Donald Trump Just Called Himself ‘A Very Stable Genius’

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_5a50c24ce4b01e1a4b155ce0?ncid=inblnkushpmg00000009

[bcking 3,157]

He is "like" really smart....

 

Who uses "filler words" when typing or writing? 

 

Probably people who aren't very smart.

[bcking 3,157]

"Very stable genius" sounds like what a very unstable narcissistic Bond villain would say before releasing some evil plot. 

 

I could see Goldfinger describe himself that way. Come to think of it he would also probably brag about his business acumen as well, while slowly aiming a laser at you and planning to blow up Fort Knox.

Edited January 6, 2018 by bcking

[JimandChristy 1,689]

[charmander 692]

"I went from VERY successful businessman, to top T.V. Star to President of the United States (on my first try). I think that would qualify as not smart, but genius....and a very stable genius at that!"... smh.

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

55 minutes ago, bcking said:

"Very stable genius" sounds like what a very unstable narcissistic Bond villain would say before releasing some evil plot. 

 

I could see Goldfinger describe himself that way. Come to think of it he would also probably brag about his business acumen as well, while slowly aiming a laser at you and planning to blow up Fort Knox.

Trump come come Senator Schumer we are men of action and not words, if I do not get the money to build the  wall deposited in my Swiss bank account by 5pm I will press this very large , tremendous button that my little sweaty fingers are caressing at this moment. I am like a very stable genius but I have my limits.

Edited January 6, 2018 by Il Mango Dulce

[jg121783 3,915]

It may be a little over the top but this is probably in response to underqualified quacks getting up on tv and trying to diagnose Trump as having some sort of mental disorder without meeting with him personally which is a violation of the Goldwater rule and could open them to lawsuits.

[bcking 3,157]

2 minutes ago, jg121783 said:

It may be a little over the top but this is probably in response to underqualified quacks getting up on tv and trying to diagnose Trump as having some sort of mental disorder without meeting with him personally which is a violation of the Goldwater rule and could open them to lawsuits.

As long as they make clear they haven't examined him and are giving their opinion and not a diagnosis, I don't think they would be at risk of libel. Of course they could be sued, but that doesn't mean it would go anywhere.

 

The Goldwater Rule isn't some legal rule, it's a rule set up by the APA. The APA states it's unethical to give your opinion without having examined the patient, but I don't know if they would actually remove members for doing so or punish them in any way. The board that certifies psychiatrists is different (ABPN), and I don't think a psychiatrist would be see any punitive measures from that organization. They certainly wouldn't lose their medical license for doing so.

[JimandChristy 1,689]

13 minutes ago, jg121783 said:

It may be a little over the top but this is probably in response to underqualified quacks getting up on tv and trying to diagnose Trump as having some sort of mental disorder without meeting with him personally which is a violation of the Goldwater rule and could open them to lawsuits.

Thing is you don't need a psychiatrist to see that Donnie is off somewhere in cloud cuckoo land. His behavior alone is evident of that.

[elmcitymaven 9,712]

Opinion is a defense to defamation. So, saying "Il Mango Dulce has been funding a Saul Alinsky-affiliated dirty librul group looking to overthrow the US gubmit and institute a PC Snowflake Paradise" would not be an opinion -- I'd be making what sounds like a statement of fact. If that's not true, and my statement would tend to cause Il Mango Duce to be lowered in the estimation of others, that's a defamatory statement. But if I said, "In my opinion as a loser who hangs out on an internet message board, Il Mango Duce's statements on VJ make it sound like he's been funding a Saul Alinsky-affiliated dirty librul group looking to overthrow the US gubmit and institute a PC Snowflake Paradise" then I'd be expressing my opinion and nanny-nanny-boo-boo-suck-it-snowflake.

 

Of course, we then need to realize that as a private individual, Mango (can I call you Mango?) has more protections when it comes to defamation than Dear Leader. First of all, the burden of proof that what I said about Mango wasn't defamation is on me, not him -- usually the burden is on the plaintiff (or prosecution in criminal cases). Second, the burden of proof is much lower for a private person than for a public figure -- I would have to prove I hadn't been negligent about the truth of what I had said.

 

Now, if I had said "Donald Trump is sloping towards dementia and everyone can see it," things get flipped. If the statement relates to a matter of public concern and the plaintiff is a public figure, the plaintiff must show by clear and convincing evidence, under the ruling in NY Times v Sullivan, that the statement was made with actual malice. Actual malice is shown where the defendant knew the statement was false, or was reckless as to the falsity of the statement. A person will be a public figure if he has achieved public notoriety.

 

I think we can all agree that Trump is a public figure. But can Trump prove I made the statement knowing that the statement was false or that I was reckless as to its falsity? Unlikely, because I actually believe what I said is true or likely to be true. Does it change if I'm a gerontologist? If I'd examined him and found him in full possession of his faculties and then said he was losing it, yeah, probably. Further, my medical notes could be used to show that I knew it was false, so there's your clear and convincing evidence. And of course opinion is still a defense to defamation.

 

The standard is so high -- clear and convincing -- because we need to be able to speak truth to power and question what is put in the public arena. Private people are rightly more protected. This has been VJ Law School 101 (Torts) with Maven.

[eieio 1,594]

Meanwhile…back in the real world….Trump is up in Camp David going over the agenda for 2018.

 

 

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

4 hours ago, elmcitymaven said:

Opinion is a defense to defamation. So, saying "Il Mango Dulce has been funding a Saul Alinsky-affiliated dirty librul group looking to overthrow the US gubmit and institute a PC Snowflake Paradise" would not be an opinion -- I'd be making what sounds like a statement of fact. If that's not true, and my statement would tend to cause Il Mango Duce to be lowered in the estimation of others, that's a defamatory statement. But if I said, "In my opinion as a loser who hangs out on an internet message board, Il Mango Duce's statements on VJ make it sound like he's been funding a Saul Alinsky-affiliated dirty librul group looking to overthrow the US gubmit and institute a PC Snowflake Paradise" then I'd be expressing my opinion and nanny-nanny-boo-boo-suck-it-snowflake.

 

Of course, we then need to realize that as a private individual, Mango (can I call you Mango?) has more protections when it comes to defamation than Dear Leader. First of all, the burden of proof that what I said about Mango wasn't defamation is on me, not him -- usually the burden is on the plaintiff (or prosecution in criminal cases). Second, the burden of proof is much lower for a private person than for a public figure -- I would have to prove I hadn't been negligent about the truth of what I had said.

 

Now, if I had said "Donald Trump is sloping towards dementia and everyone can see it," things get flipped. If the statement relates to a matter of public concern and the plaintiff is a public figure, the plaintiff must show by clear and convincing evidence, under the ruling in NY Times v Sullivan, that the statement was made with actual malice. Actual malice is shown where the defendant knew the statement was false, or was reckless as to the falsity of the statement. A person will be a public figure if he has achieved public notoriety.

 

I think we can all agree that Trump is a public figure. But can Trump prove I made the statement knowing that the statement was false or that I was reckless as to its falsity? Unlikely, because I actually believe what I said is true or likely to be true. Does it change if I'm a gerontologist? If I'd examined him and found him in full possession of his faculties and then said he was losing it, yeah, probably. Further, my medical notes could be used to show that I knew it was false, so there's your clear and convincing evidence. And of course opinion is still a defense to defamation.

 

The standard is so high -- clear and convincing -- because we need to be able to speak truth to power and question what is put in the public arena. Private people are rightly more protected. This has been VJ Law School 101 (Torts) with Maven.

Dear God I love smart people and I read the whole thing. 

 

Now the real question MAV ol gal.

 

I would it be a ban worthy offense on chest 

[Steeleballz 7,550]

 

  Trump is an unstable ungenius. One of the nice things we are learning with Trump is, for the most part,  you can listen to his statements, come up with the exact opposite, and there you have the truth. At least there is consistency in that.

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

I don't really think someone who has achieved more than almost any American in History could be as slow as many think.

 

I think it is more likely , that he enjoys driving low information,  emtionaly gulible members of the MDL into frothing at the mouth non sense filled tantrums.  I can just see him smoking a big cigar , going " hey y'all watch this"🤣

The MDL is easily transtriggred

[Steeleballz 7,550]

43 minutes ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

I don't really think someone who has achieved more than almost any American in History could be as slow as many think.

 

 

  

43 minutes ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

 

I think it is more likely , that he enjoys driving low information,  emtionaly gulible members of the MDL into frothing at the mouth non sense filled tantrums.  I can just see him smoking a big cigar , going " hey y'all watch this"🤣

The MDL is easily transtriggred

 

  Hate to tell ya, but someone acting like that would not be the sign of a stable genius. Unstable children act that way.