Page 36 of 40 FirstFirst ... 263435363738 ... LastLast
Results 351 to 360 of 400

Thread: Trump's Health Exam - Bad News!

  1. #351
    Troll Magnet Sparko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    42,175
    Amen (Given)
    3966
    Amen (Received)
    19347
    Quote Originally Posted by Mountain Man View Post
    And now here's Hillary hacking and coughing her way through another speech:

    https://twitter.com/charliespiering/...851584/video/1

    I'm sure it's just allergies. Or was it pneumonia? I forget.
    it's like she is her very own SNL skit.

  2. #352
    tWebber Leonhard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Denmark - Jutland
    Faith
    Catholic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    4,967
    Amen (Given)
    903
    Amen (Received)
    2702
    Quote Originally Posted by Mountain Man View Post
    And now here's Hillary hacking and coughing her way through another speech:
    She did cough a dozen times or so at the end of that speech. But she didn't cough and hack throughout the speech. That's misleading.

    https://www.makers.com/playlists/5a7...bc2544e01b102f

  3. #353
    tWebber Leonhard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Denmark - Jutland
    Faith
    Catholic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    4,967
    Amen (Given)
    903
    Amen (Received)
    2702
    Quote Originally Posted by Mountain Man View Post
    I'm sure it's just allergies.


    Or was it pneumonia? I forget.
    She had pneumonia during the election. She continued speaking though, but eventually after that fainting incident she was ordered to take it easy for a while.

  4. #354
    tWebber Tassman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Sydney/Phuket
    Faith
    Atheist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    9,601
    Amen (Given)
    2283
    Amen (Received)
    1586
    Quote Originally Posted by Jedidiah View Post
    Neither does Tass Zym. Neither does Tass.
    Not just Tass!

    "A number of experts have become so concerned about Trump they are willing to face reprisals from their organisations for breaking such rules, including Psychotherapist John D Gartner. The John’s Hopkins Professor has said Trump displays signs of 'malignant narcissism', also reportedly stating: ‘Donald Trump is dangerously mentally ill and temperamentally incapable of being President.’

    https://thepsychologist.bps.org.uk/v...d-donald-trump

    "More than 60,000 mental health professionals have signed the petition, which states: “We, the undersigned mental health professionals, believe in our professional judgment that Donald Trump manifests a serious mental illness that renders him psychologically incapable of competently discharging the duties of President of the United States. And we respectfully request he be removed from office, according to article 4 of the 25th amendment to the Constitution, which states that the president will be replaced if he is ‘unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office.’”

    https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog...e-donald-trump
    “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

  5. #355
    tWebber demi-conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    2,625
    Amen (Given)
    114
    Amen (Received)
    409
    Quote Originally Posted by Tassman View Post
    Not just Tass!

    "A number of experts have become so concerned about Trump they are willing to face reprisals from their organisations for breaking such rules, including Psychotherapist John D Gartner. The John’s Hopkins Professor has said Trump displays signs of 'malignant narcissism', also reportedly stating: ‘Donald Trump is dangerously mentally ill and temperamentally incapable of being President.’

    https://thepsychologist.bps.org.uk/v...d-donald-trump

    "More than 60,000 mental health professionals have signed the petition, which states: “We, the undersigned mental health professionals, believe in our professional judgment that Donald Trump manifests a serious mental illness that renders him psychologically incapable of competently discharging the duties of President of the United States. And we respectfully request he be removed from office, according to article 4 of the 25th amendment to the Constitution, which states that the president will be replaced if he is ‘unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office.’”

    https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog...e-donald-trump
    Those quacks need to treat own TDS.

    Unprofessional! Fire them all!!!
    Trump is basically "Bruce Wayne pretending to be a foppish retarded billionaire" tier genius, in case nerds need a simpler metaphor.

  6. #356
    See, the Thing is... Cow Poke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    The Republic of Texas
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    44,532
    Amen (Given)
    9588
    Amen (Received)
    21754
    Quote Originally Posted by Tassman View Post
    "More than 60,000 mental health professionals have signed the petition...
    Having not personally met and evaluated the man, a bunch of individuals signed a petition. Try to think about that, Tass, apart from your own hateful bias.

    1 Tim 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.

  7. Amen Jedidiah amen'd this post.
  8. #357
    tWebber Mountain Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    United States
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    12,208
    Amen (Given)
    4982
    Amen (Received)
    4546
    No competent doctor with any integrity would attempt to diagnose someone without performing a personal examination. The one doctor who has personally examined Trump says that he is mentally and physically fit.

  9. Amen Jedidiah amen'd this post.
  10. #358
    See, the Thing is... Cow Poke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    The Republic of Texas
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    44,532
    Amen (Given)
    9588
    Amen (Received)
    21754
    Quote Originally Posted by Mountain Man View Post
    No competent doctor with any integrity would attempt to diagnose someone without performing a personal examination. The one doctor who has personally examined Trump says that he is mentally and physically fit.
    But... but... they SIGNED A PETITION!!!!! That's worth... um....... (reminds me of all the videos of people getting others to sign a petition for really dumb stuff by explaining "well, all this means is...")

    1 Tim 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.

  11. #359
    Evolution is God's ID rogue06's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southeastern U.S. of A.
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    42,532
    Amen (Given)
    929
    Amen (Received)
    16111
    Quote Originally Posted by Tassman View Post
    Not just Tass!

    "A number of experts have become so concerned about Trump they are willing to face reprisals from their organisations for breaking such rules, including Psychotherapist John D Gartner. The John’s Hopkins Professor has said Trump displays signs of 'malignant narcissism', also reportedly stating: ‘Donald Trump is dangerously mentally ill and temperamentally incapable of being President.’

    https://thepsychologist.bps.org.uk/v...d-donald-trump

    "More than 60,000 mental health professionals have signed the petition, which states: “We, the undersigned mental health professionals, believe in our professional judgment that Donald Trump manifests a serious mental illness that renders him psychologically incapable of competently discharging the duties of President of the United States. And we respectfully request he be removed from office, according to article 4 of the 25th amendment to the Constitution, which states that the president will be replaced if he is ‘unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office.’”

    https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog...e-donald-trump
    Are you familiar with what is colloquially called "The Goldwater Rule"[1]? It is contained in part 3 of Section 7 of the American Psychiatric Association's "The Principles of Medical Ethics" which has been in effect for 44 years (and can be downloaded in pdf form HERE). I'll bold the pertinent portion for you

    3. 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 conducted an examination and has been granted proper authorization for such a statement.


    As Maria A. Oquendo, President of American Psychiatric Association, emphasized last year

    Source: The Goldwater Rule: Why breaking it is Unethical and Irresponsible


    "Every four years, the United States goes through a protracted elections process for the highest office in the land. This year, the election seems like anything but a normal contest, that has at times devolved into outright vitriol. The unique atmosphere of this year’s election cycle may lead some to want to psychoanalyze the candidates, but to do so would not only be unethical, it would be irresponsible."



    Source

    © Copyright Original Source



    She reemphasized this in the conclusion where she wrote "Simply put, breaking the Goldwater Rule is irresponsible, potentially stigmatizing, and definitely unethical."



    Likewise the American Psychological Association's code of ethics also cautions its members against diagnosing any person, including public figures, whom they have not personally examined. The president of that association, Susan H. McDaniel, reminded the members of this when she wrote about the guidelines during the 2016 election cycle in a letter in The New York Times, reproduced below in full.

    Source: Response to Article on Whether Therapists Should Analyze Presidential Candidates


    Re: Should Therapists Analyze Presidential Candidates? (Campaign Stops, Op-Ed, nytimes.com, March 7):

    The American Psychological Association wholeheartedly agrees with Robert Klitzman, PhD, that neither psychiatrists nor psychologists should offer diagnoses of candidates or any other living public figure they have never examined. Our association has declined requests from several reporters seeking referrals to psychologists who would make such speculations.

    Similar to the psychiatrists Goldwater Rule, our code of ethics exhorts psychologists to take precautions that any statements they make to the media are based on their professional knowledge, training or experience in accord with appropriate psychological literature and practice and do not indicate that a professional relationship has been established with people in the public eye, including political candidates.

    When providing opinions of psychological characteristics, psychologists must conduct an examination adequate to support statements or conclusions. In other words, our ethical code states that psychologists should not offer a diagnosis in the media of a living public figure they have not examined.

    Susan H. McDaniel
    President
    American Psychological Association



    Source

    © Copyright Original Source



    McDaniel also sent a letter to the Chronicle of Higher Education regarding a similar article

    Source: Response to Article on Diagnosing Public Figures


    The American Psychological Association does not have a Goldwater Rule per se, but our Code of Ethics clearly warns psychologists against diagnosing any person, including public figures, whom they have not personally examined. Specifically, it states: “When psychologists provide public advice or comment via print, Internet or other electronic transmission, they take precautions to ensure that statements (1) are based on their professional knowledge, training or experience in accord with appropriate psychological literature and practice; (2) are otherwise consistent with this Ethics Code; and (3) do not indicate that a professional relationship has been established with the recipient.” Throughout this presidential campaign season, APA has cited this ethics standard to explain to journalists why we could not assist them on stories seeking to diagnose the mental state of Donald Trump or any other candidate.



    Source

    © Copyright Original Source



    So much for scurrilous petitions signed by irresponsible, unethical butthurt partisans.


    ETA: Having studied questionable "petitions" like this in the past my suspicions are immediately raised when I see terms like "mental health professionals" in that they might include receptionists, billing secretaries, and sales representatives working for companies that sell to psychologists/psychiatrists in order to greatly pad the numbers.











    1. It came about after the now defunct Fact magazine published the results of a 1964 survey of 2417 psychiatrists about whether U.S. Senator Barry Goldwater was fit to be president and which concluded no, that he was "psychologically unfit" to be president. Even though this "diagnosis" was obtained "by merely observing him on TV or reading what he writes," Goldwater was labeled a "dangerous lunatic," "paranoid," "emotionally too unstable" and that he had a "Godlike self-image." Sound familiar?

    Goldwater sued the editor for libel and won (extremely difficult for a public person to win such cases in the U.S.) a $75,000 (approximately $592,000 today) judgment for damages.
    Last edited by rogue06; 02-11-2018 at 09:46 AM.

    I'm always still in trouble again

    "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" -- starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)

  12. Amen Jedidiah, alaskazimm, RumTumTugger amen'd this post.
  13. #360
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Agnostic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    10,391
    Amen (Given)
    1282
    Amen (Received)
    1285
    Quote Originally Posted by rogue06 View Post
    Are you familiar with what is colloquially called "The Goldwater Rule"[1]? It is contained in part 3 of Section 7 of the American Psychiatric Association's "The Principles of Medical Ethics" which has been in effect for 44 years (and can be downloaded in pdf form HERE). I'll bold the pertinent portion for you

    3. 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 conducted an examination and has been granted proper authorization for such a statement.


    As Maria A. Oquendo, President of American Psychiatric Association, emphasized last year

    Source: The Goldwater Rule: Why breaking it is Unethical and Irresponsible


    "Every four years, the United States goes through a protracted elections process for the highest office in the land. This year, the election seems like anything but a normal contest, that has at times devolved into outright vitriol. The unique atmosphere of this year’s election cycle may lead some to want to psychoanalyze the candidates, but to do so would not only be unethical, it would be irresponsible."



    Source

    © Copyright Original Source



    She reemphasized this in the conclusion where she wrote "Simply put, breaking the Goldwater Rule is irresponsible, potentially stigmatizing, and definitely unethical."



    Likewise the American Psychological Association's code of ethics also cautions its members against diagnosing any person, including public figures, whom they have not personally examined. The president of that association, Susan H. McDaniel, reminded the members of this when she wrote about the guidelines during the 2016 election cycle in a letter in The New York Times, reproduced below in full.

    Source: Response to Article on Whether Therapists Should Analyze Presidential Candidates


    Re: Should Therapists Analyze Presidential Candidates? (Campaign Stops, Op-Ed, nytimes.com, March 7):

    The American Psychological Association wholeheartedly agrees with Robert Klitzman, PhD, that neither psychiatrists nor psychologists should offer diagnoses of candidates or any other living public figure they have never examined. Our association has declined requests from several reporters seeking referrals to psychologists who would make such speculations.

    Similar to the psychiatrists Goldwater Rule, our code of ethics exhorts psychologists to take precautions that any statements they make to the media are based on their professional knowledge, training or experience in accord with appropriate psychological literature and practice and do not indicate that a professional relationship has been established with people in the public eye, including political candidates.

    When providing opinions of psychological characteristics, psychologists must conduct an examination adequate to support statements or conclusions. In other words, our ethical code states that psychologists should not offer a diagnosis in the media of a living public figure they have not examined.

    Susan H. McDaniel
    President
    American Psychological Association



    Source

    © Copyright Original Source



    McDaniel also sent a letter to the Chronicle of Higher Education regarding a similar article

    Source: Response to Article on Diagnosing Public Figures


    The American Psychological Association does not have a Goldwater Rule per se, but our Code of Ethics clearly warns psychologists against diagnosing any person, including public figures, whom they have not personally examined. Specifically, it states: “When psychologists provide public advice or comment via print, Internet or other electronic transmission, they take precautions to ensure that statements (1) are based on their professional knowledge, training or experience in accord with appropriate psychological literature and practice; (2) are otherwise consistent with this Ethics Code; and (3) do not indicate that a professional relationship has been established with the recipient.” Throughout this presidential campaign season, APA has cited this ethics standard to explain to journalists why we could not assist them on stories seeking to diagnose the mental state of Donald Trump or any other candidate.



    Source

    © Copyright Original Source



    So much for scurrilous petitions signed by irresponsible, unethical butthurt partisans.


    ETA: Having studied questionable "petitions" like this in the past my suspicions are immediately raised when I see terms like "mental health professionals" in that they might include receptionists, billing secretaries, and sales representatives working for companies that sell to psychologists/psychiatrists in order to greatly pad the numbers.











    1. It came about after the now defunct Fact magazine published the results of a 1964 survey of 2417 psychiatrists about whether U.S. Senator Barry Goldwater was fit to be president and which concluded no, that he was "psychologically unfit" to be president. Even though this "diagnosis" was obtained "by merely observing him on TV or reading what he writes," Goldwater was labeled a "dangerous lunatic," "paranoid," "emotionally too unstable" and that he had a "Godlike self-image." Sound familiar?

    Goldwater sued the editor for libel and won (extremely difficult for a public person to win such cases in the U.S.) a $75,000 (approximately $592,000 today) judgment for damages.
    The APsaA which is an affiliate of the APA, disagrees with the Goldwater rule. So there!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •