2016 U.S. Presidential Race Megathread Mark 2.

Billy86

RobertKK wrote: »

As Hillary said, 'examine options to effect such a change, including...'.
So it could be 5c coins, €10 notes...

She was a senator and on the various committees like the budget committee, special committee for the aging, committee on security and co-operation in Europe.
Strongly supported the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and voted for them. If there had been a vote against then Bush would not have been able to continue the Clinton administration policy on Iraq which was for regime change.

I bet Tony Blair was telling her that Iraq could attack the UK in 45 minutes.

So basically, she never said there was a plan for war. Exactly what I have been saying. You on the other hand, have been saying that she had meant war back in 1998, without being able to back it up. Meaning that following your analogy, Clinton absolutely meant the other €50 was in 5c coins, and nothing else. And here is why...

Billy86 wrote: »

So you do accept that Condoleezza Rice was the single most responsible person for the Iraq War?

RobertKK wrote: »

No, the plan was first drawn up under the Clinton administration.

K-9

gosplan wrote: »

It really sounds stupid at this stage and anyone continuing along these lines is a troll or an idiot.

Mod:
Cut it out please. That is below the standard expected in the forum, any repeat will get a ban.

RobertKK

Billy86 wrote: »

So basically, she never said there was a plan for war. Exactly what I have been saying. You on the other hand, have been saying that she had meant war back in 1998, without being able to back it up. Meaning that following your analogy, Clinton absolutely meant the other €50 was in 5c coins, and nothing else. And here is why...

The options including supporting the opposition for regime change started in 1998, that means the other options including war would have been started in 1998.
The US after all did spend about 6 days in 1998 attacking Iraq under operation Desert Fox.

The planning was years in the making, and still a disaster.

marienbad

RobertKK wrote: »

Hillary will be far worse and given Bill was not great, that is not good.
The US have the most awful options that I can ever remember them having.
I don't think either of the two main candidates are fit to be president.

Time to let you to it Robert , I think you are in for a long 8 years .

Billy86

RobertKK wrote: »

The options including supporting the opposition for regime change started in 1998, that means the other options including war would have been started in 1998.
The US after all did spend about 6 days in 1998 attacking Iraq under operation Desert Fox.

The planning was years in the making, and still a disaster.

So she called for Saddam Hussein to be made President of the United States, in order for him to give up his leadership of Iraq? I mean that's your argument, that the use of the word 'including' means 'literally anything'.

You'll note how in 1998, the US did not invade Iraq in an attempt to overthrow Saddam, making that entirely irrelevant. Had they actually tried to overthrow Saddam, then it would be. But they didn't, so it isn't. Very simple stuff.

Meanwhile a few years later, Condoleezza Rice did advise to go to war with Iraq in an attempt Saddam, hence that is relevant. As only her and Bush were involved in the discussion, it makes her (and Bush) the two most responsible people for the Iraq War. Again, very simple.

RobertKK

marienbad wrote: »

Time to let you to it Robert , I think you are in for a long 8 years .

It will be long whoever wins and if they haven't destroyed the planet, it will be a 4 year presidency.
Both of them are terrible.

RobertKK

Billy86 wrote: »

So she called for Saddam Hussein to be made President of the United States, in order for him to give up his leadership of Iraq? I mean that's your argument, that the use of the word 'including' means 'literally anything'.

You'll note how in 1998, the US did not invade Iraq in an attempt to overthrow Saddam, making that entirely irrelevant. Had they actually tried to overthrow Saddam, then it would be. But they didn't, so it isn't. Very simple stuff.

Meanwhile a few years later, Condoleezza Rice did advise to go to war with Iraq in an attempt Saddam, hence that is relevant. As only her and Bush were involved in the discussion, it makes her (and Bush) the two most responsible people for the Iraq War. Again, very simple.

I am going to bring the cows in to milk, including the lame cow.
I am going to start the options for regime change in Iraq, including supporting the opposition.
It is basic English, and given Iraq was attacked by George Bush Sr and Bill Clinton, you are going to argue that war was not an option, do you think that makes sense?

What happened under Bush remains the policy that Hillary Clinton said became US policy in 1998 however you want to spin it.

Billy86

RobertKK wrote: »

I am going to bring the cows in to milk, including the lame cow.
I am going to start the options for regime change in Iraq, including supporting the opposition.
It is basic English, and given Iraq was attacked by George Bush Sr and Bill Clinton, you are going to argue that war was not an option, do you think that makes sense?

What happened under Bush remains the policy that Hillary Clinton said became US policy in 1998 however you want to spin it.

So we're onto another very poor analogy. Unless that is, you're saying you're going to shoot all of the cows. Which would be an extraordinary reach to make off the back of such a comment and would require quite a strong amount of cognitive dissonance from the listener, who would have to really, really dislike the farmer and want to discredit them even when the opportunity is not presenting itself. Why were you bringing up Colin Powell earlier, again?

And there you go again, completely ignoring that Bill Clinton never invaded Iraq with a goal of overthrowing Saddam. Meanwhile, Bush did... because Condoleezza Rice said to do so.

Hence, Condoleezza Rice and George Bush are the two most responsible people for the second Iraq War. It's as open and shut as can be.

Overheal

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

There's a forum for that








<---

RobertKK

Billy86 wrote: »

So we're onto another very poor analogy. Unless that is, you're saying you're going to shoot all of the cows. Which would be an extraordinary reach to make off the back of such a comment and would require quite a strong amount of cognitive dissonance from the listener, who would have to really, really dislike the farmer and want to discredit them even when the opportunity is not presenting itself. Why were you bringing up Colin Powell earlier, again?

And there you go again, completely ignoring that Bill Clinton never invaded Iraq with a goal of overthrowing Saddam. Meanwhile, Bush did... because Condoleezza Rice said to do so.

Hence, Condoleezza Rice and George Bush are the two most responsible people for the second Iraq War. It's as open and shut as can be.

Who do you think the US wanted to replace Saddam Hussein with after all options had been explored, the opposition maybe who would need to be supported/hidden away in the Green zone...?
War was always on the table, it had been since the first Gulf war. Regime change became policy during the Clinton administration and war was inevitable, hence the lies.

Overheal

Is war not inevitable with "bomb the **** out of them" "take out their families" "we should go much stronger than waterboarding" Trump?

I'm getting dozy just reading page after page of "she does this thing I don't like that both candidates are actors of" - you're not swaying anyone and you yourself are not being swayed; how about we move on to a different category of begrudgement?

Billy86

RobertKK wrote: »

Who do you think the US wanted to replace Saddam Hussein with after all options had been explored, the opposition maybe who would need to be supported/hidden away in the Green zone...?
War was always on the table, it had been since the first Gulf war. Regime change became policy during the Clinton administration and war was inevitable, hence the lies.

If your argument had any basis in reality, they would have tried to remove him in 1998. But they didn't. Rice & Bush did a few years later. You know, the two people most responsible for the Iraq War that both Clinton and Trump supported.

You seem to be letting the cognitive dissonance cause you to forget who was in power during the first Gulf war, and where the Clintons were at that point in time by the way.

Maybe it was all Eisenhower's plan?

AbusesToilets

Suryavarman wrote: »

The debate gave Clinton enough time to get under Trump's skin and demonstrate that he was unfit to be president. How would the debate have been improved by having another two candidates on stage that don't really have any significant understanding of the issues?

How much money did Trump spend on ads during the primary season? How much did Jeb Bush spend? The effect of ad buys is marginal at best. If your candidacy and message doesn't resonate then ad buys don't matter.



If you vote for a third party in a swing state then you are voting for whoever wins the state. That's how a first-past-the-post voting system works.

And their inclusion in the debates had little to no effect on their polling numbers.

Contradicting yourself there. You stated a third party representative in a debate would detract from the main candidates ability to speak on the issues, yet then laud Clinton for using the debate as opportunity to needle Trump.

To say a third candidate would lack understanding of the issues is disingenuous at best. How well did Trump or Clinton display their knowledge of issues such as trade deals, economic theory or gun rights? How many times have they been exposed making a gaffe when speaking publicly? Condemning a candidate for a mistake or gotcha moment is a childish approach to selecting our public servants.

Your point re: public perception of candidates and their message ignores the fact that the public needs to be able to hear a candidate's message in order to form an opinion on it. Therefore, having the money to publish ads etc absolutely affords well monied candidates considerable advantages.

Your final point goes against the polling data from the 1992 election, which showed very favorable numbers for Perot after the debates. Giving third party candidates an opportunity to present their ideas and challenge the main party candidates would have no downside to my eyes, and could show up the establishment parties for the unoriginal, blustering corporate representatives they are.

Overheal

Gaffe's slips are heavily weighed given the nature of US Politics, where most things are carefully prepared and thought out. This sometimes leads us to truths - like Donald not running ads because he doesn't want to spend the money (money troubles?) or on the extreme end, leads to erroneous or dangerous assumptions, such as Obama's "Muslim faith" gaffe. I guess its up to the individual to decide which gaffe's they choose to take stock in. There are a few of Trumps this cycle that I frankly wouldn't bat an eyelid at, some others however are a bit more enlightening.

Quin_Dub

The Polls get worse for Trump..

RCP "No Toss ups" view has moved even further in Clintons favour..

Now showing 322-216 to Clinton.

In the lead-up to the debate is was 272-264 , huge shift in a short space of time..

Billy86

Still, you never know. For example, and it's not applicable to this race of course, but I heard during the week that one of, if not the single biggest factor in a re-election cycle is how the economy is doing on the week of the election. Not even so much leading up to it, or during the year of the election or whatnot. Just on the very week of the election itself.

Voters can be remarkably fickle and short-sighted, is what I'm saying!

RobertKK

Billy86 wrote: »

If your argument had any basis in reality, they would have tried to remove him in 1998. But they didn't. Rice & Bush did a few years later. You know, the two people most responsible for the Iraq War that both Clinton and Trump supported.

You seem to be letting the cognitive dissonance cause you to forget who was in power during the first Gulf war, and where the Clintons were at that point in time by the way.

Maybe it was all Eisenhower's plan?

Because it was not policy for regime change so no planning for war to remove Saddam and replace him had started until 1998.

First war involved removing Iraqi forces from Kuwait.
Clinton in 1998 was based on lies and he was in trouble back home.

No, Hillary Clinton says it was 1998 that regime change in Iraq became US policy and the options to achieve it started, you can't blame Eisenhower
You accept Hillary Clinton told the truth to the senate when she said regime change in Iraq became US policy in 1998?

Brian?

RobertKK wrote: »

Because it was not policy for regime change so no planning for war to remove Saddam and replace him had started until 1998.

First war involved removing Iraqi forces from Kuwait.
Clinton in 1998 was based on lies and he was in trouble back home.

No, Hillary Clinton says it was 1998 that regime change in Iraq became US policy and the options to achieve it started, you can't blame Eisenhower
You accept Hillary Clinton told the truth to the senate when she said regime change in Iraq became US policy in 1998?

I don't get your point at all. Hillary voted for the war based on the evidence provided by the Bush administration. Fabricated evidence, in parts.

The Bush administration is responsible for invading Iraq. But you want to blame Hillary because you hate her.

Brian?

I can see a new round of "that's not what he meant" by Trump supporters.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/trump-suggests-vets-ptsd-aren-strong-article-1.2815752

How much lower can he go? After his attacks on McCain and this, how can any veteran vote for the man?

Igotadose

Brian? wrote: »

I can see a new round of "that's not what he meant" by Trump supporters.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/trump-suggests-vets-ptsd-aren-strong-article-1.2815752

How much lower can he go? After his attacks on McCain and this, how can any veteran vote for the man?

FWIW I think this one's kind of blown out of proportion, I think Trump's such a dreadful public speaker that he actually didn't mean to attack veterans. Hard to say - he's like Phalin, endless 'word salad'.

Millions will vote for this guy, no matter what he says. Matt Taibbi from Rolling Stone seems to be the only journalist who is getting the election right, latest good article here: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/stop-whining-about-false-balance-w440228 . Ending quote sums up this election perfectly: "I'm as worried as anyone else about the possibility of Trump getting elected. But if it happens, it's not going to be because The New York Times allowed a few reporters to investigate the Clinton Foundation. It'll be because we're a nation of idiots, who vote the same way we choose channels: without thinking. "

Brian?

Igotadose wrote: »

FWIW I think this one's kind of blown out of proportion, I think Trump's such a dreadful public speaker that he actually didn't mean to attack veterans. Hard to say - he's like Phalin, endless 'word salad'.

It's not terminal to his campaign or anything. It's indicative of the way he thinks thoug; POWs can't be heroes, soldiers with PTSD weren't strong enough.

He talks the strong man, but he dodged the draft and has zero respect for veterans.

Millions will vote for this guy, no matter what he says. Matt Taibbi from Rolling Stone seems to be the only journalist who is getting the election right, latest good article here: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/stop-whining-about-false-balance-w440228 . Ending quote sums up this election perfectly: "I'm as worried as anyone else about the possibility of Trump getting elected. But if it happens, it's not going to be because The New York Times allowed a few reporters to investigate the Clinton Foundation. It'll be because we're a nation of idiots, who vote the same way we choose channels: without thinking. "

Hard to disagree.

RobertKK

Brian? wrote: »

I don't get your point at all. Hillary voted for the war based on the evidence provided by the Bush administration. Fabricated evidence, in parts.

The Bush administration is responsible for invading Iraq. But you want to blame Hillary because you hate her.

I am not blaming Hillary. I used Hillary's own words which were that the policy for regime change in Iraq and the options to make it happen started in 1998.
Maybe Hillary hates Hillary if that is the case.

B0jangles

RobertKK wrote: »

Given Wikileaks are having a big event tomorrow about Clinton and her emails.
This suggests Wikileaks may have posted that on twitter as an appetiser, and maybe the whole cancelling the event on the balcony to reveal the information for security reasons, is down to emails about Hillary Clinton wanting to murder him?
Given it is a state email in that piece, maybe it reached them via Wikileaks...

Wow, that big wikileaks reveal was a real eyeopener, wasn't it?

RobertKK

The military person who did the interview with Trump said he was upset with the coverage that Trump's comments about people coming back from wars and not being strong, has been twisted by the media.
He said the people doing this are sickening.

RobertKK

B0jangles wrote: »

Wow, that big wikileaks reveal was a real eyeopener, wasn't it?

Yes it was great.
Releases every week for the next 10 weeks.
The best part was Alex Jones.

Brian?

RobertKK wrote: »

I am not blaming Hillary. I used Hillary's own words which were that the policy for regime change in Iraq and the options to make it happen started in 1998.
Maybe Hillary hates Hillary if that is the case.

The policy started in 1998. When did the invasion happen? Why did the invasion happen? If you're not blaming Hillary for the invasion why are you bringing it up?

No one denies she voted for the war.

Trump denies he supported the war, when it's fairly clear he did.

I'm struggling to see the relevance of this point about regime change. Neither Bill not Hillary Clinton were responsible for invading Iraq.

Brian?

RobertKK wrote: »

The military person who did the interview with Trump said he was upset with the coverage that Trump's comments about people coming back from wars and not being strong, has been twisted by the media.
He said the people doing this are sickening.

How was it twisted?

B0jangles

Lol, assange rambling about how amazing he is, so please send money and buy my book thnx.

Game. Over. Clinton.

Brian?

RobertKK wrote: »

Yes it was great.
Releases every week for the next 10 weeks.
The best part was Alex Jones.

What was it?

RobertKK

Brian? wrote: »

The policy started in 1998. When did the invasion happen? Why did the invasion happen? If you're not blaming Hillary for the invasion why are you bringing it up?

No one denies she voted for the war.

Trump denies he supported the war, when it's fairly clear he did.

I'm struggling to see the relevance of this point about regime change. Neither Bill not Hillary Clinton were responsible for invading Iraq.

Well some wanted to make out it was Condoleezza Rice who started the war.
I just pointed out the policy towards Iraq changed to regime change and the options to make it happen in 1998 under the Clinton administration.

B0jangles

Brian? wrote: »

What was it?

Nothing, literally nothing.

RobertKK

Brian? wrote: »

What was it?

A 40% book sale - true.

Said they would not be releasing info about the US st 3am US time.
But will be every week for the next 10 weeks.

Brian?

RobertKK wrote: »

Well some wanted to make out it was Condoleezza Rice who started the war.
I just pointed out the policy towards Iraq changed to regime change and the options to make it happen in 1998 under the Clinton administration.

Regime change does not equal invasion. The policy of the US towards Iran had been regime change for 3 decades, with no plan to take military action. It's a stretch to assign blame to either Clinton for the Iraq war. You're happy to make that stretch though as you e decided you hate Hillary and will do your best to find reasons to hate her.

PopePalpatine

B0jangles wrote: »

Nothing, literally nothing.

Remember when Assange leaked documents which humiliated Putin and his minions? Yeah, me neither.

RobertKK

Brian? wrote: »

How was it twisted?

http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/oct/3/military-veteran-defends-trump-blasts-media/?utm_campaign=shareaholic&utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=socialnetwork

Brian?

RobertKK wrote: »

http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/oct/3/military-veteran-defends-trump-blasts-media/?utm_campaign=shareaholic&utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=socialnetwork

Ok. How were his words twisted? I read the quote and it's disgraceful.

Billy86

Brian? wrote: »

Regime change does not equal invasion. The policy of the US towards Iran had been regime change for 3 decades, with no plan to take military action. It's a stretch to assign blame to either Clinton for the Iraq war. You're happy to make that stretch though as you e decided you hate Hillary and will do your best to find reasons to hate her.

Don't worry, I'm sure Robert knows that. Sure only yesterday he was claiming it was Colin Powell and not Rice when he was defending his bizarre stance on her in contrast to Clinton. The line only changed to the Clinton's when it was pointed out to him (for the 4th or 5th time...) that Powell was never consulted over Iraq, the decision was made between Bush and Rice, and just about nobody else.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance
In psychology, cognitive dissonance is the mental stress or discomfort experienced by an individual who holds two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values at the same time; performs an action that is contradictory to one or more beliefs, ideas, or values; or is confronted by new information that conflicts with existing beliefs, ideas, or values.

That's not intended as an insult either, I'd say we're all guilty of this in some walk of life to an extent.

RobertKK

Brian? wrote: »

Regime change does not equal invasion. The policy of the US towards Iran had been regime change for 3 decades, with no plan to take military action. It's a stretch to assign blame to either Clinton for the Iraq war. You're happy to make that stretch though as you e decided you hate Hillary and will do your best to find reasons to hate her.

You think four years after 1998 when policy changed that the US was closer to their goal of regime change in Iraq?
Why is using Hillary's own words seen as attacking Hillary?
I am not, this started from the Rice debate that some here wanted and now that Clinton's own words are used to say who started the policy for regime change in Iraq, it is seen as attacking Hillary.

Brian?

RobertKK wrote: »

You think four years after 1998 when policy changed that the US was closer to their goal of regime change in Iraq?
Why is using Hillary's own words seen as attacking Hillary?
I am not, this started from the Rice debate that some here wanted and now that Clinton's own words are used to say who started the policy for regime change in Iraq, it is seen as attacking Hillary.

I honestly have no idea what your point is.

RobertKK

Billy86 wrote: »

Don't worry, I'm sure Robert knows that. Sure only yesterday he was claiming it was Colin Powell and not Rice when he was defending his bizarre stance on her in contrast to Clinton. The line only changed to the Clinton's when it was pointed out to him (for the 4th or 5th time...) that Powell was never consulted over Iraq, the decision was made between Bush and Rice, and just about nobody else.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance
In psychology, cognitive dissonance is the mental stress or discomfort experienced by an individual who holds two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values at the same time; performs an action that is contradictory to one or more beliefs, ideas, or values; or is confronted by new information that conflicts with existing beliefs, ideas, or values.

That's not intended as an insult either, I'd say we're all guilty of this in some walk of life to an extent.

When did the US policy for regime change in Iraq start?

Brian?

RobertKK wrote: »

When did the US policy for regime change start?

Why does it matter? Regime change doesn't mean military action.

RobertKK

Brian? wrote: »

I honestly have no idea what your point is.

People wanted a debate on Condoleezza Rice yesterday.
This is what it has led to.
I said to the mods it was off topic, they chose to say it was relevant.

RobertKK

Brian? wrote: »

Why does it matter? Regime change doesn't mean military action.

So when Hillary said the options for it started then too, you believe war was not an option?

Billy86

Robert, you're fooling nobody here, maybe yourself but I'd even doubt that. The fact is, it was Rice and Bush's decision to go to war, and that's all there is to it.

If there were any merit in your comments, attempts would have been made to overthrow Saddam in December 1998. But they were not. Hence, you point is completely moot.

Still wondering why you were putting it on Powell only yesterday by the way...

ads20101

I don't think that Trump will drop out before the election. There was a possibility that he may have done this earlier due to his egocentricity, but the truth is, despite the moronic statements from himself and his team the ground support has not significantly waned, especially from the white / male / non-college graduate group.

This is especially confusing from an objective outsider as this is primarily the population that has been essentially screwed from his businesses.

Honestly, why can't people see this, or is it me missing something.

As for Clinton, I increasingly get the feeling from the GOP camp that if they fielded nearly anyone other than Trump they would walk freely back into the white house. I can't see Hillary being a second term president.

InTheTrees

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Remember when Assange leaked documents which humiliated Putin and his minions? Yeah, me neither.

Poor Assange. Throwing his support behind Donald trump has seriously damaged his image.

And now this stunt. It turns out he just wants to sell memberships in wikkileaks. Maybe the Ecuadorians are wondering if maybe he could pay a bit of rent?

RobertKK

https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/783259936428089344

Hillary Clinton's support of a coup in Honduras. She loves regime change.

RobertKK

Billy86 wrote: »

Robert, you're fooling nobody here, maybe yourself but I'd even doubt that. The fact is, it was Rice and Bush's decision to go to war, and that's all there is to it.

If there were any merit in your comments, attempts would have been made to overthrow Saddam in December 1998. But they were not. Hence, you point is completely moot.

Still wondering why you were putting it on Powell only yesterday by the way...

Powell was the messenger with the lies given to him by intelligence...though it is an insult to intelligence, he did not stop it.

Backed up in the senate by most Republicans and Democrats. It was then that gave Bush the go-ahead for a war.
It was then that gave Bush the go-ahead to achieve the policy change goal of regime change in Iraq which started in 1998.
It doesn't make much difference who is in power with foreign policy, when you look at the US, one has to come to the conclusion that the Pentagon in the end control foreign policy.
Most of us including myself in the past blamed neocons for the Iraq war, but looking deeper, the policy did not start with the Bush administration, it was with the Clinton administration.
I think one should be cynical of both parties in the US, they may pretend to hate each other, but then they all seem very close...

https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/780585219648880640

RobertKK

Brian? wrote: »

Ok. How were his words twisted? I read the quote and it's disgraceful.

The army man who asked the question said it was sickening and twisted, even said he had PTSD stress when he returned and he got help and is now fine.
The military guy who asked the question seemed to be saying Trump understood the issue and the people in the room are strong as they got help, but others come back from war and are not - and that they need help and that is what Trump wants to give them.

From when I first read the supposedly insulting quote I did not see the insult. The problem seems to be the word 'strong'.
This is a problem when it comes to mental health, it seems some people take insult if one's mental health is not described as 'strong'.
When it comes to lets say a heart beat and it is described as 'weak' it is not seen as an insult but a health problem, when it comes to mental health, it seems to be different and if you talk about people having seen the same thing as being strong and others not, then it is a terrible insult.
Everyone's mental health varies sometimes we have good strong mental health, something might happen and it is not strong.
Seems the taboo over mental health is alive and well, and saying people are strong and implying others are not is avoiding the real issue when the issue is people do have a weakened mental health, some people are stronger mentally.
People getting offended for the sake of it.

Brian?

RobertKK wrote: »

The army man who asked the question said it was sickening and twisted, even said he had PTSD stress when he returned and he got help and is now fine.
The military guy who asked the question seemed to be saying Trump understood the issue and the people in the room are strong as they got help, but others come back from war and are not - and that they need help and that is what Trump wants to give them.

From when I first read the supposedly insulting quote I did not see the insult. The problem seems to be the word 'strong'.
This is a problem when it comes to mental health, it seems some people take insult if one's mental health is not described as 'strong'.
When it comes to lets say a heart beat and it is described as 'weak' it is not seen as an insult but a health problem, when it comes to mental health, it seems to be different and if you talk about people having seen the same thing as being strong and others not, then it is a terrible insult.
Everyone's mental health varies sometimes we have good strong mental health, something might happen and it is not strong.
Seems the taboo over mental health is alive and well, and saying people are strong and implying others are not is avoiding the real issue when the issue is people do have a weakened mental health, some people are stronger mentally.
People getting offended for the sake of it.

You've done some serious mental gymnastics there. Trump said a horrible thing, the latest in a long list.