Millhouse

I wasn't referring to the duck.

robin1234

There's a pretty good article in the recent issue of Foreign Affairs about Trump & North Korea. https://www.foreignaffairs.com/artic...nd-north-korea

First sentence of the article;

In the next four years, North Korea is poised to cross a dangerous threshold by finally developing the capability to hit the continental United States with a nuclear missile.

The article agrees with the commonly expressed opinion, the Obama administration was remiss in not dealing with NK, probably because they judged that the regime would collapse when the current gentleman's dad died, which of course didn't happen.

Long term, US can be blamed, no peace treaty with NK after the Korean War, NK felt they needed an ultimate deterrent for continued security. So, could Trump (or any other president) do a game changing "Nixon in China?" Visit NK, be best buddies with Kim? Diplomatic relations, normalisation, trade, gas pipeline from Russia to South Korea via NK etc.

Why not?

robin1234

Nor was I

mrken30

Isn't that what they did with Germany after WW2? They found that the sanctions imposed after WW1 did not really help. They just created poverty and gave the population a reason to follow a leader that would make the country great again.

It doesn't look like NK is intimidated by the US fleet.

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/04...-tensions.html

Leslie

That's a nice story that Trump supporters like to tell themselves in order to give themselves cover from the fact that they backed a lunatic.

... and when you have a sucking chest wound then you'd better get to a clinical setting in a big hurry so you can be properly examined. God forbid that a medical professional offer an opinion on somebody they haven't examined in a clinical setting.

Giantaxe

There's actually a clinical code for psychiatric evaluation in a non-clinical setting...

The APA has it's "Goldwater Rule" - brought in after Goldwater sued when in '64 psychiatrists said he was unfit to be president - that says such diagnosis is unethical. I've heard arguments on both sides of that. But unethical isn't the same is being equivalent of a quack.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldwater_rule

mrken30

I'm sure there are signs or behaviors that indicate a condition prior to being diagnosed.

Leslie

In this age of wireless technologies, remote healthcare is already here. ICD 10 may or may not be up to speed.

Of course, Trump, and his supporters, can simply deny the existence of these scientific breakthroughs and that will be that.

Leslie

I think the fact that the guy cannot do his job, without his daughter and son-in-law being installed as his personal full time minders, tells us all we really need to know. Anybody that cannot function without 2 caregivers is really not compatible with any workplace, much less running the country. Given his behavior, and need for constant monitoring, he's not even qualified to work at WalMart.

scot47

Last time I looked, North Korea was not waging any foreign wars. What about Uncle Sam ?

morpeth

I agree on the surface appears very unprofessional of doctors to in public make such comments, and in particular when one can easily suspect such comments motivated by ideological opposition to Trump. Seems amazing people who generally get all up in arms about his lack of sensitivity or comments about others, can make similar type comments about him or his family.

However I must say he does exhibit some characteristics that I noticed in a family member who gradually over time had dementia and Parkinson's. I haven't been trained in this area but I would think an objective doctor could observe possible symptoms no ? He does say some very odd things, sometimes ones that seem a bit disconnected from reality.

Bahtatboy

WTF? So its unprofessional of doctors to give a diagnosis, but you'll have a stab...

And also "its unprofessional of them ... in particular when one can easily suspect such comments [are] motivated by ideological opposition to Trump". Your -- or anybody else's -- suspicion of their motives doesn't affect in any way their professionalism or otherwise. Either they are acting unprofessionally or they're not.

It's highly unlikely that he's going to submit himself to professional examination, and if you read some of the previous links you'll note that one-on-one examinations regarding mental illness are themselves sometimes unreliable since the subject can moderate or alter his responses. Surely observation from a distance -- without the possibility of that observation altering his behaviour -- is valid to some degree.

mrken30

It appears that the Goldwater rule only applies to psychiatrists and not psychologists.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog...goldwater-rule

morpeth

Since I am not in that profession I certainly am not bound by their professional standards, and pretty clear I was just guessing. Perhaps I am wrong with the assumption that discussing someone's mental health by a trained professional generally not done in public, especially if one hasn't examined the patient ? ?

Second, why else would they be commenting about someone who isn't a patient, in public, except for ideological reasons when it could have serious effects- if there is such a concern wouldn't it be better put to Congress or Surgeon General ? My general opinion without any training in the area is that there may be a problem, and if the professionals believe so in a somewhat objective fashion, I would hope they are communicating that - in private- to Congress or whomever appropriate.

Bahtatboy

Given the impact that his obvious problems have, surely its a matter which should be open to the public.