2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumBernie Sanders thrills huge Boston crowd with call to fight racism and reform gun law
32,000 people!!
Bernie Sanders thrills huge Boston crowd with call to fight racism and reform gun law
He suggested the US should enact several plans, including closing the loophole that allow unlicensed gun dealers to sell without background checks, end the sale and distribution of semi-automatic weapons whose only goal is to kill people, and start a revolution in terms of mental health in this country.
Maybe if we do all of these things we can lessen the likelihood of these horrendous disasters, he said.
Campaign staffers could not immediately provide an official estimate for the crowd inside the packed Boston Convention Center, but the venue can hold more than 25,000 people and organizers estimated that some 4,000 people filled the overflow room after the main hall filled up. Others braved cold, wet weather to watch the speech outside on a Jumbotron.
Excellent that he wants this country to do something about Mental Health. It is a DISGRACE that we have virtually NO programs to assist families with family members who have serious MH issues which often lead to violence.
As one of those families, having sought and failed to find the necessary help for a family member, I have to say that one of our worst fears was that one day, without that help, we might receive a call such as the families of so many of these seriously disturbed individuals have tragically received.
Without addressing this issue, the public is at risk so I am, as someone who knows the fear of being unable to prevent a violent action of a family member, thrilled to see a candidate address this most important issue and would hope that this become a number one issue in order to end these horrific and senseless mass murders.
This is why I support this man for president.
He doesn't just play to the crowd for political purposes, he THINKS about issues from various perspectives and listens to the people, before deciding that for the purpose of 'winning' he needs to toss out platitudes that we hear every election season and clearly, up to now do NOTHING to solve these major problems in our society.
still_one
(92,136 posts)Maybe he has evolved on the issue
Autumn
(45,056 posts)Response to Autumn (Reply #2)
BlueWaveDem This message was self-deleted by its author.
Autumn
(45,056 posts)They never attacked us. Iraq War Resolution. Iraq and Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. NOTHING. There was no protecting America with that resolution, her wonderful speech in favor of it and her yes vote for it. She voted yes on that to protect her career, nothing more.
aikoaiko
(34,169 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Autumn
(45,056 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)That poster also claimed that Bernie is Israel's #1 shill so I'm wondering where she gets her information from.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)At least they had the sense enough to delete stupidity even if they didn't have the integrity to admit it.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)But make sure you don't have a full stomach.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)I am Bernie Sanders and black people will vote for me because I tell them Colonel Sanders was my father and I love chicken too.
I see they are constantly "evolving".
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)At least we know they won't be back.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)but at least we know they won't stay long.
Boy, some of those Hillary supporters are really unhinged. Seriously disturbed.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)Have you read that poster's profile?
EDITED
frylock
(34,825 posts)wow
cui bono
(19,926 posts)And even if so, how did invading Iraq "protect America"? Serious question. How exactly was an invasion of another country protecting America?
And let's say that's true. It was all about protecting America and the invasion was a grand idea. How did that work out? It killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people, killed thousands of American troops - more than the amount of people who died in the 9/11 attacks, and troops are suffering from PTSD and committing suicide at record rates because they were sent on so many tours of duty - brought suicide bombing into Iraq where they had none before, destabilized the entire region which led to the rise ISIS.
And you're defending that vote as a good thing that protected America???
It was a vote of cowardice and a vote to aid the MIC get rich. Including Cheney.
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)End.
MindfulOne
(227 posts)For me, whatever good the family foundations might do will never offset vile wars.
But then there's also the ruination of women's children's and families due to outsourcing and offshoring and promotion of big banks over individual and workers' rights and a livable minimum wage and etc.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)safe. Of course she THOUGHT Cheney/Bush were truth tellers she says. She trusted them!!
last1standing
(11,709 posts)Do you subscribe to the belief that every Muslim is a terrorist? That is the only possible way that a person could believe that Hillary was voting to protect 'Merika!
So do you believe that every Muslim is a terrorist? Or were you trying to justify Hillary's vote to slaughter 224,000 innocent brown people with a smear against the very people she voted to slaughter? You know, the 224,000 innocent brown people who had nothing to do with 9/11 who are now dead because of Hillary's vote to kill them.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Guns can be used for good purposes, like hunting, protecting livestock or your home, and in the right environments and in the right hands, are not dangerous. Ir you eliminate guns made only to kill people and not for other purposes (which Bernie is suggesting that we do), guns are not intrinsically dangerous.
We don't make the manufacturers of sleeping pills liable for the deaths their pills cause when taken in quantities that the manufacturers warn against. In fact, manufacturers are in general not liable for damages their products cause if the person using the product did not heed the warnings on the product.
Read the labels on the products you buy, especially the medications, very carefully.
There is a difference between a manufacturer who is irresponsible and does not warn users about potential dangers of a product that is useful for the purposes for which it is intended.
I strongly agree with Bernie's stance on guns and on product liability.
We would not have many useful medications and products if we made manufacturers liable for damages caused when their products are used in ways that they warn are unsafe.
Your car is a good example.
The manufacturer is liable if the car design causes it to tip over under certain conditions associated with normal use. But the manufacturer is not liable if someone buys the manufacturer's car, drives it drunk and then kills himself and others because he is driving drunk.
The misuse of guns is not the fault of the gun manufacturers. That's why they should not be liable for the misuse of guns other than the guns made specifically to kill people.
We could outlaw guns made specifically to kill people and penalize not only the manufacturers and sellers of such guns but anyone who possesses an unauthorized gun of that sort.
LiberalArkie
(15,713 posts)Rosa Luxemburg
(28,627 posts)Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Nor was he ever willing to 'consider torture' under ANY circumstances.
His position on gun violence never needed evolvement. Clearly the failure of those who had the power to do something about it, has caused an escalation of that tragic violence.
Now we someone who doesn't just 'talk', who looks at a problem and thinks about how to resolve it.
We've had decades of both parties clearly failing to stop this violence.
It is now out of control, and you want to blame one person?
That is laughable, but it's your decision to keep reminding us of the records of both these candidates by trying this failing meme over and over again if you wish. It provides us with the opportunity to talk about why we cannot afford to elect people who do not evolve on issues, major issues, for decades, see the Welfare Reform Bill eg, btw, has Hillary evolved on that disaster yet? Last comments on that I could find were in the 2008 election where she was still 'proud of that legislation'.
Elected office isn't the place to do your evolving. You do it BEFORE you are given the awesome powers of that office.
artislife
(9,497 posts)It may be the only talking point left.
I am not happy about this, but I am not for the abolishment of the 2nd amendment either. I do believe in strict gun control, and voted on our state's amendment.
However, I grew up in a house of guns and my father took their care seriously.
Will this change my vote? No.
Because 90% of his platform does so much for the near future of this country and planet. I don't see anyone better or on top of it. I don't think we stand a chance of a long term future unless we make radical change now.
onehandle
(51,122 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)PatrickforO
(14,570 posts)Bernie is FOR so many things that will make life better for millions of people that I think we can forgive him that, don't you?
workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)He needs to evolve and soon.
Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)So he can be like Hillary and poll test every answer?
No thank you.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Do you know what the word "evolve" means?
senz
(11,945 posts)He was faithfully representing his constituents in a rural state where people like to hunt. He also has a D- rating with the NRA because he consistently votes in favor of sensible gun control.
So try to make hay with that.
still_one
(92,136 posts)Bernie thought it was an over reach of the Federal government. However, the Brady Bill did become law, and Federal law supersedes state laws where their is a conflict. This is not something new. The Civil Rights Act is a perfect example where there were differences among states regarding civil rights, and what the Civil Rights Act provided.
Same sex marriage and Abortion is also protected by Federal law.
When there is a conflict between a state law and federal law, it is the federal law that prevails.
In the case of the Brady Bill, why would a mandated federal background check not be considered sensible gun control?
senz
(11,945 posts)He was being sensitive to the views of his constituents. I personally favor sensible gun control that helps prevent guns from getting into the hands of the mentally ill, criminals, terrorists and children. That's a tall order, but we do need to work toward those ends.
Yes, of course Federal law supersedes state laws. The examples you give, same sex marriage and abortion, are similar to civil rights and women's rights in that they protect the rights of specific groups whose rights are under attack and need to be protected. Gun control is a completely different category of law. In fact, one could make the case that the rights of responsible gun owners are under attack and need to be protected.
BTW, I've never owned guns and never used them, but I'm liberal enough to allow others to have them if they can use them responsibly, and I do believe we need laws to ensure that.
still_one
(92,136 posts)that line of thought. I wouldn't be surprised if he hasn't changed his view, but while I may personally disagree with him on this issue, that also does not mean I disagree with him on other issues. I am not a single issue voter, though I do give higher priorities to some issues over others. I know some folks are single issue voters, and I guess that is what makes the world interesting.
The reason for my post in this thread, which I admit was somewhat "devil's advocate", was because thread thread was addressing a statement Bernie has made regarding the effective legislation regarding guns. I specifically name the Brady Bill, and avoided the suing of gun manufactures because in my view there are a lot of legal products that are lethal if used incorrectly, and personal responsibility is really what is involved from my perspective.
The Brady Bill is an entirely different issue, and involves if someone has the background to buy firearms. I think that has to be done at the Federal level, since guns cross state lines, and affect everyone. Obviously, Congress at the time agreed, and it is the law.
I appreciate your post, because it is dialog like that which should be occurring.
Let's not fool ourselves. The republicans control the House, and unfortunately will for some time, so I doubt very little progress will happen on this issue, unless of course the members of Congress are personally affected. A perfect example is when republican politicians such as Rob Portman, suddenly changed their view on same sex marriage after their kid came out as gay.
senz
(11,945 posts)That is what Obama is appealing to, and it can be a potent force. It is strongest after mass shootings like the one that just happened in Oregon.
I appreciate your reasonableness, too. Bear in mind that Bernie does favor most gun control laws, like a ban on assault rifles and high-capacity magazines and closing the gun show loop. Here are his stands and his legislative record from "On the issues":
- Ban semiautomatic guns & gun show loophole. (Aug 2015)
- Instant background checks: no guns for criminals or unstable. (Jul 2015)
- Guns in Vermont are for hunting; but in L.A. are for killing. (Jul 2015)
- Mixed approach to gun control vs. gun rights. (Apr 2015)
- I'm pro-hunting, but no one needs an AK-47 to hunt. (Jun 1997)
- Voted YES on banning high-capacity magazines of over 10 bullets. (Apr 2013)
- Voted YES on allowing firearms in checked baggage on Amtrak trains. (Apr 2009)
- Voted YES on prohibiting foreign & UN aid that restricts US gun ownership. (Sep 2007)
- Voted YES on prohibiting product misuse lawsuits on gun manufacturers. (Oct 2005)
- Voted YES on prohibiting suing gunmakers & sellers for gun misuse. (Apr 2003)
- Voted NO on decreasing gun waiting period from 3 days to 1. (Jun 1999)
- Rated F by the NRA, indicating a pro-gun control voting record. (Dec 2003)
Source: http://ontheissues.org/Bernie_Sanders.htm#Gun_Control
His NRA rating has varied from C- to F.
still_one
(92,136 posts)and there is no way they would give a high rating to any progressive politician, and though the NRA has endorsed some extremely conservative blue dog Democrats, in general, the NRA is closely aligned with the GOP
Incidentally, I don't personally own any guns either.
senz
(11,945 posts)Those who focus on the issue say that the NRA is essentially a front group for gun manufacturers who reward it handsomely.
Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine brings out some interesting facets of our gun violence problem. The one that struck me was a comparison between the US and Canada. Canada has as about as many guns per capita as we do but much less gun violence, and a possible reason could be that the Canadian media does not spread fear -- and so the Canadian people don't feel the need to be locked, loaded and ready, as so many Americans do. We are a frightened, nervous, increasingly belligerent society. Organizations like Fox News and the NRA encourage these traits.
I don't think Bernie is the least bit pro-gun; it's clear that he felt the need to satisfy his constituents. Most of his votes on guns have been sensible and balanced. The fact that his opposition is trying to make this into a big deal just points up how little they have to use against him.
still_one
(92,136 posts)The argument how the media in the country exploits the fear factor
I agree. That is a great documenrary, and it seems like we as a country haven't learned much
I suspect that the continents you are referring to are mostly hunters.
Good pounts
aspirant
(3,533 posts)and it's time to classify all these greedy, selfish, misguided Wall Street crooks as having mental disorders requiring treatment.
Doing harm to others certainly isn't the high road and needs professional attention
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)medical attention, to the point where there is never enough, no one from whom they won't take it.
This is not the behavior of stable individuals.
We need adults to step in now and begin the process of ending policies that have enabled these greedy hoarders to continue to harm their victims. Get them the help they need, but stop them from doing any more harm. That seems 'sensible' to me.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)Take this weaponized psychiatry bullshit back to the Soviet Union where it belongs.
MindfulOne
(227 posts)Before your edit, when the reply was "piss off", I could understand it (silly as it was).
But Soviet Union? Really? Since when was the Soviet Union known for trying to solve crime epidemics by looking at root psychiatric causes?
If anything, the Soviet Union would have cured these things by just eliminating rights, locking up anyone who opposed them, and avoiding the study of root causes.
Hmmmmm.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)Unless the poster I replied to has sat down with and diagnosed everyone they're talking about, then that's essentially tantamount to Soviet-level weaponized psychiatry.
MindfulOne
(227 posts)But looking at underlying causes and then taking measures makes sense.
For example, domestic abusers get banned from ownership.
Better still, looking more deeply at the underlying causes of violence and providing treatment (as opposed to no treatment but IDing "sick"people).
I like Bernie because he's taken that intellectually more honest approach to say that solutions will require discussion and compromise, and the laws that work for Vermont may not be adequate for Chicago.
This is much better than just taking the principled but (in practice) divisive position that all we need to do is ban or register guns.
I think we need to do a little (or a lot) of both, stronger gun laws and addressing mental illness from a preventive and treatment point of view.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)You're talking about mental illness and gun ownership. I'm talking about a poster suggesting classifying Wall Street executives as mentally ill.
aspirant
(3,533 posts)aspirant
(3,533 posts)run our economy is mental instability.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)But hey, if someone who doesn't even understand that wants to declare entire classes of people mentally ill, what could possibly go wrong?
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)it's expected and has zero impact on anyone but your own reputation.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)since I used to check in on Right Wing sites until I couldn't stomach their red baiting and lies about Democrats anymore.
Imagine finding it right here though, who would have thought?
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)It has fuck all to do with communism and the left and everything to do with political abuse of psychiatry. Nazis did it, Soviets did it, and the medical establishment did it for the longest time against LGBT people.
But here you are endorsing that shit.
aspirant
(3,533 posts)"Thou shall not steal" are they part of that shit?
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)You're on a roll!
aspirant
(3,533 posts)Last edited Sun Oct 4, 2015, 04:23 PM - Edit history (1)
and Judaism, roll with that.
So it isn't acceptable behavior in the religious realms either
Some mental disorders in the US do involve weapons
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)It's ridiculous, and you're obviously not serious. Goodbye.
aspirant
(3,533 posts)So was Sharia law a ridiculous or a serious response
SoapBox
(18,791 posts)Let them run free? Buy guns? Freedom and rights to do as they please?
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)Talking about declaring Wall Street executives mentally ill.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)wanted to discuss the issue, which is a serious one, your first reaction would not have been to launch a right wing personal attack, using the Soviet Union to drive home your point.
It would have been to state your case, which is what most people in the thread have done.
So spare us your 'concerns' you already made them crystal clear.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)And I wasn't the first to reply on that particular topic.
I was, however, the first to reply and condemn how fucking evil that practice is. You endorsed it. Stop trying to hide behind Sanders, the Left, or whoever else you're choosing to use as a human shield and just own up to endorsing one of the worst abuses of medicine of the last century.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)to imply I am a Soviet Union Communist. Despicable to see that here.
Now you are attempting to 'discuss the issue'. Too late for that. Try doing that BEFORE You launch your personal attacks on Democrats here. Comparing them to Soviet Union Commies sure isn't something the Left would ever do.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)You've made it clear that you endorse weaponizing psychiatry when it suits you. This has nothing to do with communism or the Left, it has to do with you endorsing one of the worst abuses of medicine of the last century.
You can try to wiggle out of it all you want, but it's right there in black and white.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Feel free to go to the admins re your sock puppet implication. Still can't discuss the issue, still driven to attack those you view as Left.
You're only making it worse for yourself, so feel free to quit. or not, anytime, I'm fine with not letting you get away with calling me a commie, been doing it for years actually.
The one wiggling here is the one who used the old Right Wing 'you lefties are commies' meme in place of actual discussion.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)I called you out for endorsing weaponized psychiatry, a practice rampant in the Soviet Union.
Spare me your sad attempts at "red baiter!!1!1!".
aspirant
(3,533 posts)with no laws in the US allowing this "vile shit" to happen here.
We will handle OUR way of implementing mental diagnosing of convicted anti-social unrepentant crooks.
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)I have read studies where sociopaths gravitate to positions of power.
When individuals with a great deal of power make decisions that place the acquisition of money (unneeded and excessive to the point of hoarding behavior) above the well being and even the lives of fellow human beings; one could see such behavior as a clinical lack of empathy. If acquiring excessive amounts of unneeded money, by any means - lying, cheating, stealing, or manipulations of power and the powerful while knowing that in the process others will suffer and die as a result yet feeling no regret or sympathy for those that suffer and die for the sake of amassing such wealth (that is merely hoarded), I would say that is dangerous sociopathic behavior.
That mind frame permeates Wall Street and most corporations. So yes. Each individual responsible would have to be diagnosed individually, but there is a case to be made that mental illness is a large factor in play in the corporate excesses of the 21st century and the politicians that encourage such behavior that is damaging to so many humans without remorse or guilt all to acquire millions more than those people could ever hope to spend let alone need to survive are showing signs of potential sociopathy as well.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)almost without fail, it is a small number of individuals who grab power, oppress far larger numbers of people, taking for themselves as much as they can grab, killing and plundering and torturing anyone who opposes them.
A majority of the people do not harbor these obsessions with power and money. All most people want is to live their lives, take care of the families, and be left alone.
Yet time and time again we see the same pattern. And even when the people say 'Enough is Enough' and rise up against them and for a while, things return to normal, there has never been any analysis of WHY these small groups rise again repeating the same pattern, oppression, pillage, torture, war.
Until we stop and figure this out, even if we temporarily stop them, it WILL happen again.get
Isn't it time to get to the root of this problem, to figure out HOW millions of people ALLOW these small groups to prevail, despite the lessons of history.
They are predators, that's for sure. But we outnumber them by the billions.
So what if we defeat them again. it WILL happen again because we have not figured out why this happens repeatedly.
This is the 21st Century, shouldn't we at least try to ensure that once they are defeated this time, we have a plan for the future, to identify these threats to society and to stop them BEFORE they become too powerful to stop?
senz
(11,945 posts)It makes the case that corporations behave like sociopaths.
http://www.amazon.com/Corporation-Pathological-Pursuit-Profit-Power/dp/0743247469/
As for sociopaths who work in corporations, Babiak and Hare's Snakes in Suits explains how they operate.
http://www.amazon.com/Snakes-Suits-When-Psychopaths-Work/dp/0061147893/
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)investigation into what I feel is at the heart of nearly all our current problems with survival as a country as well as a species.
aspirant
(3,533 posts)How America would address the anti-social mental issues of convicted Wall Street crooks of pillaging and financially raping Americans would have nothing to do with old Soviet law.
Implying we would automatically enact Soviet legislation is ridiculous and anti-American.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)against any Democrat, so as long as the poster continues to replace discussion with personal attacks, I will continue to expose the tactics. That does not belong in any form on a Dem forum.
aspirant
(3,533 posts)and you are endorsing some "of the worst abuses" of this deranged financial world.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)and the Left. Keep them to yourself, we see enough of it on Faux and Limbaugh, I don't come here to see these nasty red baiting attacks on the Left, I come here to avoid them.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)interest in the TOPIC itself, which other people here are capable of discussing rationally without lashing out with those infamous right wing attacks on the Left.
People can disagree, and they do. What you did here was not disagreement, it was not an attempt to discuss an issue, it was an ugly personal attack.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)As a bonus, stop acting like you speak for the entire Left, most of which despises weaponized psychiatry.
aspirant
(3,533 posts)of the American financial world as normal behavior, good luck with that.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)is endorsing financial crimes.
aspirant
(3,533 posts)a limited pool of people needing mental help.
You are endorsing crime against the American people?
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)pretend it was about an issue, it wasn't, it was, and not the first time, a direct attack which was unnecessary using Right Wing memes, which you have done before so it's not new, for the Left.
You sure don't speak for the Left. I can't imagine spewing right wing insults at any Democrat unless I actually agreed with the Right re the Left.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)aspirant
(3,533 posts)while you endorse setting these convicted financial freaks free to pillage and financially rape more Americans. These are the worst abuses of our present times.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)The real you is showing.
Might be a good time to apologize, although it isn't likely to happen.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)The people endorsing this putrid practice should. It was disgusting when the Soviets did it, when the Nazis did it, and when the medical establishment used it against the LGBT community.
If you don't want to be called out for endorsing this vile shit, then don't endorse this vile shit.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)... is your vile personal attacks on an upstanding and outstanding Democrat and member of this site, Sabrina. You should be ashamed, but I seriously doubt you have any shame in your conscience.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)and then using that diagnosis against them, that doesn't make them "upstanding" anything.
If calling someone not-nice names is worse to you than endorsing one of the worst abuses of medicine of the last century, then you need to take a long, hard look in the mirror.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)... fortunately, I'll never hear from you again.
Bub bye, hope ya gits ova u madz.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)aspirant
(3,533 posts)to American Psychiatrists, right
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)There is enough stigma associated with mental illness without adding to it on DU.
Calling them names is okay but associating criminals with the mentally ill isn't right.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)lack of empathy for other human beings isn't the norm for most people.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)That makes them lousy humanitarians and assholes, not mentally ill.
aspirant
(3,533 posts)or are these traits genetic?
When these traits are exhibited by people wielding power over others in a nation causing suffering and even suicides, you just call them convicted "assholes"?
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)taken control of this government. The amount of suffering and heartbreak they have deliberately caused, and for the worst reasons, money and power, is more than just being a lousy human being. SOMETHING is wrong with such individuals and they should not be allowed to be in positions where, whatever their problems are, they can cause so much harm to so many people.
The family member I mentioned in the OP is a kind, thoughtful person however his condition causes and has caused him to have violent episodes where he could seriously harm others. Which is why we, his family, worked so hard to try to get him help in order to avoid such a tragedy.
I would not want him to be in possession of any weapons when he is going through such a period, and in fact, due to being arrested for an act of violence during one of those periods, he is legally unable to obtain one, thankfully.
After the episodes, he has little memory of what happened. Thankfully, we have been able to get him the help he needed but it took years of work and he had a loving family, unlike many others with his mental issues.
To aknowledge that some of the mentally ill can be violent, is NOT an insult to those who suffer from this illness, it is a fact. But in this country we do not have anywhere for family members to go in order to obtain the kind of treatment necessary to help their loved ones control such an illness.
Bernie is right when he says we must address this issue. I wish we had had resources available and still do, to help those who need them so badly, but we do not. The resources are very limited. That needs to change.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)normal human behavior. I have met selfish people, but there is no comparison to the level of greed and sociopathic lack of empathy, or propensity to go so far as to sacrifice millions of lives for their own interests, to ordinary human beings who may not be the nicest people.
Classifying them will help to deter them from ever gaining the kind of power they now have over not just country but the world.
How would you identify a potential future member of their particular group? How can we stop them from having the kind of power they have now to devastate millions of lives?
Greed doesn't do it, Greed is good in the society we live in. So how do we alert people to them when they begin their path towards gaining control over other people?
aspirant
(3,533 posts)Do actions result from the thoughts of the mind or are they mindless people pillaging and financially raping the American public?
Lots of mental disorders are treatable in protected environments, not just a one-way ticket to the funny farms
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)Each individual that harm so many with no apparent remorse would have to be individually examined by professionals, but I am of the opinion that such behavior is sociopathic, not sure if such is a mental or social disorder, but such people do exist and indeed are known to lack the capacity for simple human empathy, in diagnosed cases, such people have admitted that pain or even death experienced by others cause them no feelings in response to either viewing or causing such pain or death.
They scare the hell out of me, any human that lacks the capacity for human empathy is capable of causing great harm to others because they lack the capacity to care about the well being of others, a human trait that keeps fully functioning people from crossing certain lines to obtain their goals.
I for one would not kick a puppy, even if offered a great deal of money to do so. A sociopath would do much worse for even the most minor of benefit to themselves as long as they thought they would not be harmed themselves for doing so.
They scare the hell out of me and they do exist..
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)I don't know, I'm not a psychiatrist, it's not my field, but to me these people are seriously out of the norm of society.
How do we identify the next generation of their ilk? Criminal doesn't seem to apply since we don't prosecute them.
So what are we to do to prevent such (fill in the blank) from taking over in the future?
And what kind of society looks up to such (fill in the blank), thieves, liars, cheats, corrupt to the max, as we learned, conniving, self centered etc??
Is it the society itself that is at fault? I don't think so.
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)all the revolutions prompted by their behavior, ever studied these thugs and figured out a way to prevent them from ever getting into positions of power?
We have drug tests for applicants for ordinary jobs, forms to fill out detailing the qualifications of applicants for even relatively menial jobs.
But there are NO standard, no requirements for those seeking elected office. No standards for those who control our financial system. None for those who are given the power to go to war on our behalf.
Chenny, eg. Clearly the man is without the normal human characteristics of empathy, compassion, respect for human life.
aspirant
(3,533 posts)we are vetting everything but sociopaths.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Maybe they are drug addicts? Who knows, THEY are not required to take drug tests. Lie detector tests? That might help.
Remember King Henry Paulson, who barged into Congress with a one page edict demanding that Congress cover the gambling debts of his buddies on Wall St? King Henry! A graduate of Goldman Sachs.
Did ANYONE even bother to ask 'what's WRONG with this guy'?
Dems couldn't give him what he wanted fast enough, no questions asked. A crime had been committed, and the criminals DEMANDED they be bailed out! The Men Who Crashed the World were BAILED OUT. Not even ASKED to explain themselves, no lie detector tests for them.
If our species is to survive then isn't it necessary to identify the threats to our survival?
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)to obtain their goals. Lacking the basic human component of empathy, there can be no conscience, nothing that would stop normal humans from crossing lines like harming others, torture, even murder to cause them pause, if they fear crossing such lines it is only ever for fear of getting caught and something happening to them.
There really should be a screening process to prevent such aberrations of humanity from acquiring power, but their very lack of compassion is also a great power for advancement where others are constrained by humanity.
There is only one field they are drawn to (according to what I have read) where they are actually oddly helpful to humanity, they are also drawn to the field of surgery, where I imagine their lack of empathy allows them not to succumb to the disturbing nature of cutting into people and protects them from succumbing to the effects of the loss of life that can occur during surgery, think about it, if people were effected by the loss of life after unsuccessful surgeries it could build over time destroying them emotionally and unable to function.
I do not know if their is an easy way to spot or screen them, nor do I know if they can be cured and made whole (given a soul so to speak).
You are correct historically unfortunately, it is a constant theme throughout history that even when their lack of compassion becomes obvious on a large scale and they are overthrown from the power positions they are drawn to, the pattern reemerges, sometimes after a time of extended enlightened rule but usually only after a generation if not sooner.
I wish an expert on sociopaths chimes in on these questions with some answers. If not, with their lack of empathy or compassion for others and their often singularly self interested goals in a time where their behavior is threatening an extinction level event via environmental issues, evolution does not appear to have the hundreds or thousands of generations it would require to grow our species beyond their existence among us.
Just look at the Kochs (oil addict sociopaths), the Frackers, Those that would promote coal for temporary personal profit, how all of it is lining up to make this planet soon unable to sustain many of it's lifeforms, including our own.
It is not just their dispassionate greed that would enslave and starve the majority for their minority obsessions with hoarding unused wealth that will lie dormant in their vaults while so many starve and die of diseases as has been the pattern of history cyclically repeated. Their actions are now destroying the very ecosystem that supports all our lives
even their own.
BlueWaveDem
(403 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)because this stuff is spreading all over the country, being used to show what Dark Money does to our electoral systems.
It PAYS for these lies and since that is the most important issue across the political specrum, over 80% of Americans want an end to the tainted money that buys this kind of bile, out of politics, proving that it is poisoning THIS election cycle also, isn't a very good strategy.
But then it's not my candidate so not my worry.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)one million dollars for Bernie's campaign. I'm sure that wasn't the intent, but it shows how it could be put to good use since they want to spend it anyhow.
I hadn't seen that ad before. Scary. I guess we have to keep the population scared in order to get them to 'go along' with wars they don't want or something like that.
jomin41
(559 posts)global effort to de-weaponize the world. The U.S. sells a lot of guns around the world, as do many governments. The U.S. is awash in guns, but so is the world. Whatever domestic efforts we make will be undermined by the availability outside our borders. So we really need contemporaneous national and global efforts. imho
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)globally. We have supplied weapons to some of the worst terrorists in the world, see the ME, Syria specifically and Libya.
It is a topic that needs to be addressed thanks for mentioning it.
Uncle Joe
(58,349 posts)Thanks for the thread, sabrina.