That’s ridiculous. If you accept the idea of being able to discern mental illness from afar, shrinks have told us that many Presidents have had some form of mental illness.

What you are basically saying is that we should discriminate against people based solely on if they are mentally ill. That doesn’t sound right to me at all. What’s important isn’t whether or not a particular POTUS has a mental illness; it’s the things they actually do while a candidate and in office. Actions, not perceived mental state.

How do you get from "in a person in his position" to "we should discriminate against people based solely on if they are mentally ill"?

The underlying idea is that people with mental illness are not suited to be President. I think that's overbroad and unfair to the vast majority of people with mental illness. We shouldn't be judging people based on a diagonsis; we should be judging people based on their actions and temperment. To say someone is dangerous simply because they've been diagnosed with a mental illness and therefore shouldn't be "a person in his position," is discriminatory.

Indeed, it's not even a standard that anyone has applied in the past (with one notable exception which lead to the Goldwater Rule) nor is it a standard anyone is actually going to apply going forward. One in five people have been diagnosed with a mental illness in the US; the actual prevalence is probably higher due to the stigma attached to it and people not seeking treatment. This means that among the 11 still active Democratic Party POTUS candidates, 2 or 3 of them probably have been diagnosed with a mental illness. Where's Duty to Warn when you need them? ;)

That seems like a stretch. You're saying that the Dem candidates are just a representative sample of general society?

Oh crap, you are right. :mgduh I forgot to factor in that they were American politicians. Correction: more like 5 or 6 of them have been diagnosed with mental illness. :D

What you forgot is that this is a straw man argument. No one said mental illness was the issue. It's Trump's specific mental illness and how it is manifested that is the issue.

Yup, there's a difference between having a mental illness that didn't affect their functioning too much - and might even have led to a particular drive and a complete disconnect from reality, which Trump seems to be displaying.

Strawman? No.

The title of the thread is "Donald Trump has 'dangerous mental illness' . . ."

You just said Trump's mental illness is the issue. You can't special plead your way out of the core problem here: mental illness is being used to explain the negative qualities and bad behavior of a public figure. If we ever hope to reduce the stigma associated with mental illness, we have to divorce "bad" and "dangerous" from "mentally ill."

Mental illness -and the way society views it- is indeed an issue here. You asked me awhile back to demonstrate the harm being done by the Yale Group and their public discussion of Trump. Here it is in black and white.

It's a straw man. Playing pedantic games with anytime someone mentioned mental illness instead of Trump's specific NPD doesn't make it not a straw man.

NO ONE IN THE THREAD OR IN DR LEE'S LINK HAS SAID ANY AND ALL MENTAL ILLNESS IS THE SAME. NO ONE!

That was probably true right up until xjx388 said it.

Is "being a crabby bunny" a mental illness? Because it seems to be spreading around! Can't we all just come together nicely to celebrate our president's obvious criminal insanity?

Exactly. It seems that very few are saying that he is not insane and a criminal. Mostly his supporters are saying those are fine characteristics for a POTUS.

Trump's performance does indeed show him unsuited to commend or indeed being in charge of anything complex. He literally behaves like a preschooler during the national anthem. I have gathered that the flag and the national anthem are quite important in US culture - more so than in Britain, for example.

To be fair, recently his declining faculties have overshadowed his other character defects (which also made him unsuited to any position of power).

The thread title was that Trump has a dangerous mental illness. The implication is that there are non-dangerous mental illnesses as well - which is true. There are many that cause distress to the sufferer but aren't generally dangerous to them or anyone else.

However, having a demented Commander in Chief doesn't seem to be an unequivocally brilliant idea.

"Mental illness" covers a lot of ground, and includes a lot of attitudes and behaviors that don't interfere with rational thought or functioning. But mental health is a legitimate requirement for many jobs. Law enforcement applicants are usually required to pass a psychological screening, and are subject to monitoring throughout their careers. Psychological screening is a basic part of applying for and keeping a government security clearance. Many employers administer the MMPI or other screening tools. And the officers who control nuclear weapons are subject to the most intense screening and continuous monitoring.

Trump couldn't pass any of it. That might not matter for a NYC real estate hustler or a TV reality star. But that's not where Trump sits today.

I'm still waiting for someone to articulate the danger we're supposed to be concerned about.

Dr Lee has unequivocally called for the immediate removal of the President from office, on account of the danger he poses. I'd like to see some more in-depth analysis of what this danger is likely to be, why it hasn't manifested yet, and what's likely to cause it to manifest.

NPD is a reasonably well-understood condition, isn't it? A confident diagnosis of NPD should enable strong predictions about behavior. And not just typical hot-reading stuff like "he'll continue to say stupid stuff on Twitter." Actual medical insights not readily accessible to lay observers.

No one has said it? Everyone is linking mental illness to Trump’s negative qualities. Why is Trump dangerous? Because he’s mentally ill. It’s the linking of mental illness to negative qualities that’s the problem.

Why do you need to mention mental illness at all? Why not just argue that he’s dangerous because of his ignorance, incompetence, etc?

Why avoid mentioning one of the reasons he is dangerous?

Because being mentally ill isn't actually what makes him dangerous.

Mentally ill does not equate to dangerous. It's a stereotype.

Please stop with the vapours.

It's not a generic mental illness that is the problem, it's the fact that the Commander in Chief is supposed to take difficult decisions with complex geopolitical ramifications that affect the lives of Americans in dangerous parts of the world. Trump literally behaved like a preschooler during the national anthem - that's a sign that something is very wrong with his mind.

And the sky isn't always blue. Just google "dangerous mental illness" and you'll see mental illness can and does cause violent behavior. It also causes a wide range of other dangerous behavior such as driving when you aren't capable. Yes, not all mental illnesses lead directly to dangerous behavior but they certainly can and do.

I suppose there is a good point here. I've seen it suggested that one has to be a little crazy to want to be president at all, and one could argue that a brilliant sociopath or sufferer from something classified as a mental illness could still be an effective president. We've had a few depressives, I think. Unfortunately, I think the reality is that Trump is a fool, and always has been. Long before anyone saw evidence of mental decline, critics thought him a self-aggrandizing jerk, and joked about what a bad president he'd be. In his case the evidence of his mental incompetency simply amplifies the wrong things. There's some recreational interest in trying to analyze his nuttiness and quantify the mental deterioration that I think should be obvious to anyone who actually pays attention, but in the end the reason he's a bad president is that he's a ***** idiot who at his best was always unfit for the job. His obvious loss of acuity and aphasia just make his habit of stupidity and lies harder to miss.

I wonder when, if ever, his supporters will find it impossible even for them to pass over his gaffes and infantilisms. At some point, one would imagine, people will look back at this and say "what was I thinking?" but apparently we must fall further down the hole first. I picture Trump with sharpie in hand drawing a mustache on Obama's official portrait and Moscow Mitch and his cronies complimenting him on his creative prowess.

One thing so far, he hasn't invaded any other countries or ordered pre-emptive strikes, nuclear or otherwise. The nukes thing is the most obvious danger he presents. But if Trump is rapidly deteriorating cognitively, is he even capable of observing whatever protocol must be observed to launch a nuclear weapon? I'm not sure he can just call up the Pentagon and order it to nuke Tehran. I know the "football" is supposedly with him at all times, but what does that entail? Someone would need to at a minimum input GPS coordinates and pick which bomb(s) to drop.

Is he even capable of issuing coherent orders?

Not all mental illness causes violent behavior, though. And we haven't really seen violent behavior from President Trump. What's the most violent thing he's done? Yell at reporters? Kill terrorists?

If the Yale Group is right, we should be seeing regular violent outbursts, with a clearly worsening trend. But we're not. All of the "evidence" presented so far, of Trump's allegedly dangerous mental illness, hasn't shown any danger. The diction, the grammar and syntax, the facial expressions, the hair... Tell yourself this proves he's crazy, if you like. But don't pretend it proves he's dangerous.

Vote him out in November for being a bad president.

Impeach him for high crimes and misdemeanors, if you can manage it.

Start 25th Amendment proceedings because he's dangerously crazy? That just makes Dr Lee look like a clown. An unethical clown.

Then why is there a long running thread with people telling me how obvious it is that Trump has a mental illness? Weird. Eh. It's a sign that he's a childish fool. You didn't really need to invoke the mental illness angle in order to make your point, which is really: It's not good to have a childish fool as POTUS. And I totally agree with that point.

What I don't agree with is using the medical profession and illness to attack someone.

There was Ivana's sworn deposition that he raped her in a fit of rage in 1990.

What makes you think it hasn't manifested yet? Just because you ignore problematic issues with Trump's presidency that doesn't mean there are no problematic issues with Trump's presidency.

Please illustrate how the danger has manifested. Don't argue politics; tell us something dangerous he has done. Dangerous in the sense that a mental health professional would mean.

Currently he believes the new coronavirus will disappear in the summer.

Once again he has no clue it is summer in half the planet now. And he has ignorant ideas about pandemics. His NPD leads him to rely on his 'greatest knowledge of all time'. He is not likely to rely on experts at the CDC, which he also demonstrated when a few cases of ebola spread.

We may very possibly be in big trouble if he interferes with the public health response to the pandemic.


We have that. You may not be paying attention.

We all know that.

You are willfully refusing to recognize your straw man. [/discussion]

I'm talking specifically about violence and danger. A "problematic" administration can be removed through elections or impeachment.

Dr Lee is calling for Trump's immediate removal, under the 25th amendment, because of how dangerous he supposedly is. I'm not seeing that degree of danger in his behavior, past or present.

The anthem moment seemed a lot worse to me than childish behavior. It was the inability to maintain even minimal decorum for a 2-minute song. Was he flouting the rules? Or has he forgotten them?

Exactly. The President of the United States sometimes seems to have a similar level of understanding of appropriate behaviour to a preschooler.

If you know that, you are doing a poor job demonstrating it.

Trump is ignorant and incompetent. He probably colluded with foreign actors to enhance his election chances, he obstructed justice, he used campaign funds to pay off a woman he slept with, he used his authority to attack political rivals and he demonstrably has no sense of respect for the office he holds. Those actions? That's more than enough to make a case against him. What does mental illness add to the argument? As you say, you know that mental illness does not equal dangerous. I assume you also know that mental illness doesn't make a person bad or evil. Therefore, adding mental illness into the mix does not make a good case for his dangerousness or for his badness. All of those actions I outlined above would be bad whether or not he has a mental illness.

Yet here you are, continuing to insist that it's his specific mental illness that makes him dangerous/bad. You are refusing to see that, simply by putting "mental illness" and "dangerous" together to attack Trump, you are equating those two things.

Interestingly, people who work for him feel the same way.
https://www.businessinsider.com/trum...an-2019-9?op=1

And there's this:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/b...-four-year-old

No, we'd be equating them if we didn't have to add the "dangerous" adjective.

I would say an inability to learn from (or even acknowledge) his mistakes, along with a refusal to atone for his mistakes (such as firing people that testified against him) are dangerous abuses of our political systems.

Nitpicking in 3,2,.....

Oh, I see your mistake, then: You're hung up on the idea that danger must necessarily imply "violent".

It doesn't.



You're Welcome!

But [ETA: anyway] his first wife gave a sworn deposition that he was violent

He does not seem averse to providing classified US info to other governments. I suggest that could be dangerous without being violent.

What do you think "dangerous" means when a mental health professional says someone is dangerous? Recall that Dr. James Gilligan is an expert in violence. He works with dangerous criminals and wrote a series of books about violence. At the Yale conference in the OP, he said, regarding Trump: "I know dangerousness when I see it." Do you think he was talking about the kinds of things you mentioned?

To be sure, the things you listed are bad things to have in a POTUS and I agree with your assessment of Trump. However, I don't see how any of that has any bearing at all on whether or not he is mentally ill. I'm sure you'd agree that it isn't necessary for him to be mentally ill in order for those things to still be true, yes?

Yup, that is why the national anthem performance was so striking.

His pretending to conduct it showed a complete lack of awareness. And I have seen preschoolers doing similar in similar situations. Probably 3- rather than 4-year olds though

I'm intrigued at whether GOP politicians have thought about exit strategies as they must realise that eventually it'll be even harder to deny. And saying "he seemed fine to me" will ring very hollow.

Also, would one really want to be involved in a conspiracy where one of the key players is becoming demented?

I was replying to Recovering Yuppie's point about violence. He also mentions other forms of danger, which I have not overlooked (but also haven't addressed yet).

So.

If we discount the danger of violent outbursts, what other danger is there? The danger that he might do something dangerously incompetent? Sure, but you don't need the Yale Group to push a "dangerous mental illness" narrative on you, for that. You can just look at his degree of incompetence, say it's too dangerous for you, and conclude that he should be voted out of office.

You could even argue that he's so dangerous that he should be summarily removed for that reason alone. That's what the Yale Group is arguing. Do you support Dr Lee's call for the Cabinet to remove President Trump via the 25th Amendment?

Good point. Bad decisions about coronavirus could be very dangerous, for example, no violence needed.

Much as he touts his economic success, that's dangerous too. His house of cards will likely all fall down soon.

"I think Donald Trump is selfish, ignorant, and incompetent. I think this is a dangerous combination that should never have been allowed anywhere near something as critical as the Presidency of the United States."

"I agree that he's selfish, ignorant, and incompetent, but not to the degree his haters imagine. I think the institutions of the federal government will be sufficient to keep him within the norms of presidenting."

"Oh yeah? Well, what if I told you that he's selfish, ignorant, and incompetent because he's crazy? If board-certified psychologists say it, you have to agree that it's bad, right?"

"One, it's unethical for board-certified psychologists to appeal to their authority in this way. Two, their claims are scientifically dubious anyway. Three, your argument that Trump is dangerously incompetent and should be removed from office doesn't actually depend on a medical claim anyway. So why even open that can of worms?"

Lather, rinse, repeat, for two years and two thread continuations, and here we are today. Nobody has anything new to say. Nobody is changing anyone else's minds. Dr Lee continues to make perfect sense to people who never needed her input to begin with. And Dr Lee continues to be dismissed by people who never needed her input to begin with.

They already know. They're just scared to death of Trump and his base. This is how dictatorships begin. They don't have to park tanks outside the Capitol; they just subvert the instruments of government.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...mp/3792866002/

That would make him about as dangerous as Bill Clinton, who presided over the dot-com crash, and George W Bush, who presided over the "great recession" (or whatever we're calling it). This is hardly a 25th Amendment scenario. Or even a manifestation of mental illness.

The whole point of elected representatives is that they have to answer to their constituents for the votes they take and the policies they implement. For representatives to remove the President in secret, without ever admitting their votes or answering for them to the people that elected them, would be the subversion.

If the people that elected you want Trump to stay, then you have only two options: Honor your constituents' wishes, or contradict those wishes and tell your constituents why. Secretly contradicting your constituents while publicly pretending to serve them is... what's the phrase? "Subverting the instruments of government."

I can't speak for Gilligan. I am merely speaking for myself when I say that a president can be dangerous without being violent.


I'm struggling to find a point in any of that. I can't think of any individual behavioral trait that is uniquely associated with mental illness, so yes, I agree with your last question. However, I can think of many behavioral traits that are far more common among the mentally ill, so I also believe it to be far more relevant than you seem prepared to admit. Putting out a warning that a president is mentally ill because he is exhibiting those traits commonly associated with mental illness is simply a choice that I do not have a problem with in this case.

In that case, I guess I'm trying to help you finally get around to addressing that.



Like I just said in a previous post, I think a narcissistic personality disorder manifests itself in his inability to acknowledge, learn from, or atone for his mistakes. I find that dangerous in a president.

I'm not even sure what that question means. I supported his removal through impeachment, if you'll take that as answer enough. It didn't happen, so I don't see how removal via 25th Amendment could be possible at this moment, either. But yeah, I'd prefer he not be in office.