Is Donald Trump mentaly \ morally fit for the presidency?

[Cyclops]

No, but I support patient-doctor confidentiality. What I also support is candidates being submitted to examination for both physical and mental status to doctors of their choice and the results made public. If the doctors they choose are crooked and bribed, with the results open other doctors could weigh in and say "This one seems wrong! A person with X cholesterol and scoring Y in those tests is not "very well fit" for his age!" etc.


No, I don't see it as unethical. I actually see it as my duty as an engineer to save lives. And if a person sounded like a potential criminal, especially of such magnitude as you describe, to a policeman, I believe it is his or her duty to warn the people working with the person.

And I think an old man verging on senility that has been through as much as Biden would be a bad president and I believe Sanders would have been catastrophic...

Apologies for an clumsy post, on the tablet.

US democracy is enough of a farce without involving medical professionals in the constitutional process of election. It privileges maybe two groups that have political interests and would expose the private lives of candidates in ways that have no bearing on their ability to serve as president but might affect electability "gay dream in High School? Noparino!" Any opinion offered with examination probably over several sessions would be meaningless, but you want candidates subject to as many doctors as feel like having an opinion about him? Utter nonsense.

As for the garbage about responsibility of professionals, the professionals have decide they have a responsibility not to fart out stupid assessments for the sole purpose of political character assassination. Just to spell it out, psychiatrists have after sober reflection decided what you suggest is unethical.

As as an engineer if you feel compelled to condemn buildings you haven't even inspected maybe consider a career change: this sort of idiotic and unethical behaviour wouldn't be appreciated by your peers or potential employers (litigators OTOH...). Don't become a cop though, accusing people you've never met of rape is frowned on in that profession.

[Gaidin]

As as an engineer if you feel compelled to condemn buildings you haven't even inspected maybe consider a career change: this sort of idiotic and unethical behaviour wouldn't be appreciated by your peers or potential employers (litigators OTOH...). Don't become a cop though, accusing people you've never met of rape is frowned on in that profession.

It should be noted there's 100% likely to be a protocol as to how an engineer reports an inspected building to be condemned to the governmental authorities after inspecting it. He doesn't just shout it from the mountaintops. He does a write up on why, which parts are screwed up, if it can be fixed, if it can be mitigated, or if it's recommended to just be demolished, and submits it to the decision makers.

Come on alhoon, security. Go on, shout that crap from the roof! Scare everyone! If you have the guts, shout it from the building you're condemning.

[alhoon]

As as an engineer if you feel compelled to condemn buildings you haven't even inspected maybe consider a career change: this sort of idiotic and unethical behaviour wouldn't be appreciated by your peers or potential employers (litigators OTOH...).

Strange, since my peers consider it ethical too. We're encouraged to speak up when we see deficiencies (as long as it's not our boss that did it... ).

It should be noted there's 100% likely to be a protocol as to how an engineer reports an inspected building to be condemned to the governmental authorities after inspecting it. He doesn't just shout it from the mountaintops. He does a write up on why, which parts are screwed up, if it can be fixed, if it can be mitigated, or if it's recommended to just be demolished, and submits it to the decision makers.

Come on alhoon, security. Go on, shout that crap from the roof! Scare everyone! If you have the guts, shout it from the building you're condemning.

Ehh... you realize that saying "Hmm... that pillar should not have been cut off to make a bigger parking lot in my opinion. Is the engineer that designed it aware that the residents cut off one of the main pillars? Perhaps I should call the government inspectors..." is not the same as condemning the building, right?

It is not uncommon for people to illegally cut off columns to make bigger garages like 10 years after a building was made and there is a hefty penalty for that. In every big earthquake a couple such apartment buildings collapse. I am 100% sure that the residents would prefer if an engineer had called attention to it before the earthquake. And you know what? We usually do.


Now please answer me this both of you: Why is it bad to say "I think that crack in the pillar is serious. Call someone to inspect it!" or "I think that man is dangerous. Has human resources been made aware of his actions and remarks?"

[Gaidin]

Ehh... you realize that saying "Hmm... that pillar should not have been cut off to make a bigger parking lot in my opinion. Is the engineer that designed it aware that the residents cut off one of the main pillars? Perhaps I should call the government inspectors..." is not the same as condemning the building, right?

It is not uncommon for people to illegally cut off columns to make bigger garages like 10 years after a building was made and there is a hefty penalty for that. In every big earthquake a couple such apartment buildings collapse. I am 100% sure that the residents would prefer if an engineer had called attention to it before the earthquake. And you know what? We usually do.


Now please answer me this both of you: Why is it bad to say "I think that crack in the pillar is serious. Call someone to inspect it!" or "I think that man is dangerous. Has human resources been made aware of his actions and remarks?"

Are you talking about whistleblowing or actual professional ethics and conduct? Because there's a difference between the two. And doctors ARE allowed to whistleblow. What you want them to do in regards to Trump IS NOT such a thing.

[Heathen Hammer]

Trump won the electors I remind you, not the popular vote. And Hillary was running not Obama. Hillary was way less charismatic and riddled with scandals. And old news. So no, the majority of USA citizens liked Obama.

Irrelevant. Trump won the elections, as per US electoral system fair and square.
Hillary represented Obama's "legacy" and was endorsed by him.
Nevertheless, same people that voted for Obama in previous elections, chose Trump, which means Americans were disappointed with Obama. They were promised changed and got stuck with same globalist BS that was under Bush and Clinton.

You can't just label everything you disagree with as fake news and wear blinders to not see what you don't like. Well, you can, but you shouldn't.
Do you know who do this HH? Social Justice Warriors. Do you want to retreat in a safe place where your views are not challenged and receive a warning before you hear something that may annoy you?

I'm calling them that due to their ties to politicians and the elites, not because of their content.
Americans distrust mass media, because majority of it is owned by a less then a handful of corporations.

[alhoon]

Are you talking about whistleblowing or actual professional ethics and conduct? Because there's a difference between the two. And doctors ARE allowed to whistleblow. What you want them to do in regards to Trump IS NOT such a thing.

I am not a native English speaker. I don't know what exactly you mean by whistle-blowing. What I mean is that as an engineer if I take a nice walk and see a couple of workers cutting a pillar and two weeks later I see an expanded parking lot, I will call the authorities. And since the authorities would have been bribed probably because some of the residents would have also noticed and complained and received the usual answer "what do you know? You're not an engineer! Screw you!" nothing will happen anyway, but that another topic.
Point is, I am expected to use my training for the good of others.



Same thing, when a psychiatrist sees a man exhibiting clear narcissist tendencies and signs of mental instability, he should warn others. If that person is running for president? Even more so.

Hillary represented Obama's "legacy" and was endorsed by him.
Nevertheless, same people that voted for Obama in previous elections, chose Trump, which means Americans were disappointed with Obama. They were promised changed and got stuck with same globalist BS that was under Bush and Clinton.

A few of those that voted for charismatic, smart, talented, non-corrupt, successful Obama didn't vote for an old, tired, scandal-prone Hillary despite Obama's endorsement.
That doesn't mean that the people have fled the Obama-ship in huge droves. It means that when Obama-ship reached the shores they didn't get in the ship the captain suggested, cause unlike Obama-ship, it was a piece of crap.

[Gaidin]

I am not a native English speaker. I don't know what exactly you mean by whistle-blowing. What I mean is that as an engineer if I take a nice walk and see a couple of workers cutting a pillar and two weeks later I see an expanded parking lot, I will call the authorities. And since the authorities would have been bribed probably because some of the residents would have also noticed and complained and received the usual answer "what do you know? You're not an engineer! Screw you!" nothing will happen.

Oh, and I say that because I owe a basement storage space in an area. I bought it from the previous owner. Guess what: Recently I noticed they had cut one of the main pillars, a huge thing like 2m thick to make way. Now, I don't have the plans of the building, so I can't be 100% sure that it is in danger. But when I asked the previous owner, a non-engineer about it, I was told that those old buildings are "Very safe" and built with extra pillars just in case and that the extra pressure on the other 5 main pillars and the other smaller ones would not be too great because the building is connected to nearby ones, so it's not one of 6 main pillars but 1 of many more.
Have I reported it? Noooope. But I did tell the guy that I rent it to.

Whistleblowing. Now, there are two major rules for a trained and licensed psychiatrist. To comment on Trump, they have to examine him. And once they examine him, they have to have Trump's permission to reveal the information to anybody other than him. Unless the diagnosis is such that it should be revealed to a proper third party. But I can hardly see it being revealed to the public at large no matter what the hell you want.

[Admiral Piett]

Mentally fit, yes. Emotionally stable? Remains to be seen. So far he's just taking pages from Obama and Bush's playbook. Blame absolutely all the problems he's facing on his predecessor.

[Cyclops]

...
Now please answer me this both of you: Why is it bad to say "I think that crack in the pillar is serious. Call someone to inspect it!" or "I think that man is dangerous. Has human resources been made aware of his actions and remarks?"

I don't need to answer you. The medical professionals you want to involve in the election process already have: they choose not to get involved in politics. What you are suggesting in your parking lot metaphor is not that an engineer should make the call on a cracked pillar, but that a baker walking past, or a hobo, or a 100 year old woman with cataracts can make that call.

The fit people to judge the competence of the President under the US constitution IIRC are two groups: his cabinet which can agree to remove him (having judged him unfit) and the Congress can impeach him for criminal wrongdoing. The checks and balances are already there.

The professionals do not want a bar of your suggestion, and blandly suggesting that unqualified people should be able to initiated a review of a candidates sanity is not practicable and would be abused roundly.

[alhoon]

No, I suggest that an engineer should make the call. And in the case of presidential (and governor) candidates that there should be an examination physical and mental.

[Cyclops]

No, I suggest that an engineer should make the call.

...and in this case, the "mental engineers" refuse to for extremely good professional and political reasons.

I have to say what you suggest has changed in the course of the thread. In OP you asked all of us what we think: our opinion on a person we haven't examined and are not qualified to examine is completely irrelevant. Now you are calling for mandatory analysis of candidates and at one point seemed to call for mandatory follow ups if someone disagreed.

It puts medical professionals into the political process which is definitely not their job, they are supposed to be healers and researchers, not a special elite electorate: if you force candidates to be assessed then the person assessing them will have a huge effect on their election chances, and frankly from the little I know psychiatry (let alone psychology) is not a rational and coherent enough field of study to deliver consistent reliable results.

And in the case of presidential (and governor) candidates that there should be an examination physical and mental.

What about for TW posters? LOL I'd be out on the physical alone. As for the mental examination, the voices are telling me I'd do fine.

[Dick Cheney.]

I'll just post this here:
http://www.doctorzebra.com/prez/g_roster.htm

But judging by this list, I'd say that medical fitness alone is not a good predictor of a President's ability or performance.

[Diocle]

So, what do you people think? Is Trump a mentally unbalanced narcissist that is unfit for the highest office in the USA? Is he a brilliant strategist that uses controversy to make the world dance to his tune? Is he both? Is he none of the two?

I just think he's a good and generous man who has decided to do what is necessary for his country, and many poor morons around the world haven't yet realized he will go on in this way, doing his duty for eight (8) full years!

[Cyclops]

I'll just post this here:
http://www.doctorzebra.com/prez/g_roster.htm

But judging by this list, I'd say that medical fitness alone is not a good predictor of a President's ability or performance.

Yes, excellent points.

I'd add the actor's and musicians qualifier too: very few normal people can survive the spotlight of public scrutiny, or the buffets of adversarial politics. People who engage in the specific power game of national politics are generally extremely egotistical and singularly competitive.

Obama who comes across as a nice person (how would I know, just seems that way) has engaged in some petty acts of malice toward some opponents (for example Trump) that I would scold my infant son for. Its a dirty game and you'd need a hide, and an ego just to live in that environment

[fkizz]

But judging by this list, I'd say that medical fitness alone is not a good predictor of a President's ability or performance.

People forget why Machiavelli writings survived the test of time. What is mentally healthy is designed having an average citizen as a template.. not for someone who needs to be cunning as a fox to recognize traps, and scary as a lion to scare off wolves.

[alhoon]

...and in this case, the "mental engineers" refuse to for extremely good professional and political reasons.

And I disagree with that for the reasons I've stated.

I have to say what you suggest has changed in the course of the thread. In OP you asked all of us what we think: our opinion on a person we haven't examined and are not qualified to examine is completely irrelevant. Now you are calling for mandatory analysis of candidates and at one point seemed to call for mandatory follow ups if someone disagreed.

In the OP, I asked for opinions on Trump's mental state. You may feel unqualified to say an opinion. Others don't. For example I will say it: He is probably not crazy and he has shown his colors pre-elections so the USA voters got what they voted for. He is certainly temperamentally unfit and I believe the USA voters made a very big mistake.

Now you are calling for mandatory analysis of candidates and at one point seemed to call for mandatory follow ups if someone disagreed.

It puts medical professionals into the political process which is definitely not their job, they are supposed to be healers and researchers, not a special elite electorate: if you force candidates to be assessed then the person assessing them will have a huge effect on their election chances, and frankly from the little I know psychiatry (let alone psychology) is not a rational and coherent enough field of study to deliver consistent reliable results.

I am not saying the results should disqualify people. I am pretty sure the vast majority of Trump's voters would have voted him regardless if a panel of "liberal scum paid by the mainstream globalist elite" examined him and said their opinion is that he's a narcissist.

On the other hand, you make one point I agree: I don't trust psychologists, I believe the methods are at least somewhat bogus and less reliable than say a scan that shows you have a tumor. And that's without adding partisanship in it.

[BatGoat]

I am pretty sure the vast majority of Trump's voters would have voted him regardless if a panel of "liberal scum paid by the mainstream globalist elite" examined him and said their opinion is that he's a narcissist.

Most politicians suffer from varying levels of narcissism. Ultimately, to want to become someone in a position of leadership, you have to possess traits of narcissism, the belief that out of the group of people you choose to lead, you alone are best able to do the leading. The issue with Trump is that he isn't an established politician: he doesn't walk their walk or talk their talk. And if he is a bit rough around the edges, then so be it. If the American people made a mistake, only time will tell. The point is, there were voters genuinely sick of actual politicians speaking in politi-speak and alienating their support base. A lot of people speaking out against Trump are just fidgety armchair know-it-alls and bandwagon riders whose arguments hinge basically on the fact that they "just don't like Trump." Here's a newsflash: not everyone liked ALL the world leaders ALL of the time. It goes with the territory. Ranting about Trump's mental fitness after he has the job is sour grapes shutting the door after the bull has rushed.

[Heathen Hammer]

If you want to look into which politicians is mentally incapable to perform his functions then look no further then senator McCain. That guy is literally senila and is constantly rambling about "Russian threat", going as far as calling Rand Paul "Russian agent" for disagreeing with him regarding Montenegro's NATO membership.

[Roma_Victrix]

If you want to look into which politicians is mentally incapable to perform his functions then look no further then senator McCain. That guy is literally senila and is constantly rambling about "Russian threat", going as far as calling Rand Paul "Russian agent" for disagreeing with him regarding Montenegro's NATO membership.

McCain was a wounded POW and is a veteran who served his country, but you're probably right that he should retire sooner rather than later. Figures like Rand Paul are the future of the Republican Party. In either case, I don't know what to think about Trump anymore. I was giving him every benefit of the doubt since he so handily defeated all his Republican primary opponents and took down the greatest political machine in US history with Hillary Clinton's campaign. Now he seems to be bungling everything left and right, including even our "special" relationship with Britain due to his latest fruitless escapade of accusing Obama of spying on him:

US will 'not repeat' claims GCHQ wiretapped Donald Trump: The US has agreed not to repeat claims the UK's communications intelligence agency wiretapped Donald Trump during the presidential election campaign.


US makes formal apology to Britain after White House accuses GCHQ of wiretapping Trump Tower

This is not normal behavior for a sitting president. He basically didn't consult his intelligence agencies at all for this. He instead consulted a Fox News headline quoting Breitbart. In either case, making a public statement via Sean Spicer, his Press Secretary, on the matter makes it all the more depressing. It would be one thing if this was just another one of Trump's tweets. No. He literally rolled this idea out in a formal press conference. Astounding.

[fkizz]

Your benefit of doubt lasted 3 months? For a US president that took down 2 political dynasties with entire media establishment wanting to take him down? I wouldn't call such benefit of doubt but rather not admiting a dislike for Trump.