Anonymous wages war on Trump

Status
Not open for further replies.
SacredWarrior said:
I'm not sure about having a military leader as President mainly because of some things that can potentially happen such as mental illness (which is one of the main things vets can suffer from). I speak from personal experience on that one. Do you REALLY want that possibility? Other than that, military experience shouldn't be a requirement because you'd be singling out many other potential candidates. It's good to have but required? Nope.
Click to expand...
I think Collin Powell would have made a decent president. But I'm a bit biased. Not all people who serve in the military suffer from mental illness when they come out.

But I didn't mean that it should be a requirement. For me, someone with background in the military is a bonus. I might have voted for McCain if I could get around his ideals and his choice of running mate. Palin is almost as scary as Trump.
 
  • Thank You
Reactions: SacredWarrior
Brovo said:
We're going to talk about disqualifying people from presidency because of the potential for a mental illness? Uhhh... Well... Also speaking as someone who has suffered from mental illness...

3WkwXkA.gif
Click to expand...
Sorry if I came across that way. I should've clarified myself better.

I never said vets shouldn't be president. I was stating the possible consequences that can happen because of it.

Not everyone in the military is suitable to be president and just having that experience alone isn't a qualification nor should it be.
 
Nydanna said:
I think Collin Powell would have made a decent president. But I'm a bit biased. Not all people who serve in the military suffer from mental illness when they come out.

But I didn't mean that it should be a requirement. For me, someone with background in the military is a bonus. I might have voted for McCain if I could get around his ideals and his choice of running mate. Palin is almost as scary as Trump.
Click to expand...
Yes I'm aware of that since I also know my fair share of vets both mentally stable and unstable.

Oh ok I see what you mean. Palin needs to have several seats.
 
I'm wondering though. Anyone on here sharing/spreading the video around? I think it's already popped up 20 times on my Facebook page. I was unfriended because I shared it earlier, which is funny because I don't really have political statuses, and the one time I do I get unfriended. X_x Oh well. If they're that butt hurt over the fact that I'm not voting for Trump, I don't really want to be friends with them anyway.
 
TimeToAbandonSHIP_v2_zps0d9b4397.gif
 
  • Nice Execution!
  • Like
Reactions: Brovo and Mid
Nydanna said:
o.O Huh? Did I miss something? I didn't see anyone being nasty.
Click to expand...
Same reason as Brovo, these entered the territory of dismissing people over mental illness.
 
Gwazi Magnum said:
Same reason as Brovo, these entered the territory of dismissing people over mental illness.
Click to expand...
I don't think that it was meant to be insulting. I think she's talking about people who suffer from things like PSTD, where there's always going to be some stigma over it, and people will always question their motives. It's not an attack on people who have mental disorders saying that they couldn't do a decent job or that they should automatically be disqualified. Hell, I'd love it if there was a president who suffered from anxiety, at least I'd feel that there's someone who understands what I deal with on a daily basis.
 
  • Thank You
Reactions: SacredWarrior
Nydanna said:
I don't think that it was meant to be insulting. I think she's talking about people who suffer from things like PSTD, where there's always going to be some stigma over it, and people will always question their motives. It's not an attack on people who have mental disorders saying that they couldn't do a decent job or that they should automatically be disqualified. Hell, I'd love it if there was a president who suffered from anxiety, at least I'd feel that there's someone who understands what I deal with on a daily basis.
Click to expand...
Exactly my point. I've seen what PTSD can do to someone and it's NOT a pretty sight. The stress that comes with being President can literally kill a person (Roosevelt anyone?) and adding an illness like PTSD on top of that will just be a ticking time bomb waiting to explode.
 
SacredWarrior said:
Exactly my point. I've seen what PTSD can do to someone and it's NOT a pretty sight. The stress that comes with being President can literally kill a person (Roosevelt anyone?) and adding an illness like PTSD on top of that will just be a ticking time bomb waiting to explode.
Click to expand...
Should we also disqualify the old and the infirm? They might die before their presidency is over. Women go on periods once a month: Who knows what crazy ole' Hillary might do. Might send another public e-mail with the nuclear codes to one of her friends from high school.

This is why the government is not an absolute monarchy. If someone is having a cray cray day, that's what you have advisers for: To check that what you're saying is, in fact, not cray cray. And if you're no longer capable of discerning cray cray from not cray cray, that's why you can impeach a president, and why congress can tell the president to shove whatever plan he has up his (or her) ass.

If a guy with PTSD can handle the entire, extremely fatiguing and mentally stressful process of running for president for several months, he's already proven in my eyes to be capable of being the president. In the same way that if a guy can run a marathon, he's proven that he can run future marathons.

If the point isn't to actively vote against or prevent people from running due to having PTSD, then why even bring it up?
 
  • Thank You
  • Nice Execution!
  • Useful
Reactions: Kagayours, Gwazi Magnum, Windsong and 1 other person
Brovo said:
Should we also disqualify the old and the infirm? They might die before their presidency is over. Women go on periods once a month: Who knows what crazy ole' Hillary might do. Might send another public e-mail with the nuclear codes to one of her friends from high school.

This is why the government is not an absolute monarchy. If someone is having a cray cray day, that's what you have advisers for: To check that what you're saying is, in fact, not cray cray. And if you're no longer capable of discerning cray cray from not cray cray, that's why you can impeach a president, and why congress can tell the president to shove whatever plan he has up his (or her) ass.

If a guy with PTSD can handle the entire, extremely fatiguing and mentally stressful process of running for president for several months, he's already proven in my eyes to be capable of being the president. In the same way that if a guy can run a marathon, he's proven that he can run future marathons.

If the point isn't to actively vote against or prevent people from running due to having PTSD, then why even bring it up?
Click to expand...
In this day and age, the chances of a president being impeached are probably -50.

Because it's a concern that I (and maybe some people) have? As for the elderly, it depends on their overall health and how they're handling it. Same goes for those with PTSD. Hell you just stated yourself that people deal with PTSD differently.

Like @Nydanna stated, I never said that someone who has a mental illness shouldn't run for President. But if they do, do I not have the right to be concerned for their health and well-being? Especially since they plan to run the country? What exactly is wrong with being concerned and worried about potential leaders?
 
SacredWarrior said:
Like @Nydanna stated, I never said that someone who has a mental illness shouldn't run for President. But if they do, do I not have the right to be concerned for their health and well-being? Especially since they plan to run the country? What exactly is wrong with being concerned and worried about potential leaders?
Click to expand...
Because there's a long and dangerous road called "identity politics." Let the guy with PTSD speak for himself and let his actions speak for themselves: If he's incapable due to his PTSD, it will become very quickly self-evident and disqualifying him then makes sense. Preemptively being concerned about people because they have a label attached to them is disconcerting to say the least. Vote for a person based on their policies, and if the person himself or herself is not capable of carrying these policies out due to personal issues, let the electoral process sort that out. The beautiful (and equal parts terrifying) part of democracy is that you're never going to have a president who shits purple and speaks about the moon people sending him signals into his head. The only way that could happen is if you disqualified all voters except for regular users of Tumblr. (For 4Chan, it would probably be whoever represents the rarest pepe the best. For Reddit, it'd be whoever tips their hat in the most mi'lady like fashion imaginable. For Iwaku, it'd probably be a deranged owl lady who shits magical girl rainbows.)

Basically: Just let someone prove themselves before you start doubting them because of traits they cannot control being associated with. A guy who has PTSD but who has it in a manageable state, and who is aiming to become president to, say, improve the mental health care system, should not have extra concern levied on his head just because he has PTSD. It should be levied if, on the campaign trail, he has a massive episode that turns him into a vegetable for several hours. Let him try. That's what allows Democracy to flourish.
 
  • Thank You
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: Kagayours, Gwazi Magnum, Dervish and 1 other person
Brovo said:
Because there's a long and dangerous road called "identity politics." Let the guy with PTSD speak for himself and let his actions speak for themselves: If he's incapable due to his PTSD, it will become very quickly self-evident and disqualifying him then makes sense. Preemptively being concerned about people because they have a label attached to them is disconcerting to say the least. Vote for a person based on their policies, and if the person himself or herself is not capable of carrying these policies out due to personal issues, let the electoral process sort that out. The beautiful (and equal parts terrifying) part of democracy is that you're never going to have a president who shits purple and speaks about the moon people sending him signals into his head. The only way that could happen is if you disqualified all voters except for regular users of Tumblr. (For 4Chan, it would probably be whoever represents the rarest pepe the best. For Reddit, it'd be whoever tips their hat in the most mi'lady like fashion imaginable. For Iwaku, it'd probably be a deranged owl lady who shits magical girl rainbows.)

Basically: Just let someone prove themselves before you start doubting them because of traits they cannot control being associated with. A guy who has PTSD but who has it in a manageable state, and who is aiming to become president to, say, improve the mental health care system, should not have extra concern levied on his head just because he has PTSD. It should be levied if, on the campaign trail, he has a massive episode that turns him into a vegetable for several hours. Let him try. That's what allows Democracy to flourish.
Click to expand...
dog-patting-a-cat-on-the-head.gif


Ok I get your point now. Well made.

tumblr_inline_mhkl3hyLJr1qz4rgp.gif
 
Brovo said:
Because there's a long and dangerous road called "identity politics." Let the guy with PTSD speak for himself and let his actions speak for themselves: If he's incapable due to his PTSD, it will become very quickly self-evident and disqualifying him then makes sense. Preemptively being concerned about people because they have a label attached to them is disconcerting to say the least. Vote for a person based on their policies, and if the person himself or herself is not capable of carrying these policies out due to personal issues, let the electoral process sort that out. The beautiful (and equal parts terrifying) part of democracy is that you're never going to have a president who shits purple and speaks about the moon people sending him signals into his head. The only way that could happen is if you disqualified all voters except for regular users of Tumblr. (For 4Chan, it would probably be whoever represents the rarest pepe the best. For Reddit, it'd be whoever tips their hat in the most mi'lady like fashion imaginable. For Iwaku, it'd probably be a deranged owl lady who shits magical girl rainbows.)

Basically: Just let someone prove themselves before you start doubting them because of traits they cannot control being associated with. A guy who has PTSD but who has it in a manageable state, and who is aiming to become president to, say, improve the mental health care system, should not have extra concern levied on his head just because he has PTSD. It should be levied if, on the campaign trail, he has a massive episode that turns him into a vegetable for several hours. Let him try. That's what allows Democracy to flourish.
Click to expand...

Basically, to sum this up to show exactly why it's a bad idea to pre-emptively judge and condemn somebody for a mental condition that they may or may not have, saying somebody isn't fit to be president because they might be suffering from PTSD and could make some devastatingly bad decisions, let's turn the tables around and use examples that probably have been brought up a few times over the past few hundred years:

"Women shouldn't be politicians because they're prone to hysteria and because of their premenstrual syndrome, they cannot be relied upon to make reasonable or logical judgements because they may be ruled by their emotional state."

Somebody actually said that, you'd be well in your rights to kick 'em in the junk, and it wasn't that long ago that women weren't even allowed to vote in Western society because of similar prejudice.

So, in short, unless someone's declared mentally unfit by a medical professional, it's kind of shitty to assume they aren't capable of doing a job because of "what ifs".
 
  • Useful
  • Nice Execution!
Reactions: Gwazi Magnum and SacredWarrior
  • Like
  • Bucket of Rainbows
Reactions: Mid and SacredWarrior
Mid said:
I am hopeful that they will make it in time, x3.
Click to expand...
Wonder if tomorrow he'll suddenly start changing his tune about Mexicans. Doubtful, but it would be hilarious to watch him attempt to take back what he said.
 
  • Love
Reactions: Mid
GOP preparing for contested convention

Everyone cross your fingers! We might be saved!! I hate Paul Ryan, but I think he might have saved all our asses from the biggest mistake to ever happen to the Republican party.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom
Back