One Month into his term, Trump goes....back on the campaign trail?

[Autumnlicious]

Illegal orders may not be obeyed under any circumstance.

Now, if he chooses to escalate a situation with the express intent of using nuclear weapons, well that's different. So far other powers are refusing to entertain that game.

[Aroura]

Understanding Trump’s narcissism could be the key to opposing him

Making a formal diagnosis without an assessment would be misguided, but in some situations, I imagine psychiatrists would be obliged to make their concerns about a politician’s mental health known. If a public official was displaying clear signs of a serious mental illness such as psychosis and had not received the necessary help, psychiatrists should notify the relevant authorities for the sake of the individual as well as the public, so an assessment can be conducted. However, that is not the situation we are in and irrespective of the ethics of their assertions, those who believe that Trump has a mental illness are wrong for the clinical reasons outlined by Frances.

   Trump does have multiple narcissistic traits, he simply does not qualify for a diagnosis of the personality disorder

Trump does indeed have multiple narcissistic traits – the grandiose sense of self importance; the preoccupation with power, success and beauty; the need for admiration and the sense of entitlement – but without distress or impairment he simply does not qualify for a diagnosis of the personality disorder. Furthermore, the speculative diagnosis of malignant narcissism – said to include aspects of narcissism, sadism, psychopathy and aggression – is not recognised in either of the two major diagnostic manuals used by psychiatrists around the world, so should be disregarded. No “alternative diagnoses” allowed.

Declaring Trump mentally ill and calling for his removal may be erroneous and unethical, but we must not close the door on understanding his thinking and predicting his behaviour by shutting down the discourse around his personality.

Right, see, this is why the Goldwater Rule needs to have some clauses about when and how people MUST be diagnosed from a distance, when it is impossible to diagnose them personally.

I understand why it exists, it is basically to prevent mudslinging and smearing. It should NOT be preventing seriously concerned trained professionals from giving their opinions when it is imperative that they do so for the safety of...well....everyone!

---

I wold like to clarify that the Goldwater Rule still applies even if they do not think he has a specific diosrder.

The Goldwater rule is the informal name given to Section 7.3 in the American Psychiatric Association's (APA) code of ethics,[1] which states it is unethical for psychiatrists to give a professional opinion about public figures they have not examined in person, and obtained consent from, to discuss their mental health in public statements.

They are not supposed to give any professional opinion at all, even if it is that he is dangerous, but not certifiably mentally ill.

Also, I'm not sure I agree that he isn't showing distress.  He seems to be showing quite a lot of distress, isn't that is why he's going back on the campaign trail?

Still, the point is, under certain circumstances, mental health professionals NEED to discuss public figures who refuse examination or treatment.

[downbeatplumb]

[Aroura]

[CapnAwesome]

A huffington post blog! Wow, credible. Although I despise Trump, I also hate the trillion violations of the goldwater rule, which is an APA guideline that says you can't diagnose a public official with a mental condition without a personal examination. This is both a scientific stance and a obviously practical political stance, because otherwise political partisans would diagnose every politician with Narcissistic personality disorder. It's almost a prerequisite of the job. Serious medical professionals all know the Goldwater rule however, so of course that whole blog post is nonsense. The last thread here that made that claim, the 'serious medical professional' (I think they used that exact term) ran a hypnotherapy office in New Jersey.

Being against Trump doesn't mean you have to believe everything negative said about him, especially when it clearly is something that goes against scientific guidelines established by the leading psychological institute in the US.

Huffington post is a legitimate news source and the reasoning in the article was clear and factually correct.


So how about the BBC.

It's not factually correct. Because of the Goldwater rule. No article that claims they can diagnose mental disease from a distance is.

[Violet]

It's keeping people passionate about politics, so it's pretty cool in that regard. Not as awesome as having a straight open line from the president, though.

2020? Well, if democrats/greens/libertarians don't put in someone electable, I suppose that'll just be a steal. I mean, maybe I'd have even voted for O'Malley (he seemed moderate and mostly sane, and I could largely forgive his version of pandering, because he put forward some real progressive shit in regards to energy). I'd say his real concern would be conservatives voting for him, but he's appeasing them left and right (well, right, right, and right iykwim), so I don't think that'll be a problem for him really.

Media's got some soul-searching to do anyways, it'll be good for the country if a bunch of people stay aware through all of this time. Today I got a report that dragged me in that was all like 'omg, trump signed away tranny rights!', notable interest for me. So I investigate....

Tranny bathrooms as it relates to school children. A terrible idea that even exacerbates further the already terrible conception of privacy and protectionism what is our school toilets (and locker rooms are a whole 'nother level of that shit). That's what he undid. All of that frustration on my part for nothing.

It's just fighting the stupid fight. Unisex single-room (fuck those cheapo-stalls of america btw, what are we: third world?) toilets (or allowed uses of staff toilets where applicable) is a reasonable demand that offers protections for a LOT more people than just trannies... application in avoiding some of the worst forms of bullying in schools, increased personal security (and security of belongings) in poorer schools, less social pressure for the anxious, etc.

Way of the future, all that. Digress too far perhaps. Regardless... it doesn't seem to be doing any harm for Trump to be holding rallies: still a very active president. Be nice to see him stamp his own identity instead of playing ball with ultraconservies, but that's something to talk about with his supporters I guess.

---

Huffington post is a legitimate news source and the reasoning in the article was clear and factually correct.

Sometimes the tabloids do get it right. Rare though.

So how about the BBC.

Another gem