Posted on Feb 16, 2017
What should be done if the President is mentally ill?
Suspended Profile
109K
2.69K
1.21K
If the man at the top may be unstable - then the White House is likely to exhibit some instability - as well as some efforts by the White House staff - who are normal infighters - to undermine and replace the man at the top. The problem, however, is how to accomplish regime change (the replacement of a mentally unstable incumbent with another member of the ruling political party) within the very strict confines of the United States Constitution - and within the constraint of maintaining the full faith and confidence of the citizens. Time to bring Mike Pence up to bat.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/donald-trump-mental-health-new-york-times-incapable-being-president-warning-open-letter-a7578831.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/13/opinion/mental-health-professionals-warn-about-trump.html
http://www.lancedodes.com/new-york-times-letter
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/donald-trump-mental-health-new-york-times-incapable-being-president-warning-open-letter-a7578831.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/13/opinion/mental-health-professionals-warn-about-trump.html
http://www.lancedodes.com/new-york-times-letter
Edited 9 y ago
Posted 9 y ago
Responses: 300
I don't think he is necessarily mentally ill. He is a man who is new to being in a political position and is very rough around the edges in that regard. He speaks well from a prepared speech but not off the cuff. He need to step back and learn from those with appropriate experience as to how to interact with other countries' dignitaries. He prefers to be blunt but that doesn't work well when interacting internationally, especially in public. He needs to stop throwing tantrums on social media. Better yet he should not post at all without a second opinion.
show previous comments
SSG Thomas Barry
Lynda Key - lol aint that the truth
SMSgt Lawrence McCarter
Lynda Key, those are valid points and method of delivery sometimes draws away from the message. The late President Truman was also very blunt and did't care who liked His message and said so, its not the first time that a sitting President employed a whole new tactic. I do however agree with what You said and it was very well expressed.
Lynda Key
Thank you SMSgt McCarter. Some days I can be coherent.
Maj (Join to see)
Lynda Key, I couldn't agree with you more. Yes, rough around the edges but he hasn't done anything to demonstrate that he might be mentally ill.
Really child? You are claiming the President of the United States is mentally unstable? Are you basing your statement on some rational collection of objective facts or are you having some sort of chemical imbalance problem of your own. And now... after being retired for over 20 years... I remember why JO's were taught to listen to their senior NCO's instead of the other way around.
There are dangers associated with leaving a mentally ill person in office, and there are dangers associated with political opponents attempting to leverage charges of mental illness to gain political advantage. The 25th Amendment seems to be a decent process, I doubt we could really improve much on it.
I think there are two separate things to think about. One, whether the "man at the top" is in fact mentally ill. The other is what *constitutional* tools exist to deal with it. I'll look at them in reverse order.
The tools the Constitution gives us directly are two: deal with it, or impeach. The problem is that impeachment - while flexible (because "high crimes and misdemeanors" lacks a formal definition, and thus means whatever congress decides at the time) -- is at least in theory limited to crimes, not merely the state of mind. It would seem, then, that "deal with it" is the immediate recourse. A strong VP, FLOTUS, and Cabinet can go quite far in that regard.
There is another tool, granted by the 25th Amendment (in section 4), that allows the VP and a majority of the executive department heads (basically, the Cabinet) to declare the President unfit. That is, however, quite a challenge to pull off, and is extremely unlikely to get used short of a catastrophic public meltdown.
As for the other item, I'm no fan of President Trump, but I'm quite leery of labeling him as having a mental illness just because it fits with my personal views. I take the same position as the doctor who helped compile the DSM for the APA: The Goldwater Rule should be followed, and we should stay shy of making formal diagnoses unless we are both professionally trained in doing so *and* in a position to formally examine the patient. Too much speculation is poisonous to the nation no matter his mental state, even in cases as seemingly extreme as this. Is Trump exhibiting the so-called "Dark Triad" (Narcissism, Machiavellianism, Psychopathy) that many are claiming? Maybe, maybe not, but it's a judgement we should be very careful to avoid passing on him until such time as experts have weighed in.
The tools the Constitution gives us directly are two: deal with it, or impeach. The problem is that impeachment - while flexible (because "high crimes and misdemeanors" lacks a formal definition, and thus means whatever congress decides at the time) -- is at least in theory limited to crimes, not merely the state of mind. It would seem, then, that "deal with it" is the immediate recourse. A strong VP, FLOTUS, and Cabinet can go quite far in that regard.
There is another tool, granted by the 25th Amendment (in section 4), that allows the VP and a majority of the executive department heads (basically, the Cabinet) to declare the President unfit. That is, however, quite a challenge to pull off, and is extremely unlikely to get used short of a catastrophic public meltdown.
As for the other item, I'm no fan of President Trump, but I'm quite leery of labeling him as having a mental illness just because it fits with my personal views. I take the same position as the doctor who helped compile the DSM for the APA: The Goldwater Rule should be followed, and we should stay shy of making formal diagnoses unless we are both professionally trained in doing so *and* in a position to formally examine the patient. Too much speculation is poisonous to the nation no matter his mental state, even in cases as seemingly extreme as this. Is Trump exhibiting the so-called "Dark Triad" (Narcissism, Machiavellianism, Psychopathy) that many are claiming? Maybe, maybe not, but it's a judgement we should be very careful to avoid passing on him until such time as experts have weighed in.
Suspended Profile
LCDR (Join to see) - While I respect and support your feelings - I thought you might find the attached article reviewing professional ethical considerations in the mental health diagnosis where the patient does not make himself/herself available - interesting. Warmest Regards, Sandy :)
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/brainstorm/201701/shrinks-battle-over-diagnosing-donald-trump
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/brainstorm/201701/shrinks-battle-over-diagnosing-donald-trump
Shrinks Battle Over Diagnosing Donald Trump
Chaos in the White House fuels discord amongst the experts.
LCDR (Join to see)
1LT Sandy Annala - First, let me say good on ya for giving a credible reference. You don't see much of that anymore.
Now, going into the article, I'm not impressed with the arguments.
The main argument for remote diagnosis is that he seems to match a pattern. Now, without even going into the details, that should be an obvious red flag. Pattern matching is great for figuring out where to look, but an absolute fail for drawing a definite conclusion. That's like profiling all Muslims as terrorists.
In fact, that seems to be the crux of what Berglas is saying. That's not how the DSM works. Beyond that, anyone with any understanding of psychology would know that remote diagnosis prevents us from separating out the signal from the noise.
When he says he knows how to defeat ISIS better than Obama's Generals - is that really narcissism... or is it a performer playing to the crowd that ate it up? When the cameras were off, he turned to the generals. He knows damn well that he didn't know better than them.
When he tries to control what the public sees of his administration, is that a need for admiration... or an understanding of the legitimate need to protect the brand image?
Any psychologist who thinks they can see through that noise to determine the signal beneath is either a fool, a liar, or a partisan hack.
One other aspect, though... when Gartner accuses him of being anti-social for "failing to obey laws and norms," he points out the tax return issue. That is, of course, a norm. But when Gartner violates the norm of the Goldwater rule, we have to wonder if he doesn't fall foul of his own diagnosis.
Now, going into the article, I'm not impressed with the arguments.
The main argument for remote diagnosis is that he seems to match a pattern. Now, without even going into the details, that should be an obvious red flag. Pattern matching is great for figuring out where to look, but an absolute fail for drawing a definite conclusion. That's like profiling all Muslims as terrorists.
In fact, that seems to be the crux of what Berglas is saying. That's not how the DSM works. Beyond that, anyone with any understanding of psychology would know that remote diagnosis prevents us from separating out the signal from the noise.
When he says he knows how to defeat ISIS better than Obama's Generals - is that really narcissism... or is it a performer playing to the crowd that ate it up? When the cameras were off, he turned to the generals. He knows damn well that he didn't know better than them.
When he tries to control what the public sees of his administration, is that a need for admiration... or an understanding of the legitimate need to protect the brand image?
Any psychologist who thinks they can see through that noise to determine the signal beneath is either a fool, a liar, or a partisan hack.
One other aspect, though... when Gartner accuses him of being anti-social for "failing to obey laws and norms," he points out the tax return issue. That is, of course, a norm. But when Gartner violates the norm of the Goldwater rule, we have to wonder if he doesn't fall foul of his own diagnosis.
Suspended Profile
LCDR (Join to see) - It is not simply that he matches a pattern - the case that is being made is the pattern is clearly and distinctly observable without the need for any close personal contact, establishment of rapport, or even any personal interview. Sandy :)
LCDR (Join to see)
That a pattern of thinking can be determined by the public words of a showman is either folly or hubris. That this psychologist thinks the DMS works that way has already been refuted in the above article.
Were I to look at a bridge collapse and say "hey, I've seen this before! I know for sure the gusset plates weren't designed properly because that's what happened in the I-35W collapse," I would never be taken seriously as a civil engineer.
Without actually talking with Trump, there is no way the signal can be separated from the noise. All that we're left with is the confirmation bias of those who we already know are willing to violate professional ethics.
Were I to look at a bridge collapse and say "hey, I've seen this before! I know for sure the gusset plates weren't designed properly because that's what happened in the I-35W collapse," I would never be taken seriously as a civil engineer.
Without actually talking with Trump, there is no way the signal can be separated from the noise. All that we're left with is the confirmation bias of those who we already know are willing to violate professional ethics.
I don't know Troll Sandy, we let an unstable racist remain in office for 8 years. You need to stop listening to the media and find a hobby to occupy your free time. By the way, while your in uniform President Trump is your Commander-in-Chief, if you don't like that get out! Are you that stupid? The military isn't a college campus. I hate the ignorance and total disrespect displayed by this generation for our nation and our constitution. It goes far beyond anything that was done in the 60's, children of the liberal agenda. My advice to you is instead of parroting the liberal agenda, try taking history and Constitutional law classes.
A1C Paul Kasper
he was never vetted.. his 8 years need to be stricken from the history and law books
Suspended Profile
CPL Sharon Fahey - I am a 1960's girl. I served as an evacuation hospital nurse in Vietnam. Then I was seconded to USDOS where I remained fir my career. I am a Reagan Era Republican who believes this man has yet to show he is up to the job. Warmest Regards, Sandy :)
CPL Sharon Fahey
Yet, you parrot the liberals. The mere fact that you are publicly jumping on the media band wagon and expecting him to walk on water is a disgrace. Glad your not in uniform anymore, might be tough to lead when you oppose the Commander-In-Chief. Thanks for your service :)
Proof of mental instability? Usually we request testing before we start planning what to do about something that might not be a problem. It might turn out that it's nothing more than a personality conflict.
So, first of who are you basing the determination of "fit for office" from the Democrats who cannot get over the fact that Hillary Clinton Lost, The Media who cannot get over the fact that Hillary Clinton lost, There is a lot of hyperbole gong on between the liberals and the media, non stop slandering and disparaging of the Commander in Chief, from my point the only ones that appear to be mentally Ill are the Democrats, the Media and the Elites on the coasts who appear to have a non-treatable case of TDS 'Trump Derangement Syndrome"
MCPO Roger Collins
This was a simple trolling post, Master Chief. Based on the responses, it worked. Your post is on target.
1Lt Annala, define "Unstable" please. We've had 45 Presidents (44 if you count the fact that Grover Cleveland was President twice - just not back to back). Some of those so-called 'Presidents' were real winners, if one considers 'whack-a-do' as a valid qualification. Donald Trump has achieved something no other man in that office has ever done; upset the so-called Presidential "IDEAL" and "Traditional" office-holder social status. Does that frighten you? During my +70 years of breathing in this life, I have NEVER seen any politician say NO to spending or sign any document to return a surplus to the tax-paying citizens of this country, driving the U.S. into more debt than we've ever faced. I watched Lyndon Baines Johnson state on public TV he would never send the sons of America to Vietnam. There's 58 thousand of my peers lying dead at his feet putting the lie to that statement (with me almost joining them on numerous occasions while serving there). John Fitzgerald Kennedy came closer than any American leader in history to embroiling the U.S. in a nuclear conflict with his disastrous lunatic Bay of Pigs invasion and subsequent head-butting with Nikita Khrushchev. Vice President Spiro T. Agnew resigned due to tax evasion and was prosecuted while his boss Richard Nixon was in fact, a "Crook" and lost his job and law licenses. Bill Clinton jeopardized his Presidency via a sexual scandal and made his "Office" a world-wide laughing stock. Do any of these examples speak to 'instability?' Do they scare you? They sure as hell scared me. Donald Trump, at this point in his Presidency, is a light-weight in comparison. Shall I go on?
I am actually dumbfounded by this. Like this is ridiculous... because someone wants to turn shit within the government upside down to effect necessary change, he's considered mentally ill... notice all those who are espousing and opining such myths are those who will lose most by the President governing the way he is. Realistically. Those that elected him wanted radical change, the opposing party is upset and this is how they respond.
Read This Next
Office of the President (POTUS)

