Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
So they got to you as well...And there's the small point that the proposed rail link doesn't go through Gippsland ...
I won’t say this lightly but every member of panel should hand in their medical licence.In THE DANGEROUS CASE OF DONALD TRUMP, twenty-seven psychiatrists, psychologists, and other mental health experts argue that, in Mr. Trump’s case, their moral and civic “duty to warn” America supersedes professional neutrality. They then explore Trump’s symptoms and potentially relevant diagnoses to find a complex, if also dangerously mad, man.
Philip Zimbardo and Rosemary Sword, for instance, explain Trump’s impulsivity in terms of “unbridled and extreme present hedonism.” Craig Malkin writes on pathological narcissism and politics as a lethal mix. Gail Sheehy, on a lack of trust that exceeds paranoia. Lance Dodes, on sociopathy. Robert Jay Lifton, on the “malignant normality” that can set in everyday life if psychiatrists do not speak up.
His madness is catching, too. From the trauma people have experienced under the Trump administration to the cult-like characteristics of his followers, he has created unprecedented mental health consequences across our nation and beyond.
Book details - Macmillan
us.macmillan.com
Yes, education should be free to all and merit based for higher education.So where does the line get drawn on health and Education? is it unlimited?
I won’t say this lightly but every member of panel should hand in their medical licence.
Diagnosing someone from television edits is a new one.
While this sounds like a good thing and a moral thing, it simply doesn't work well when the government gets involved in either of these.Yes, education should be free to all and merit based for higher education.
And non elective health should be free to all.
That's fair enough, however many of these people have an agenda, so while it is their job, they write up a great deal of ambiguous content, and there is also not a great deal of proof to back up their theories.I was going to give you my full thoughts on Trump but I couldn’t be bothered writing that much so just thought it would be easier to reply to your question that, what has he done wrong as president, with an article written by someone who’s job it is to comment on politics.
If I can be bothered later I’ll give you my personal thoughts and examples of things he’s done that aren’t presidential.
For now, let me just state that basically I think as a diagnosed narcissist and proven racist and he’s dangerously impulsive.
benbanjo what’s your take on Trump?
This is the podcast if anyone cares to listen
Listened to the first 5 minutes, then turned it off. It's bullshit.
That's fair enough, however many of these people have an agenda, so while it is their job, they write up a great deal of ambiguous content, and there is also not a great deal of proof to back up their theories.
I do read the content, however i read both sides, something i wish everyone did.
I won’t say this lightly but every member of panel should hand in their medical licence.
Diagnosing someone from television edits is a new one.
What specifically is bullshit?
The fact that a journalist intimates expertise about a subject of incredible complexity way outside of their sphere, and your clip is not anything even approaching "The Full Story". This is a falsification of authority. In other words, it's propaganda. It's politically biased shite.
In fact, when it comes to "climate change", readers should ignore all mainstream journalistic, bureaucratic and political commentary. Go directly to the scientific literature itself.
The scientific "fact" is that there is not enough quality data available to make any significant finding that supports mainstream climate hysterics or denialism.
I’ll have to listen to it again.
The only part I really remember is Alex Jones.
As for not listening to journalists reporting on it and just go straight to the scientists and the data, the journalists are reporting on the scientists data
Then why are you recommending it to people?
The level of bullshit surrounding this subject is staggering. Folks need clarity, not more bullshit.
Not in any balanced manner, and certainly not with the requisite expertise required to make definitive statements.
Because I like it.
It’s pretty poor form diagnosing complex disorders, from their living room, considering they’ve never met the patient in question. It’s dr Phil levels of malpractice.They’re not wrong though.
It’s pretty poor form diagnosing complex disorders, from their living room, considering they’ve never met the patient in question. It’s dr Phil levels of malpractice.
Hate the guy or not, this type of stuff doesn’t help. His supporters grow more staunch because of it.It was verboten for decades - the Goldwater Rule.
Hate the guy or not, this type of stuff doesn’t help. His supporters grow more staunch because of it.
While this sounds like a good thing and a moral thing, it simply doesn't work well when the government gets involved in either of these.