Unfit or Unpopular? Trump Critics Turn To The 25th Amendment To End His Presidency

donald_trump_president-elect_portrait_croppedBelow is my column in the Washington Post on the movement to remove President Donald Trump through Section 4 of the 25th Amendment.  Richard Painter, the chief White House ethics lawyer under George W. Bush recently declared the “answer” to Trump suggestion of a Democrat and Russian collusion in the election is “Amendment 25.”  Previously, Painter wrote a piece with clinical psychologist Leanne Watt, Ph.D. where they discussed the “downward mental health spiral” of Trump. They identified the illness as “extreme narcissism or self-centeredness” as well as “an extreme anti-social tendency, an inability to understand how other people feel.” That, Painter suggests, is enough for the first removal of a president under the 25th Amendment in the history of the country. If so, half of the presidents could have been removed for their “self-centeredness” and “anti-social tendencies.”  I strongly disagree with such interpretations.

Here is the column:

It appears that just as impeachment fever had started to break around the country, a 25thAmendment bug started going around. A few weeks ago, the University of Chicago’s Eric Posner argued that the “conventional understanding” of the amendment should be “enlarged” to include instances where both parties “lose confidence in the president’s ability to govern.” A Los Angeles Times reader asked, in a letter to the editor, “Why have a 25thAmendment to the U.S. Constitution if we refuse to use it” when “President Trump wrecks everything in his path?” The chatter is loud enough that, reportedly, Trump-whisperer Steve Bannon privately warned the president that opponents might try to use the 25thAmendment as a way to oust him. Trump reportedly asked him, “what’s that?”

He’s not the only one looking up the amendment, but if, as I’ve argued, impeachment would be a mistake, removing Trump via the 25th Amendment would be a disaster for our system. For Trump’s agonists, there’s an obvious solution; one they seem intent on avoiding: If you can’t stand the president, then the proper fix is electing someone else.

Sandwiched between the prohibition against poll taxes and right to vote for 18-year-olds, the amendment detailing presidential succession fills a gap in the original Constitution. Until 1967, there was far greater uncertainty over the question of when and under what circumstances a president could be succeeded in office. The issue of “disability” of a president “and who is to be the judge of it?” was raised in the Constitutional Convention in 1787 by Delegate John Dickinson of Delaware, but left unanswered. The first presidential succession ambiguity arose when President William Henry Harrison died a few weeks after taking office and former Vice President John Tyler struggled to be seen by critics as the appropriate successor — throughout his presidency, critics referred to Tyler as “His Accidency.”

Members of Congress pondered the succession question after President Dwight D. Eisenhower suffered a stroke. They ultimately, if not exhaustively, dealt with the issue via the 25th Amendment after the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. There was finally a sense of urgency as members realized that, had Kennedy lived on, incapacitated, it was not clear that Vice President Lyndon B. Johnson could assume office.

What entices Trump critics now, however, aren’t the amendment’s provisions in Section 1 and 2 for the orderly succession of power “In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation.” Nor is it Section 3, which allows for temporary transfer of presidential authority when the president “transmits” his own “declaration” of temporary disability (as when George W. Bush underwent a “routine colon examination” and invoked the amendment to allow his vice Dick Cheney to briefly take over). Rather, it is Section 4’s provision for a less orderly, and permanent, removal from power. This prospect has been floated by those who acknowledge that impeachment in the House of Representatives is highly unlikely without a clear “high crime” or “misdemeanor” — not to mention a two-thirds majority needed for conviction in the Senate. Impeachment, though, is a constitutional cake walk in comparison to a Section 4 removal.

Section 4 has, essentially, two avenues for dragging a president from the Oval Office. First, there is the mutiny option. A vice president and a majority of the Cabinet can agree that the president is “unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office” and notify Congress that the vice president intends to take over. If Vice President Pence could get eight Cabinet officers to sign a letter to that effect, he would immediately become the “Acting President.”  But if the president then declares to Congress that “no inability exists,” Trump could resume his powers.

Pence and the rebellious Cabinet would then have to send another declaration within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House that says, more or less, don’t believe a word, he’s unfit. Once Congress had the second declaration, if not already in session, it would have 48 hours to assemble to debate the issue. It would then have 21 days to vote on the president’s fitness. To remove the president, two-thirds of both houses would have to agree. If Congress did not vote within 21 days, the president would get his power back.

Impeachment only requires a majority vote in the House and doesn’t need the cooperation of the vice president in addition to a two-house, two-thirds vote. In a climate where members of Congress struggle to cobble together a simple majority on replacing Obamacare, a supermajority to remove Trump seems a tad optimistic, and politically risky: Cabinet members would do well to remember Emerson’s adage, “Never strike a king unless you are sure you shall kill him.” With a president made famous by the catchphrase “you’re fired,” there’s not much doubt as to one’s political future if you sign a Section 4 declaration and fail.

Which brings us to option two. Section 4 states that a decision to remove the president could be made, alternatively, by “such other body as Congress may by law provide.” This is the course Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD) has sought with proposed legislation to create an “Oversight Commission on Presidential Capacity”—a body to decide if the president is physically and mentally fit. But even in the unlikely event that Republicans supported this approach, the process still calls for the vice president’s assent, and it’s even less likely that Pence would stake his political fortunes on dumping Trump.

More importantly, any disability review commission would be tasked with finding a mental or physical disability — unlikely. A group of self-declared “mental health professionals and members of the public” called Duty to Warn recently marched to call for a 25th Amendment removal on the supposition that Trump has an incurable malignant narcissism and “is too seriously mentally ill to competently discharge his duties as the president.” Narcissistic Personality Disorder is defined as “grandiosity, a lack of empathy for other people, and a need for admiration,” which, indeed, describes Trump. But let’s face it: If we started removing public servants because they were narcissists, the nation’s Capital might become a virtual ghost town. In D.C., the question isn’t who fits that definition? but, who doesn’t?

Moreover, declaring the president unfit without an examination runs counter to the American Psychiatric Association’s “Goldwater Rule” that doctors cannot express professional opinions about public figures they have not personally examined.

Attempting to discern incapacity, particularly at a distance, is a slippery slope. Psychology Today reported last year that one study of the first 37 presidents suggests half of them experienced some form of mental illness. Kennedy had a number of physical ailments that were hidden from the public and intermittently took a secret regimen of drugs prescribed by doctor sometimes called “Dr. Feelgood,” but few would suggest that he was not up to the job of president of the United States.

For many, Trump’s routine tweets and taunts, and his untoward exchanges with more than one grieving gold star family, seem not just un-presidential, but unhinged. I have been critical of many of those comments and find them deeply disturbing. The standard, however, is whether Trump is “unable to discharge” his duties, and there is no evidence of a clinical condition that renders Trump unable to perform them.

When no less a figure than Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN), an influential Senate committee chair once seen as a Trump ally, refers to the White House as “adult day care,” or when Secretary of State Rex Tillerson reportedly calls the president a “moron,” many are hoping that core Republicans are looking for an exit ramp. However, Section 4 is not about childish or boorish presidential comportment. It is about a disability that prevents a president from carrying out capable decision-making. The Constitution only requires Trump to be able to discharge his duties; not necessarily to discharge them well. The fact is that Trump exhibited most of the traits he exhibits today during his campaign and his long business and television careers. He is as he advertises and slightly more than one-third of Americans still support the president. For them, the controversy is about style, not sanity.

Absent more compelling evidence of incapacity, Trump’s continuation in office will remain a political, not a constitutional condition, triggered by the very cause that is also its cure: a presidential election.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University.

Follow @JonathanTurley

1,045 thoughts on “Unfit or Unpopular? Trump Critics Turn To The 25th Amendment To End His Presidency

  1. Karen, this video on being just popped into my email just in time for Thanksgiving so I figured I would send it to you or anyone else that wanted to look at it. Happy Thanksgiving.

    The Key to Unhappiness

      • Karen, perhaps you had a computer glitch. The video works well on my end. It might take a short while to load so be patient.

        https://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=xxmORnnP3WI

        Reboot your computer. The above is the http is separated into two parts and can be placed together in your search engine. Alternatively look up The Key to Unhappiness and add PragerU if necessary. Self-reliance is a part of the key to unhappiness so you could have tried that as well and simply looked up the title without being told. Instead you chose sarcasm

          • “I’m sorry about the sarcasm. And after you have been so nice to me.”

            You should be.

            I hope at the very least you gained something from the video “the key to unhappiness”.

  2. Karen, You have answered so many meaningless posts and even broken them into multiple posts that I wondered why you missed responding to this one. Was it because you were “judging people by the color of their skin”?

    You wrote: “I already clarified. I don’t want my son to behave like a self-entitled privileged jerk. And yes, being a white male in America is a privilege.”

    Earlier you said: “I said I didn’t want him to act like a self-entitled ***White male.***” (***mine)

    I responded: “Do I keep asking whether it is OK for him to act like a self-entitled Black male? Why is it right for him to act like a self-entitled Black male, but not a self-entitled White male.

    You are teaching your son reverse discrimination. I thought we were all equal.

    Did you forget Martin Luther King’s voice: ” I look to a day when people will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.””

    You are judging people by the color of their skin.

    • Yes, Allan. I think it’s ok for my son to act like a self-entitled black male (as if there were such a thing).
      Can you please stop trolling me now and find someone else to psychoanalyze? I don’t think I need a lesson from you on how to teach my son about racial, gender and socioeconomic equality. I’ve got it, thanks.

      • “please stop trolling me now”

        Karen, you are keeping the debate going so stop whining and complaining. You are the cause of your own need to whine.

        ” I think it’s ok for my son to act like a self-entitled black male (as if there were such a thing).”

        There is no need to analyze you since you are so transparent. You have confirmed what you are and that seems to confirm a lot about what has been said about you earlier. By the way, there are self-entitled black males just as there are self-entitled white males. The color of one’s skin doesn’t change the facts even though you choose to disagree and even though you don’t think you need a lesson about race. You are training your son that Martin Luther King’s words should be relegated to the dung heap, “I look to a day when people will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.” This doesn’t portray you as a very decent woman or mother.

        • Then let’s get back to the original subject of this blog post- our so-called President.
          I think he’s a bit whiny. Do you agree?

          • Karen, You can’t permit things to end even though you accuse me of trolling you. I’m a nice guy so I will oblige you by responding.

            You are a whiner, the President is not.
            You are a complainer, the President is not.
            You demonstrate racist tendencies, the President does not.

            • I rarely use “lol” because I find it to be overused and usually disingenuous, but that actually made me “lol.”
              Trump spends so much time whining and complaining it’s ridiculous. He constantly complains about negative press and how he’s being “witch hunt[ed]” and whines whenever he doesn’t get praise for simply doing his job.
              As for whether or not he’s a racist, I don’t know, but he sure doesn’t mind the support he gets from racists. And what would you call his crusade to prove Obama, who just happens to be our first black President, isn’t a US citizen? He never did apologize for that.

              • I’m glad you at least got a laugh though you missed the point. You might feel the President is a whiner, but he didn’t get to where he is by being one. He does point out how his opposition has broken laws and how Congress is not doing their job, but he is moving forward. That is how he got where he is today. You, on the other hand, appear to whine while being static. That leaves you in a worse place than perhaps you could and ought to be. Anger and resentment are not moving you forward.

                The President has a platform. A wide spectrum of people voted for him.
                Hillary ran against him. She too had a wide spectrum of people voting for her, sex offenders, terrorists, and racists included.

                “Obama, who just happens to be our first black President”

                Your racism seems to pop up everywhere. Do you think a Black person should be given special treatment? Do you think they aren’t as smart as White people? Do you really think there is that much of a difference between those of different colors? What might be different is culture, but to assume a Black person is different than a white person because of the color of his skin is ridiculous.

                • https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/racism

                  I think you need to read the above definition of “racism” before calling me a racist. To recognize that racism exists and to be a racist are not the same thing.

                  I had thought that you were being obnoxious with your responses, but it’s become apparent that you believe the nonsense you spew.
                  Trump has a persecution complex, and if that’s not “whiny” I don’t know what is. Did he not claim to be treated more unfairly by the media than anyone else? That’s complaining from where I sit.
                  He needs to suck it up, put on his big boy pants and get some dignity. All Presidents get criticism and bad press. All Presidents face obstruction by Congress. Not all Presidents lash out like toddlers at everyone who criticizes them.

                  As for your conclusory protestations that I’m a whiner and complainer, I’m not even going to go there again. You don’t know me, and it’s obvious that you and I are very different people.

                  • “I think you need to read the above definition of “racism” ”

                    Karen, I think you need to expand your search for the definition of racism is much wider and the meaning of what I said much broader than apparently you are able to absorb.

                    ” Did he [Trump] not claim to be treated more unfairly by the media than anyone else? ”

                    Did you not read what the former Liberal President (Jimmy Carter) said about the media’s treatment of Trump. You apparently prefer to remain ignorant. Apparently, you know very little about present-day events.

                    “As for your conclusory…” You are a whiner and a complainer.

          • Karen, what is it about your ideology that wishes Martin Luther King’s words be relegated to the dung heap?

            Martin Luther King: “I look to a day when people will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.” (This doesn’t portray you as a very decent woman or mother.)

            There are self-entitled Black males just like there are self-entitled White males.

            • Do you honestly the existence of white privledge in America? And stop being coy: Dr. King wasn’t fighting for equality for white guys and you know it.

              • What is being called White privilege in common parlance today is garbage and an attempt to divide races based upon skin color. I have more in common with a person of a different skin color that lives a similar life as I than I do to one of the same skin color that is a crazy lunatic burning down buildings while yelling White privilege.

                “Dr. King wasn’t fighting for equality for white guys and you know it.”

                Dr. King was fighting for the end of the racial divide and he was right.

                “I look to a day when people will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.” –MLK

                Do you note the word character at the end of that famous quote? What type of character do you wish to show to the world?

                • There are bad elements commit destructive acts among every race of people, but it’s telling that you would use blacks burning buildings as an example.

                  • ” you would use blacks burning buildings as an example.”

                    I never even used the word ‘blacks’. The lunatic can be of any color, but you are so focused on skin color that you have trouble reading without drawing false conclusions about race.

                    Look at the sentence you are commenting on.

                    “I have more in common with a person of a different skin color that lives a similar life as I than I do to one of the same skin color that is a crazy lunatic burning down buildings while yelling White privilege.”

                    You could be that person yelling “White Privilege”. Any skin color can act like a crazy lunatic…

                    You have a deep-seated problem that seems to affect your intellectual abilities.

  3. To Karen answers to multiple posts:

    Karen, I’m talking about general knowledge something that you seem to lack. One doesn’t have to be an attorney in every field in order to acquire this general knowledge. One acquires it in law school and in life. Apparently, you have not, but you have learned a lot about complaining.

    “And are you suggesting that you have a contract attorney’s knowledge because you warned people.”

    I would need to know what statement of mine you are talking about. However, in general, I know more about my businesses than the attorney does. That is generally true for most good businessmen. You may not recognize that, but that is your problem and it seems to be a big one for you.

    “And no, I have not seen a rise in my pay. I work for a non-profit.”

    Working for a non-profit doesn’t necessarily mean low paid. There are numerous people paid very high salaries in non-profits and some of those salaries are in the millions. Additionally, many of those people earn a lot of money writing books, lecturing, advising etc. so stop complaining all the time. It gets tiresome.

    “And you sound like quite a pompous prick” …”When I got my breast cancer ”

    Yes, I would expect that type of language from a person like you. You are superficial and though I sympathize greatly with what you had to deal with when you developed breast cancer your breast cancer is not part of the discussion nor should it be.

    You are a very angry person so perhaps you should get therapy for that problem. All I suggested was that most doctors have more than minimal knowledge about other parts of the body then they are dealing with. It is essential to both focus and look broadly something you seem unable to do at this time. Perhaps it would be better for you to stay off of blogs where disputes may occur. I hope your doctors manage your breast cancer in the best way possible. I think the US has an excellent record of treating this disease.

    • Apparently you are above everyone else.
      Superficial? OK, if you say so, but no one who knows me would ever use that word to describe me.
      And a complainer? Sure, whatever you say, Allan. Apparently you know everything. Must be nice to be so above everyone else and to never be wrong.

      • You seem to overly focus on money and position in life. You are a whiner and complainer no matter how you perceive yourself. Stop with all the garbage and use your brain. I am sure you are a lot smarter than you sometimes act, but all the rest of the garbage seems to get in the way.

        Enjoy and be happy.

          • Karen, you whine and complain so much that to you it seems like a normal conversation. I’m not ready to write a thesis detailing your whining and complaining, but you can perform a bit of introspection and correct the problem.

            • Ah. So, in other words, you can’t point to any examples of my whining &/or complaining.
              It’s just another one of your little elitist tactics to dismiss people.
              I dint whine or complain about anything. I’ve made it clear that I chose my path. You may think it’s silly, but just dismissing me as a complainer is a ridiculous argument.

              • All I said was that my pay hasn’t increased in response to your claim that Trump is doing such a great job with the economy. Maybe he has done so for business owners like you, but how does it help anyone else? Only about 1/2 of Americans own stocks, so stock market increase is of little consequence to those who don’t.

                • Karen, context is everything and one’s context becomes even more evident when compared to previous statements.

                  “Maybe he has done so for business owners like you”

                  I don’t think I have had ownership of anything involving Trump. The nation has seen benefits in employment, salaries, and GDP to name just a few things.You can check it out on the government websites.

                  I don’t know how many Americans are involved in the stock market, but I assume virtually every pension plan is involved as are most pension plans privately owned. If one doesn’t earn money or capital and if one doesn’t invest then it is doubtful they will have investments in the stock market. But, why should they?

                  • That 50% figure includes those with pension funds. A lot of Americans do not have jobs that offer 401k’s and many of those who do can’t afford to put some of their pay into them.

                    • Karen, all of that is your opinion. Knowing how to save or even having the desire to save is a personal decision, but even those that save after-tax dollars frequently use vehicles like the stock market to earn extra returns.

                    • It’s not my opinion- it’s fact. Maybe you are the one who should look at yourself and the people you are surrounded by. A lot of people can’t afford that $25 a pay period to put in 401k. That’s reality for a lot of people. I didn’t say me.

                    • Karen, I know that some people don’t have enough to invest, but all people need to learn how to save. When you see poor people smoking one pack a day that will be $13 in the city of NY or $4,745 for one pack or $9,490 for a two pack a day smoker per year. I have a lot of sympathy for those that are truly unable to manage through no fault of their own but have little sympathy for those that feed off the rest when they are capable of providing for themselves.

                  • You don’t have to be invested in Trump businesses to reap benefits of stock market increase. I’m pretty sure his company is not even publicly traded. From what I’ve read it’s unclear how much Trump regulation, etc. is driving stock market uptick, as opposed to fact that it’s been on incline for several yrs. now. If they don’t get Corp. tax decrease done(and they very well may not) , it could result in a decline in stock market.

                    • “You don’t have to be invested in Trump businesses to reap benefits of stock market increase.”

                      I didn’t say you had to.

                      I believe you said the same about GDP and the U 6. It seems that you are a bit uninformed.

                      You are correct about Congress and the tax bill. Congress has been negligent for years.

              • “Ah. So, in other words, you can’t point to any examples of my whining &/or complaining.”

                I can, but you can’t see it yet. Subliminally I believe you recognize it exists and I believe that is why you keep coming back to the same subject.

                “I dint whine or complain about anything. I’ve made it clear that I chose my path.”

                Look at your statements here and elsewhere and you will note that when you make it clear that you chose your path there is frequently an associated whine with it.

                You have convinced yourself that you don’t whine and I am convinced you do. Your protestations otherwise don’t change what I have read so unless you change your mind or can provide new information nothing is going to change.

                • I think a string case could be made that you, Allan, are a whiner. You just couch your whining in pompous suggestions that you are better than everyone else, that people make poor choices (as opposed to you, who apparently has done everything right in life. For example, you whine about people who smoke cigarettes instead of investing their cigarette money in the stock market.
                  Face it, you are an elitist. If I’ve “whined” about anything it was about complascent people like you who seem to believe you are better than everyone else.

                  • Karen, you are off the wall. Discussing a social problem faced by society is not whining. That is known as intellectual discussion. I didn’t suggest cigarette money be invested in any particular place, but I was suggesting that indirectly handing an expenditure of around $9,000 to the taxpayer to cover the smoker’s habit was unfair to the taxpayer.

                    You might think it fair, but at the same time, you will whine about your low salary. You apparently don’t even recognize what whining is so you can continue to whine away thinking your whining is an intellectual discussion.

                    • But I didn’t whine about my low salary. All I said was that I personally haven’t seen an increase under Trump.
                      You, on the other hand, whine about people who are beneath you (don’t make as money as you, your subjective belief that you have done better than others because you are somehow better and how you subsidize them).
                      You are the whiner. Just appreciate what you have and stop being so fixated on those who don’t meet your standards. Or keep whining- whichever you prefer- but don’t project your shit onto me. I’m not whining, and you aren’t subsidizing me.

                    • Karen, it is obvious. You don’t know the difference between whining and having an intellectual discussion. Whine away, girl.

                    • It’s just “so obvious” that I’m a whiner. That’s a pretty canned response for the brilliant guy you obviously are, Allan. C’mon, surely you can do better.

                    • Is that really the best you can do, Allan? Just take your white make privilege & be happy u have it. Stop whining about how difficult it is for you. I have a white male son, and I planned it that way so he’d have the easiest life possible in America. If I ever hear him whine like you I’ll be sure to teach him a lesson. I haven’t had to yet. Perhaps he’s just better than you.

                    • Why a mother brings her son into this type of crappy debate is beyond understanding. Leave the boy out of all your craziness.

                    • Call me crazy 😜. I (and every other intelligent woman on earth) have never heard that childish insult from a self-entitled man. Very original, Allan. You are sounding more and more idiotic with every response.

                    • Who is giving this hypothetical smoker (and I don’t smoke) 9k a year? If u think it’s welfare then you’ve never known anyone on welfare. Talk to me when u get some life experience.

                    • You sound less intelligent than earlier. I have had a lot of experience with people on welfare. I will give you a medal for not smoking, but not for your intellectual diatribes.

                      I’ll make the mathematics simple for you. NYC either considered or has already raised the price of cigarettes to around $13 per pack. A 2 pack a day smoker spends someone’s funds of $26 per day. 26 X365 = $9,490.

                    • And you sound more and more out of touch with reality, Allan. You’ve had a lot of experience with people in welfare? Have you ever actually seen a welfare “award?” I have, many, many times. In law school I volunteered at a homeless shelter for women & children (most trying to escape abusive spouses/fathers).
                      At least half the people who came to me would show me their “award” letters and insist there must have been a mistake made because the amount was so low. I’d have to inform them there was no mistake. And this was in New York State- the “Cadillac” of welfare states.
                      You assume are people you see smoking cigarettes @ 13 a pack are on welfare. I can assure you there is no “cigarette allowance” given to welfare recipients.

                    • You have had your experiences and I have had mine. I have had very significant dealings with people that have been on welfare and remained on welfare for more than one generation. The is no allowance for cigarettes, but money is fungible so many people on welfare that get payments for themselves and their children spend it on cigarettes, alcohol, drugs along with other things the money was not intended for. In NYC the price was being raised to $13 per pack so those on welfare smoking 2 packs per day end up potentially spending over $9,000. They can get the cigarettes other ways that might not cost them so much, but that is approximately the legal going rate for the cost of the cigarettes.

                      All your experience though apparently very limited to a very limited segment of the population that probably doesn’t live within NYC limits doesn’t change the facts.

                    • No, I don’t live in NYC, but here in Buffalo cigarettes are $11 a pack. They are expensive everywhere on east and west coast.
                      Enlighten me: What does “using my child as a foil” mean in this context. I simply said that I hope he doesn’t ever become an “I’m above everyone else” white guy like you, but I seriously doubt he will because he wasn’t raised that way.
                      As for your other “responses” about my “whininess”, they are all just conclusory nonsense. You just keep going back to my statement that my pay hasn’t increased under Trump. I doubt he’s gonna get his (Congess’, rather, since Trump knows less than I do about legislation), but if he does, I’m gonna go out on a limb and guess I’m not gonna get that pay raise he keeps talking about. You probably will, however, so I can see why you support him.
                      Make a real argument, Allan. “It’s so obvious you are a whiner” doesn’t count. You’re just as whiny as I am, maybe more.
                      Btw- I don’t get why people like you stay in NY if you are so disgusted by welfare recipients. Why don’t you move down south?

                    • “No, I don’t live in NYC, but here in Buffalo”

                      Then you know little about welfare in NYC and probably very little about the population.

                      “What does “using my child as a foil” mean in this context”

                      It means you used your child as a weapon of attack.

                      “my statement that my pay hasn’t increased under Trump. ”

                      Trump didn’t promise to raise the wages of government employees or increase their numbers. Your governor is Andrew Cuomo and Mayor is Byron Brown, both Democrats, complain to them.

                      You are a chronic whiner.

                    • I’m not a government worker and never said I was. Impressive you looked up my mayor, but he has nothing to do with my pay.
                      You are just another chronic complainer about those who
                      Have less than you do. I hear this bitching all the time. It’s not original& it’s whining and complaining.
                      Perhaps you should get to know them A little better. Many priveldged people like you give back To their communities and find it very enlightening.
                      Are you telling me welfare recipients NYC are living the high life? I could easily look up NYC welfare benefits & cost of living. Benefits
                      Advisement is half of what I do.

                    • If you are working with non-paying clientele then the money when traced backward is coming from the taxpayer. Whoever pays the facility that treats these patients eventually can be traced back to the taxpayer. That means your salary likewise can be traced back to the taxpayer. The only question that remains is which government agency or agencies are eventually covering your salary. Then you are entitled to whine and complain about your salary along with the government agency that controls it.

                    • I didn’t whine or complain about my salary. I merely said it hasn’t gone up. If this is the only example you have of my whining it’s pretty lame. If I was concerned about salary I would have continued to be a lawyer (although I did make much as a lawyer than I could have because of my principles).
                      Most of my agency’s funding comes from charitable contributions, but yes, some comes from NY Dept. of mental health.
                      And those numbers I gave don’t just apply to mentally ill. They apply to all disabled people, except the blind. The blind get more.
                      Obviously, if my agency (me included) can help people get work, it saves taxpayer money. In addition, keeping these people out of the hospital saves taxpayer Medicaid and Medicare costs.

                    • Accept the fact that you are a whiner and complainer despite your protestations.

                      I see. You have principles and your principles made it difficult for you to practice in that law firm. If that was all that was involved you could have changed jobs or considered trying private practice or used your degree in another way.

                      Principles? You are supposed to follow the law and avoid those things that violate your personal principles or morality. There are many jobs and job types. One can even open up their own office.

                      “Obviously, if my agency (me included) can help people get work, it saves taxpayer money.”

                      It also costs money in ways you apparently don’t see. In any event, if you can be replaced by another with the same salary then you are not underpaid. Maybe you are too skilled for the job or that is all you are worth.

                    • That’s quite a leap in judgment, Allan. No, I didn’t leave my law firm because of my principles. My firm represented employee and labor unions exclusively, not management. That’s why I worked there. My point was only that if I’d have been willing to switch sides I could have made more money, but I never would have.
                      You are very presumptuous. Has anyone ever told you that? You just assume that where there is money to be had anyone would go there or there is something wrong with them. It’s not that complicated- a lot of lawyer choose who they do and don’t want to represent. Jeez! Whose crazy now?

                    • This grammatically incorrect statement of yours creates the impression that principles were involved where you believe I took a leap.

                      “(although I did make much as a lawyer than I could have because of my principles).”

                      You are making assumptions that have no merit.

                    • Now you are just grasping at straws. It’s called a typo, which is easy to do on my iPhone 6.
                      Seriously, how old are you? Do you honestly think I don’t know how to spell?

                    • “Now you are just grasping at straws. It’s called a typo, which is easy to do on my iPhone 6.”

                      Based upon what you have said in the past and the fact that you quit the law your statement

                      “(although I did make much as a lawyer than I could have because of my principles).”

                      is very confusing. I have to take what you write and make the best sense out of it that I can. You mentioned principles and earnings in the same sentence and elsewhere you mention that certain features about the law made you unhappy.

                      What I concluded was appropriate. The spelling mistakes etc. are due to you not proofreading what you write.

                    • “I made a typo. That is all. I’m not that concerned about it.”

                      You were concerned enough to tell me that I was making assumptions. This sentence doesn’t just have a typo. My interpretation of the sentence was correct based on your statement and what you have said in the past.

                      Go ahead and fix the typo and let us see what the sentence says.

                      “(although I did make much as a lawyer than I could have because of my principles)”

                    • As long as we are talking about grammar, how did I make an “assumption that has no merit?” I believe I was commenting on your assumption.
                      You are obviously a pretentious ass who needs to have the last insulting word. This is evident in your insistence that I don’t know what I’m talking about because I don’t live in NYC- as if NYC residents are the absolute worst welfare abusers. I went to college with New Yorkers like you. Most of them were know-it-alls.
                      Again, why don’t you move if you find New Yorkers to be such moochers?

                    • “how did I make an “assumption that has no merit?” ”

                      It was your spelling, grammatical errors and lack of proofreading that lead to my judgment.

                      You tried to blame that on me. I will quote you.

                      “That’s quite a leap in judgment”

                      Blame it on yourself.

                      You said the facts were different than I presented. It turns out I presented the facts occurring in NYC and stated that in my comments. You utilized your telescopic vision and based your “corrections” on what may or may not occur in Buffalo.

                      I’m not a know it all, but you constantly use your ‘lack of’ experience rather than fact based on person, place and time.

                      NYC is a great place.

                    • Who ever said lawyers are supposed to ignore their principles? Maybe you watch too much TV Allan, or maybe all the lawyers you know only care about money.

                    • I’ll repeat one of your statements that was grammatically incorrect and confusing. That is where principles became involved. I am not going to copy everything that you said that would lead to such questions.

                      “(although I did make much as a lawyer than I could have because of my principles).”

                    • Again, it’s called a typo. It should have said “didn’t”. That’s not a grammatical error- it’s just a simple typo.

                    • It was a typo, grammatical error, poor sentence structure and not proofread.

                      Don’t blame everyone else for your errors and poor communication.

                    • Goodnight, Allan. You are exhausting.
                      I wasn’t blaming you for my typo. I admit fully to my typo. I make typos sometimes, and sometimes it’s just autocorrect. And I guess you’re right- I don’t really bother carefully proofreading what I write on this blog because I just don’t think it’s that important.
                      😴😴😴😴😴😴

                    • Okie dokie, Allan. You are right. Your always right- I blame others for all of my errors. How is it that you know me so well?
                      This is your most ridiculous comment yet.

                    • “Okie dokie, Allan. You are right. Your always right- I blame others for all of my errors. How is it that you know me so well?”

                      Karen, I asked you to correct the typo and you forced me to do it for you. Then you corrected one of the several typos, but it turns out that what I said wasn’t an assumption (as you stated) rather factually correct. This has happened over and over again. Rather than being gracious, you blame the other guy. You are a very angry woman and would be better off putting your anger behind you.

                    • “Were you drunk when you wrote this?”

                      Absolutely not, but the question is were you just being dumb or drunk when you wrote this response. I proved my case by filling in the typos and you proved it again when you corrected only one of your typos.

                      Drinking, Karen is not something one should do when they get angry. Sometimes it’s best to reassess your errors and learn from them

                    • One more thing. If you are curious at all look up the “unhappiest professions.” Lawyers are way up there. I’m not the only person I know to have given up on law practice.
                      And I love NYC. I’ve been there many times. Still, I stand by my observation that a lot of New Yorkers have a superior attitude. Just a personal observation.

                    • You are entitled to believe whatever you wish.

                      I am not concerned with generalities. I am concerned about your attempt to make the following statement disappear.

                      “although I did make much as a lawyer than I could have because of my principles”

                      This seems to say you didn’t make as much as a lawyer as you could have because of your principles. That is what I commented on and you called that interpretation as presumptuous. You are not being honest.

                    • I don’t know why you are making such a big deal out of a typo, Allan. I’m guessing it makes you feel good to perserverate on the fact that I commit the horrible sin of making inconsequential mistakes.
                      I’m not gonna engage with you any further. You’re petty.

                    • “I don’t know why you are making such a big deal out of a typo, Allan. ”

                      I wouldn’t have had to make a big deal if you didn’t accuse me of drawing the wrong assumption when I drew the right one. Even your own correction demonstrated that you were blaming others. That is part of your whining campaign

                    • You really are just a petty bully. Hey Paul/ would you like to jump in here and join your friend in attacking my despicable, unforgivable typo?

                    • You made an accusation that wasn’t true because I didn’t read your poorly written statement in the fashion you wished it to be read. That is not bullying. Quite the contrary that is you not taking responsibility for your own actions.

                      Why don’t you rewrite your statement with the typo correction? Perhaps you will find that in its present state it means what I said.

                      “(although I did make much as a lawyer than I could have because of my principles).”

                    • C’mon- it’s just supposed to didn’t instead of did. I’d assume you would be smart enough to figure that out, and I already said it.
                      Do you know the firm Gorlick, Kravitz & Listhaus?

                    • “C’mon- it’s just supposed to didn’t instead of did”

                      So now the statement says “(although I *didn’t* make much as a lawyer than I could have because of my principles).”

                      The sentence still is incorrect and soon you will get to my interpretation which you said was presumptuous.

                      I’m still waiting for your correction of “I said I didn’t want him to act like self-entitled White male”

                      and a response to my comment “Does that mean it is good for him to ” act like self-entitled” Black male?”

                    • I already clarified. I don’t want my son to behave like a self-entitled privileged jerk. And yes, being a white male in America is a privilege.

                    • “I already clarified. I don’t want my son to behave like a self-entitled privileged jerk. And yes, being a white male in America is a privilege.”

                      Earlier you said: “I said I didn’t want him to act like a self-entitled White male. ”

                      Do I keep asking whether it is OK for him to act like a self-entitled Black male? Why is it right for him to act like a self-entitled Black male, but not a self-entitled White male.

                      You are teaching your son reverse discrimination. I thought we were all equal.

                      Did you forget Martin Luther King’s voice: ” I look to a day when people will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.”

                      You are judging people by the color of their skin.

                    • You obviously have all of life’s riddles all figured out, so why do you even engage in conversation with someone so whiny and stupid as me?

                    • Why? I think I’ve been pretty open. People who know me say “what you see is what you get.” I don’t pretend, I don’t sugar-coat, I’m just me.
                      Sounds more like you are an amateur psychologist who wants to diagnose me. You just can’t seem to understand anyone who prefers to make a difference in people’s lives above making money.

                    • “Why? I think I’ve been pretty open. People who know me say “what you see is what you get.” I don’t pretend, I don’t sugar-coat, I’m just me.”

                      I’m not an amateur psychologist and I am not interested in diagnosing a disease. What I said is exactly my intention.

                    • So why do you care who’s “funds” they are using to smoke cigarettes. They aren’t yours, so mind your own business.

                    • “So why do you care who’s “funds” they are using to smoke cigarettes. They aren’t yours, so mind your own business.”

                      What a fool you are. I am one of many who provides them with funds. I pay taxes. Where do you think the money comes from? But, I am not that concerned with my well being rather more concerned watching a working family with children being ripped off by people misusing taxpayer funds.

                    • Please. Now you are concerned about others? Why do you assume these smokers are in welfare? You seem to make a lot of assumptions about people you don’t know.

                    • ” Now you are concerned about others?”

                      You are absolutely correct and I concern myself with the well-being of the nation.

                      “Why do you assume these smokers are in welfare?”

                      I don’t, but statistics show that cigarette smoking is more common in those lower on the socio-economic ladder. Are you saying welfare recipients don’t smoke? Many do.

                    • I don’t what you consider “many,” but it is true that those lower on socioeconomic ladder tend to have higher rates of smoking. And see my later post about mentally ill and smoking.
                      Just an FYI- people considered disabled by social security administration who do not have the requisite work credits (schizophrenics, for example, whose illnesses often manifest in early 20’s so they haven’t had enough time to accumulate the work credits) receive $760 a month from fed government to live on. NY is generous enough to give them $60 more a month, so they get $820. This defines the majority of my clients. Some did work for a while before they became disabled and get SSD. I believe I read average SSD is around 1200 a month, minus $105 for Medicare premiums.
                      Is this a lot of money to you? Mind you, it’s more than what non-disabled people get on welfare.
                      Do you think these disabled people are happy that they ended up this way? Do you think maybe they would prefer that they weren’t disabled, could have actually finished college and realized their potential?
                      Like I said- volunteer somewhere. Hear their stories. I had a client who was in graduate school when her schizophrenia manifested & she had to go on SSI. She was fluent in French from her study abroad & had a bachelors from Columbia. Now she’s 52, lives in an adult foster home, has no teeth and can barely speak. Not exactly the life she planned for herself.

                    • ” but it is true that those lower on socioeconomic ladder tend to have higher rates of smoking.”

                      Exclude the mentally ill and what is the conclusion. The $9,000+ spent by some is real and your entire discussion is a waste of time.

                      You took issue with that statement. No one is saying that welfare recipients are millionaires nor that a safety net isn’t justified.

                      Tell us, is the statement true or not.

                    • You’re not a very good writer, Allan. You put a question at the end of a statement that had nothing to do with any particular question.
                      Is what statement true? That people on welfare spend 9k on cigarettes a year out of their welfare money?
                      The answer is that seriously doubt it. Two packs a day is likely an overestimation. Moreover, it’s likely they get less than 9k a year, so it would be impossible that they could spend that much on smokes & still have a place to live, food, clothing, etc. They more likely buy illegally sold cigarettes from Indian reservations or get money from some other source to buy them.

                    • You have a right to your opinion about my writing, but that doesn’t elevate the content of what you say.

                      “Two packs a day is likely an overestimation.”

                      There was no numerical association with the number of welfare recipients that smoke that much. The word was “some”, but your crazy mindset has difficulty dealing with facts. 1ppd is about $4,500 and a half a pack $2,250. The amounts all appear above the amount they have available to spend.

                      Money is fungible. I am not considering where they get the money or cigarettes from only stating that somewhere that $9,000 is smoked by some of these people.

                      Is that true or false? That answer ends the discussion because the rest of the discussion was your mind traveling in many different directions.

                    • Why do you care where they get the 3-9k for cigarettes from if it’s not coming from your tax dollars? Some people spend as much on coffee or eating out per day as others do on cigarettes. Who cares?
                      Cigarette smoking has declined, but I’m guessing sushi (which is very expensive and gross) consumption is on the rise. Would you like to complain about sushi consumption among welfare recipients as well?

                    • If the patient has access to that type of money then they should be using it for their own needs rather than making hard-working families have to do with less.

                    • By “hard working families” I assume you are including yourself.
                      Some people whine about having to pay property taxes that fund schools because they don’t have kids in school. Some whine about paying for infrastructure because they don’t drive. Some whine about paying for military because they are pacifists. And some whine about “welfare queens” who smoke cigarettes.
                      It’s all whining.

                    • “By “hard working families” I assume you are including yourself.”

                      You are wrong. I worry about those with young children whose income and standard of living are being negatively affected due to those that love spending other people’s money by being charitable with little concern as to the justification or where that money goes.

                      Schools are a necessity for the future of the nation. Unfortunately, our school systems are lousy and the children are not getting the benefits of the amount of money spent.

                      Infrastructure: Do you know what a common good is?

                      Do you realize that not all infrastructure has to be free?

                      Military: Do you realize the main reason for the Constitution was to provide for common defense?

                      These concerns are not whining. They are questions that need to be discussed and understood.

                    • Those were just examples of typical complaining I hear from people who pay taxes. The only one that was directed toward you was the “welfare queen who smokes cigarettes.”
                      I don’t complain about any of these taxes.
                      In fact, while Buffalo has little to offer, it does have City Honors school. My son, like me, was fortunate to get in. It’s the top magnet school in the country, and consistently ranks among the best public schools in America.
                      The point was that nearly everyone has something to complain about regarding how their tax money is spent. I suppose I’d like to see less military spending. It’s a bit out of hand.

                    • All those expenditures greatly affect those that pay the bill. I don’t care whether you are complaining or not. The point is if one advocates spending other people’s money they should have an understanding of what they are talking about.

                      “I suppose I’d like to see less military spending. It’s a bit out of hand.”

                      Is it improper use of the money or the total amount of money us
                      ed. Do you realize that our air force planes have not been appropriately maintained?

                    • And again you fail to answer my question: Have you actually ever seen a welfare “award” for a person or a family, or are you just assuming that welfare recipients get huge amounts of money from taxpayers? Perhaps that’s something a lowly social worker knows more about than you do.
                      And a lot of my severely mentally ill clients do smoke. There are several studies that show that, despite the health risks, smoking is very soothing, particularly for schizophrenics. These people hear relentless voices in their head and have high suicide rates due to an almost always inherited disease that usually doesn’t manifest itself until well into the victims’ 20’s, often after they start college. You want to take their cigarettes away too? They already have life expectancies almost 20 yrs. less than mentally healthy individuals.
                      Go volunteer for people like this. Learn some empathy. Then come back to me and whine some more about your tax dollars being wasted.
                      You want some cheese with your whine?

                    • What type of ignorance do you wish to demonstrate about yourself, Karen? I am not saying that welfare recipients receive a huge amount of money. However, they receive welfare, extra dollars for each kid, Medicaid, food stamps, housing or housing subsidies etc. This money is received equally by those that worked and suddenly found themselves out in the cold to those that were born into a welfare family and remain on welfare.

                      ” Perhaps that’s something a lowly social worker knows more about than you do.”

                      Maybe, maybe not. One thing is certain. With all your degrees you don’t seem to know very much of anything. The clients that you have as stated earlier are a selective group from which you generalize. You don’t even manage their psychiatric problems rather based on what you say you help them with transportation and daily activities. I doubt you have much more than a rudimentary knowledge about schizophrenics or other mental illness.

                      I don’t even know if you have empathy or if you do if it is focused in the right direction. I’m beginning to think I gave you too much credit.

                    • Ouch, Allan, you hurt my feelings with your insults. I ask again, have you seen a welfare “award?” I’m guessing not.
                      I don’t manage the mental illness of my clients? Aside from the cold psychiatrist prescribing meds, only the patient actively manages their illness. I help them to do so.
                      The rest of your “statement” is just nonsense, but I expect it because you obviously need to have the last word. I don’t have empathy? That’s absurd.You have no idea.
                      You can’t even respond to simple questions, yet I’m the one who is ignorant.

                    • I don’t intend to insult anyone, but when a person opens their mouth as wide as you do its bound to have some undesirable results.

                      “Aside from the cold psychiatrist prescribing meds,”

                      I see. You believe that you are the only one with empathy. The psychiatrist has none. According to you he is cold.

                      “I help them to do so.”

                      How? Yes, you schedule transportation and help them with their daily needs. My mom did that for me when I was a child. My grandmother sometimes did it as well and as I got older one of my siblings might have helped out.

                      What medical actions do you perform? Do you determine if they are a danger to another or themselves? Do you determine when they need hospitalization? Etc.

                      As I said I don’t know if you have empathy or if you do if it is placed in the right direction. I am listening to your rants and I can see that perhaps your own psyche is not the best to be around the type of patients you describe.

                    • If you don’t mind telling me, how old are you? I ask for two(2) reasons: (1) You keep calling me “girl”, even though I’ve clearly stated that I’m a 47 year-old woman; an (2) You seem to forget what I’ve said quite often.
                      I don’t “arrange” transportation for my clients. I teach them how to get where they need to go by bus and train. This often involves accompanying them a few times and going over bus schedules, etc.
                      Do I decide when someone needs to go to the hospital? No, but we have regular staff meetings about clients and sometimes it is a topic that needs to be discussed. We give our clients a pretty long leash, as we are trying to foster independence, So hospitalization is a last resort.

                      There are established guidelines that need to be followed before a client goes to the psych ward (and they are awful here). They have to demonstrate that they are a danger to themselves or others. As a social worker, I’m a mandated reporter, so if a client expresses an intent to harm themself or others I have to report that, and they are sent to the hospital. It has only happened once in my current job.
                      You seem to misconstrue my zealous advocacy for the best interests of my clients as “crazy.” I’m sorry that you feel that way, but I surmise that you have zero understanding of what I do and the fact that advocacy is an asset in my job, not a downfall or a demonstration of instability.
                      While I respect psychiatrists and recognize the vital role they play in keeping people well, they can often be cold. They generalize a lot. Their role is to prescribe medication only. Most psychiatist visits are 15 minutes for medication management. They refer clients for anything unrelated to meds and don’t usually talk to the clients much. That’s what therapists and social workers are for.

                    • All I can say is that your particular job seems to be non-clinical though for the benefit of patients. Yes, you like everyone else is supposed to report when a patient might harm himself or another, but your responsibility is embedded in your job description. I would hope everyone zealously protected patients they had some responsibility for, but the craziness I referred to was in the way you express yourself.

    • My breast cancer is gone, thanks. I had both breasts removed. I now have zero chance of the cancer coming back.
      I did my research. I saw 3 oncologists specializing in breast cancer and I decided what was best for me.
      But no, I didn’t ask my DO gen. Practitioner about it. Nor did I ask a sports medicine doctor or a cardiologist. It wasn’t necessary, but you can question this & use it as an example of how stupid I am if you like.

      • Karen, I don’t want to discuss your medical condition, but despite both breasts being removed you should continue to be followed up by your oncologist. I am happy that you are doing well.

      • Karen – I am glad your cancer is gone for now, but you do have a chance of the cancer returning, sadly. I had it happen to a workmate who had both breasts and lymph nodes removed. 10 years later it came back. Make sure you keep getting checked.

        • Make sure you keep getting checked.

          Early detection doesn’t matter much with Stage IV. They can contain it or they cannot, and whether or not you’re asymptomatic when they discover it doesn’t affect the course of events much. We’ve never had a screening that wasn’t pro forma. They do not do bone scans or anything.

        • Thank you, Paul. My cancer was “in situ” meaning it didn’t spread. I have no breast tissue anymore.
          Still, that wasn’t the point of my mentioning this. I mentioned it in the context of needing a specialist, as many do when seeking a lawyer.

            • Lobular carcinoma in situ in both breasts and yes. I was advised that my chances of getting invasive breast cancer within next 5 yrs was very high, and my only other option was taking Tomoxifen (which is a nasty drug and might hold off the cancer) and having MRIs and mammograms every six months.

          • Karen – I had cancer but I get checked every year. So far so good. Please do the same, it never hurts to be cautious.

      • I now have zero chance of the cancer coming back.

        You’re not going to have a localized recurrence in your breast. That’s not going to prevent the cancer from resurfacing in a distant metastasis. Breast cancer is not particularly virulent (the ratio of annual deaths to annual diagnoses is 0.17, v. 0.37 for the generic site and 0.7 for lung cancer), but it has the unfortunate property of being able to resurface years and even decades later. The medical oncologist apologized and told us that a certain share of patients relapse every year (she said about 2%) and she was after she was done speaking with us going to confer with a patient who’d had a recurrence after 20 years.

        • I don’t think Karen’s breast cancer should be discussed on a forum such as this. She should discuss it with her oncologist. It’s an odds game based upon the cytology and all the genetic and chemical studies. There never is certainty, but there is no certainty that a person won’t drop dead from a heart attack immediately after a totally negative cardiac work-up. Additionally one has to remember how the breast attaches to the chest wall and other areas. In any event the treatments for breast cancer are excellent.

          • I only brought it up because yo attacked me for not being a GP attorney, and seemed to suggest that a GP attorney is better than one who specializes. I said I didn’t want a GP doctor for my breast cancer (which is gone now). Sorry if it makes u uncomfortable, but I stand by it, just like I stand by my statement that if u were charged with a criminal offense u wouldn’t seek a GP attorney.

            • Karen, you have a problem with the written word. Show me where I suggested a “GP attorney is better than one who specializes”. They are both used for different purposes. You have things all backward and are totally wrong about what you think was said. For breast cancer you need a specialist and using a specialist doesn’t make me uncomfortable nor does the discussion of breast cancer.

              Generally, an attorney can read the written word a lot better than you seem to be doing.

          • I agree. I didn’t intend to make this a topic of conversation. I’m fine. Everything is gone. I see my oncologist every 2 yrs. end of discussion.

            • I surmise that your cancer was removed greater than 5 years ago.

              By the way, you asked me earlier how I had so much time. I responded, but I wonder how you have so much time to be on this blog considering all the things you have said.

              • The five-year boundary is a convention for epidemiological discussion. It’s consequential for things like colon cancer where you have little attrition after the 5-year mark. It’s not consequential for breast cancer. What happens in your first five or six years re breast cancer is that most of the elevated risk borne by people with stage II and stage III cancers evaporates. As best they can tell, the relapse rate eventually defaults to a constant, so after a certain number of years your annual risk does not decline.

                If she’s telling the truth, she had a stage 0 cancer, so the five year boundary is of no significance.

                • DSS, There is a lot more than you seem to recognize. A lot is dependent upon the hormonal evaluation and genetics which influence what happens years later. Some women will be given a pill based upon the hormonal involvement even when there is absolutely no evidence of the tumor leaving the site of discovery and even when the cytology looks fairly good. I don’t want to discuss Karen’s medical issue for Internet opinions on this type of subject are frequently erroneous and even the person involved might be making mistakes about whatever problem exists.

                  • DSS, There is a lot more than you seem to recognize.

                    Oh shut up.

                    We’ve been through the mangle and I’ve read some of the literature. When you talk to doctors, you realize that doctors are not actuaries.

                    • “When you talk to doctors, you realize that doctors are not actuaries.”

                      …And actuaries are not doctors. I advise you to look up breast cancer and take note of the different modalities of treatment along with how things change based upon hormonal receptors. You might have a good fix on numbers, but you have to be careful about what numbers you are looking at.

                      On a completely different subject since we seem to battle on healthcare policy have you ever read what Mark Litow (from Milliman now retired actuary) has written?

          • I don’t think Karen’s breast cancer should be discussed on a forum such as this.

            Don’t wag your finger at me. She brought it up.

            • Though the reply was under your name it applied universally including to Karen. Too much anxiety and too much error can arise on this type of site.

      • Karen, it is hard to demonstrate to a superficial person that they are superficial. I suggest you do the leg-work yourself and look at your comments on Trump and determine yourself if your comments could have been improved so the responses wouldn’t demonstrate so many things you didn’t take into account.

        “Also, it’s not my job to quite what you said re: your employees.”

        I need a translation of this sentence.

        • In fact, you called me superficial twice today! Would think you’d be able to recall why you would say so.
          Again, are you asking me to consider Trump “disabled” because he can’t speak in full sentences?

          • You are superficial. def: “concerned with or comprehending only what is on the surface or obvious:”. For a superficial look at the obvious look at your adjectives when you talk about Trump.

            I actually wonder if he doesn’t have dyslexia. His sentences leave something to be desired, but his ideas are excellent. We have many politicians that don’t speak very well, but the Democrats and media hound those poor speakers that are Republicans. They even hounded good speakers like Reagan who they said could only read a script, but his own writings long before running for the Presidency demonstrated a superior political mind probably one of the best of the century.

  4. My concern about the use of Section 4 as outlined is that it would maximize the power of the Deep State, that group of agency operatives that continues in power no matter who is elected President. The idea of allowing the Cabinet to effect such an action is not the best idea, but it is permitted within the confines of the law.

    So if a President decides that his Cabinet officer is making a bad decision, and the President overrules his Cabinet officer, does that make him suddenly unfit to be the President?

    Taking an example from history and bringing it under these rules: When President Truman felt that Gen. MacArthur was acting incorrectly in the Korean conflict, should he have been permitted to remove MacArthur from command? I realize the facts are slightly different, and the 25th Amendment was not a part of the Constitution at the time, but what I see today is that many of President Trump’s political opponents are treating every one of his actions as being opposed by someone somewhere. And with today’s instant media responses, there will always be someone that will gain immediate coverage for their protestation.

    Just the simple act of making this threat, if made by those close to the President, creates a situation whereby inaction would rule the day. The President would be unable to make any decisions that he is rightly empowered to make when a microscope is hanging over his head to examine every one of these decisions with the hope of finding something to use against him.

    Such a threat would embolden those wanting to undermine the President’s authority, whereby they could make executive-level decisions that are beyond the scope of their duties. It can also force the President to adhere to the decisions of those that can use their powers to create a crisis situation, as the recent decision by President Trump to withhold most of the documents regarding the Kennedy assassination from public view because of the protestations of the directors of the CIA and FBI, who stated in private that revealing these details would compromise national security.

    In summation, I am opposed to using this tool so flagrantly, because it gives too much power to people that can use it to control the actions of the person who’s supposed to lead them.

  5. Are you the one who insulted me for being a social worker? If so, what is it that you do that makes you so much better?

    I was the one who insulted social workers.

    I’m underpaid, I

    You’re not.

    And I have not insulted your ‘intelligence’. I’ve insulted the intelligence of bettykath and Jill, not you. I pointed out you play games with people and that you say inane things because feelz. I’m attacking your character and judgment.

  6. He even seems to think anyone can be a Social Worker, even though it takes a Master’s degree in NY to practice. Perhaps you two can commiserate on how stupid everyone else is while defending a POTUS who can’t speak a complete sentence.

    You’ve confounded credentials with skills. Why does this not surprise me?

    • I don’t believe it takes any particular “skill” to speak in complete sentences.
      My 17 year-old son can speak and write in complete sentences. It didn’t take any specific training.

      • For someone that deals with those requiring help for disabilities or mental disease, you demonstrate a lack of knowledge and compassion. Trump may have a learning disorder. David Boies has a learning disorder as well. Boies has dyslexia yet graduated from Yale Law School and is one of the leading trial attornies in the nation. He represented Gore in Bush vs Gore. There is a wonderful story about him in Malcolm Gladwell’s book “David and Goliath”. You might develop a new type of insight from that book and Boies to see how Boies’s disability may have played a part in him becoming a great lawyer.

          • Are you inviting me to recall my successes at helping people with disabilities, because you haven’t asked that before. Instead, you have belittled my work and called me a whiner.
            You want proof that I have actually helped someone now?

            • No, I am not dealing with your successes or failures. I commented on a statement you made.

              I don’t think I belittled your chosen field of work. If I have, show me. I have called you a whiner. I never asked for proof that you “actually helped someone”.

                    • I think you might have a short-sighted view of what social workers do.
                      What do you think we do?
                      An aside question, are you pro-life?

                    • What the last one I encountered in a professional setting did was to lie to me. Very blatantly. The penultimate one was a ‘care manager’ hired to look after a drug addict let loose from rehab. When she went screaming across the state line, she got a ‘toldja so’ from yours truly. The one prior to that spun her wheels, leading to much eye rolling from the quite sensible visiting nurse. I’ve had several among my proximate relations. One is a highly intelligent woman who fell into it because she could not make up her mind on a career. (She has the chops for engineering, but studying it abraded her and that’s generally an unsuitable career for a woman who is not a vocational spinster) She’s always held waste-of-time jobs with NGOs. Pleasant person, if given to crank politics (her shtick nowadays is ‘gun violence’).. She was, btw, schooled at a program given good marks by U.S. News. The course list for that high-marks program is an education. Another family member in the social work biz drank herself to death. Another one now works for a commercial company that welfare departments use as a subcontractor. No clue what he does all day.

                    • An aside question, are you pro-life?

                      Every man of sense in this country deplores the Planned Parenthood Federation and like creatures.

                  • Back to sock-puppet #1, I see.

                    You fancy you’re ‘bullied’ because you expect to be treated with a deference that you’ve neither earned nor deserve. You get what you do deserve, which is a precise critique of whatever humbug you’re peddling.

                    • SOT says: “…you expect to be treated with a deference that you’ve neither earned nor deserve.”

                      I don’t “expect” anything, here, nor do I care what you think, old SOT — about me, or anything else.

                      It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to be able to spot a bully, though. You bully others, SOT, and it’s plain as day. And I don’t like bullies.

                    • If you are pro-life you should appreciate social workers. I don’t personally deal with adoptions or unwanted children but many social workers do. My problem with “pro-life” is that so many are just “pro-birth” but don’t think about what happens to the child after it’s born. You should listen to “Freakanomoncs” on audible. The economist surmises that lack of antipated increase in crime in early- mid 90’s was due to Roe v. Wade & the number of potential criminals who were never born due to abortion rights. Even if u reject it, I’m sure you know that social workers are the ones who end up dealing with placement of children from bad homes.

                    • Karen – the Freakonomics model is a form of Eugenics based on Margaret Sanger’s model to eliminate blacks from the population.

                    • I don’t know that Freakanomics has a model, it’s a study. What evidence do you have to the contrary? I’m pro-choice. If a woman (and man) aren’t ready to be parents they shouldn’t be forced to be parents.
                      I had a friend in high school who intended to give her daughter up for adoption, until she changed her mind. My friend was a terrible mother. I have a child. He was planned, but I can’t imagine what it would have been like to have him grow inside me for 9 months and then give him to strangers. I’m sure I wouldn’t have been able to do it.
                      What good does it do to force women to have kids they don’t want and can’t care for? What kind of life does that make for the child?
                      Doesn’t matter to me if these are white, brown, black or yellow kids. If they can’t be cared for, and if they aren’t wanted, they are most likely gonna be messed up kids. I’d never advocate abortions specific races.

                    • Karen – ask Margaret Sanger and Planned Parenthood how you advocate it. Planned Parenthood is based on the Eugenics model. I cannot help it if the authors of Freakonomics are not better read, but that is their problem.

                    • But You seem to be accusing the Freakonomics authors of being advocates of Eugenics. I think they were simply doing a study. They didn’t report on the race of aborted fetuses.
                      I was born in 1970, and I can tell you from personal experience that 1/2 or more of my white girlfriends had abortions between 1986 & 1993. Moreover, I don’t think any of them had their abortions done a planned parenthood.
                      You wanna talk about eugenics & planned parenthood, but how do you feel about making 16-18 year old girls have babies they don’t want regardless of race.

                    • I just think that if people want to be pro-life and pro-birth they shouldn’t then abandon or ostracize the woman (or couple) who keep the child. I’ve seen anti-welfare crap right here on this blog. People can’t have it both ways. If You want people to keep their babies you can’t force them into poverty and misery.
                      Kids are expensive. That’s why I only have one!

                    • Karen – kids are as expensive as you make them. They are often happier with the box than what was in it. Think of the periods before now, they did not have welfare by the state. It is a new institution since FDR. Social Security was not supposed to be successful because most people died off before it paid off. Now enough people are collecting that they are bankrupting the country.

                      Having just one child is selfish. Having at least two evens the score. Three or more makes you a winner.

                    • “Having one child is selfish.”
                      Now you are just being silly. I didn’t necessarily intend to only have one, but I got pregnant my first year of law school at 28. I didn’t have a whole lot of time on my hands to have another until it was a little too late. Some of us women have to work. My husband wasn’t the bread winner, I was.
                      I come from a family of 4 kids- 3rd girl born to a father who wanted boys- my dad got his boy 3 1/2 yrs. later. I always knew I wasn’t wanted. I spose Allan will say I’m whining again, but it’s true.
                      My son is very happy & smart. We made sure he spent time with other kids as much as possible, and he was in daycare & school from time he was 9 months old. He’s got a lot of friends, he has cousins. He is a little spoiled, however.
                      And kids ARE expensive, at least if you want to give them a descent life.

                    • Thanks Paul. I’ve gotten by pretty well so far with my spelling, but This iPhone 6 has pretty small keys so typos happen.

                    • I also hear they had defined benefit & full health insurance retirement benefits in the good old days. They are unheard of today.
                      If you want to MAGA you should advocate for companies bringing these benefits back!

                    • “If you want to MAGA you should advocate for companies bringing these benefits back!”

                      Karen, when benefits rise salaries fall. Check out the Rand study done many years ago. Employers generally pay based upon total costs. [Before you strike out, the comment is not saying benefits are good or bad. It is a statement of what is felt to actually occur.]

                    • That comment was part of my response to Paul that kids are only expensive as you make them (that’s a paraphrase) & his reminders of the days before Social security and welfare.
                      I have a vague recollection of my father making enough money to support us (for a while, until there were 4 of us). He’s 75 & receives defined benefit retirement payments. It seems like things were more stable back then. There was job security, retirement security- even the ability of a family to live on one income.
                      Those days were long over mybthe time I grew up. Being a stay at home mom wasn’t an option.

                    • Karen, I don’t know what all your rhetoric is about.

                      Karen, all I did was make a comment “Karen, when benefits rise salaries fall. Check out the Rand study…”

                    • Karen – at least get a tablet or get Grammarly on your phone to correct the poor spelling. This is getting pathetic. At this hour you can do it from your computer and you can put Grammarly on there, too.

                    • I don’t take this as seriously as you and Allan do. It’s just a blog- I’m not writing my PhD dissertation here.

                    • Lately, Karen, it appears you don’t take things seriously at all. In fact, just a little earlier you were judging people based on the color of their skin.

                    • ” I always knew I wasn’t wanted. I spose Allan will say I’m whining again, but it’s true.”

                      That is not whining in my book. As I said before I don’t think you recognize what whining is.

                      “We made sure he spent time with other kids as much as possible”

                      This sounds good and caring. He’s probably a good kid so don’t use him as a weapon. Talking about him positively is a good thing.

                    • I have never spoken of him in positive terms. I said I didn’t want him to act like self-entitled White male. If I achieve that I consider it a positive thing.
                      So far, so good. He respects all people.

                    • “I have never spoken of him in positive terms. I said I didn’t want him to act like self-entitled White male. If I achieve that I consider it a positive thing.
                      So far, so good. He respects all people.”

                      Does that mean it is good for him to ” act like self-entitled” Black male?

                    • You really wanna go back to the days before FDR? Sorry, but I have no concept of what that would mean, even though we’ve never been on welfare. But Maybe we would have had periods of welfare had I quit my job to have more kids!

                    • Ah the good old days. Of course I’ve spent most of my life living in this century but I’ve heard from my grandma about the days that women didn’t work.
                      My mom tried it for a while, but after having four kid by 1974 We were too broke, and she was losing her shit dealing with us 24-7 so she went back to nursing school & to work so we didn’t have to grow up in the ghetto without a car or shoes 😏

                    • anonymous – you may think I am not paying attention, but I do notice that you, Ken and Diane seem to team up to bully people. I don’t mind because I have been bullied by better people, but if it gets bad enough, I will make you an especial case, like I did with Mark M.

                    • “I will make you an especial case, like I did with Mark M.”

                      Yeah, Paul — you do that. LOL, again.

              • Oh, so now Trump has a learning disability? Perhaps you should tell him that, cuz he loves to mention that he’s “like a really smart person” often. Also loves to mention that he went to Wharton. I’d love to see his high school and college transcripts!

                • I made the suggestion of a learning disability a long time ago. Learning disabilities do not mean a lack of intelligence.There is no question he is smart. Did you look up David Boies so you can see how a learning dysfunction can be turned into a positive?

                  What is it that you do? You should recognize that learning disabilities do not necessarily mean a lack of intelligence, but it seems you don’t recognize that. You should also recognize that certain mental illnesses don’t prevent individuals from becoming great. Look up Winston Churchill. Surely you know these things, right?

                  • I work with mentally ill, and most of my clients are pretty low-functioning (most schizophrenic). It’s pretty challenging, as most of my people have been semi-institulized for a long time. Success stories are few and far between among this population.
                    While I do enjoy a good rapport with my clients, I have to live on very small successes. To be honest, I have been looking for work with higher functioning clients recently.
                    Still, if Trump has a learning disability, I think he should just come out and say so. We have had other POTUS’ with disabilities (Lincoln and his severe depression come to mind). I’d have a lot more respect for Trump if he could admit his weaknessness rather than keep up with this “strong man” response.

                    • “most of my clients are pretty low-functioning (most schizophrenic). ”

                      You are probably working with a very selective group. Long-term institutionalization leads to patients unable to live outside of the institution. What is your exact degree and what do you do for these patients.

                      “Trump has a learning disability”

                      Loads of people have learning disabilities. Try not to categorize people based on a singular feature. Again look up David Boies. How can a man with so much trouble reading become a lawyer with so much stature? Furthermore, it hasn’t affected what he has to do so it is none of your business.

                    • You are the one who suggested Trump might have a learning disability, not me. And I have known many dyslexics who have done very well.

                    • “You are the one who suggested Trump might have a learning disability, not me.”

                      I did because I was explaining a point and then I said ,”Try not to categorize people based on a singular feature. Again look up David Boies. “

                    • My degree is a Masters of Social Work. I graduated from a JD/MSW program.
                      I do a variety of things for my clients. Everything from teaching them bus routes & managing money to linking them with employment agencies for the disabled & making safety plans if they are dangerous to themselves or others & advising them on their benefits (they are all on SSD or SSDI)

                    • Karen – I always thought FDR should have exposed his disability and the younger Bush should have admitted he was dyslexic (you work with enough students, you can see it in the speech pattern). I have not noticed Trump have a noticeable problem, although he may be ADD, on the hyperfocus scale.

              • Karen – I think I used the word we, not me or I. We are all part of a larger conversation here. Whether we join in at one point or another is up to us. That is part of the fun. 🙂 Lighten up, girl!

                    • Anonymous, is that it? I’m a bully? No such thing. I stand up for myself and I also stand up for people that have integrity, male and female.. That excludes you. You apparently don’t like men or if you do you like wimpy men or as Swarterneger called them girlie men. You know the ones that live off of daddy’s money or don’t have a pot to pee in.

                      Gosh, you make me happy when I go to sleep knowing you are far away.

                    • “Your last two comments are just further confirmation.”

                      Anonymous, confirmation that you don’t like men? We can see that from your postings.

                • anonymous -there are several cliques here, you belong to one with several others so jumping in to save Karen gives you no place to talk. So, I think you should back off.

  7. Karen, I really feel for you. You can’t argue with crazy, because their frame of reference doesn’t include factual, rational or logical moorings. Following crazy down the rabbit-hole twists and turns just gets you dirty as well. From my scan of your back and forth with the wacks, you’ve lost a substantial amount of time from your life which you won’t ever get back. There are truthfully some Trump voters who can articulate why they cast their vote without resorting to closet klan dog whistles or outlandish conspiracy theories about Hillary, but none of those types frequent this place.
    I deal with indigent criminal defendants daily, so I speak from experience when I testify that even though it’s not often their fault, crazy is gonna do crazy. We see it here daily, as well.

    • Marky Mark Mark – I think you are projecting. You are right though, crazy will do crazy as you have proven time and again.

            • You’ve revived a two-week old thread because you just had to have the last word. Girl, when you look in the mirror, just who do you see?

              • I’m not a girl. And I don’t spend all my time on this blog. I don’t spend much time looking in the mirror. I don’t find that seeing myself physically is very productive, but I am a very pretty red head.

            • I’m not forced to do anything. I was never even forced to work, but I did. I could do nothing, that is true, but why should I not respond to perhaps the biggest idiot on the blog?

              You have attempted to discuss issues, but to date, I haven’t seen Mark discuss any issues nor have a valid and meaningful context in what he says. Quite a while ago he seemed to be pretending to be a lawyer. Recently, he seems more accurate when he says he has a lot to do with criminals.

              You may not realize it, but you are better than him. You are just too angry and don’t think before you write. I am saying this to help you, not hurt you.

    • Mark M. wrote: “…I testify that even though it’s not often their fault, crazy is gonna do crazy. We see it here daily, as well.”

      Yep. : )

  8. I feel sorry for the patients who maybe ruining their lives by seeing these two idiot psychologists ! Psychologists are in general the most weird pos out there who earn their living by pretending to know something that most often they have no clue about

  9. how BO should have proven his citizenship (even though no other president has been asked to do so).

    Actually, 30 years ago reporters were arrogant enough to demand reams of documentation from presidential candidates. Richard Gephardt in 1987 tried to set up a cartel among the candidates to refuse certain requests across the board. Don’t believe he was successful. In 2008, BO was permitted to tell the media to bugger off entirely even as John McCain was reviewing point-by-point with reporters voluminous medical files. People in the apparat at Yale and Boston College made unauthorized disclosures of the academic transcripts of John Kerry and George W. Bush. For BO, the right people at Columbia, Harvard, and Occidental College apparently signed out the microfilms and locked ’em away in a safe in their office.

    In BO’s case, it would have been simple enough to release his long-form certificate. That ‘no other president had been asked to do so would be a matter of no consequence even if it were not false. did not release it for reasons of his own.

    (While we’re at it, it has been some time since we had a president sired by a foreigner and some time since we’ve had a president who has spent blocs of time living abroad as a civilian).

    • Why, he didn’t “turn it over” because you can’t bargain with crazy, because crazy gonna be crazy. You’re welcome.

      this is to “oh, that’s why people make fun of me” spammy

      • Marky Mark Mark – read your emails. I told you that whoever said that you were funny was just trying to be nice. They were really lying to you.

      • Evidently, he decided he could bargain with crazy when Gov. Abercrombie said publicly he should quit stonewalling.

    • I appreciate your unsupported assertions that Obama’s records were protected.
      He did release his birth certificate, but that was not enough to stop people from calling it a fake and continuing to question his citizenship.

      • I appreciate your unsupported assertions that Obama’s records were protected.

        That they were not released on the sly (as Bush’s and Kerry’s were) suggests an abnormal degree of care (in line with the culture of contemporary academe).

        but that was not enough to stop people from calling it a fake and continuing to question his citizenship.

        People also said Eleanor Darragh’s certificate was a fake. Conspirazoids are like that.

    • And let us not forget Trump’s refusal to release his tax returns. Why do you suppose he wants to keep them a secret? Is it possible he isn’t as rich as he claims? He does seem to be very sensitive about anyone questioning his net worth.

        • Paul, that is absolutely correct. If anyone wants information to make sure the person is legit the information on a tax form doesn’t tell very much. In fact, they got one of the tax forms, perhaps illegally, and what did they find. Nothing. Nobody bothered with that tax form after it was made public.

          Much better information comes from NYC and the gaming commissions of NJ and Las Vegas. Those documents have a lot more information. Like Russia and most everything else, almost all these bad things about Trump were a ruse to get a Democrat into office. Much of the same was done to Reagan. This is how the Democratic machine operates.The brain-dead follow this type of cr-p. Those with a true leftist attitude vote differently based on principle. This cr-p doesn’t determine how they vote for they use it solely as a lure for the brain-dead.

        • You are just being a smart-ass, Paul. Perhaps the tax returns don’t give the entire picture, but refusing to release them suggests he’s hiding something.
          If he’s really under audit, which I doubt, it’s been a really long audit.

      • Didn’t Maddow reveal Trump’s tax returns on live TV? I fail to see any relevance to Trump’s wealth or lack of – if he’s Tom Steyer rich you’ll complain about that and if he isn’t you’ll find fault with that. Why? Because no matter what you’ve got a caricature in mind and must make every narrative support that caricature.

        I’d note to date we have never seen Barack Obama’s college records, his thesis, or any proof that he in fact did attend the schools he claimed to attend. We do have one video of him leading a Marxist rally at university but that doesn’t mean he was a student there. We do know that he was affiliated with The New Party at one point – either before or after his brief stint in corporate law. That’s about all we know about him.

        • Really? I don’t follow same “news” sources as you. Is this a project veritas video you are referring to?
          And those 2 pages of tax returns that Maddie revealed just happened to have been filed in same year Melania was applying for citizenship.
          C’mon AWS. There’s a reason Trump won’t release those tax returns. He can’t still be under audit (if he ever was).

    • Please. Are you doubting that Obama was editor of the Harvard law review? I could point you to some articles profiling him as such.
      Do you doubt that he actually went to the colleges and law school he claimed? Do you doubt he’s a registered attorney? You can look that up. I know that I am listed on NY courts website as a registered attorney. All you need is a first and last name to confirm. Go to Illinois courts website.

    • Are you denying Obama’s healthiness? Is that as opposed to
      The fat guy in office right now, who released a letter from some quack saying he’d be the healthiest POTUS we ever had? Just look at him. Does he look healthy to you? He appears
      To have gained more weight since election.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s