Continuation Donald Trump has 'dangerous mental illness' say psychiatry experts at Yale... Pt 3

[xjx388]

Originally Posted by Cabbage

I would say an inability to learn from his (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,.....

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?

[jimbob]

Originally Posted by Bob001

Originally Posted by jimbob

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

Interestingly, people who work for him feel the same way.
<snip>

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?

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Cabbage

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!

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?

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Cabbage

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

It doesn't.

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.

[theprestige]

"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.

[Bob001]

Originally Posted by jimbob

....
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.
....

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.

Quote:

WASHINGTON — Former Republican Senator Jeff Flake said that he thinks at least 35 Republican senators would vote for President Donald Trump to be removed from office if they could vote in private.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...mp/3792866002/

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

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

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.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Bob001

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/

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."

[Cabbage]

Originally Posted by xjx388

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?

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

Quote:

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?

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.

[Cabbage]

Originally Posted by theprestige

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).

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

Quote:

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.

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.

Quote:

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?

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.

[Cabbage]

Originally Posted by theprestige

"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."

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.

[Cabbage]

Originally Posted by theprestige

"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."

...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?

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Cabbage

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

Not really your job, but okay.

Quote:

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.

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.

Quote:

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.

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?

[Cabbage]

Originally Posted by theprestige

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.

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.

[Cabbage]

Originally Posted by theprestige

Not really your job, but okay.

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.

Quote:

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.

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

Quote:

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?

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.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Cabbage

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.

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?

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Cabbage

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.

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.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by theprestige

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.

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

[Skeptic Ginger]

Re dangerous:

Originally Posted by Trump

“We have the cleanest air in the world in the United States, and it’s gotten better since I’m president. 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.”

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.”

[xjx388]

Originally Posted by Cabbage

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

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.

Quote:

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.

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.

Quote:

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.

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.

[Cabbage]

Originally Posted by theprestige

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?

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.

[Cabbage]

Originally Posted by theprestige

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

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.

[Cabbage]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

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.”

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.

[Cabbage]

Originally Posted by xjx388

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.

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.

Quote:

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.

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.

Quote:

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.

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.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by xjx388

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?

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.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Bob001

"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.

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

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by xjx388

What do you think "dangerous" means when a mental health professional says someone is dangerous?

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

Quote:

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?

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.

Quote:

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?

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

[TragicMonkey]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

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

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.

[xjx388]

Originally Posted by Cabbage

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.

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

Quote:

You're being presumptuous again. I don't agree it was unethical.

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?

Quote:

I don't agree we gained nothing. You should probably work harder at speaking for yourself and just give up on speaking for others.

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.

Quote:

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.

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?

[xjx388]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

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

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?

Quote:

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.

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:

Quote:

However, while all psychiatrists, by definition, have studied mental illness, most have not specialized in studying the causes, consequences, prediction, and prevention of violence, considered as a problem in public health and preventive medicine. Nor have most studied the principles on which the assessment of current and future dangerousness is based, regardless of whether or not any particular individual is mentally ill, and regardless of what diagnosis or diagnoses, if any, he may or may not merit according to the criteria outlined in DSM-V.


That is why it is so important and so appropriate for those few of us who have done so, whether by investigating the psychology of Nazi doctors and Japanese terrorists, as Robert Lifton has done, or by studying sexual violence (rape, incest, etc.), as Judith Herman has done, or by examining murderers and rapists in prisons and jails throughout the world (including those who have committed “war crimes”), as I have done, while working with the World Health Organization’s Department of Injuries and Violence Prevention on the epidemiology and prevention of violence -- to warn the potential victims, in the interests of public health, when we have recognized and identified signs and symptoms that indicate that someone is dangerous to the public health.

Obviously, he is talking about violence.

Quote:

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

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.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

...

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

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?

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

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

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.

[xjx388]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

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?

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?

[TragicMonkey]

Originally Posted by xjx388

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?

[jimbob]

Originally Posted by theprestige

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.

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

Quote:

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.

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.

Quote:

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.

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.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by xjx388

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.

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:

Quote:

Sometimes a person’s dangerousness is so obvious that one does not need
professional training in either psychiatry or criminology to recognize it. One does not
need to have had fifty years of professional experience in assessing the dangerousness of
violent criminals, to recognize the dangerousness of a president who:

1. Asks what the point of having thermonuclear weapons is if we cannot use
them.
2. Urges our government to use torture or worse against our prisoners of
war.
3. Urged that five innocent African American youths be given the death
penalty for a sexual assault even years after it had been proven beyond a reasonable
doubt to have been committed by someone else.
4. Boasts about his ability to get away with sexually assaulting women
himself because of his celebrity and power.
5. Urges his followers at political rallies to punch protestors in the face
and beat them up so badly that they will have to be taken out on
stretchers.
6. Suggests that his followers could always assassinate his political rival, Hillary
Clinton, if she were elected President, or, at the very least, throw her in prison.
7. Believes that he can always get away with whatever violence he does
commit. He said “I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and
I wouldn’t lose voters” (remark made during rally on Jan. 23, 2016).

Quote:

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.

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.

Quote:

These professionals have subverted that noble goal into a weapon to attack politicians.

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.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

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

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.

[jimbob]

Originally Posted by theprestige

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?

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by jimbob

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'.)

[Cabbage]

Originally Posted by xjx388

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

Then quote him, don't simply paraphrase him.

Simple!

Quote:

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?

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

Quote:

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.

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

Quote:

A medical diagnosis does not give a layperson useful information.

What utter rubbish.