From Newsgroup: rec.arts.tv

On Tue, 16 Jun 2026 08:42:52 -0400, Rhino
<no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:

I remember when Thomas Eagleton was the vice-presidential nominee and
then had to step aside when someone revealed that he'd had psychiatric
care at some point. It was deemed far too dangerous for him to be "a >heartbeat away from the presidency". But that was 50-odd years ago and
use of psychiatrists is more widespread now so I imagine that wouldn't
be quite as big a hurdle today. Then again, I don't recall Eagleton
being institutionalized either so yes, I agree that Fetterman is
probably a non-starter as a Presidential candidate.

So how much interaction with psychologists / psychiatrists would
render one a non-candidate?

For instance I sat down twice with a psychologist after my wife's
passing 4 years ago. I didn't think I had psychological problems, but
I was hurting and wanted some help in dealing with the dark times. It
certainly hasn't been foolproof but it's helped. (My only really bad
time recently was about two weeks ago when I was getting ready for bed
and was looking at the pictures on the wall and saying her name aloud
followed by a prayer for better dealing with my feelings)

Not that I'm contemplating a run for office any time soon (and this is municipal election year in BC - if I were 20 years younger I might
well go for it but not now)
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.arts.tv

On 2026-06-20 5:58 a.m., The Horny Goat wrote:

On Tue, 16 Jun 2026 08:42:52 -0400, Rhino
<no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:

I remember when Thomas Eagleton was the vice-presidential nominee and
then had to step aside when someone revealed that he'd had psychiatric
care at some point. It was deemed far too dangerous for him to be "a
heartbeat away from the presidency". But that was 50-odd years ago and
use of psychiatrists is more widespread now so I imagine that wouldn't
be quite as big a hurdle today. Then again, I don't recall Eagleton
being institutionalized either so yes, I agree that Fetterman is
probably a non-starter as a Presidential candidate.

So how much interaction with psychologists / psychiatrists would
render one a non-candidate?

For instance I sat down twice with a psychologist after my wife's
passing 4 years ago. I didn't think I had psychological problems, but
I was hurting and wanted some help in dealing with the dark times. It certainly hasn't been foolproof but it's helped. (My only really bad
time recently was about two weeks ago when I was getting ready for bed
and was looking at the pictures on the wall and saying her name aloud followed by a prayer for better dealing with my feelings)

Not that I'm contemplating a run for office any time soon (and this is municipal election year in BC - if I were 20 years younger I might
well go for it but not now)

I don't think there's an obvious answer to the question of how much psychiatric help disqualifies a candidate from a role as vice-president
or president. I don't know how much time Eagleton spent with a
psychiatrist or just how severe Fetterman's problems were and, as
politicians, I'd always expect that the opposition party to the
candidate would exaggerate the severity in any case and the individual's
own party would minimize it. That's just the way politics works.
Attitudes towards these things changes over time too. It's not that long
ago that being openly gay would be a clear and obvious disqualifier to
anyone with political aspirations; now it is clearly not. Public
attitudes to mental issues have probably also changed over the years to
be more understanding than they were in Eagleton's day.

But there's still a threshold. Biden's performance during his 2024
debate with Trump still proved so concerning that his own party
pressured him to suspend his run for a second term. The optics - and
poll numbers - were just too alarming. That threshold is always going to
be there, although the exact position may move over time.
--
Rhino
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.arts.tv

Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:

On 2026-06-20 5:58 a.m., The Horny Goat wrote:

Tue, 16 Jun 2026 08:42:52 -0400, Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com>:

I remember when Thomas Eagleton was the vice-presidential nominee and >>>then had to step aside when someone revealed that he'd had psychiatric >>>care at some point. It was deemed far too dangerous for him to be "a >>>heartbeat away from the presidency". But that was 50-odd years ago and >>>use of psychiatrists is more widespread now so I imagine that wouldn't
be quite as big a hurdle today. Then again, I don't recall Eagleton
being institutionalized either so yes, I agree that Fetterman is
probably a non-starter as a Presidential candidate.

So how much interaction with psychologists / psychiatrists would
render one a non-candidate?

For instance I sat down twice with a psychologist after my wife's
passing 4 years ago. I didn't think I had psychological problems, but
I was hurting and wanted some help in dealing with the dark times. It >>certainly hasn't been foolproof but it's helped. (My only really bad
time recently was about two weeks ago when I was getting ready for bed
and was looking at the pictures on the wall and saying her name aloud >>followed by a prayer for better dealing with my feelings)

Not that I'm contemplating a run for office any time soon (and this is >>municipal election year in BC - if I were 20 years younger I might
well go for it but not now)

I don't think there's an obvious answer to the question of how much >psychiatric help disqualifies a candidate from a role as vice-president
or president. I don't know how much time Eagleton spent with a
psychiatrist or just how severe Fetterman's problems were and, as >politicians, I'd always expect that the opposition party to the
candidate would exaggerate the severity in any case and the individual's
own party would minimize it.

Again, Fetterman's depression was so severe that he was
institutionalized. He did not serve in the Senate for months. Between
the strokes during the campaign and the depression, no, he cannot run
for president.

That's just the way politics works.
Attitudes towards these things changes over time too. It's not that long
ago that being openly gay would be a clear and obvious disqualifier to >anyone with political aspirations; now it is clearly not.

How about the accusation, His sister is a thesbian! I forget the rest of
the story.

Public
attitudes to mental issues have probably also changed over the years to
be more understanding than they were in Eagleton's day.

Eagleton's disqualification may have been exaggerated. Fetterman's is
not.

But there's still a threshold. Biden's performance during his 2024
debate with Trump still proved so concerning that his own party
pressured him to suspend his run for a second term. The optics - and
poll numbers - were just too alarming. That threshold is always going to
be there, although the exact position may move over time.

Still, a disabled Biden would have been the stronger candidate than a
Kamala in any state of mind. Of course, Biden doomed his legacy by
choosing her as his running mate in the first place.
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.arts.tv

On 2026-06-20 11:34 a.m., Adam H. Kerman wrote:

Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:

On 2026-06-20 5:58 a.m., The Horny Goat wrote:

Tue, 16 Jun 2026 08:42:52 -0400, Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com>:

I remember when Thomas Eagleton was the vice-presidential nominee and
then had to step aside when someone revealed that he'd had psychiatric >>>> care at some point. It was deemed far too dangerous for him to be "a
heartbeat away from the presidency". But that was 50-odd years ago and >>>> use of psychiatrists is more widespread now so I imagine that wouldn't >>>> be quite as big a hurdle today. Then again, I don't recall Eagleton
being institutionalized either so yes, I agree that Fetterman is
probably a non-starter as a Presidential candidate.

So how much interaction with psychologists / psychiatrists would
render one a non-candidate?

For instance I sat down twice with a psychologist after my wife's
passing 4 years ago. I didn't think I had psychological problems, but
I was hurting and wanted some help in dealing with the dark times. It
certainly hasn't been foolproof but it's helped. (My only really bad
time recently was about two weeks ago when I was getting ready for bed
and was looking at the pictures on the wall and saying her name aloud
followed by a prayer for better dealing with my feelings)

Not that I'm contemplating a run for office any time soon (and this is
municipal election year in BC - if I were 20 years younger I might
well go for it but not now)

I don't think there's an obvious answer to the question of how much
psychiatric help disqualifies a candidate from a role as vice-president
or president. I don't know how much time Eagleton spent with a
psychiatrist or just how severe Fetterman's problems were and, as
politicians, I'd always expect that the opposition party to the
candidate would exaggerate the severity in any case and the individual's
own party would minimize it.

Again, Fetterman's depression was so severe that he was
institutionalized. He did not serve in the Senate for months. Between
the strokes during the campaign and the depression, no, he cannot run
for president.

He could always trot out some doctors to say that he's all better now
and see if that persuades anyone. I agree that it's not likely to work
but who knows?

That's just the way politics works.
Attitudes towards these things changes over time too. It's not that long
ago that being openly gay would be a clear and obvious disqualifier to
anyone with political aspirations; now it is clearly not.

How about the accusation, His sister is a thesbian! I forget the rest of
the story.

You're dredging up ancient accusations that were made against Senator
Claude Pepper from 1950! ;-)

Public
attitudes to mental issues have probably also changed over the years to
be more understanding than they were in Eagleton's day.

Eagleton's disqualification may have been exaggerated. Fetterman's is
not.

I agree that it is extremely unlikely Fetterman could be a viable
candidate but there must still be a few moderates in the Democratic
Party; someone like that ought to be able to generate some support. Is
it your feeling that someone like that might get a hearing? Or has the
party been completely captured by the far left activists?

But there's still a threshold. Biden's performance during his 2024
debate with Trump still proved so concerning that his own party
pressured him to suspend his run for a second term. The optics - and
poll numbers - were just too alarming. That threshold is always going to
be there, although the exact position may move over time.

Still, a disabled Biden would have been the stronger candidate than a
Kamala in any state of mind. Of course, Biden doomed his legacy by
choosing her as his running mate in the first place.

I'm sure the "progressives" would claim he CEMENTED his legacy by
choosing a non-white woman as his VP - to the guffaws of pretty much
everyone else.

The problem with the far left is that you can never stop appeasing them:
they just keep demanding more and wackier. Even now, in complete control
of the Democratic Party, they keep pushing this "Democratic Socialist"
stuff. It seems clear they want to distance themselves from the
Democrats and, when they think they are strong enough, rename it the Democratic Socialist Party (or even something more overtly Marxist).

Maybe someone who is famous but without a previous political background
needs to enter the Democratic race. The obvious choice would be a
widely-known actor, someone with name recognition galore. Somebody like
... Denzel Washington maybe?? He's black so that's going to win him some points with the left and I'm not aware of him ever saying anything
supportive of the people the Democrats hate, like Trump. I've gotten the impression over the years that he mostly keeps to himself and is quietly Christian which ought to appeal to whatever moderates still support the Democrats. Somebody like that might be able to recapture moderate
supporters.

Of course, I'm not specifically RECOMMENDING Denzel but maybe there are
big names out there that are like him and aren't championing the loony excesses of the current leadership of the party.
--
Rhino
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.arts.tv

On Sat, 20 Jun 2026 09:06:01 -0400, Rhino
<no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:

I don't think there's an obvious answer to the question of how much >psychiatric help disqualifies a candidate from a role as vice-president
or president. I don't know how much time Eagleton spent with a
psychiatrist or just how severe Fetterman's problems were and, as >politicians, I'd always expect that the opposition party to the
candidate would exaggerate the severity in any case and the individual's
own party would minimize it. That's just the way politics works.
Attitudes towards these things changes over time too. It's not that long
ago that being openly gay would be a clear and obvious disqualifier to >anyone with political aspirations; now it is clearly not. Public
attitudes to mental issues have probably also changed over the years to
be more understanding than they were in Eagleton's day.

I certainly remember Eagleton and am glad you did too.

But there's still a threshold. Biden's performance during his 2024
debate with Trump still proved so concerning that his own party
pressured him to suspend his run for a second term. The optics - and
poll numbers - were just too alarming. That threshold is always going to
be there, although the exact position may move over time.

I watched both Trump - Biden debates and Trump - Harris and it was
completely clear to me that only in the first debate was it remotely
close (though I thought Trump was clearly better prepared) and that
the last two were outright disasters for the Dems. In particular
Harris did NOT seem well prepared.

My personal view is that while I strongly disliked (and still do
dislike) Trump he WAS the best candidate running in 2024 which I
consider "damning him with faint praise".

There's no question Trump's policies have depressed the Canadian
dollar by a minimum of 5% against the greenback (which is a financial
loss in the $ billions) and while both sides have economic grievances
against the other that things will work out after 2029. Until then
Canada is still in for more rough sledding economically - both the
Autopact and the Canada-US FTA were specifically about creating an
integrated economy which Trump has now rejected.

The ONLY time I've been in the US since 2020 was for my aunt's wake -
and the fact I haven't been says more to do with the current
purchasing power of the Canadian dollar when converted into US dollars
than it is any animus towards Americans - and I do have more American
than Canadian relatives. In 2025-2026 our clan is well connected
online and I'd like to see more of them but it's expensive to travel
especially when you're living on life insurance payouts, pension and
savings.
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2