Name:	copperline -	Reply
Subject:	What do you expect Trump to do?
Date:	7/4/2017 11:17:29 AM

How should Trump handle his meeting with Putin?

This is a quick survey of local opinions about this historic meeting about to happen in Europe:   Trump & Putin will now have a longer, face to face meeting than previously announced.     What are the important things Trump should say & do when he gets the chance to speak directly to V Putin?

All US and it’s allies’ Intelligence services agree that Putin orchestrated a large scale effort to influence the outcome of the US Presidential election by numerous means at his disposal.      There was large scale production of misinformation injected into the media stream that made negative allegations about H Clinton, documented attempts to probe into electronic voting systems, and the strategic release of stolen communications for the purpose of undermining the Democratic Party & their candidate.   These Russian efforts were designed to undermine H Clinton and promote her opponent in the general election.  We cannot say conclusively that this clinched the narrow election for Trump, but it did happen… and clearly was interference with the most basic of democratic processes in our nation.

Is that serious enough that a sitting President should bring it up and confront the Russians for their attack on our system for electing our leaders?

Should Trump aggressively demand an apology and a promise to never do this again?  Or should he just mention it in a passing comment and move on to something else?   Should Trump emphasize the seriousness of the issue or play it down so as not to disrupt US-Russian relations?

Will Trump be able to confront Putin since the outcome of the Russian actions benefitted Trump so directly?   Since he benefitted from the operation, is he in a position to credibly complain about attempts to manipulate the outcome of our election?  

 Was this election interference an important & crucial event or was it just something Trump should ignore in favor of improved relations with the Russian government?

 Should Trump create his reply based on outrage that the Russians did this, or will he play it down since the outcome of their efforts favored him?

Weigh in with opinions and what you hope Trump  will do... and let's see at the end of the week what the outcome is.

Name:	Talullahhound -	Reply
Subject:	What do you expect Trump to do?
Date:	7/4/2017 2:06:34 PM

I hope that his staff will prepare him with talking points.  Although it appears Russia attempted to influence our elections, I don't think you can say that Trump directly benefitted from their attempts.  It wasn't lies about Hilary - it just made public some of her shady dealings.  I know that liberals prefer to think there was some huge conspiracy between Trump and Putin, but at the end of the day, nothing will have indicated that there was.  We should be more worried about hacking in general and coming up with better security measures and I am sure that is being worked.  Too many companies have a stake in continuing to do business in Russia.  This hacking is just a blip on the screeen. 

I hope that when he meets with Putin that they will find common ground, but unfortunately, I think that will be difficult given Russia's support for the Assad regime and their involvement.  I'm sure they will talk about North Korea and Putin will want to keep U.S. business interests in Russia and will probably press Trump to make commitments for continued U.S. business expansion in Russia.  They will probably talk about oil, since the waning prices of oil are hurting Russia's economy.  And no doubt Trump will bring up Russia's expansionism in Eastern Europe. 

Honestly, Copperline, how can you thing they will waste any amout of time talking about hacking?  That is such small potatoes compared to other issues they can and likely will discuss.  This is an important economic summit. 

At best, after the political hoopala blows over, the likely outcome is that our State Department will call in the Russian Ambassador and read him our official protest, and give him a Dip note to deliver to Moscow.  It'll be nothing more than a slap on the wrist. 

Name:	wix -	Reply
Subject:	Now COPPER-IDIOT,.....
Date:	7/4/2017 5:43:36 PM

how can you post such a scandalous post.  You (and your dimokrap idiot comrades) are well aware that it is a well known fact that Putin owns Trump, lock, stock, and barrel.  Putin and Trump are known to have shared hookers in Moscow.  You know that Putin is the one who taught Trump to grab girls in the "right" place.  Putin even crashed the dimokrap party idiot computers and told Trump exactly how to beat the greatest female ever to walk on earth in the election.  Trump is nothing.  Putin controls Trump and the universe.  There is no need for a summit....except to praise the almighty Putin.

Name:	lucky67 -	Reply
Subject:	What do you expect Trump to do?
Date:	7/4/2017 7:27:15 PM

best to let putin be & concentrate on that maniac  midget in No. Korea

Name:	Talullahhound -	Reply
Subject:	What do you expect Trump to do?
Date:	7/4/2017 8:55:40 PM

I have a feeling that will be a major point of discussion.  That and the continued war in Syria.

Name:	Rich -	Reply
Subject:	What do you expect Trump to do?
Date:	7/5/2017 8:47:26 AM

"there was large scale productin of misinformation injected into the media stream that made negative allegations about H Clinton"

All we saw were the dirty deeds going on with H, as Podesta and others never claimed the info was bogus just enlightening to those with an open mind. The only misinformation I have seen is from "anonimous sources" from the MSM. over Russia / Trump collaboration.

Name:	copperline -	Reply
Subject:	What do you expect Trump to do?
Date:	7/5/2017 5:09:14 PM

I think we can agree that Trump was Putin's desired candidate, and that the Russian efforts in this huge intelligence operation was to disrupt one candidate's campaign and thereby promote the other.

Name:	wix -	Reply
Subject:	COPPER-COMMIE
Date:	7/5/2017 5:16:42 PM

Please provide PROOF for your stupid assumption made in the above post.  No assumptions, no suggestions, no prophetic proclamations, no BS.....just proof, and not from CNN, MSnbc, cbs, abc, nbc, or any other proven liberal idiot sources.  No proof.......shut up.  Pass the word.

Name:	lakngulf -	Reply
Subject:	What do you expect Trump to do?
Date:	7/5/2017 6:29:02 PM

It remains to be a problem that CORRECT information is leaked, and FAKE information is mainstreamed!

Name:	copperline -	Reply
Subject:	What do you expect Trump to do?
Date:	7/6/2017 10:51:55 AM

So far, with very few forum contributors posting any opinions, the results are:

1)      It happened, but this isn’t very important so I’m not worried about it.  It would be inappropriate for Trump to bring it up with Putin.

2)      I’m not sure it happened, but am more concerned about North Korea so I’m ignoring it.

3)      It’s all fake news, didn’t happen at all, and I won’t believe it did unless Breitbart says so.

4)      It may have happened AND it didn’t happen at all.  It’s complicated, who cares anyway?   Bring me another beer.

Happy National Patriotism Day!   In this part of the country, we dare defend our flag and the integrity of our nation.

The polls are still open on this one.   All opinions are welcome

Name:	copperline -	Reply
Subject:	COPPER-COMMIE
Date:	7/6/2017 4:58:01 PM

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2017/07/06/heres-the-public-evidence-that-supports-the-idea-that-russia-interfered-in-the-2016-election/?hpid=hp_hp-cards_hp-card-politics%3Ahomepage%2Fcard&utm_term=.d2c044aa0f2b

Name:	wix -	Reply
Subject:	COPPER-IDIOT
Date:	7/6/2017 8:14:14 PM

Would you go back and read my post about providing a PROOF source.  WIlly Peter has been proven time and time again to lie in favor of their liberal idiot buddies.  Get real, or shut it down.....

Name:	copperline -	Reply
Subject:	good question
Date:	7/6/2017 10:31:01 PM

You're right, today Trump did say that only 4 of 17 US intelligence agencies agree that there was Russian interference with the election.  But that's not true.   Trump is likely the only person in the US government who doesn't recognize Russian activity in the election.  You can't count on what Trump says, he contradicts himself when he speaks.

Good question:  Is it lying, dereliction of duty, or the winning of the election that makes Trump shy away from asking the important questions about Russia?  

Forget blaming Obama, that dog won't hunt.

Name:	MrHodja -	Reply
Subject:	good question
Date:	7/6/2017 11:41:57 PM

How do you know he isn't asking the important questions?

Copper, you and I come from vastly different backgrounds.  My background, to include some of my assignments and clearances, gives a little better insight about how things work in the puzzle palace (I worked there for four years) and the top levels of decision making (one assignment was the National Emergency Airborne Command Post where I had the pleasure of participating in a demo ride for then VP George HW Bush) than maybe your (to be admired) work with OD patients in the ER.  The old saying goes "you don't know what you don't know", and at the presidential level that saying is spot on.

So I don't share your conviction that certain things are true....especially when based on espousal by someone who did not observe the event first hand.  I don't KNOW whether he is or isn't asking the important questions, and tend to not lend credence to arguments based on third hand (at the best) information.  You can believe as you do, but your somewhat negative description of those who answered your overhead question in this or another post is, in my opinion, without merit.  Because they don't agree with you doesn't make them any less a patriot.

Name:	phil -	Reply
Subject:	good question
Date:	7/7/2017 8:58:45 AM

Only reason that dog is not huntin is because you claim it dont - Bush was blamed for 8 years, so yup that dog is out treeing squirrells.  

I think it is a valid question as to why the sitting president of the US did not do anything to protect the integrity of the election when he was advised of it almost 6 months in advance.

you claim it is not true,, guess you missed the AP and others who retracted their stories about the 17.

Correction: June 29, 2017  New York Times
A White House Memo article on Monday about President Trump’s deflections and denials about Russia referred incorrectly to the source of an intelligence assessment that said Russia orchestrated hacking attacks during last year’s presidential election. The assessment was made by four intelligence agencies — the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the Central Intelligence Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the National Security Agency. The assessment was not approved by all 17 organizations in the American intelligence community.

Van jones on video great big nothing burger - We do need to ask some important questions about Russia.  Why is the news media and idiots like yourself still attempting to wag the dog with collusion and lies.  Russia was able to get so voter information databases, did not alter any data, did not stop anyone from voting, did not change anyones votes. Someone got to Podesta's email with his "password" that he gave to them like an idiot, and that the DNC was warned months before that someone was in their systems but did nothing about it, just like the 2016 White House.  

So I would say there are some questions to be asked, they just dont seem to be the ones that you want that end with impeachment.  Now go wag your tail at the mailman little doggie, cause you damn sure aint a hunting dog.

Name:	copperline -	Reply
Subject:	good question
Date:	7/7/2017 11:19:18 AM

I have been wondering what your opinions on all this would be, having picked up on some of your experience & assuming you had a different perspective than the average person.   My post was intended to be provocative, I think it’s very important to point out the contradictions in our opinions about D Trump, the Russians, etc.    I think it’s also important to point out to people that Trump supporters have been drawn into the position of excusing, tolerating and turning a blind eye to the intentions behind what we are calling “the Russian Hack”.   It’s much bigger in scope than a simple computer hack job & theft of documents, and those same people who have been historically suspicious of Russian intentions have changed their minds.

 For my part, I think what we are looking at is the culmination of a large-scale intelligence operation that was designed to successful disrupt as much of the integral processes of the US society as possible   (Like the integrity of election results & confidence in the electoral process) and discredit H Clinton.  It also appears that D Trump was a person of interest to Russian intelligence operations going back some years, quite likely an asset who was cultivated over time…. Trump may or may not have been a conscious player, in fact, it would be a more common procedure for ex-KGB operatives to draw him in (think loans from Russian banks) and develop leverage over him without him being aware of what he was getting himself into.   Part of an operation like that would also include developing connections to other people in Trump’s orbit who might be useful points of influence on him.    The actual election of D Trump may have surprised even the Russians, whose ambitions could have been met just by proving they could influence US public opinion with their support of a self-described “disrupter” of the US political process.   An intelligence operation like this would be considered successful just on the basis of causing more polarization among the electorate of the target country.    Actually getting their preferred candidate elected to the US Presidency may have been so far-fetched as to not be seriously anticipated.

 Trump has all the attributes of the Stuxnet virus, launched by Putin into the US system.    Do you think that US Intelligence folks would think that was a fair analogy?

 Are you content to believe that D Trump is well aware of the risks, and that his ego will let him rationally assess the dangers involved when Russians inject themselves into our elections?  Or do you think he has a blind-spot that makes his ability to effectively respond unlikely?   Do you think he has been sufficently curious about what happened?  He certainly has not been outraged & instead took time in his European speech to cast doubt on the integrity of US Intelligence and importance of a Free Press.   All of that on foreign soil, too.

 Do you think the investigations of US Intelligence agencies are all pointedly flawed and should be dismissed by voters as D Trump is advocating?    

 If you wanted to do harm to a target country, could you come up with a better idea than to elect a man who has never held any political office before, nor military experience, nor foreign policy & diplomatic experience… a man who is so completely confident in his intelligence & wisdom that he dismisses his own countries’ Intelligence apparatus (they are all lying about me) and military (I know more than the generals, and POW’s are losers), the free press (they are all fake news)…    A man who is so absolutely boastful & conceded, but then can’t respond cogently to reporter’s questions on policy issues?

 Your skepticism regarding allegations, published reports, and my overall opinions is understandable.     You are right, I never worked around US intelligence operations.   But I do have some experience with the vulnerabilities of certain character types to manipulation and to the risks that certain character types present when we put them in positions of authority & power.   Trump has always had vulnerabilities that make him a dangerous man to elect as POTUS.    There were glaring warning signs then, and they continue today.      

I’m going to keep pointing that out, just like I did in the campaign, because I think we are in a crisis of leadership like we have never seen before….   

Name:	phil -	Reply
Subject:	COPPER-COMMIE
Date:	7/7/2017 11:55:19 AM (updated 7/7/2017 12:52:09 PM)

Election hacking from your own Washington Compost link.

The DNC hack - well that is not the election, but 

Name:	phil -	Reply
Subject:	good question
Date:	7/7/2017 12:15:13 PM (updated 7/7/2017 12:16:01 PM)

if you truly are the person you claim to be in terms of a metal health professional.

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

Please explain how you are in violation of the Goldwater Rule by the APA.  

The Goldwater rule is the informal name given to Section 7 in the American Psychiatric Association's (APA) Principles of Medical Ethics,^[1] which states it is unethical for psychiatrists to give a professional opinion about public figures 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 presidential candidate Barry Goldwater.^[3][4]

The issue arose in 1964 when Fact published the article "The Unconscious of a Conservative: A Special Issue on the Mind of Barry Goldwater".^[3][5] The magazine polled psychiatrists about American Senator Barry Goldwater and whether he was fit to be president.^[6][7] The editor, Ralph Ginzburg, was sued for libel in Goldwater v. Ginzburg where Goldwater won $75,000 (approximately $579,000 today) in damages.^[3]

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.^[9]

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jonathan-d-moreno/the-real-story-behind-the_b_11733088.html

 

“The Presidency should not be used as a platform for proving one’s manhood . . .”

“Inwardly he is a frightened person who sees himself as weak and threatened by strong virile power around him . . .”

“Since his nomination I find myself increasingly thinking of the early 1930s . . .”

“Unconsciously he seems to want to destroy himself. He has a good start, for he has already destroyed the Republican party . . .”

What sound like remarks that could have been made about Donald Trump were actually written by psychiatrists in response to a survey during the 1964 presidential campaign. This embarrassing incident led to the now-famous Goldwater Rule, which bars psychiatrists from diagnosing public figures long-distance. Yet in this election cycle physicians are commenting on what they regard as one of the candidate’s medical problems without being sanctioned by the American Medical Association.

What explains this difference? For the answer one has to turn to the historical context of the Goldwater Rule.

...

Analyzing a political figure, living or dead, runs the risk of politicizing a whole field. In the Goldwater case, it was no surprise that many if not most psychiatrists turned out to be liberals who were ill-disposed toward Goldwater’s tough rhetoric, but mixing politics with professional expertise was and remains toxic. On pain of inconsistency, the same standard should be applied to all physicians, regardless of their specialization.

 

2nd verse same as the 1st.  rinse repeat.  We get it you dont like Trump and you like to violate your ethics and by huffington post own words you are toxic.

 

 

 

Name:	copperline -	Reply
Subject:	good question
Date:	7/7/2017 12:22:14 PM

You are right.   The Intelligence branches of the US Coast Guard and Drug Enforcement Agency probably had no reason to contribute opinions about Russian meddling in the election.   However, the CIA, NSA, & FBI certainly did.

But B Obama DID react to reports of the election hacking, he imposed sanctions and directly confronted Putin about it, even making sure that D Trump's campaign had fair warning about related issues (think Mike Flynn).    Instead of holding on to those sanctions, Trump began his efforts to retract them as soon as he was elected.

Obama did not (and could not) stop the election from proceeding... which was about the only thing that would have really allowed us time to assess and deal with what was happening to us.    From a political perspective, D Trump's constant drumbeat that 'the election is rigged' created a huge impediment for a public response to the Russian meddling, and served to encourage his followers to believe that it was actually Obama who was criminally meddling with the election process instead.

From the Russian point of view, this has been a brilliantly concieved and executed operation.   In order to be a strong Trump supporter now, you have to have more confidence in the Russian government as a reliable source of information than our own.....and dismiss the opinions of the US government, military & intelligence agencies completely.

Name:	phil -	Reply
Subject:	good question
Date:	7/7/2017 12:43:59 PM (updated 7/7/2017 1:01:14 PM)

http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/29/politics/russia-sanctions-announced-by-white-house/index.html

Sanctions that Obama imposed after the election after knowing what was going on for months were supposed to do what exactly?  Why did he not do something before the election?  To suggest stopping the election, you have to be kidding???  How about him taking one of those hundreds of media appearances and state that our election is being meddled with and tell the American people as well as the states that are in charge of the election to watch out for "Russians"

So canidate Trump stating it was rigged stopped Obama dead in his tracks and brainwashed all us deplorables into thinking Obama was criminally meddling instead.  

From the Russian point of view, this has been a brilliantly concieved and executed operation.   In order to be a strong Trump supporter now, you have to have more confidence in the Russian government as a reliable source of information than our own.....and dismiss the opinions of the US government, military & intelligence agencies completely.

yup our Government is the paragon of truth and virtue - from the IRS not targeting the TEA party, selling guns across borders and Lych just happening to meet up with Bill Clinton accidentally at a out of the way airport.  Does it make me trust the Russians?  Nope, but does not give me lots of reason to trust my government either.

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/04/upshot/the-long-decline-of-trust-in-government-and-why-that-can-be-patriotic.html

NY times 2015 - still nothing to do with Trump

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2010/04/80-percent-of-americans-dont-trust-the-government-heres-why/39148/

article from 2010 80% dont trust the US govenment - nothing to do with Trump

I really like this graph of trust in the Government notice the rise of distrust and its peaks with Clinton and Obama.  Its bad when Clinton and Obama have a higher distrust rating then even Nixon.  Distrust seems to also come along around economic down turns.

Name:	copperline -	Reply
Subject:	good question
Date:	7/7/2017 1:06:27 PM

The Goldwater Rule doesn't apply to me.  I'm retired.   

Secondly, the Goldwater Rule was based on the idea that there was inadequate information to base diagnositic impressions on with regard to Barry Goldwater.  In subsequent years, with the growth of media, this is less true.   In fact, as regards D Trump specifically, there are hundreds (thousands?) of hours of candid, unscripted, unedited interviews with him to base psychological profiles on.   This is largely due to the fact that he has made great efforts to put all kinds of information about himself in front of the public over the last 30 years.   The Narcissism diagnosis is obvious.   The additional reference to Malignant Narcissism comes from his constant distortions of facts as shown in his public statements.   With all that source material to evaluate,  it's fair to conclude that D Trump does not have the same definition of "truth" and "facts" that a normal person would have, nor does he regard these things as important.   His needs to prop himself up with self-congratulatory rhetoric while in full view of contradictory facts should be very disturbing.

By the way, I'm not saying Trump has a mental illness.  It's a character disorder, and that's different.  I do think he could BECOME mentally ill when he becomes trapped & cornered by the risk of public humiliation.   But we are not there yet.

In his case, D Trump has been bluntly and without reservation telling us about his view of the world and his view of himself for many years.   He has not been Howard Hughes.   He has been a showman with a need to get his name in lights.   As far as the Goldwater rule goes, Trump has given mental health professionals cause to rethink that rule because his personality type clearly values self-adulation more than devotion to the public good.  Many of those professionals think that electing a man with these traits to the most powerful position in the world is a seriously dangerous thing to do, and felt compelled to ignore a long-held professional standard to not speak publically about it.     

One example of what I mean:  I think many mental health professionals believe that doing things like impersonating a ficticious employee in order to give Trump-admiring tidbits of information to news reporters (something that Trump has been known to do) is an indication that something is wrong with this guy.   Most people would agree that believing in a guy who would do that pretty much defies common sense.   Most people would not openly state that a man like that would be trustworthy & reliable.  Mental health professionals are no different.   They just make their living observing people.

Name:	phil -	Reply
Subject:	good question
Date:	7/7/2017 1:21:59 PM (updated 7/7/2017 1:22:20 PM)

So retired means you can violate professional ethics and standards.  Got it.

Goldwater rule is outdated, much like the US Constitution and needs to be a living document. Got it.

Trump is a  showman and entertainer - so his statements and actions in front of the camera are 100% factual and a window into his mental health.  Got it.  

We get it you loved Obama and dont like Trump.  Gonna be a long presidental term for you, personally I hope for 8 years for Trump and many more for other Republicans.

Because I am not saying you have a mental illness, but a severe character disorder which is different.  I think you could become mentally ill when you become trapped and cornered by public humilation, just like James Hodgkinson, he also posted lots of anti-trump/republican posts.

Name:	phil -	Reply
Subject:	good question
Date:	7/7/2017 1:22:00 PM (updated 7/7/2017 1:22:54 PM)

So retired means you can violate professional ethics and standards.  Got it.

Goldwater rule is outdated, much like the US Constitution and needs to be a living document. Got it.

Trump is a  showman and entertainer - so his statements and actions in front of the camera are 100% factual and a window into his mental health.  Got it.  

We get it you loved Obama and dont like Trump.  Gonna be a long presidental term for you, personally I hope for 8 years for Trump and many more for other Republicans.

Because I am not saying you have a mental illness, but a severe character disorder which is different.  I think you could become mentally ill when you become trapped and cornered by public humilation, just like James Hodgkinson, he also posted lots of anti-trump/republican posts.

Name:	copperline -	Reply
Subject:	good question
Date:	7/7/2017 3:35:19 PM

Is this going to be your revenge on people who voice criticisms about Trump?  Outing them & publishing their names to other forum readers? Trying to scare somebody by hints & innuendo?

Taking a tip from the Trump playbook there, aren't you?

Name:	phil -	Reply
Subject:	good question
Date:	7/10/2017 8:56:01 AM

Is this going to be your revenge on people who voice criticisms about Trump?  Outing them & publishing their names to other forum readers? Trying to scare somebody by hints & innuendo?

Taking a tip from the Trump playbook there, aren't you?

Where did I publish your name?  I was just pointing out that based on what you have stated is/was your profession you are in violation of your professional ethics, which you claim you could hang up at retirement.  I do not know your name or any other information other then what you and others have stated about you.  

No I am not CNN in attempting to blackmail you into silence or appologies, if what you state is true about your profession - you are in violation, are unethical and willing to sacrafice your ethics for your politlcal belief system.  

We get it you hate Trump, love Hillary and Obama and are willing to compromise anything and everything to attempt to make your beliefs reality.

To suggest I am taking a tip from the Trump playbook is laughable, if any were able to fit your narrative it would be CNN, but alas you are just a D.

Name:	copperline -	Reply
Subject:	good question
Date:	7/10/2017 10:49:21 AM

I appreciate your intense concern about keeping a high ethical standard here on the forum.  And, I appreciate that you believe that the Goldwater Rule would prevent anyone like me from voicing opinions for the rest of their lives.   Problem is, that doesn't make sense nor is it what the Rule was meant to accomplish.    

My personal standards continue to include that I would not vote for someone who brags they can grab women by the pussy for sport, etc.  You? 

No, you outed somebody else... somebody I don't know but whose name you published... and you apparently threw it in as a warning that this is what can happen to 'people like that'... did I get that about right?

Was that an ethical thing to do?

Name:	phil -	Reply
Subject:	good question
Date:	7/10/2017 1:12:30 PM

Ok loonytoon - you go find where I published someones name on here or outed someone.

I do recall someone else making a warning to GFY about knowning him in reality and that he was not this big of an ass in real life.  Again you are wrong, it was not me and you are a liar for saying so.  You are fake news.

Now is it ethical for you to lie about me, acuse me of a "outing" someone when I did no such thing.  I do not know anyone on here personally and do not know their names/addresses or anything else other than they "claim" to be on this river or that or they publically stated comments such as yourself being a retired mental health patient err professional.

No the goldwater rule was created to keep mental health professionals from commenting on someone who they have never met, nor personally or professionally interviewed or had a session with on proclaming wild a$$ diagnostic evaluations on a public figure for partisian cause. .

Now you/GFY/Arch please post MY post where I outed someone, talk about lack of ethics.  You are CNN, you are fake news, you are a liar and want to rewrite professional ethics codes because you want to be able to talk trash about Trump's mental health while violating a standard for your profession that states you do not make public comments about public figures because you dont like them or disagree with their politics without him being your patient or having actually had a session with him.  You are the one who is making mental health diagnostics of Trump, You have never had a session with him.  I am pointing out that based on retirement you claim you are no longer bound by the ethical standards of your profession.  You want to bash Trump go for it, you want to make a evaluation - you are the one who is acting against mental health standards and ethics.

You have proven yourself to be an unethical hack and do mental health professionals a disservice.

Now as for pussy grabbing - Bill Clinton grabbed plenty and you D's love him still.  Now when Trump is found guilt of a crime or has a stain on a dress of one of his intens that actually proves something we can talk about it.  I think Clinton said it best - Its just sex.  

While some of Trumps sexual harrassment charges are still being litigated, I notice that not even FNN or PMSNBC talks much about it anymore, which makes me wonder how many of these woman who may or may not have done something with Trump consensually at the time got on the D's payroll to try to derail his election, much like this Russian nothing burger is still trying to do.

You probably voted for Hillary which would have put Bill Clinton the known sexual predator back in the White House with a fresh flock of interns, or are you one of the D's who actually voted for Berney because you didnt want Bill as 1st predator?  Please speak up loudly and proclaim that Bill Clinton likes stuffing girls with cigars under the oval office desk...  

I know a lot of people who have bragged about a lot of things in their lives that never happened, or make it sound like more then it ever was - now Bill on the other hand dropped a DNA load on Monica in the Oral Office - at a minimum that is sexual harrassment in the workplace.

Now explain to me how any of that is the ethical thing to do....

Name:	copperline -	Reply
Subject:	good question
Date:	7/10/2017 2:52:00 PM

Amazing.  In this thread, you outed & criticized some poor dude by name...... now you are saying it didn't happen.

7/7/17   1:21:59pm  "Because I am not saying you have a mental illness, but a severe character disorder which is different.  I think you could become mentally ill when you become trapped and cornered by public humilation, just like James Hodgkinson, he also posted lots of anti-trump/republican posts."  

Do you not remember typing that?

Nope, the Goldwater rule does not apply to retired professionals, nor does it apply to those who have changed jobs & left the profession... It simply recommends that a practicing professional should not use their professional credentials in this way.     It does not tell them that they should ignore what they have learned, or what they conclude from the same news sources you read,  nor that they are bound to never voice political opinions for the rest of their lives.  

Name:	MrHodja -	Reply
Subject:	good question
Date:	7/10/2017 3:04:19 PM

James Hodgkinson outed (and managed to off) himself when he took a semiautomatic rifle and tried to kill Republican legislators practicing for a charity baseball game.

Name:	phil -	Reply
Subject:	good question
Date:	7/10/2017 4:02:40 PM (updated 7/10/2017 4:16:12 PM)

In this thread, you outed & criticized some poor dude by name

OMG you are an idiot.  I outed the Sanders supporer who decided to shoot up the senate baseball game?

Yup I typed that.  and by your standards you "out" Trump daily as he is also in the news.  So you are just as guilty for posting someones name.  You are as delusional as you are insane.

So a Dr. who leaves the profession/retires is no longer subject to the rules when he is actually making a diagnosis of someone.  So glad to konw that someone who retires from a given profession is no longer bound by those rules / guidelines after retirement or leaving the profession while attempting to armchair quarterback their profession. 

Makes perfect sense now - So Hillary was no longer bound by ethics, rules or documents she signed when she becamse SOS because she retired.  Comey can use that in his upcoming hearings as to leaking government documents... "Well Lordy I hope so , they fired me so any non-disclosure, no leaking government documents rules at the FBI didnt apply to me anymore"

Professional standards exist regardless of retirement or changing jobs.  You may no longer be practicing, but you are still bound by ethics, standards and laws.

So you can now start to release HIPPA information about your patients because you are retired?  Nope, laws, standards and ethics still exist even if you are no longer seeing patients.  

It is laughable that you would imply otherwise and stand by my statement about you that I took almost as a direct quote of you in regards to our President.

 "Because I am not saying you have a mental illness, but a severe character disorder which is different.  I think you could become mentally ill when you become trapped and cornered by public humilation

Name:	copperline -	Reply
Subject:	good question
Date:	7/10/2017 5:00:55 PM

OK, didn't recognize that you were making a reference to that shooter in DC... such an obscure reference to throw in that it didnt' make register with me.   Still, you continue to be abusive with your name-calling.    That's in keeping with the ethical standards you hold to be important?

It would be helpful if you would explain exactly what your educational and employment experience is.   Might help us understand where you are coming from, especially the background you have in professional ethics regarding the mental health fields.

Name:	phil -	Reply
Subject:	good question
Date:	7/10/2017 5:26:37 PM (updated 7/10/2017 5:57:45 PM)

Oh so now you want information(self outing) that I am not willing to put out due to the fact that I have already received multiple personal emails from people on Lakes Online that GFY likes to use personal information to cause issues with someone in real life.

My background is that I have caught you in a issue in which you profess that you can diagnose the president without having ever had a session with him in violation of the ethics of your profession.  You claim this is not an issue and you can do this because you are retired and that the rules that govern your profession no longer apply to you.  You attempt to obfuscate the issue by stating that by my ethical standards I have "outed" someone which is unethical and basically claiming that since i was unethical then your ethics do not matter at this time and in addition you want me to out myself which could put me at either personal or financial danger from some liberal idiots on Lake Martin who do not agree with me, no thank you and no I will not be at the local baseball field anytime soon.

As for my professoinal ethics expecially in regards to the mental health fields - I am not the one who is attempting to diagnose anyone - that one is all you.  Now there are many fields in which I do have experience and sign non-disclosure documents which I am not at liberty to discuss even after I retire.

I am abusive in my name-calling and that is a violation of ethical standards?

OMG you are now a 3rd grader on the playground trying to dance around singing sticks and stones.

yup I call you names. Wow.  That is just so unethical of me.  It is a character flaw of mine that is something along the line of when you smell crap, point it out before others step in it. 

I think Wix says it best with something along the line of CrapperTime.

Name:	copperline -	Reply
Subject:	yeah
Date:	7/11/2017 8:18:57 AM

LOL.   Nobody was asking you to give your name, address & phone number, only to explain where your expertise in ethics in the mental health field comes from.   

I can certainly understand why you would want to remain anonymous though.  

Name:	phil -	Reply
Subject:	yeah
Date:	7/11/2017 8:42:56 AM (updated 7/11/2017 10:11:19 AM)

And since my listing my expertise could not allow you to google who I am and figure out the rest - yeah.. talk about your lack of ethics.  

You are an idiot, and others have already warned me that it has happened before, and in addition where does my mental health experience have to do with your violations of the professional standards that you retired from?

Obviosuly we get it, retired you do not have to follow professional standards anymore even when attempting to diagnose someone without pay, without request, without a meeting, remotely and in violation of those standards directly against the code of ethics that was created to make sure that such a thing does not happen for political causes.

We get it, you retired from your code of ethics before you violated them.

I also was not responsible for speed limits or stop signs laws - but I know to follow the rules.