Ex-Church of Christ Support Board

SolaDude wrote:

Ivy wrote:No, Sola, not classifying anyone.....wouldn't be ethical......I apologize that I didn't word that sentence better to make that clear. Will go back and try to correct it. I do feel strongly that there should be a thorough psychological evaluation done for anyone who plans to run for president, is running, etc. Not sure how that would work, or at what point it should be administered, and who should or would have any access to this information. It would be very sticky to manage.

No need to apologize...it was fine....I had not been out of bed long before I started reading this morning and just read it with half a brain....anyway, it would STM that whatever test was given would really have to be planned very brilliantly to survive the inevitable allegations of biasness, being "rigged", etc....even if both parties picked one psychological group to test all candidates for the Democratic and Republican nomination for President, somebody is going to inevitably raise cain about an "inside job", all that kind of stuff....it just would STM to be an impossible undertaking that would ultimately lose validity and credibility (even if it did not deserve such) because of all the wing-nuts and unethical politicians and others out there.....also I would suppose both parties would have to agree on the criteria NOT qualifying someone to run for President as a result of those tests...and that sounds like a monumental task of itself to me....you know, you want to run Trump (or whoever) for President, so you move to have those criteria changed....

Exactly. Lots of reasons NOT to implement that type of thing.

Ivy wrote:

SolaDude wrote:

Ivy wrote:No, Sola, not classifying anyone.....wouldn't be ethical......I apologize that I didn't word that sentence better to make that clear. Will go back and try to correct it. I do feel strongly that there should be a thorough psychological evaluation done for anyone who plans to run for president, is running, etc. Not sure how that would work, or at what point it should be administered, and who should or would have any access to this information. It would be very sticky to manage.

No need to apologize...it was fine....I had not been out of bed long before I started reading this morning and just read it with half a brain....anyway, it would STM that whatever test was given would really have to be planned very brilliantly to survive the inevitable allegations of biasness, being "rigged", etc....even if both parties picked one psychological group to test all candidates for the Democratic and Republican nomination for President, somebody is going to inevitably raise cain about an "inside job", all that kind of stuff....it just would STM to be an impossible undertaking that would ultimately lose validity and credibility (even if it did not deserve such) because of all the wing-nuts and unethical politicians and others out there.....also I would suppose both parties would have to agree on the criteria NOT qualifying someone to run for President as a result of those tests...and that sounds like a monumental task of itself to me....you know, you want to run Trump (or whoever) for President, so you move to have those criteria changed....

Exactly. Lots of reasons NOT to implement that type of thing.

Perhaps from an ideal perspective...it would be good not only to have psychological tests for the candidates, but also for those who vote for them....!!

Well one thing is for sure, we can't trust the electorate to know what is best for them...so we need to test their candidates for them and then tell them who to vote for. And the voter has to be tested and educated to make sure they are really qualified to cast a vote for a qualified and approved candidate. Freedom and diversity are of course the objective in making sure only the right kind of people vote for the right kind of candidate.

Oh look...the Stock Market is up and the someone has suggested putting an embassy in a capital city...shocking.

...

SolaDude wrote:Perhaps from an ideal perspective...it would be good not only to have psychological tests for the candidates, but also for those who vote for them....!!

You hear them in line at the polling locations...... "uh...hmmm...well, I don't know.....I think I'll vote democrat [republican, libertarian, green, etc]. Like they were just hatched that morning and hadn't thought about it until then. Scary.

KLP wrote:Oh look...the Stock Market is up

kip:

1 Timothy 6:10King James Version (KJV)

10 For the love of money is the root of all evil.....

Ivy...you're a hoot....

Remember when performance used to be what mattered? Ah yes...so long ago. Used to be the important thing was the economy improving and security improving. Or like when a puddle in the backyard didn't get re-defined by EPA as a waterway of the USA? Did anyone ever ask for a Psych eval or physical on crazy slurred speech politicians like Barney Frank or Nancy Pelosi or that "oops-I-fell-again" Harry Reid? Remember way back like a year or so ago, that just asking for medical evaluation on the coughing and fainting Hillary was deemed to be sexist?

But sure...out of all the crazy crap that passes in the USA and world these days...somehow the president is the concern. I mean how does an illegal alien who had been deported numerous times get protected in San Francisco, using a cop's stolen gun, fires it in a public pier park killing a woman and he gets acquitted in a trial jury. Now there is some crazy stuff in this country but seemingly now suddenly we are concerned about mental stability? Have you seen what is on TV these days?

And hey you kids....get off my lawn too!

KLP wrote:And hey you kids....get off my lawn too!

Hey buddy....you're on MY lawn!!!

KLP wrote:Remember when performance used to be what mattered?

Performance is in the eye of the beholder, kip.