Should crazy people be allowed to run for office?

[TheFriedPiper]

If someone is verifiably insane, should they be allowed to run for office?

[Phredicles]

1. Verified by whom? And how?

I think those would be the first legal questions.

[TheFriedPiper]

8. Listing my criteria is against DU rules

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TheFriedPiper]

7. I would LOVE to broaden our rights, but insane people

think our rights should be dictated by, well, how can I put this without getting the post deleted, non-reality-based beliefs.

[BlooInBloo]

12. Your words are contradictory.

[TheFriedPiper]

13. Actually, no, they aren't

[bryant69]

17. Poor the Fried Piper

It must be so difficult not to have your bigotry cherished and embraced by this community.

Bryant

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

20. ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2183300#2186058

Are you arguing that Chavez is insane because he believes Bush is the devil?

[TheFriedPiper]

22. i think he is insane because he thinks there IS a devil

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

24. It strikes me...

that Hugo Chavez isn't the one who's got a problem telling the difference between reality and fantasy.

[TheFriedPiper]

25. not the only one, that's for sure

[bryant69]

27. I'm not a bigot

The difference is this, as we've often noted. I would allow an atheist to run for office and I would vote for an atheist if one came up at the polls (and I thought he was the best person for the job).

You want to create an America in which religious people cannot run for office, and you apparently won't vote for a religious person, no matter how qualified (you might have changed this opinion from the last time we talked).

You calling me a bigot is based simply on the proposition that as a religious person I must be a bigot.

Bryant

[TheFriedPiper]

32. I just don't think that people that believe in nonsense should hold

power over other people, that's all.

I NEVER said I would ban religious people or withold my vote from them. I do conisider insanity to be a negative when evaluating someone, but it is not the single issue.

Hell, I didn't even say I wouldn't vote for crazy people, I just asked a question.

But hey, it's been a while since I had a stalker, so have fun.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

36. well, thank God so few other people have your view

of the world. But hey, you want to call people Nazi's whilst advocating the same sorts of things they would have...go for it. You're quite good at it. When do you propose opening up the 'religious insanity re-education camps'?

sP

[TheFriedPiper]

38. if there was a god, there would never have been Nazis

Of course, I never said that, so you can pack that straw man back in its box

[ProdigalJunkMail]

40. no, you never said THAT

but hey, you simply believe that anyone who has a religious belief should have their constitutional right abridged...not too far from it and certainly no strawman where YOU are concerned.

sP

[TheFriedPiper]

41. 100% straw man - I just asked a simple question about insane people

my holy stalker turned it into a religious debate.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

45. you know damned well that your 'insanity'

was a poke at those with religious beliefs...and to say anything else is just BS. Try to cover it up under your use of words...but anyone who has read your sludge knows of what you speak. You are a joke...and your attempt to 'mask' your intention is just plain sad...

sP

[TheFriedPiper]

50. actually, it was inspired by Katherine Harris

[ProdigalJunkMail]

54. it was inspired by your bigotry...

find that dictionary yet?

sP

[Name removed]

56. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

58. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

66. your posts are factually incorrect with regards to your motive

please explain post #8

sP (and I will point out that this phrasing should be permitted per DU rules)

[bryant69]

42. Laughs

You posted a deliberately provactive post - what did you think you were trying to do?

I mean if I posted something along the lines of "Can Atheist be good people if they don't believe in God" I wouldn't be surprised if a lot atheists popped up and argued with me (for the record my opinion on that question is yes, of course they can).

It's a simple three part formula.

1. Christians and other religious people are insane (or they believe in nonsense).

2. Insane people shouldn't be allowed to run for office.

3. Christians and other religious people shoultn't be able to run for office (or hold power over other people, if you prefer).

I guess though I'm not supposed to put all the pieces together like this - so you can maintain "plausible deniability."

Bryant

[TheFriedPiper]

44. Actually YOU made the link, I was talking about Katherine Harris

YOU made this about religion, not me

[ProdigalJunkMail]

47. bullshit...

anyone with access to the search function knows damned well your implication

sP

[TheFriedPiper]

52. Never mind that I state OVER AND OVER that it is NOT about religion

just keep trying to make it that way

[ProdigalJunkMail]

57. bullshit...again

for fear of getting your own post LOCKED you said you couldn't clarify your point. If it had been about K. Harris you would have been able to point that out with NO PROBLEM.

sP

YOUR OWN WORDS : Listing my criteria is against DU rules

[bryant69]

53. OK I apologize for misreading your comments

I'm sorry - but in the future, you should be more clear - and put Katherine Harris in your comment. Hell I'd probably agree with you in her case - she is a bit off center (but I take some solace in that she won't win).

Given your past comments you can hardly blame me for misreading you.

Bryant

[TheFriedPiper]

59. i didnt put her in because i wanted a GENERAL discussion

not just about one person

but I guess that is impossible

never mind, i gotta go run some errands

geez

[ProdigalJunkMail]

65. bullshit...post #8

[ProdigalJunkMail]

62. don't fall for this crap, Bryant

in his own words : Listing my criteria is against DU rules

he knew full well the reason for his post and is now trying to lie his way out of it...this was not about K. Harris

sP

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

43. "believe in nonsense"

Well, Fried, since you're an atheist and clearly base your beliefs in science, would you care to explain why you consider a religion to be a form of "insanity" when it's not recognized as such by any actual psychologist?

[TheFriedPiper]

46. no, because this post wasnt about religion

[ProdigalJunkMail]

49. bullshit...again

what a farce...

sP

[TheFriedPiper]

55. the farce is you guys trying to make it about religion

geez

[ProdigalJunkMail]

63. then explain post #8 n/t

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

61. ...

It was about insanity.

Which, apparently, you think religion is.

"i think he is insane because he thinks there IS a devil"

So it's about religion by default.

(and am I really supposed to believe that it wasn't about religion from the beginning? How insane do you think I am?)

[Ignacio Upton]

3. Sure

But that alone will dissuade people from voting for that person. Just look at Lyndon LaRouche as an example. He believes all sorts of whacky shit about the Queen of England controlling the world's drug trade, and yet he'll never win a Democratic primary (the closest he ever came to winning delegates was in 2000 when he got more than 20% in the Arkansas primary, but that was after Bill Bradley had dropped out, and Gore was all but assured to be the nominee.)

[TheFriedPiper]

4. I dunno, there are a lot of insane people in our government

right now

[lumberjack_jeff]

5. No, and it's about time that their party was disbanded, too. n/t

[The Backlash Cometh]

6. Lawton Chiles wasn't insane...

...but they did discover he was taking anti-depressants. Floridians back then were far more saavy than they are today and they voted for him anyways because they believed the choice was between a depressed man, vs the man who made him depressed.

[dkofos]

9. Sure

As long as they are not dangerous

[Gruenemann]

10. Kinky Friedman. eom

[Lone_Star_Dem]

16. Nah, he's just a self-serving, misogynistic, bigoted ass

But he's not getting off by pleading insanity.

[catnhatnh]

11. A Definite Yes....

...any story about Kathleen Harris is the highlight of my day!

[bryant69]

14. You mean like of someone had an irrational fear of religious people?

I suppose it would depend on how that irrational fear affected their job performance.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[TheFriedPiper]

19. i dunno anyone that has that

religion is usually based on irrational fear of made-up enemies

[bryant69]

30. You can't think of anybody who suffers from an irrational fear

of religious people? You really can't? Hmmmmmm.

Maybe you need to think a bit harder.

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

37. you might look up the definition of bigotry

and see if maybe it applies to yourself...maybe.

sP

[TheFriedPiper]

39. I know it, and it doesn't. Religion is a CHOICE, not something you

are born with.

But that isn't what this thread was about, until it was hijacked by my holy stalker.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

51. ah so bigotry is only about race or something inborn

BULLSHIT again...can't read a dictionary?

sP

[meldroc]

15. I've pondered the idea of psychological screening for politicians

Give them a psych exam, designed to screen for mental disorders such as narccisitic personality disorder, or antisocial personality disorder. Or go the sociology route, and screen for people high on the scales of Right Wing Authoritarianism and Social Dominance Orientation, and under no circumstances allow the "double-highs", the scary fucks who score high on both the RWA and SDO scales, to take office.

Unfortunately, such screening would work well at first, until enough of the sociopaths/double-highs manage to slip through the screening and manage to administer the screening process. At that point, only the people who fail the screening process would be allowed to take office...

I have yet to come up with a solution to that problem.

[kiahzero]

21. Not to mention the small problem of the Constitution. (n/t)

[Coexist]

23. Is this a Jean Schmidt thread?

[TheFriedPiper]

26. hehe, well, i was thinking Katherine Harris when I started it

but my little holy stalker wants to make it about ghosts and devils and demons and such

[Coexist]

29. That is so funny - I was going to add her, but I hated the thought

of only having females represented (being one myself) so I narrowed down to Schmidt - her photos are more evocative.

[Cleita]

28. I don't think you can stop them, but if they win, we need

better ways of removing them from office once they are provably certifiable, like making them be medically screened for it.

I think Bush should be pushed in front of a medical panel to evaluate him mentally and physically (c'mon George, go pee in the cup for your country) and not one chosen by him and his party but a real non-partisan medical panel. But there is no clear law for this so we know he's crazy, but there is nothing anyone in a capacity to do so will risk trying to get a diagnosis like this about him.

[kineneb]

31. Sure. I'm crazy, and I could do a better job

than most of the asshats in Wash. DC. The difference is: I know I have mental health issues and have gotten treatment. The Asshats are in denial about their lack of mental health. I think anyone who runs for office has to be a little crazy to start with.

[TheFriedPiper]

35. best answer yet - thanks for getting it

[Lydia Leftcoast]

34. If they're really mentally ill, as in having paranoid fantasies or

bizarre obsessions, the voters reject them (at least in every case I know about).

If they're merely sociopathic instead of schizophrenic or subject to disordered thought processes, they can easily slip by on superficial charm, as a certain occupant of the White House has.

[Roxy66]

48. There goes the GOP......sounds good to me

[mmonk]

60. Too late. Its already occured.

[savemefromdumbya]

64. if someone is a criminal ie. arrested for drunken driving or adrug addict?

No, parties should vet their candidates before they let them stand. The GOP are kicking themselves now over Bush as they are on the way out.

[Rabrrrrrr]

67. Are you that afraid of religious people, of any faith, that you feel that

denying them their right to run for office is a plausible idea? And that they should be labeled as insane?

Wow. :wow:

I didn't think religious people could cause so much fear in someone. I'm not even afraid of muslim terrorists, and here you're shaking in your boots about the idea of a religious people holding political office. According to your fear, we should have been destroyed as a country within the first couple minutes after signing the Constitution since - surprise - pretty much everyone at the time was religious in one way or another, and pretty much every president, senator, and congressperson has been religious of some sort.

Why aren't you tombstoned yet?

[pinto]

68. Locking.

The thread has become a circular flamefest of personal attacks and accusations of bigotry. In context, the original post seems intentionally inflammatory.