Become a part of one of the fastest growing adult communities online. We have something for you, whether you’re a male member seeking out new friends or a new lady on the scene looking to take advantage of our many opportunities to network, make new friends, or connect with people. Join today & take part in lively discussions, take advantage of all the great features that attract hundreds of new daily members!
Others have done the math for you in the past. Yet you still ignore.
"Thousands of comments" means....
"Zero-point-zero" percent of readership. And far less in terms of general population.
Same with the idea that they are unsolicited, that they are not "endorsed" by staff.
Staff decides what to fucking publish! Good grief.
Summary:
OMG! A therapist says TDS is real! And he said it in the Wall Street Journal! See! It's true, it's true, it's TRUUUUUUUUUUE!!!!
Interpretation:
It's made-up propaganda and lame-ass MAGA deflection, by a douchebag who figured out how to get "published in the WSJ!"
Now he can tell all of of his friends that he was even cited on ECCIE!
.
TRANSLATION: Sorry, but I'm completely incapable of offering any intelligent or substantive criticism of any of the points made (in post #12 above) by Jonathan Alpert, a trained psychotherapist who is certified to diagnose & treat mental issues including anxiety disorders and addictions. Therefore, I will deflect away from my own lack of knowledge or qualifications by lamely & falsely attacking the platform (the Wall Street Journal op-ed page) chosen by Mr. Alpert to present the observations he has garnered from his many years of clinical practice.
Sorry again, but please understand I'm way too lazy to study the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders cited by Mr. Alpert or to present any evidence contrary to his analysis.
Does this EO provide for any actual funding or any thing other than 'appropriate actions'?
Has there been any substantive results since the EO was issued in July 2025?
What have the The Attorney General, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, and/or the Secretary of Transportation done to implement or make any element of the EO a reality?
When will the first of these 'asylums' begin construction and/or operation?
Since you asked 3 times, you definitely deserve an answer!
I agree that Executive Orders are too often signed primarily for the optics involved. Bambino (the OP) hasn't confirmed which EO he is referring to, but once we know it should be easy enough to reprint it in its entirety and see if it has any "teeth" or is mostly rhetoric and window-dressing.
That said, I think the construction and operation of mental institutions and asylums are more of a state/local responsibility than a federal one. At least that was the case decades ago, before the civil libertarians shut them all down, forcing the asylums to release their inmates out onto our streets.
Hey eccieuser9500, this is where you get to post your favorite clips from "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest" lol!
Sorry Pb, but I beg to differ... Have you seen the latest headlines?
Are you saying every single one of those people that died were mentally ill?
Are you saying that he should have forced those 10 people off the street?
Moreso to the point, you must be saying it was demmie politics that caused these 10 people to die?
I really don't think anyone was checking how people voted to determine who was going to die. Near two dozen people died in Red states and I don't say it was because of politics.
Homeless people have a choice of staying out or coming to a warming shelter. And those cutting off funding *could* be associated in some way as showing indifference to those needing help.
And don't quote me out of context. Quote the WHOLE sentence. Let me help you there:
"*I* think it is well shown that demmies have displayed clear concern for people with mental illness and such by the bills introduced to help people with such."
Like how you ignored the latter half.
And could you respond as I asked, not as you ignored:
"But i invite all the maggies here to show how the party of no is doing more."
TRANSLATION: Sorry, but I'm completely incapable of offering any intelligent or substantive criticism of any of the points made (in post #12 above) by Jonathan Alpert, a trained psychotherapist who is certified to diagnose & treat mental issues including anxiety disorders and addictions. Therefore, I will deflect away from my own lack of knowledge or qualifications by lamely & falsely attacking the platform (the Wall Street Journal op-ed page) chosen by Mr. Alpert to present the observations he has garnered from his many years of clinical practice.
Sorry again, but please understand I'm way too lazy to study the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders cited by Mr. Alpert or to present any evidence contrary to his analysis.
Keep telling yourself alla that.
It is interesting that you would mention the DSM.
Mr. Alpert did too. Well....not really. Other than to say it wasn't in there...meaning it's not real.
Yes. Not real. It just took him a whole buncha gibberish rationale to say it.
But he wasted his time. And yours. Not many others, fortunately. Cuz no one read it. Or any of the other dog-whistle Murdoch bullshit like this that they post.
Same with these threads in general. So many of you spend SOOOOO much time posting these huge bombastic quotes from these stupid-ass sites, carefully cherry-picked to support your biased agenda. And no one reads them!
Really. Cuz we all know that the average person here reads one of two lines of a few posts that catch their eye.
They certainly ain't gonna read a piece of populist junk by a pretentious hack shrink who thinks he can re-write the goddam DSM!
Face it....WSJ OpEd's ain't no better than any of the other bunk posted here from sites like Town Hall, etc. It just sounds more impressive to those inexperienced with it or naive enough to fall for this nonsensical, divisive garbage.
It's gotta be said...AI coulda done a better job with that column. Hopefully this jerk-off...and most "psychotherapists" and WSJ columnists...will lose their jobs to it.
Are you saying every single one of those people that died were mentally ill?
What sane person would choose to freeze to death?
Are you saying that he should have forced those 10 people off the street?
You betcha!
Moreso to the point, you must be saying it was demmie politics that caused these 10 people to die?
Is Demi Moore one of Mamdani's advisors? ... oh wait! You mean "Democrat" politics, dontcha? Naaah... unlike rooster, I try to avoid sweeping generalizations. Pretty sure most "compassionate" and responsible Dems in other cities would NOT have allowed this to happen.
I really don't think anyone was checking how people voted to determine who was going to die. Near two dozen people died in Red states and I don't say it was because of politics.
Straw man. If a Republican did this, the headlines would be the same.
Homeless people have a choice of staying out or coming to a warming shelter. And those cutting off funding *could* be associated in some way as showing indifference to those needing help.
There are plenty of local laws and ordinances against camping and/or sleeping outdoors in public parks and spaces. Let's start to address the problem by enforcing those laws. Time to push back against the so-called homeless "advocates" and the misguided bleeding-heart "libbies" on City Councils in "demmie" cities. Maybe this will be a catalyst.
And don't quote me out of context. Quote the WHOLE sentence. Let me help you there:
"*I* think it is well shown that demmies have displayed clear concern for people with mental illness and such by the bills introduced to help people with such."
Like how you ignored the latter half.
Ok, what "bills" are you claiming would have helped put a dent in the problem? Be specific. Despite nearly everything the "demmies" have done, the homeless problem has only grown worse. In LA, SF, Portland, Seattle, NYC. Do I need to tell you the definition of insanity?
And could you respond as I asked, not as you ignored:
"But i invite all the maggies here to show how the party of no is doing more."
Who is the "party of no"? Most people want solutions that work. But I guess you prefer the party of insanity - the one that keeps doing the same thing over & over and expecting a different result?
And you’re unhappy because why? They chose to stay in the streets. Freedom!
13 mentally unstable people were allowed to freeze to death in Mamdani's NYC... and you're NOT unhappy about it? Instead, you applaud and say they were merely exercising their god-given "freedom"?
Good grief! So much for the compassionate Left!
Anyone want to place bets on how many more homeless folks Mamdani can kill off before this cold spell is over?
Who is the "party of no"? Most people want solutions that work. But I guess you prefer the party of insanity - the one that keeps doing the same thing over & over and expecting a different result?
How about
NO Comity
NO Cooperation
NO Compromise
That’s the good description of the party of NO which started under Newt Gingrich
Off topic. Start another thread if you want to bash the GOP in general terms.
This thread is about the intersection of mental illness, TDS and homelessness.
The OP
Quote:
BREAKING: President Trump: 'Signed an executive order to bring back mental institutions and insane asylums. We are going to have to bring them back. Hate to build those suckers but you've got to get the people off the streets'
On topic is those 'mental institutions and insane asylums' in Trump's EO show no sign of happening.
and the idea that anyone who vehemently (maybe not even vehemently because of the way Trump so casually calls out TDS) disagrees with Trump's policies and critiques his persona belong in those institutions.
