Twitter the only evidence? Tired claim of NPD?

:rolleyes:

And is just about as eloquent.

At some point willful ignorance by itself becomes a psychiatric disorder:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...85d_story.html

I'm having a hard time imagining how someone could be "dangerously uninformed" about the history of the Pearl Harbor attack.

Sounds like the "dangerously uniformed" assessment refers more broadly to his core knowledge of the world and his basic information-processing ability. But it's hard to understand how a 72-year-old man who grew up around veterans and who watched Pearl Harbor commemoration ceremonies every year wouldn't know a little more than he does.

Because those who do not learn from history are bound to repeat it?

A 73 year old college educated man who is ignorant of the most basic facts of one of the most important events in US...no...world history....yet is the most powerful man in the world is not a good combination. It is a dangerous one.

Nothing that does not affect Trump directly is worth knowing about. Narcissism 101.

Of course you are. Because using one quoted snippet of a yet to be published book is easiest way for you to distract from the substance of the quote. Trump knows nothing about Pearl Harbor history (among myriad other things) and is perfectly acceptable for the president of the USA.

At least he'll have the carriers out at sea when Japan comes back to bomb Pearl Harbor the next time. Where's he going to get some battleships, though?

Trump will keep our navy in Pearl Habor until we have taken all the pearls!

Your inability to understand the meaning behind the quote is noted.

When it is representative of a more general ignorance.

Which has absolutely nothing to do with mental illness.

Go ahead and just try quoting me where I said it does.

You will fail.

Hard to believe that anyone would post anything the least little bit off topic in this thread, isn’t it?

I said it has nothing to do with mental illness, the topic of this thread. If you want to talk about his general ignorance, there are plenty of threads for that.

I'M SHOCKED! SHOCKED, I TELLS YA! :shocked:

(A) This man can single-handedly launch nukes
(B) This man does not understand the significance of Pearl Harbor in America’s history.
(C) This man believes he is a genius nonpareil who doesn’t need to
ask for advice on any subject whatsoever. (When asked who he talks with consistently about foreign policy, President Trump responded, “I’m speaking with myself, number one, because I have a very good brain and I’ve said a lot of things. I know what I’m doing and I listen to a lot of people, I talk to a lot of people and at the appropriate time I’ll tell you who the people are. But my primary consultant is myself and I have a good instinct for this stuff."

A+B+C= danger.


As I’ve said before, if I walk up to the scene of an auto accident and see a bone sticking out of someone’s leg, I don’t think my lack of formal medical training means I am out of line in saying, “dude, you should see a doctor about that.”

Similarly, I think it is appropriate to look at President Trump’s statements and behavior and say, “dude, you should see a panel of doctors about that.”

......
On foreign policy he is consulting himself because he has “a big brain” and he’s “said a lot of stuff.” I’m not qualified to comment on possible mental illnesses. I do, however, feel it is not inappropriate to say this guy does not have a firm grip on mental hygiene.

Makes sense to me. If you voted against him on that basis, I wouldn't think it odd or irrational.

So. What did the Yale group tell you, that you hadn't already figured out on your own?

I don’t get what you are complaining about. “Dangerously mentally ill” has absolutely nothing to do with ignorance. Being mentally ill doesn’t make you ignorant or dangerous; being ignorant doesn’t make you dangerous or mentally ill.

Which is one of the big problems with using the “mentally ill,” label in the first place: it perpetuates untrue and harmful stereotypes.

When I had all the symptoms of a gall bladder attack and suspected that's what it was, I still went to the doctor who confirmed it.

Did you seek a psychiatric opinion before casting your vote against Donald Trump?

Have you *ever* found it necessary to get a psychiatric diagnosis of a politician, before or after making up your own mind about them?

I simply responded to others who were already talking about general ignorance....


.....you know, just like you are doing right now.


LOL!

You keep on bringing that up as if you seem to think it is a necessary condition to justify the Yale group's approach.



It is not.

I'm having a hard time imagining how any person over 50 could possibly be uninformed about the history of the Pearl Harbor attack.:jaw-dropp

Of course. I went to The Candidates' Psychiatric Evaluations. Available online or at Barnes and Nobles. Doesn't everyone? :rolleyes:

I didn't vote for Trump because I thought he was mentally ill. I didn't vote for him because I thought he was a disgusting, lying, cheating, bullying, corrupt, childish, narcissistic POS.

Of course you don’t get what I am complaining about. Because I am not complaining. You came in on the tail end of a minor derail and made incorrect assumptions. Just as you did with this post. You should confirm context prior to your knee-jerk posts.

That. :thumbsup:

Obviously I disagree. The Yale group broke from the ethical rules of their profession, to make an unorthodox and public diagnosis. They cited their duty to warn as the justification for this. If the thing they're warning about is already understood and accounted for by the public, then it fatally undermines their justification.

In my opinion.

What do you think justifies setting aside the Goldwater rule, in this case?

Not unless one's mental illness has affected one's ability to learn.

Oh, come on. Everything you just said or questioned has been discussed over and over again. Go read the 2 + continuations of this thread again.

You addressed your question to Ladewig, not the general public. If you wanted the general public to answer then maybe you should organize a poll or something?

And anyway, if I tell someone something they already know, that does not negate my motivation for speaking in the first place. You seem to have this backwards.

When I was a kid, a neighbor strongly objected when we mentioned we dropped atomic bombs on Japan in WW2. Just refused to believe it saying the USA would never use nuclear weapons first. It was just inconceivable to her. She would have been about 14 y/o in 1945 so go figure.

Not like it wasn't in the news at the time. One can only wonder how malleable memory is. Cognitive dissonance is a powerful force.

She reminds me of people I've seen on TV denying Trump lies.

Not really...see, I assumed that you guys were trying to tie Trump’s ignorance to his dangerous mental illness. Silly me for thinking that and trying to keep to the topic.

Like I said general Trump bashing is ——->

Actually it clearly does, if the ignorance is the result of Trump's delusion that he already knows everything. The story cited the example of Trump and Rex Tillerson: Tillerson has known and negotiated with V. Putin since the '90s. But when he tried to share his knowledge and experience with the new President, Trump cut him off and ultimately fired him. Ignorance is bad enough by itself, but everybody can read a book or take a class. It's the inability to recognize ignorance that makes it a psychiatric illness. And he's got the launch codes.

You, Random Internet Personality #3456094451. You are not a mental health professional and so ...

IF....

Ignorance + Incompetence =/= mental illness and it’s the lumping together of the two that is the problem.

You don't seem willing to even acknowledge the possibility that ignorance + incompetence can be the result of identifiable mental illness.

It does if your motivation was to tell them something they didn't already know.

It does if your motivation was to get them to change their mind with new information.