Donald Trump has 'dangerous mental illness', say psychiatry experts at Yale conferenc

katsung47 · Post by **katsung47** » Mon Apr 24, 2017 4:14 pm

Under the leadership of a mental.

Donald Trump has 'dangerous mental illness', say psychiatry experts at Yale conference

Mental health experts say President is 'paranoid and delusional'

May Bulman 4/21/2017

Donald Trump has a â€œdangerous mental illnessâ€ and is not fit to lead the US, a group of psychiatrists has warned during a conference at Yale University

Mental health experts claimed the President was â€œparanoid and delusionalâ€, and said it was their â€œethical responsibilityâ€ to warn the American public about the â€œdangersâ€ Mr Trumpâ€™s psychological state poses to the country.

Donald Trump has 'dangerous mental illness', say psychiatry experts at Yale conference | The Independent

superhorn · Post by **superhorn** » Fri Apr 28, 2017 10:53 am

This is quite plausible . Trump's erratic behavior , his extreme narcissism, his childish petulance, his megalomania etc make him appear quite mentally lll .

But the awful thing is that if he is removed from office because of this, America would be stuck with Mike Pence as president , who is a crazed evangelical Christian fanatic and an extremely dangerous man . More dangerous than Trump .

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Fri Apr 28, 2017 11:09 am

superhorn;1508704 wrote: This is quite plausible . Trump's erratic behavior , his extreme narcissism, his childish petulance, his megalomania etc make him appear quite mentally lll .

But the awful thing is that if he is removed from office because of this, America would be stuck with Mike Pence as president , who is a crazed evangelical Christian fanatic and an extremely dangerous man . More dangerous than Trump .I agree with this. If only the democrats would have offered up someone the rest of us could have voted for.

On a side note: it appears Trump is beginning to regret his decision to run. I wonder how he'll handle this issue. Will he resign or might he actually adapt. It would not surprise me to see him walk away. Though, I think he's now in it for the political future of his daughter and son-in-law, if there is one.

Four years is a long time for a seventy-year-old.

superhorn · Post by **superhorn** » Thu May 04, 2017 1:21 pm

America DID have a highly qualified candidate in Hillary Clinton, imperfect as she is . She has all the qualifications, experience, knowledge, skill, and brains needed for the most difficult job on orate , but everything went horribly wrong and now we are stuck with the most unfit, unqualified , incompetent, clueless , misguided , abysmally stupid , dishonest and ruthless demagogue ever inflicted on America as a leader .

What caused this catastrophe ? Blatant abuse of the long obsolete electoral college by the Republican party , as well as the GOP's flagrant use of gerrymandering and suppression of minority votes , not to mention blatant interfere by Russia .

Trump lost the popular vote by nearly three million votes .

katsung47 · Post by **katsung47** » Mon May 08, 2017 5:25 pm

Japanese Interpreter: Translating Trump Word For Word Makes Us â€˜Sound Stupidâ€™

Some things get lost in Trumpslation.

By David Moye Feb 25, 2017

Donald Trump says things that can defy descriptionâ€”and thatâ€™s proving a challenge for translators around the globe.

Tokyo-based translator Chikako Tsuruta told the Japan Times that translating the president into Japanese is a challenge, what with the lack of logic or concern for facts.

â€œ rarely speaks logically, and he only emphasizes one side of things as if it were the absolute truth,â€ Tsuruta said. â€œThere are lots of moments when I suspected his assertions were factually dubious.â€

Japanese Interpreter: Translating Trump Word For Word Makes Us 'Sound Stupid' | HuffPost

----------------------

Omni_Skittles · Post by **Omni_Skittles** » Sun May 14, 2017 11:42 pm

Rand paul 2020

Post by **spot** » Mon May 15, 2017 1:13 am

Omni_Skittles;1509125 wrote: Rand paul 2020

There's an awful lot of Trump between here and 2020. By then a second Trump term may seem the only way out.

As for the Yale conference, there's an ethical agreement that all psychiatry experts accept which says no psychiatry experts will ever give a psychiatric diagnosis without first interacting directly with the patient at first hand. The psychiatrist who said Trump has a 'dangerous mental illness' wasn't one of the conference's psychiatry experts, he was a member of the audience. The implication in the thread title that the Yale conference came to this 'dangerous mental illness' conclusion is entirely false, it was an opinion voiced from the floor.

Omni_Skittles · Post by **Omni_Skittles** » Mon May 15, 2017 5:39 am

spot;1509129 wrote: There's an awful lot of Trump between here and 2020. By then a second Trump term may seem the only way out.

As for the Yale conference, there's an ethical agreement that all psychiatry experts accept which says no psychiatry experts will ever give a psychiatric diagnosis without first interacting directly with the patient at first hand. The psychiatrist who said Trump has a 'dangerous mental illness' wasn't one of the conference's psychiatry experts, he was a member of the audience. The implication in the thread title that the Yale conference came to this 'dangerous mental illness' conclusion is entirely false, it was an opinion voiced from the floor.

Ever try workin for snopes

Post by **spot** » Mon May 15, 2017 6:30 am

Here you are Skittles, I've found several attempts at summarizing the rule:1. 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.

2. We live in an age where information on a given individual is easier to access and more abundant than ever before, particularly if that person happens to be a public figure. With that in mind, I can understand the desire to get inside the mind of a Presidential candidate. I can also understand how a patient might feel if they saw their doctor offering an uninformed medical opinion on someone they have never examined. A patient who sees that might lose confidence in their doctor, and would likely feel stigmatized by language painting a candidate with a mental disorder (real or perceived) as â€œunfitâ€ or â€œunworthyâ€ to assume the Presidency. Simply put, breaking the Goldwater Rule is irresponsible, potentially stigmatizing, and definitely unethical.

3. For a mental health professional â€“ or any physician â€“ to publicly offer a diagnosis of a nonpatient at a distance not only invites public distrust of these professionals, but also is intellectually dishonest and is damaging to the profession. After all, a professional opinion should reflect a thorough and rigorous examination of a patient, the clinical history, and all relevant clinical data under the protection of strict confidentiality, none of which is possible by casual observation of a public figure. To do otherwise is unethical because it violates this fundamental principle and thereby misleads the public about what constitutes accepted medical and nonmedical professional practice.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/ps ... ump-rigged

The article is from August last year and it discusses whether Donald Trump should be an exception and, if so, why.

I'm not a psychiatrist so I can without recrimination say that President Trump is as untrustworthy as a dozen red-eyed pepper-sprinkled weasels thrown into a packed school gymnasium with padlocks on the outside door but even then I'd add I've never met the fellow.