• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Trump tweet proves mental illness

I understand what you are saying that is is unethical to diagnose somebody from afar, especially if it's somebody you are not and will not treat. I also understand that family members can misdiagnose or confuse symptoms in their loved ones. But for mental health professionals like yourself, can't you tell or have a strong suspicion about a particular mental health issue by the person's behavior and the way they act? Can you make a prediction or have an inclination before a clinical interview? I am not talking about this for the sake of diagnosing either. It's like if a young person goes to the ER with chest pain, the ER doctor is not going to test him for hepatitis. It seems like you could rule out a lot and have some reasonable hunches before the clinical interview.

Of course one can make reasonable hunches, but diagnostically, a hunch really doesn't carry much weight. It could set you in a direction is all. If someone comes in with chest pain, you could make a reasonable hunch what the issue could be, but it would be a bad idea to treat it until you were pretty certain from a diagnostic standpoint.
 
DUTY TO WARN is part of the profession - regardless if you approve or not. If it applies to an individual, why would it not apply to more than one individuals if a professional suspects the person could harm them or be a threat.

Its rather silly to say you can help save one person but must ignore far larger numbers.

Duty to warn does not apply here. What you are claiming is not how that procedure works. As one who used the duty to warn process on many occasions, including twice this past week, the scenario that is placed in front of us does not apply. As clinicians, the people who signed the position have no professional standing to issue a duty to warn decree. Trump is NOT their client and they have not had any diagnostic interactions with which to make such a statement.
 
These are brave patriots with professional mental health credentials evaluating Trump based on thousands of hours of public revelations that can tell you more about a person that a possible fifty minute personal session.

Ah, no. These are people who don't like Trump and who are, unethically, using the power of their profession to make statements that can be misconstrued by people. If Trump were smart, he could have a lawsuit against them. And no, public presentation gives part of the story, but does not allow the clinician to actually use their professional skills to make diagnostic assessments through interaction.
 
Duty to warn does not apply here. What you are claiming is not how that procedure works. As one who used the duty to warn process on many occasions, including twice this past week, the scenario that is placed in front of us does not apply. As clinicians, the people who signed the position have no professional standing to issue a duty to warn decree. Trump is NOT their client and they have not had any diagnostic interactions with which to make such a statement.

What we seem to have here is a difference of opinion between professionals in the mental health field. The people leading this effort have one opinion about DUTY TO WARN and you have a different opinion. It seems the more expansive idea beyond ones client is what is at issue.

Obviously the men and women who have signed the letter are well aware of the traditional more limited interpretation of DUTY TO WARN. But they see this as a situation which goes beyond those limitations and for which greater issues come into play and demand their action.

I am NOT a mental health professional so I am at a disadvantage in trying to debate anyone about the ins and outs of DUTY TO WARN. So I will let one of the leaders of this effort Dr. John Gartner PhD speak for himself.

Exclusive: Dr. John Gartner?s speech to Yale Duty to Warn Conference on Trump?s mental unfitness.

I think he makes a very persuasive case.

I found this article on the issue

Yale Psychiatrists Cite '''Duty to Warn''' About Unfit President
 
Last edited:
Ah, no. These are people who don't like Trump and who are, unethically, using the power of their profession to make statements that can be misconstrued by people. If Trump were smart, he could have a lawsuit against them. And no, public presentation gives part of the story, but does not allow the clinician to actually use their professional skills to make diagnostic assessments through interaction.

Apparently this idea of a Trump lawsuit is something that is at the core of this dispute between mental health professionals regarding DUTY TO WARN and the fundamental disagreement about its application beyond ones client.

This is from the previously linked to New Yorker magazine story

The Hippocratic oath to First Do No Harm — sworn to Apollo the physician — has been turned into a self-serving hypocritical oath, charges Dr. John Gartner, a psychologist and former faculty member at Johns Hopkins Medical School. “The American Psychiatric Association looks out for the welfare of its members, to protect them from lawsuits. They’re not worrying about whether 300 million Americans are vulnerable to the life-and-death actions taken by this abnormal president.” And he and an increasing number of his colleagues are ready to declare that President Trump, whose actions are often described with neutral terms like “unprecedented,” is in fact dangerously ill. “Does Trump need to lie to my face for me to know he lies all the time?” asks Gartner. Now in private practice in New York City, he answers his own rhetorical question. “He does lie to my face — every night. I watch TV!”

Apparently some members are not worried about a Trump lawsuit. Which causes me to wonder if they would welcome such a lawsuit as part of their strategy.

This article from Psychology Today discusses the controversy

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/brainstorm/201704/shrinks-define-dangers-trump-presidency

Currently professor of psychiatry at New York University and longtime director of mental health for the Massachusetts prison system, Gilligan contends that a private interview is not necessary to assess Trump’s dangerousness: “He publicly boasts of violence and has threatened violence. He has urged followers to beat up protestors. He approves of torture. He has boasted of his ability to commit and get away with sexual assault.” The danger is visible to everyone, but for professionals, he says, it is “irresponsible” to remain passive in the face of it.

“Professional ethics matter,” Lifton told the conference. The question is how the ethics are framed— “technicized” as in the Goldwater Rule or seen as a larger obligation. Mental health experts, he says, have an ethical requirement to expose “malignant normality,” the adaptation to and normalization of dangerous behavior that occurs in the absence of speaking up. “It’s important for professionals to point out Trump’s assault on reality and his attempts to impose it on the rest of us.”
 
Last edited:
Five minutes ago, Trump just tweeted about the Thursday Comey testimony.



If Trump ever has a sanity hearing, this will be used as evidence to prove he suffered from serious mental delusions.

This is simply beyond belief that the man could look at those events as TOTAL AND COMPLETE VINDICATION.

Trump is truly mentally ill.

What specifically does Trump need vindication from. Which part of "he's not under investigation" did you not understand? As for sanity issues, my suggestion is that all of those who seem so obsessed with Hillary Von Pantsuit's defeat should perhaps seek counseling.
 
And they are not even doing that at this point. Never has so little been accomplished in the first five months of a term as what we have seen with Trump.

The only thing they can crow about was making Borscht the official soup of the USA replacing chicken noodle. (thats a joke to those ready to ask for proof)

Surely you jest. We now have a conservatively tilted US Supreme Court, we are exiting the Paris Accord. We have pulled out of the Pacific trade agreements....those accomplishments alone are major. Then there is the fact that we are now enforcing our immigration laws. What did "Hussein Obama" accomplish in his first 100 days?
 
What specifically does Trump need vindication from. Which part of "he's not under investigation" did you not understand? As for sanity issues, my suggestion is that all of those who seem so obsessed with Hillary Von Pantsuit's defeat should perhaps seek counseling.

The investigation is looking at activities and people with the TRUMP CAMPAIGN ...... the TRUMP ADMINISTRATION .... and quite possible the TRUMP EMPIRE.
 
Surely you jest. We now have a conservatively tilted US Supreme Court, we are exiting the Paris Accord. We have pulled out of the Pacific trade agreements....those accomplishments alone are major. Then there is the fact that we are now enforcing our immigration laws. What did "Hussein Obama" accomplish in his first 100 days?


His legislative accomplishments with laws passed by Congress are almost nil. In fact the biggest Congressional news for the Trump administration came when he hustled GOP House members to the Rose Garden for a big major press photo shoot bragging how they repealed Obamacare.... despite the fact that the Senate has done nothing and the House previously did that scores and scores of times in the past where it went nowhere.

It was a public embarrassment.
 
All that meant was that Trump was not the subject of the investigation at that time ... which can change on a dime depending on developments. You can NOT be a subject on Monday but then on Tuesday find yourself being investigated because of new developments. So for Trump to pretend that this is some great exonerating badge of honor equal to the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval is a red herring of the worst sort and the claim means nothing.

But then the Russian collusion investigation has been going on for at least seven months. I know that the left is slobbering on their shoes hoping for Trump to be implicated somehow...however most witch hunts end poorly for you.



Comey simply provided his own conversation which was not classified.

However leaking those memos was still illegal...classified or not.



Come clearly said Trump did just that - several times in fact - and then fired him when he would not comply with the directive.

Comey certainly did not say that.
 
But then the Russian collusion investigation has been going on for at least seven months. I know that the left is slobbering on their shoes hoping for Trump to be implicated somehow...however most witch hunts end poorly for you.


Comey certainly did not say that.

Lets look at the Comey testimony

"Again, I take the president's words. I know I was fired because of something about the way I was conducting the Russia investigation was in some way putting pressure on him, in some way irritating him, and he decided to fire me because of that."

“I was fired in some way to change … the way the Russian investigation was being conducted," he said later in the hearing. "That is a very big deal.”

That is pretty clear. And the Trump interview with Lester Holt in which he confessed that Russia was on his mind when he fired Comey confirms it.
 
Last edited:
On your planet, it appears some people aren't smart enough to know an impeachment is the political equivalent of an indictment.

What happened at the senate trial?

Oh Yeah: Clinton Acquitted on All Counts.

You can, as they say, look it up.

If you have the tools

on your planet.

He was impeached by the House, yes, or no. I won't wait for your reply.
 
He was impeached by the House, yes, or no. I won't wait for your reply.

Holy ****. You still don't get it, do you?

What part of this con-fuses you:

"An impeachment is the political equivalent of an indictment."

Do you know what an indictment is? When some one faces an indictment, what happens?

Yes. They face a court to determine guilt or innocence. In this case, the court is held in the senate.

So, get on your high horse and yelp again: He was charged with an offense!

butt whispering:

but acquitted of all charges
and the verdict wasn't even close
 
Nobody is above the law. Is it ok for a President to commit perjury and obstruct justice?

If it has nothing to do with his job there is no reason for him to be impeached for it.
 
Lets look at the Comey testimony





That is pretty clear. And the Trump interview with Lester Holt in which he confessed that Russia was on his mind when he fired Comey confirms it.

And that is as good a reason as any to fire Comey. Despite the fact that Comey had told Trump on three occasions that he was not under investigation, he was not sharing that with the American public. That was leaving a cloud over the Trump administration which made it difficult to get some things done.
 
If it has nothing to do with his job there is no reason for him to be impeached for it.

That is a ludicrous statement. What this nation supposedly has over all other nations is that every US citizen is subjected to the same laws. Bill Clinton committed perjury, which is a felony. He not only should have been kicked out of office. he should have been prosecuted. If you or I committed perjury, we would go to jail over it. Why should a president be any different. He should not get a pass.
 
Duty to warn does not apply here. What you are claiming is not how that procedure works. As one who used the duty to warn process on many occasions, including twice this past week, the scenario that is placed in front of us does not apply. As clinicians, the people who signed the position have no professional standing to issue a duty to warn decree. Trump is NOT their client and they have not had any diagnostic interactions with which to make such a statement.

And there can be a great difference between a public persona seen from afar and the private person as experienced one-on-one. Even a layperson can appreciate this distinction.
 
And that is as good a reason as any to fire Comey. Despite the fact that Comey had told Trump on three occasions that he was not under investigation, he was not sharing that with the American public. That was leaving a cloud over the Trump administration which made it difficult to get some things done.

Glad you admitted that firing Comey was for the Russian investigation and its impact on Trump. That is progress.
 
Ah, no. These are people who don't like Trump and who are, unethically, using the power of their profession to make statements that can be misconstrued by people. If Trump were smart, he could have a lawsuit against them. And no, public presentation gives part of the story, but does not allow the clinician to actually use their professional skills to make diagnostic assessments through interaction.

Do you have a problem with mental health professionals saying something like, "he could have a personality disorder." That's not a diagnosis.

My personal feeling is that I don't have a problem with people discussing Trump's mental health, professional and non. I think you make a good point about not diagnosing, but I also feel that a lot of people with mental health issues probably don't recognize their behavior in themselves. They need help and support, and part of providing that help is telling them their behavior is not right. I have seen people go into therapy and get medicine, and their life improves and changes for the better.

What would you think for the mental health community offered to evaluate Trump or work with his staff?
 
your postings are so easy to discredit


RNC: Comey testimony proves Trump not under investigation

RNC: Comey testimony proves Trump not under investigation | TheHill

Donald Trump not under investigation by FBI over Russia ties, James Comey's testimony to reveal

Donald Trump not under investigation by FBI over Russia ties, James Comey's testimony to reveal | The Independent

Comey confirms telling Trump he was not under investigation

Comey confirms telling Trump he was not under investigation




There is no investigation of Trump.

Keep repeating that silly mantra and it may give you some faux semblance of temporary security.



you owe Fishking an apology
 
Last edited:
your postings are so easy to discredit


RNC: Comey testimony proves Trump not under investigation

RNC: Comey testimony proves Trump not under investigation | TheHill

Donald Trump not under investigation by FBI over Russia ties, James Comey's testimony to reveal

Donald Trump not under investigation by FBI over Russia ties, James Comey's testimony to reveal | The Independent

Comey confirms telling Trump he was not under investigation

Comey confirms telling Trump he was not under investigation










you owe Fishking and apology

You are confusing Trump as an individual person with Trump the campaign ... Trump the business empire ... and Trump the administration.

And even Trump the person may indeed be under investigation the day after Comey made those statements since those things can change on a dime with new evidence and new developments.
 
Last edited:
Perhaps you can take some advice from Lewis Carroll and start at the beginning. What statement from me are you disputing?

:lamo, you cannot even follow your own postings

There is no investigation of Trump.


Keep repeating that silly mantra and it may give you some faux semblance of temporary security.

RNC: Comey testimony proves Trump not under investigation

RNC: Comey testimony proves Trump not under investigation | TheHill

Donald Trump not under investigation by FBI over Russia ties, James Comey's testimony to reveal

Donald Trump not under investigation by FBI over Russia ties, James Comey's testimony to reveal | The Independent

Comey confirms telling Trump he was not under investigation

Comey confirms telling Trump he was not under investigation


:lamo:mrgreen:
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom