Continuation Donald Trump has 'dangerous mental illness', say psychiatry experts at Yale... Pt 2

[Skeptic Ginger]

It's interesting that people reading this thread think this blatant straw is an argument put forth: "You just don't want to admit that the president is crazy!"

That might be an observation or a side note, or it may not be stated anywhere, but it's not a debate argument put forth in this thread.

[xjx388]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

This is a red herring and it's naive all in one.

I don't think so; it's at the heart of the matter. You'll have to expand your thoughts. We are discussing the appropriateness of their actions, after all.

These reason these psychs are breaking ethics (I will put aside standards of practice, for now) is because they cite a duty to warn the public about President Trump's dangerousness. The problem is that once he is elected, there is no easy mechanism to remove him based on their statements. There is no power in their words at this point; no one in a position to act -the VP and the cabinet- is listening to them.

Before the election, they might have convinced enough of the people in a position to act -the voters- to keep him out of office in the first place. Why didn't they hold their conference and write their books before the election? If Trump really and truly is dangerous, then the same duty to warn that they cite now would have applied, perhaps even more, before the election.

I'm genuinely curious as to their timing. How am I being naive?

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by phiwum

Sorry, you think that Trump is crazy? Or are you paraphrasing xj?

Colloquially? I think Trump is crazy like a fox. A crazy fox. I think he's badass, in the sense that he's bad, and he's an ass. Medically, I don't know and don't care. He is what he is, whatever the root cause. But you should understand that I assume most politicians are essentially trumpian in nature. It's just that they mostly hide it better.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

It's interesting that people reading this thread think this blatant straw is an argument put forth: "You just don't want to admit that the president is crazy!"

That might be an observation or a side note, or it may not be stated anywhere, but it's not a debate argument put forth in this thread.

Resolved: Trump is crazy, and we all know it. So what does the Yale group give us, that we didn't have already?

[phiwum]

Originally Posted by theprestige

Colloquially? I think Trump is crazy like a fox. A crazy fox. I think he's badass, in the sense that he's bad, and he's an ass. Medically, I don't know and don't care. He is what he is, whatever the root cause. But you should understand that I assume most politicians are essentially trumpian in nature. It's just that they mostly hide it better.

Okay, that's in line with what I thought was your position, and which I find totally ridiculous. At least things have returned to normal between us.

[WilliamSeger]

Originally Posted by theprestige

Colloquially? I think Trump is crazy like a fox. A crazy fox. I think he's badass, in the sense that he's bad, and he's an ass. Medically, I don't know and don't care. He is what he is, whatever the root cause. But you should understand that I assume most politicians are essentially trumpian in nature. It's just that they mostly hide it better.

Anyone can -- and probably has -- demonstrated some or all of the NPD behaviors from time to time, but that doesn't mean they're NPD. No, most politicians are not "essentially Trumpian in nature" because NPD behaviors do not dominate their personality as they clearly do with Trump, who seems to be virtually incapable of any other kind of behavior. His bloated but fragile ego and his sociopathic dishonesty and lack of empathy come to the fore in virtually every circumstance. He can't hide it. Some psychologists believe that most adolescents go through a narcissistic phase on their way to maturity. Most people outgrow it (or at least mostly so), but some people like Trump seem to get stuck at that level of immaturity.

No, we have never had a national politician (much less a president) like Trump in my lifetime, and these attempts to normalize him are laughable.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by WilliamSeger

Anyone can -- and probably has -- demonstrated some or all of the NPD behaviors from time to time, but that doesn't mean they're NPD. No, most politicians are not "essentially Trumpian in nature" because NPD behaviors do not dominate their personality as they clearly do with Trump, who seems to be virtually incapable of any other kind of behavior. His bloated but fragile ego and his sociopathic dishonesty and lack of empathy come to the fore in virtually every circumstance. He can't hide it. Some psychologists believe that most adolescents go through a narcissistic phase on their way to maturity. Most people outgrow it (or at least mostly so), but some people like Trump seem to get stuck at that level of immaturity.

No, we have never had a national politician (much less a president) like Trump in my lifetime, and these attempts to normalize him are laughable.

That's fine. Reasonable people can disagree about the exceptionalism of President Trump. I'm not here to argue that point. I just have two questions for you. The first one is, what does the Yale group contribute to your analysis, that you weren't able to figure out on your own? Not just terminology; how have they changed your thinking in some meaningful way?

[xjx388]

Originally Posted by WilliamSeger

Anyone can -- and probably has -- demonstrated some or all of the NPD behaviors from time to time, but that doesn't mean they're NPD. No, most politicians are not "essentially Trumpian in nature" because NPD behaviors do not dominate their personality as they clearly do with Trump, who seems to be virtually incapable of any other kind of behavior. His bloated but fragile ego and his sociopathic dishonesty and lack of empathy come to the fore in virtually every circumstance. He can't hide it. Some psychologists believe that most adolescents go through a narcissistic phase on their way to maturity. Most people outgrow it (or at least mostly so), but some people like Trump seem to get stuck at that level of immaturity.



No, we have never had a national politician (much less a president) like Trump in my lifetime, and these attempts to normalize him are laughable.

This is exactly what theprestige was talking about. No one here is attempting to normalize Trump. Certainly not I. This discussion is really about whether or not these docs are acting professionally. The actual mental state of Donald Trump is irrelevant to that.

No. This is about attempts to normalize unprofessional behavior. Those who argue that these professionals are acting responsibly are effectively lowering the mental health professions to the level of stuff like Scientology -pure woo. These arguments might as well be on the Citizens Commission for Human Rights (an anti-psychiatry/psychology Scientology front group) web site.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[dann]

Originally Posted by xjx388

This discussion is really about whether or not these docs are acting professionally. The actual mental state of Donald Trump is irrelevant to that.

You're telling the guy who started the thread what the discussion is really about. Brilliant!

[theprestige]

I think the point of the OP was to try to force people like me to concede the debate on Trumpian exceptionalism to people like WilliamSeger. I'm supposed to accept the appeal to authority at face value, agree that "wow, Trump really is crazy!" and then in true Underpants Gnome tradition, profit somehow.

But instead of that slam-dunk victory shot, the thread has instead turned into a rejection of the appeal to authority, and opened the whole can of worms about professional ethics and undermining trust in medical practitioners. When they really just wanted us to agree with them about Trump.

I think that's the real answer to the question of what the Yale group provides, that WiliamSeger and Skeptic Ginger can't provide on their own: The appearance of legitimate medical authority to back up their political opinions. I won't agree with WS or SG on their authority alone, but maybe if a psychiatrist tells me...

[xjx388]

Originally Posted by dann

You're telling the guy who started the thread what the discussion is really about. Brilliant!

Well, his thread title says it all "Donald Trump has 'dangerous mental illness', say psychiatry experts at Yale." That last bit makes their authority a focus of this thread. In my view, Trump's mental state is a red herring. If the thread title had been "Donald Trump is dangerously mentally ill," without invoking medical authority, then I doubt I would have even peeked inside. There is no authority or significance if Random Internet Poster #1325434 thinks Trump is a nut job. I even agree with them in a colloquial sense! It's yet another bash Trump thread and those are getting boring. Bash him for his terrible decisions like separating kids from their parents at the border -I'm with you.

But this is different. This is actual, respected mental health professionals breaking an ethical code and not following the accepted standards of any mental health profession. I see that as a big problem for science in general and the mental health professions specifically. And WilliamSeger made it an issue by using their authority to bolster his argument.

[varwoche]

Originally Posted by xjx388

This is exactly what theprestige was talking about. No one here is attempting to normalize Trump.

Er, this is the epitome of normalizing Trump:

Originally Posted by theprestige

I assume most politicians are essentially trumpian in nature. It's just that they mostly hide it better.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by varwoche

Er, this is the epitome of normalizing Trump:

It is my opinion that Trump is closer to the norm than people think. I mentioned it only to give context to my agreement that Trump is, colloquially, "crazy". I do not intend to argue for normalizing Trump, nor should that comment be taken as an attempt to do so.

My argument here is that in his efforts to short-circuit debate about Trumpian exceptionalism, WilliamSeger is normalizing bad medical practice, and that this is a bad thing for several reasons having actually very little to do with whether Trump is crazy, or whether Trump is normal.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by theprestige

It is my opinion that Trump is closer to the norm than people think.

Trump's con is still working.

Originally Posted by theprestige

My argument here is that in his efforts to short-circuit debate about Trumpian exceptionalism, WilliamSeger is normalizing bad medical practice, and that this is a bad thing for several reasons having actually very little to do with whether Trump is crazy, or whether Trump is normal.

Assuming you are talking about post #46: Only if a person doesn't understand pathologic NPD and how it is diagnosed.

The argument the docs are committing some kind of professional malpractice continues ad nauseum. It's been addressed. The rebuttal arguments are not responsive, instead the assertion of misunderstood practice norms is simply repeated.

[xjx388]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

The argument the docs are committing some kind of professional malpractice continues ad nauseum. It's been addressed. The rebuttal arguments are not responsive, instead the assertion of misunderstood practice norms is simply repeated.

They ARE committing a breach of ethics. That much is clear. You can't even disagree with that. You can only try to justify the breach. The APA has rebutted those justifications adequately and you really have no response.

The other thing that is clear is that they are NOT practicing medicine in any sense of the word. They don't have a patient and they aren't applying accepted standards. You can only argue about "misunderstood practice norms." Yet, you can't actually illustrate whatever practice norms might apply or where that misunderstanding actually lies. That's because there are no practice norms that apply to "remote diagnosis;" therefore, there is nothing to misunderstand. You are free to rebut this with some valid and reliable method of "remote diagnosis."

What you are left with is an argument from authority, both the practitioners in the OP and your own. As if the mere fact of being a psychologist, psychiatrist or other medical professional grants a magic power to know things without actually applying the standards of the profession.

With this extremely weak sauce, you are attempting to pass off a steaming pile of pseudoscientific crap as a gourmet meal. No thanks, I'm full.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Trump's con is still working.

What con? From the beginning of the campaign, he wore his true nature on his sleeve. Most politicians go to great lengths to cover theirs up.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Only if a person doesn't understand pathologic NPD and how it is diagnosed.

Please, enlighten us on how it is diagnosed. In your professional opinion, what are the steps that a mental health practitioner would take to diagnose NPD in a patient? What possible confounding conditions should be considered? What considerations should be made in distinguishing non-pathological and colloquial narcissism (as is seen in almost every public figure, performer, artist, etc.) from the actual disorder?

Clearly, you understand how this works - you've implied so repeatedly, and have used that appeal to your own authority in an effort to derisively dismiss all of the points made by others in this thread regarding appropriate methods for diagnosis. So explain it to us.

[Bob001]

Originally Posted by theprestige

It is my opinion that Trump is closer to the norm than people think. I mentioned it only to give context to my agreement that Trump is, colloquially, "crazy". I do not intend to argue for normalizing Trump, nor should that comment be taken as an attempt to do so.
....

Whether Trump is provably "crazy" or not, or whether shrinks should say so if he is, the fact is that Trump lies almost continuously about provable matters of fact, without the slightest shame or embarrassment. This is far from any "norm" in the world most of us live in.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Bob001

Whether Trump is provably "crazy" or not, or whether shrinks should say so if he is, the fact is that Trump lies almost continuously about provable matters of fact, without the slightest shame or embarrassment. This is far from any "norm" in the world most of us live in.

And why shouldn't skilled professionals give the public their insight into why Trump lies like he does and what to expect his future behavior to be?

Trump is not normal and people familiar with 'not normal' have some of the best expertise to address the problem.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Bob001

Whether Trump is provably "crazy" or not, or whether shrinks should say so if he is, the fact is that Trump lies almost continuously about provable matters of fact, without the slightest shame or embarrassment. This is far from any "norm" in the world most of us live in.

Good thing we're not here to debate that. Your opinion is duly noted, though.

[WilliamSeger]

Originally Posted by xjx388

This is exactly what theprestige was talking about. No one here is attempting to normalize Trump. Certainly not I.

But I was responding to theprestige, who has repeatedly tried to portray Trump as just another politician.

Originally Posted by xjx388

This discussion is really about whether or not these docs are acting professionally. The actual mental state of Donald Trump is irrelevant to that.

No, that's the only discussion YOU want to have -- and only on your own terms at that -- staying carefully away from the issue of whether or not Trump's obvious mental illness makes him dangerous, you keep running the discussion around the same pointless circles. I get it that you are more concerned about protecting the "professionalism" of the APA than you are about the welfare of the planet, and I get it that you refuse to recognize what I see as a clear ethical dilemma, but banging that "unprofessional" drum should not make anyone feel better about the danger we're all in.

Originally Posted by xjx388

No. This is about attempts to normalize unprofessional behavior. Those who argue that these professionals are acting responsibly are effectively lowering the mental health professions to the level of stuff like Scientology -pure woo. These arguments might as well be on the Citizens Commission for Human Rights (an anti-psychiatry/psychology Scientology front group) web site.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

And this is baloney that doesn't deserve comment.

[WilliamSeger]

Originally Posted by theprestige

That's fine. Reasonable people can disagree about the exceptionalism of President Trump. I'm not here to argue that point. I just have two questions for you. The first one is, what does the Yale group contribute to your analysis, that you weren't able to figure out on your own? Not just terminology; how have they changed your thinking in some meaningful way?

How many times do we need to run around that barn? If you're trying to make some point, just make it.

[Drewbot]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Trump's con is still working.


Assuming you are talking about post #46: Only if a person doesn't understand pathologic NPD and how it is diagnosed.

The argument the docs are committing some kind of professional malpractice continues ad nauseum. It's been addressed. The rebuttal arguments are not responsive, instead the assertion of misunderstood practice norms is simply repeated.

I would venture that most, if not all, politicians who have ascended to the level of being close to being elected as President, probably ALL have some form of Narcissistic personality disorder.

Since we were told that there was no way Trump could win, and he won, some of use are having trouble rationalizing how Hitler could have won. The standards used to govern diagnosis without examination, was instituted to prevent psychologists from playing the "he/she is crazy card during political races.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by WilliamSeger

How many times do we need to run around that barn? If you're trying to make some point, just make it.

My point is that the Yale group contributes nothing of real value to the Cabinet, nor to Congress, nor to the electorate. I've said as much, and I'm willing to argue it, but for some reason you keep eliding it. Even when I ask you directly what the Yale group contributes to your analysis, you avoid answering the question.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Drewbot

I would venture that most, if not all, politicians who have ascended to the level of being close to being elected as President, probably ALL have some form of Narcissistic personality disorder.

Since we were told that there was no way Trump could win, and he won, some of use are having trouble rationalizing how Hitler could have won. The standards used to govern diagnosis without examination, was instituted to prevent psychologists from playing the "he/she is crazy card during political races.

This is what a person who isn't aware of the difference between pathology and just being narcissistic would say.

We have another example of pathology today, everything is about Trump.

Wow! Big Trump Hater Congressman Joe Crowley, who many expected was going to take Nancy Pelosi’s place, just LOST his primary election. In other words, he’s out! That is a big one that nobody saw happening. Perhaps he should have been nicer, and more respectful, to his President!

A natural reaction would be, Trump can't be serious. But his consistent decades long pattern is, yes, he is serious. He believes voters in the Democratic primary are Trump fans.

[carlitos]

Originally Posted by Drewbot

I would venture that most, if not all, politicians who have ascended to the level of being close to being elected as President, probably ALL have some form of Narcissistic personality disorder.



Since we were told that there was no way Trump could win, and he won, some of use are having trouble rationalizing how Hitler could have won. The standards used to govern diagnosis without examination, was instituted to prevent psychologists from playing the "he/she is crazy card during political races.

This is the kind of common-sense post that should have ended this thread months ago.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by carlitos

This is the kind of common-sense post that should have ended this thread months ago.

No.

Originally Posted by Drewbot

I would venture that most, if not all, politicians who have ascended to the level of being close to being elected as President, probably ALL have some form of Narcissistic personality disorder.

If a person can't see that Trump isn't the same as other narcissistic persons, they aren't looking.


This is a pile of straw:

Originally Posted by Drewbot

Since we were told that there was no way Trump could win, and he won, some of use are having trouble rationalizing how Hitler could have won.

And why this doesn't apply in this case has been addressed ad nauseum:

Originally Posted by Drewbot

The standards used to govern diagnosis without examination, was instituted to prevent psychologists from playing the "he/she is crazy card during political races.

[xjx388]

Originally Posted by WilliamSeger

No, that's the only discussion YOU want to have -- and only on your own terms at that -- staying carefully away from the issue of whether or not Trump's obvious mental illness makes him dangerous, you keep running the discussion around the same pointless circles.

What do we get out of arguing about Trump's mental state? None of us are mental health experts. Mental illness is not a disqualification and most mentally ill people are not dangerous.

Quote:

I get it that you are more concerned about protecting the "professionalism" of the APA than you are about the welfare of the planet,

Pure hyperbole.

Quote:

and I get it that you refuse to recognize what I see as a clear ethical dilemma, but banging that "unprofessional" drum should not make anyone feel better about the danger we're all in.

What danger specifically are we in. Be as specific as possible.

There would be an ethical dilemma if a professional who is treating Trump had specific information about a threat. In this case, none of the professionals in question have even met Trump. Thus, we either have vague threats of "dangerousness!" or outlandish FUD like "he's gonna launch nukes, maybe!" Thus, there is no real ethical dilemma here. Ethical rules are clear and well-defended.

Quote:

And this is baloney that doesn't deserve comment.

I get that you don't want your position to be perceived as woo, but that is exactly what it is. No standards exist for such diagnosis, no science backs it and the organizations in charge of setting those standards and ethics condemn it. Still you persist in defending it. Don't blame me for your blind defense of woo just because someone in a white coat said it was true.

[carlitos]

Originally Posted by xjx388

Don't blame me for your blind defense of woo just because someone in a white coat said it was true.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Oh like that's relevant, carlitos.

It's the other way around. It's the folks that read a couple things on the internet that are trying to tell some of the top professionals in the psychiatric field that the Net cruisers know better than the professionals.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Oh like that's relevant, carlitos.

It's the other way around. It's the folks that read a couple things on the internet that are trying to tell some of the top professionals in the psychiatric field that the Net cruisers know better than the professionals.

I'm reading a couple things from you on the Internet right now. What makes your Internet things more authoritative than the APA's Internet things?

[LSSBB]

Originally Posted by theprestige

I'm reading a couple things from you on the Internet right now. What makes your Internet things more authoritative than the APA's Internet things?

There are book things too, you know. Plus actual experience with implementation. Not saying what SG is right, or even applicable on this subject, just that Googling is no substitute for full professional training and experience.

Are you an Internet lawyer? There seems to be others running around here.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by LSSBB

There are book things too, you know. Plus actual experience with implementation. Not saying what SG is right, or even applicable on this subject, just that Googling is no substitute for full professional training and experience. ...

Right or wrong, I've been a nurse practitioner since 1985. I know some people in this thread have tried to belittle that as if... whatever.

Bottom line, I didn't just read a rule on the Internet.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by theprestige

I'm reading a couple things from you on the Internet right now. What makes your Internet things more authoritative than the APA's Internet things?

Round and around they go, ignoring what the psychiatric professionals have publicly said and pretending the debate is about claims I've made and nothing else.

[xjx388]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Round and around they go, ignoring what the psychiatric professionals have publicly said and pretending the debate is about claims I've made and nothing else.

Right. You read some claims on the internet, those claims confirm your bias and so you are defending those claims. It’s just an argument from authority -theirs AND yours.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[xjx388]

Originally Posted by LSSBB

There are book things too, you know. Plus actual experience with implementation. Not saying what SG is right, or even applicable on this subject, just that Googling is no substitute for full professional training and experience.



Are you an Internet lawyer? There seems to be others running around here.

The standards of practice and ethical rules are the official positions of the APA, not just some search results from Google. They are authoritative and clear. SG can’t rebut those, all she can do is argue they don’t apply. If I have SG’s and the OP psychs opinions and they are counter to the APAs clear standards and rules, I have to side with the APA. They clearly have more authority on mental health than any individual practitioner -especially practitioners who can’t support their methodology.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by LSSBB

There are book things too, you know. Plus actual experience with implementation. Not saying what SG is right, or even applicable on this subject, just that Googling is no substitute for full professional training and experience.

I don't think it's "Googling" to refer to the APA's public statements of principle and policy. Are those public statements not intended to be accessible to the public? Are they some sort of encoded message to certified practitioners, not really for lay understanding? Because that's the implication of SG's argument: The APA has published information, ostensibly to be understood by a lay audience, but in reality she's the only one here who's competent to see what it really means.

[Bob001]

Here's an hour of Trump at work this week, recorded live and unedited. Watch (on an empty stomach) and assess his suitability for the White House:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DVVZyUEJKF4

[Drewbot]

It really is enlightening to read about the Goldwater Rule.
You see the same comments, about Goldwater, literally, that you see now.
https://www.psychiatry.org/newsroom/goldwater-rule

Quote:

“I served as a flight surgeon in the USAF,” wrote Wilbert Lyons, M.D., of Sellersville, Pa. “I speak with authority when I say that Sen. Goldwater could not be a jet pilot if he were emotionally unstable.”

“From his published statements I get the impression that Goldwater is basically a paranoid schizophrenic who decompensates from time to time. … He resembles Mao Tse-tung,” said a third.

Not wanting to exclude other relevant 20th-century tyrants, another claimed, “I believe Goldwater has the same pathological makeup as Hitler, Castro, Stalin, and other known schizophrenic leaders.”

Some of the responses from the original article in Fact Magazine were more reasonable, similar to those trying keep the common sense response to this thread, here.

Quote:

“Your inquiry for a professional opinion regarding Sen. Barry Goldwater’s general mental stability is an insult to me,” wrote Thomas Stach, M.D., in 1964. “An inquiry of this type regarding any individual can only be based on ignorance of the field of psychiatry.”

Quote:

“It was astounding to me when the survey first came out,” Stach, now retired in Willowbrook, Ill., told Psychiatric News. “It was impossible for a psychiatrist to come to a conclusion like that without a personal examination. The psychiatrists who were baited into giving responses were imprudent.”

The response from the APA:

Quote:

APA’s initial reaction to the Fact magazine article came swiftly.

“[S]hould you decide to publish the results of a purported ‘survey’ of psychiatric opinion on the question you have posed, the Association will take all possible measures to disavow its validity,” wrote APA Medical Director Walter Barton, M.D., in a letter to the magazine’s editors on October 1, 1964.

APA President Daniel Blain, M.D., denounced the compilation as “a hodge-podge of the personal political opinions of selected psychiatrists speaking as individuals. … [T]he replies to the question have no scientific or medical validity whatsoever.”

Tying political partisanship to the psychiatric profession, continued Blain, “has, in effect, administered a low blow to all who would work to advance the treatment and care of the mentally ill of America.”

APA’s formal response came in 1973 with the adoption of Section 7.3 in the Principles of Medical Ethics with Annotations Especially Applicable to Psychiatry, which became known as the Goldwater Rule.

The rule applies to public figures and states: “[i]t is unethical for a psychiatrist to offer a professional opinion unless he or she has conducted an examination and has been granted proper authorization for such a statement” (see sidebar).

The episode and the subsequent adoption of Section 7.3 appear to have dampened the enthusiasm of most APA members for a repeat performance, leaving psychiatric diagnosis to the media.

[Bob001]

Originally Posted by Drewbot

It really is enlightening to read about the Goldwater Rule.
You see the same comments, about Goldwater, literally, that you see now.
https://www.psychiatry.org/newsroom/goldwater-rule
....

The specific complaint the shrinks had about Goldwater regarded his casual views about nuclear weapons, including his proposal to delegate authority to use them in some circumstances directly to generals and his advocacy of using nukes against North Vietnam. Whether you consider that a policy dispute or evidence of irrational thinking might itself be a matter of debate.

The complaints about Trump are broader, involving his speech patterns, especially how they have deteriorated over time, his willful ignorance, his belligerent dishonesty, etc., etc. This has nothing to do with left/right. Jeff Flake, Bob Corker, Mitt Romney, Mitch McConnell, John McCain etc. etc. are certainly conservatives -- and have been so for far longer than Trump -- but nobody claims they're crazy.
https://www.denverpost.com/2017/02/1...ld-trump-sane/