a teenager
Youāre thinking of āchange someoneās mindā like, convince them to change their vote.
Iām talking āchange someoneās mindā as in getting someone to vote who currently thinks both sides are the same.
Look at Kamala, sheās pretty much saying the same stuff Biden was saying about trump. But because sheās a functional adult it means more and people are jumping out of the woodworks to endorse herā¦
Thatās a huge example of how the person saying something matters.
It certainly is a huge example of how the person running matters, and of how this stuff is, unfortunately, a matter of perception.
Which is to say, there is now a big incentive for all dems to keep hammering on the obvious point that Trump was a barely functioning idiot at his best and now heās an old barely functioning idiot. The age of the person saying it only matters if youāre going to get in an argument about it, but if Pelosiās book can get this into a headline, itās certainly a valid hit on that front.
Because, again, if youāre a normie willing to vote democrat that is driven by image, not policy, it is way more relevant to get the message on as many places and as frequently as possible, nuance be damned.
And if youāre not, and you want to argue on the merits of the argument and not do armchair political strategy on the Internet, the fact that Trump is entirely unfit for the job is obvious in any case.
Doctors said that they think Trumpās mental health is in decline. It does not say heās too old, just that he is unfit based on his behaviors.
Thereās no double standard here, because the standard isnāt about age, itās about mental health.
Doctors told her to retire a decade ago? I assume you have a source for thatā¦?
EDIT: Shockingly, they did not have a source for that.
Sheās got a point, but the same point could be made about her, so itās hard to take her seriously.
So, you agree with her statement because of its content, but then try to cast doubt on the same statement because of who said it?
Iām not casting doubt on the statement, Iām saying people who care about hypocrisy wont listen to hypocrites.
And people who donāt care about hypocrisy are voting trump.
Donāt think of it as someone engaged in politics and informed of current events.
Think of it as the ~1/3 of Americans that almost never vote. Theyāre the ones who need to be convinced, and theyāre not going to listen to one 80 year old currently in office say another 80 year old is too old.
If Pelosi believed that. She wouldnāt be in office.
Itās like when Republicans go after each other, they might occasionally say something true. Doesnāt make it untrue, but also no one should be listening to them.