Three Professors of Psychiatry call for "neuropsychiatric evaluation"

Donal said:
If he thinks he's a billionaire, that is a delusion of grandeur.
Click to expand...

That depends. If he thinks he's the best businessperson ever and he has multiple bankruptcies and has been sued repeatedly for fraudulent business practices, if he has a billion and believes he has 10 billion, or that billion is actually even less than that, if he thinks women like him grabbing their pussies because he's so great, if he believes his current wife is a great speaker, has a degree she doesn't have, and always followed immigration law, and so on and so on...

There are degrees of delusions of grandeur. In the classic sense it refers to a psychosis where one is disconnected to reality (aka delusional) believing one is a king or one can fly, things like that.

In Trump's case the classical definition doesn't apply, rather the term refers to a seriously exaggerated sense of self worth, beyond something like a conceited personality trait, well into pathological territory such as truly believing he won the election by the biggest margin in history (or whatever nonsense he declared). It may be hard to believe but the consistency with which Trump spouts superlatives about himself and his accomplishments is evidence he believes what he is saying, he isn't just padding his resume for the cameras.

Angrysoba is correct, the more precise term for Trump is "self-aggrandizement."
 
Last edited:
theprestige said:
Not only is Trump psychologically defective, but so is half the country?
Click to expand...

The thing that so not funny about that is the number of people you could see at Trump rallies who clearly have "some issues." But in general, no, ignorance and gullibility aren't considered mental health issues.
 
WilliamSeger said:
The thing that so not funny about that is the number of people you could see at Trump rallies who clearly have "some issues."
Click to expand...

Like the mentally ill protesters that Scott Foval paid to "do ****" at Trump rallies?
 
Ziggurat said:
Like the mentally ill protesters that Scott Foval paid to "do ****" at Trump rallies?
Click to expand...

Well, that was in a good cause! duh!

Weren't you paying attention in civics class the day they taught "It's OK for our side to screw the constitution because the other side has cooties"?
 
BobTheCoward said:
Here are the three scenarios

He is diagnosed
He is diagnosed but doesn't have it
He isn't diagnosed


What is materially different for anybody under those outcomes?
Click to expand...

We won't know given #1 & #2 are not going to happen. As for #3, we've already had a glimpse with the Taiwan phone call and the embarrassing visit with the Mexican President. More than a few world leaders are going to make a fool of Trump.

Edited to add, Trump's response to China's taking the drone in the South China Sea with an ignorant Tweet is not going over well.
 
Last edited:
Skeptic Ginger said:
We won't know given #1 & #2 are not going to happen. As for #3, we've already had a glimpse with the Taiwan phone call and the embarrassing visit with the Mexican President. More than a few world leaders are going to make a fool of Trump.
Click to expand...

But he would still be the same fool under 1 and 2. It wouldn't alter opinions of him. Nothing will change between the three.

I think I wrote my first post confusingly. Nothing changed among the possible scenarios. The amount of damage he will do is independent of a diagnosis.
 
Last edited:
tyr_13 said:
They should have addressed the letter to Congress. I don't believe President Obama can actually do anything about it.
Click to expand...

Actually, now that I think about it, their strategy makes a kind of sense. They write a letter to the President, then "leak" it to the media. That raises awareness of the issue, and puts the President on the spot because now the public knows about the letter.

Under public pressure, the President can use his bully pulpit and political connections to compel Congress to hold hearings and pass a bill requiring that all presidents-elect undergo a psychological evaluation, with published results, before taking office. The President can then sign the bill into law.

Then the law can be challenged in court. A federal court will issue a ruling, which will be appealed. A federal appeals court will rule on the appeal, which will then go to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court will hear the case and issue a final ruling, requiring the President-Elect to comply with the law.

The President-Elect will comply, the results of the evaluation will be published, and the electors will make an informed decision about who to elect nope, too late for that. And Congress will make an informed decision on whether to impeach. Ideally all this will happen before Obama leaves office and the Republican control of Congress deepens in the new year.
 
theprestige said:
Actually, now that I think about it, their strategy makes a kind of sense. . . . Ideally all this will happen before Obama leaves office and the Republican control of Congress deepens in the new year.
Click to expand...
Exactly.

Look, few people (at least among those of us he hasn't groped) loathe Deejay Trump more than I do, but short of a medical emergency or (FSM-forbid) an assassination the dude is going to be inaugurated.

If we're wrong and he ends up not doing anything so horrible as to merit impeachment, great! If we're right and he's an unmitigated disaster, then the impeachment process is in place for such an event. There isn't a legitimate process by which something like this could happen prior to impeachment. Even if there were some kind of legal loophole to pursue - and it could be won - the resultant outcry from the Trumpsters would likely guarantee a descent into the hellscape some folks fear a Trump presidency would bring about.
 
theprestige said:
Actually, now that I think about it, their strategy makes a kind of sense. They write a letter to the President, then "leak" it to the media. That raises awareness of the issue, and puts the President on the spot because now the public knows about the letter.
Click to expand...

What leak? It was openly published on the web, so lots of people read it before Obama did, for sure. Addressing it to the President sounded more formal, I guess, than "To Whom It May Concern" -- or in this case "To Whom It SHOULD Concern" or maybe just "HEY YOU!" I wouldn't think they'd expect to put Obama on the spot with it, but perhaps the letter should have had a "CC: Electoral College" yaknowwhatimean.
 
BobTheCoward said:
...
I think I wrote my first post confusingly. Nothing changed among the possible scenarios. The amount of damage he will do is independent of a diagnosis.
Click to expand...
You also addressed your post to the wrong person. I've not called for the psych eval anywhere in this thread. I merely responded to the conflating of personality traits with a pathologic personality disorder.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom