Science Is Trump actually losing mental competence?

He's not a polished politician. His speeches have tended to be a political monologue, even funny much of the time. He's been reading from a teleprompter almost exclusively for weeks, and it's painfully obvious that he's reading and not speaking from the heart. When he does break from the script, he's been warm and brief and no signs of anything wrong with him.

It's easy for CNN and other similar biased sources to cobble together very short clips to show he contradicts himself, but even that isn't "daily" and it isn't necessarily contradiction. The media knows it but outright lies anyway.

Shit happens and he has to adjust, which he's done. I don't find fault with him being optimistic about being able to get his agenda done (much of which I don't agree with).

I don't really like him much, but when looking at the obvious partisan attempt to destroy him and people around him, why not point that out?

The media may have spiked the football at the 5 yard line. In their haste to celebrate the failure to fix ObamaCare, they now have to backtrack and make a lot of bullshit about it not happening in the first 100 days. They declared it dead, but republicans have been refining their bill and it will come to another vote.

Instead of jumping on the bandwagon of clearly partisan shrinks, why not look at the ethics of what they're doing, and whether they actually can diagnose him. And you and Rasta are professional shrinks?

http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/24/health/trump-mental-illness-professionals-question-goldwater-rule/

The United States' major mental health associations -- including the American Psychiatric Association, which claims to be the largest psychiatric association in the world -- are warning members not to wade into the debate, but some prominent doctors have done just that, publicly voicing concerns and questioning the very ethics of their profession.

Psychologists and psychiatrists have codes of ethics that discourage them from giving professional opinions about the mental health of a person who has disclosed information about himself or herself through the media but whom they have not examined personally. They also need authorization from that person to share that opinion.

For the psychiatrists, it's all spelled out in section 7.3 of the American Psychiatry Association's code of ethics,a set of guiding best-practice principles for members -- who make up most licensed psychiatrists. The section is informally known as the "Goldwater Rule" because it came about after what the association's president calls a "very public ethical misstep" by psychiatrists who answered a survey about another Republican, presidential candidate Barry Goldwater.

Details about the survey were published in a pre-election 1964 article in a now-defunct magazine called Fact. Of the 2,417 psychiatrists who answered the survey, the majority concluded that Goldwater was "psychologically unfit" to be president.

In the 38 pages of psychiatrists' comments, some said they could not diagnose him "by merely observing him on TV or reading what he writes," but those who were critical of Goldwater labeled the candidate in unflattering terms, calling him a "dangerous lunatic," "paranoid" and a "counterfeit figure of a masculine man." Some accused him of having an "impulsive quality," said he was "emotionally too unstable" and said he had a "Godlike self-image."

After Goldwater lost the election, he sued the magazine's editor for libel and won his case. The editor appealed the decision all the way to the Supreme Court, but the justices declined to hear it. In one of the two dissenting opinions, Justice Hugo Black wrote that "the public has an unqualified right to have the character and fitness of anyone who aspires to the Presidency held up for the closest scrutiny."

That "closest scrutiny" shouldn't come from psychiatrists who did not evaluate the figure in person, the American Psychiatric Association decided, and in 1973, the Goldwater Rule became a part of its code of ethics.

The rule states: "On occasion psychiatrists are asked for an opinion about an individual who is in the light of public attention or who has disclosed information about himself/herself through public media. In such circumstances, a psychiatrist may share with the public his or her expertise about psychiatric issues in general. However, it is unethical for a psychiatrist to offer a professional opinion unless he or she has conductedf an examination and has been granted proper authorization for such a statement."

 

So according to Denny Kim Jung Crackhead is perfectly sane. We can't judge him.

 

So not crazy, just very dumb.



http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-trade-merkel-germany-eu-2017-4

 

He was the butt of jokes and scorn of foreign State warfare. At least I never had a Nuke fear with him. Orangehair may cause millions to turn into vaporized shadows.

 

At first I thought it was a bar joke.

 

One, you're not a psychologist
Two, you have not examined him
Three, it is unethical for psychologists to make such diagnoses without an actual examination

So anyone who is hawking this bullshit is either a circus clown or deliberately violating the ethics of their profession.

The reason it's unethical is a good one.

 

You're entitled to your opinion, as ridiculous as it is.

 

I don't consider the ethics rules of the psychiatric profession to be opinion nor ridiculous.

You would cling to the words of those who have no ethics.

So be it.

 

You are parroting the words of those who are unethical.

Enough said.

 

Trump won't release the visitor logs to the White House.

That's an actual big deal. Make a stink over that.

The personal attacks are just petty and small.