Should Trump be subject to a psychatric evaluation before taking office? At the moment 34,000 psychologists and psychatrists agree.
#DiagnoseTrump
Do you think this is necessary?
#DiagnoseTrump
Do you think this is necessary?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
#DiagnoseTrump
- Thread starter Laika
- Start date
It would be nice. It's clear now that we can't always elect sane people on our own so maybe it is time to subject new candidates to a psych test. Seriously though, we shouldn't be giving that much power over to a person who may not be mentally fit. It's too important to risk it.
Aštra’el
Aštara, Blade of Aštoreth
Exceptional ambition can be fueled by narcissism.
I mean, if one's "narcissism" inspires and motivates one to grow formidably in power and influence and wealth, to have available the resources of a nation, armies and soldiers who would fight and die at one's command, etc... how is that unhealthy, exactly?
Last edited by a moderator:
Why don't you Trump haters lay on the ground kicking and screaming, and have a temper tantrum. O sorry, that is what you are doing.
The ones who need a psychologist and a psycharists are those who cried because they didn't get their way. The need to grow up and smell the pizza.
The are in for a rude awaking when they get out of the lala land of liberal institutions or unlearning, and have to make it in the real world.
Your school may have done away with winners and losers, but life has not. In some schools they have abolished failing grades; they'll give you as many chances as you want to get the right answer. This doesn't bear the slightest resemblance to ANYTHING in real life---Bill Gates
You means like Obama?
Condescension does nothing to further the discussion and only alienates you argument further from serious consideration.
In my mind, what would be the honest point? Trump supporters would excuse it, Trump condemners would whine about it and the end result would remain the same regardless.
Kuzcotopia
If you can read this, you are as lucky as I am.
This is an example how false rumors and anti-intellectualism spreads via the internet.
Bill Gates never said this quote. It's from a 1995 book by a conservative talk show host names Charles Sykes, who, ironically, hates Trump and believe the conservative movement lost its way by electing him.
I will say that you have provided a clear example of how Trump got elected. People just don't care about the reality outside their internet bubble, and will believe anything as long as it fits your warped narrative.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
Narcissists are only concerned with themselves. That is not a feature of a strong or wise leader, who must be concerned about others or risk not seeing the obvious and being removed from power by the ignored. You may not agree, but self-absorbed leaders often meet the worst ends at the hands of those they neglected. Trump won't be ripped up by an angry mob, but it's looking he is going to face more obstructionism than Obama, and a part of that is his apparent narcissism.
Your assumptions are mind boggling. A democracy is not healthy and a society not open if people can't complain and protest. If you like your "freedom," you have to take the good with the bad.
And, without looking it up, I am 99.9% certain that quote is not Bill Gates.
It's the fact we desperately need more restrictions and qualifications than just age, which isn't really any sort of indication of character, maturity, or mental fitness.
That is up to the constituents to decide when they vote.
Interesting fact....
98.3% of psychologists are Democcrats.
94.1% of psychiatrists are Democrats.
In my landlording experience, I find these figures on the low side.
What does that tell ya?
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
It shouldn't be. We should expect, and have, our candidates to be of sound mind, educated, and free of potentially dangerous characteristics.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
The numbers I doubt are that high (or indicate anything more than they vote Democrat, probably and most likely over social issues), but with those fields, inherently the practitioners are going to have, for the most part, at least a socially Left-leaning inclination given they don't get the luxury telling gays they are wrong, poor people they are lazy bums who just need to try harder, or that immigrants are a blight on society. Much like how a doctor does not get to pick and choose their patients, but with psychology and psychiatry there is a tendency to work directly with the people Conservatives often condemn, fight against, and strip the rights of.
When you begin to limit presidential candidates, you are going to run into many issues. What standards do we employ? Who gets to create those standards? Who gets to disqualify candidates based on those standards? This puts a lot of power into party politics, the very thing we are trying to avoid. Imagine being a democrat and watching a republican committee dismissing you strongest candidate based on standards they, in part, created? Same goes for a conservative who would surrender a portion of their nomination power to the democrats. I am not happy with the Trump either, but I do not see this as a viable solution.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
Education isn't much of a restriction (and, indeed, as far as I know the majority of both Ds and Rs have a diploma from higher education), and it wouldn't really be much a stretch to demand those degrees come from accredited colleges/universities. Mental fitness isn't too much of thing to ask for either (especially since we didn't really have much of a concept of mental health and illness in 1776), as things like dementia, narcissism, or oppositional defiance should disqualify someone because it puts the nation and the people at an elevated and needless risk.
While I may partly agree, when you begin to have a body/committee/whatever put restrictions on candidates it does two things. First, it opens a floodgate of potential abuse to wrongly discredit and disqualify candidates. Second, it takes the election power of the people and marginalizes it in lieu of restrictions the citizens may not agree with.
I take your point but the man is getting the nuclear launch codes. Thats bigger than party politics and given his behaviour up to this point, I think anyone getting orders from Trump would like to know he's mentally sound to make those decisions. Admittedly its a conversation I don't want to have though because it shouldn't be an issue in the first place on top of the privacy issues even for someone holding public office.
Do we actually know who Donald Trump is? Given the amount of lying thats been going on, we haven't exactly vetted this guy properly. Its a massive failure of the democratic process that we are even in this situation at all.