Republicans pushing to get Kanye West on more state ballots.

Lol. My eyes and ears work fine. Maybe it's you who need an appointment.

 

Should I visit all 350 "professionals"?

 

A book by a bitter gold digger and the opinion of multiple TDS biased haters, how "convincing" Confirmation bias anyone?

 

Well, you "believe" 350 unethical hacks who never examined the "patient". You understand that's unethical......right???

 

You tell me.

 

Tell you what? That I visited all 350 doctors and not one of them diagnosed Trump? That seems crazy to me.

 

Of course they have examined the patient. That this examination didn't occur on a couch is irrelevant to the fact that experts on human behavior and psychology have observed Trump's behavior and arrived at conclusions based on science.

 

I have no idea what you're talking about.

 

Hahaha! Talk about a conspiracy theory!

 

There comes a point where the sheer number and veracity of testimonial becomes impossible to ignore. This is why Trump supporters are called cultists.

 

It is clearly unethical to "diagnose" a "patient" remotely. Ever heard of this? ----->
Goldwater rule
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Jump to navigationJump to search

The original piece in Fact magazine which prompted the introduction of the Goldwater rule. Likely costing Barry Goldwater a large number of potential votes, this practice was later deemed unethical by the APA.
The Goldwater rule is Section 7 in the American Psychiatric Association's (APA) Principles of Medical Ethics,[1] which states that it is unethical for psychiatrists to give a professional opinion about public figures whom they have not examined in person, and from whom they have not obtained consent to discuss their mental health in public statements.[2] It is named after former US Senator and 1964 presidential candidate Barry Goldwater.[3][4]

 

And? So a number of people are willing to risk their "professional" reputation to display their bias. Are we supposed to be impressed by herd mentallity?
You want to see actual cultism? Behold "Black and yellow red and white, all are equal in his sight, hmmm uhhh mhmm, Barock HeyZoos Obams"

 

There are exceptions for public figures. The guidelines are slightly different. I haven't read the article, and unless you have and can show it, neither one of us knows whether it adhered to these guidelines.

 

Try that in a courtroom and see how far you get.

"I'm innocent your honor. All those witnesses are liars. All 50 of them."

Cult.

 

Do you know who Goldwater was? A public figure indeed. This tactic is an old one. It's right there for you to read. What "exceptions" do you reference?

 

That competent mental health professional don't diagnose people they've never tested or interviewed. And the sister who got stiffed in the will probably ain't the best judge if character of the guy the got the lions share.

 

https://nationalpsychologist.com/20...onal-commentary-on-public-figures/103322.html

 

And yet they demand to see proof, yet when provided they still don't see it. Pure cult behavior. It's disgusting what has become of this country under this baboon of a president. People have lost their freaking abilities to see what right in front of them.

 

Yes, Obama was a cult, just ignore the video. Try some unethical "I think he is ill though I never examined him" in a courtroom. See how loud the folks laugh. Speculators are not "witnesses". FTR

 

Fascinating, did you read it? A few key statements....

You are aware that in order to stay ethical, it’s best to make general statements pertaining to what you know from psychological research, rather than to offer a professional opinion about an individual whom you’ve never met

However, our APA Ethics Code requires that you adhere to certain professional standards and guidelines: www.apa.org/ethics/code/index.aspx

These include Sections 5.04 and 2.04, which require that your statements are based on scientific knowledge and your own expertise and are consistent with other aspects of the Ethics Code – especially Sections 9.01b and General Principle A, which say that you should not offer a professional opinion about someone whom you have not examined and should not make any statement that might undermine the welfare of the person in question.
No matter how insightful your interpretation, if it’s based on gossip and other secondary sources, you are not serving the public well.

Also, your professional comments based on misinformation could potentially cause harm to Mr. Personality – 15 minutes of fame for you; 15 years of shame for Mr. Personality.

 

Did you just call the President a primate? Better be glad it's not 2015. Did you miss the video of schoolchildren singing praises to their "savior"? It is funny how some ignore what they see.

 

So, what can you say about Mr. Personality and his drunken shoplifting spree and still remain ethical? Here’s an example:

“Although I haven’t met Mr. Personality, there are a few possible reasons why people shoplift when they can well afford to purchase the items. These include….”

 

No they arrived at confusions based on bs and ire.

 

Obama is irrelevant. We're talking about Trump. And we're talking about corroborating evidence, not ethics.

 

Since he does not shoplift, do you have some point? Will you vote for the leghairs and cockroaches guy?