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.

1. I don't think that's a given.

2. "He won't break the country" is not a good reason to justify anyone voting for someone like Trump.

...and, of course, an insurgence of alt-right hate groups which, for example, resulted in the murder of Heather Heyer--Just how does that play in your calculus?

Not really your job, but okay.

And I don't object to any of that. My only objection is that you'd be saying he was unable to learn from his mistakes, and that was too dangerous for you, even if NPD had never been brought up. And even without the Yale Group, it would still be a valid thing for you to say.

Dr Lee publicly called on the Cabinet to remove President Trump under the 25th Amendment. Specifically on account of the dangerous mental illness she saw in him. Do you think she's right to call for that?

I think you're on shaky logic ground here.

To complete your analogy, show me what Clinton or Bush did that is comparable to Trump's tariff war. Recessions happen. They're not always the fault of the president. I can easily see the next one being the fault of Trump's tariff war.

Actually, it is my job if we're in a debate and you conveniently don't bring up points that falsify your statement--I'll falsify your statement for you.



I do think it carries more weight to present it as a symptom of NPD.



Sure, I really am fine with it. We still have freedom of speech. I'm glad to see people speak against Trump in any capacity.

Fair enough. To synthesize:

The Yale Group: "Donald Trump has a dangerous mental illness..."

Cabbage: "... and that danger could well manifest itself as a disastrous recession resulting from his tariff war..."

The Yale Group: "... and that's why the Cabinet needs to remove Trump from office immediately."

Between you and the Yale Group, we seem to have the risk, the remedy, and the underlying cause. Is there anything above that you don't agree with?

It wasn't a free speech question. It was a reasonable idea question.

To avoid any more wasted effort on your part: Nothing in this conversation is about freedom of speech. You can safely set that issue aside for now, and focus on other aspects of the discussion.

This false equivalence/whataboutism (take your pick) belongs in another thread.

Re dangerous: He has proposed a 26% cut in the EPA budget.

It's one thing if this is just a horrendous policy difference. But it's quite another when the reason he wants this cut is because he has a delusion of grandeur there that magically he created: "We have the cleanest water. It’s crystal clean and I always say I want crystal clean water and air. ... We’re setting records environmentally.”

Fair enough; but, this thread isn't about "Donald Trump has a 'dangerous mental illness' says Cabbage." Dr. Gilligan was part of the Yale Group and he wasn't talking about "dangerousness" in the context you are.

Here's the point - I think we are actually mostly in agreement, except for our view of the proper public role of medical professionals. See, you have a problem with Trump's behavior regardless of whether or not that behavior is due to mental illnesss and regardless whether or not his actions are dangerous in a mental health context. I have same problems with Trump that you do.

Since we agree on that much, what are we gaining by the unethical actions of the Yale Group? I think the answer is clear: Nothing. And if we've gained nothing, then it should be equally clear that the breach of ethics was unwarranted. Just as we'd like to hold POTUS to higher standards of behavior, I think we should hold the medical profession to a higher standard; indeed, that's what medical ethics is all about. Medical professionals have a duty to act ethically when they deliver information to the public. In order to justify a breach of ethics like this, there should be a real, specific danger to the country. In this case, I think it's pretty clear that there isn't such a danger and that these professionals are doing a disservice not only to the public but to patients who have been diagnosed with mental illnesses.

I understand you but I don't agree with you. When a medical professional issues a professional opinion, they should act ethically and according to the standards of practice of the profession. The Yale Group has not.

The only issues I can think of that I might take with that:

1) Understand that I don't think the danger is limited to a disastrous recession, and

2) I don't know that the Yale group would agree that the reference to a disastrous recession specifically is why he should be removed from office.

I don't know what you mean by "reasonable" idea. Yes, I think it's reasonable for Dr Lee to call for his removal. No, I don't think it's reasonable to expect the Cabinet/Congress to follow through on it.

Agreed.

Speaking as a layman, I would expect one of the major problems for those having NPD is a complete inability to imagine oneself ever making a mistake.

Honestly, I think you are being far too presumptuous here. You can't speak for Dr Gilligan for the same reason I can't; unlike me, however, that doesn't seem to stop you from trying.


You're being presumptuous again. I don't agree it was unethical. I don't agree we gained nothing. You should probably work harder at speaking for yourself and just give up on speaking for others.


In this thread I am aware of at least two objections:

1. Trump can't be diagnosed without a one-on-one clinical observation.

2. It is unethical to paint Trump as mentally ill because we don't want to portray mental illness as dangerous.

You certainly fall under category 2. Am I correct in thinking that you do, indeed, believe Trump is mentally ill, but you are simply concerned with ethics violations here? Just curious.

I think it depends on the kind and severity of mental illness a person is diagnosed with. Should a paranoid schizophrenic be POTUS? Or someone with bi-polar disorder? Or major depression? I certainly don't think so.

One in five people may have been diagnosed with a mental disorder, but most of those are not in the 'severe' category. A president who feels compelled to check if the kitchen light is off 4 times before going to bed is certainly not in the same category as one who thinks his Chief of Staff is trying to poison him or who goes manic and starts calling heads of state at all hours of the night rambling on about how he has a great plan to end world hunger by giving Girl Scout cookies away for free.

Exactly. I don't think Trump could pass a psychological screening test.

I don't know and neither do you. We'd have to ask the professional.


As previously said, 'dangerousness' does not always equate to violence. Just because Gilligan is an expert in violence doesn't mean he thinks being a danger is restricted to being violent.

Trump checks almost every box under the diagnosis for narcissistic personality disorder which is classified as a mental illness.

I don't think he could pass the Marshmallow Test. He'd eat it immediately then accuse the tester of eating it themselves, then demand a thousand more marshmallows at Mexico's expense.

. I don’t need to speak for him. He has adequately spoken for himself on the record.



Ah. Then before I presume too much, are you familiar with the American Psychiatric Association? They have an ethical rule nicknamed the Goldwater Rule that prohibits diagnosing or speaking about the mental health of people they haven’t examined. Now do you agree that it’s an ethical breach?


I’m not attempting to speak for you. If you think we’ve gained something, I’d like to know what you think we’ve gained.










While I am concerned with medical ethics, it isn’t as simple as that. It’s not the end-all-be-all of my objections. Whether or not Trump is mentally ill is a question that is not for me to answer or ponder. A medical diagnosis does not give a layperson useful information. For one thing, we aren’t treating him; diagnosis itself is useful only for designing a treatment program. For another, we don’t have any real idea what a particular diagnosis implies as to a person’s future behavior or fitness for any particular task. We can all see his behavior and judge it for what it is without knowing anything about his mental state.

Ultimately, my main objection is this:
Medicine is a science that deals with healing people. Standards of practice and ethical codes provide a structure to ensure that scientific core mission. Why should laypeople trust doctors that act this way? And if all doctors acted this way, where would the profession be?

If we don’t know, how do we know if the professional is giving us good information? Surely, an appeal to their authority isn’t sufficient?

He is specifically talking about violence. He’s been extensively quoted in the thread. Here’s a snippet from his contribution to the book Lee edited:
Obviously, he is talking about violence.

Medicine is not the practice of filling in checkboxes in books. It’s the practice of assessing each patient as an individual whole person, using a variety of tools, to arrive at a plan that will help to effect healing. These professionals have subverted that noble goal into a weapon to attack politicians.

ftfy :)


Anyone remember the old days when a POTUS candidate that had seen a psych for mild depression was threatened with disqualification by the voters if it got out?

It's not whataboutism to examine this administration in the context of previous administrations. It's also not whataboutism to point out special pleading in your arguments. Your claim is that Trump poses a special danger. But economic downturn is not a special danger. It's a commonplace danger that has actually come to pass recently and often. If that's the danger Trump poses, then let it ride, I say.

The whole problem is not that Trump is crazy. The problem is that you want him removed on whatever basis you can manage. "He might cause an economic downturn" isn't working, so you're trying "he might cause an economic downturn because he's crazy". Which also isn't working.

The whole point of the Yale group's "diagnosis" is to try to establish a basis for the special pleading about Trump. Clinton and Bush both presided over economic downturns. Clinton and Bush both contributed to 9/11. Bush prosecuted wars in Iraq and Afghanistan - wars that entangle US troops and take lives even today. Obama fomented turmoil and unrest across North Africa and the Middle East. Compared to the kind of suffering, death, and destruction his predecessors have presided over, President Trump looks positively benign. A tariff war with China? The horror!

You keep telling me Trump is especially dangerous. And that's why you don't want to let me compare and contrast him with other recent presidents. Because I might conclude that he's not especially dangerous.

I do indeed. Do you want a return to those old days or would you like to see some progress on our understanding of mental illness?

How about a nice middle ground where complaining that a president is crazy when he's caught licking the windows isn't seen as an attack on all mental patients?

Well the closest parallel is Nixon, with his alcohol problems and his dangerously erratic behaviour.

ETA: https://www.businessinsider.com/drun...17-1?r=US&IR=T Although possibly it shows that Kissinger *did* deserve the Nobel Peace Prize after all


No, the problem is that Trump is now publicly demonstrating childlike behaviour - except for his highly inappropriate comments about his daughter.

You seem to think that it's fine to have a senile* person in charge of the largest nuclear arsenal on the planet. I'd beg to differ.

Basically this is "Trump is safe" until proven a disaster. That's a stupid approach.

And it isn't just the trade war with China, as you well know.


*I am not a medic, but there's no reasonable explanation for his behaviour that is doesn't involve serious cogitative decline since 2016.

I will concede that Gilligan was talking about violence. He also gives a good case for his fear that Trump exhibits tendencies toward it just before the quote you provided:

I agree partly. Yes, each patient must be assessed individually, but you are minimizing the use of the DSM as a diagnostic tool. That checklist was created after input from many mental health professionals after years of research.

That alleged motivation by the authors is an opinion, not a fact. They are not "attacking politicians". They are concerned with the danger they believe Trump poses.

Remember when fuelair would regularly go off on these graphically violent sado-sexual revenge fantasies? And no amount of remonstration or sanction could convince him to moderate that behavior?

Did you think he really had a dangerous mental illness, and might explode into actual violence at any moment? I don't. And I don't think Trump does, either. Not on the evidence Gilligan cites, anyway.

What about Ivana's sworn deposition that he raped her because he didn't like the scalp job done on her recommendation?

One allegation, thirty years ago, later withdrawn. Serious enough in its own right, but definitely not an escalating trend of violent outbursts by President Trump.

My prediction was that if Trump's 'dangerous mental illness' is supposed to manifest as violent action, then we should see a trend of violent action, probably worsening as his condition worsens, etc.

A single data point from thirty years ago is not that trend. In my opinion, it falsifies the prediction.

(Also, not evidence of a 'dangerous mental illness'.)

Then quote him, don't simply paraphrase him.

Simple!



Yes, I'm familiar with it. No, I don't agree with it.



The knowledge that professional psychiatrists think Trump is dangerously mentally ill.






What utter rubbish.