• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

New $500k ad campaign featuring 225+ psychiatrists and mental health professionals describing why Trump is unfit

Ahhhh, they've all got to be leftists! I can almost hear it now. BUT...

It's kinda funny that NOT ONE mental health professional has come out gunning for the orange shit stain-

THAT right there says it all......

As a matter of fact, not the first right wing mental health professional has EVER come out supporting Americas and Democracies worst enemy. EVER EVER EVER in the last excruciating 78 horrible years since he's been lurking on the planet like the warped "all mine, mine, mine" predator he is.
 
Last edited:
Funny it's named PsychoPac.
 
I know this is a Dem supporting advert, but who among us (including Trump supporters) don't think that the malignant narcissism diagnoses is true? To me at least it appears blindingly obvious, but I assume to his supporters it doesn't appear that way. I would be interested to discuss why we see it so differently?
 
Integrityrespec said:
These are the idiots that support gender reassignment. I believe they know, nothing. Bunch of overeducated idiots.
Click to expand...
You are the guy who believes Trump's lies so I will be taking your observations with a grain of salt.
 
They are not right in saying that Trump has "no choice" but to be a malignant narcissist. He can get treatment and he can get medication to treat the symptoms and minimize its effect. He will always have an underlying psychological predisposition towards that, but he can channel the symptoms into more appropriate behavior -- like resisting the temptation to harm people. But that requires him 1) recognizing it's a problem and 2) getting the help he needs.

He clearly doesn't recognize that it's a problem, so he's likely also not getting the help he needs.
 
Ishm said:
I know this is a Dem supporting advert, but who among us (including Trump supporters) don't think that the malignant narcissism diagnoses is true? To me at least it appears blindingly obvious, but I assume to his supporters it doesn't appear that way. I would be interested to discuss why we see it so differently?
Click to expand...

I 1,000% think this diagnosis is likely correct.

However, I also think that the psych field has become delegitimizingly politicized, and this is another example.

Psychiatrists should never provide professional opinions in the media about public figures they have not personally examined, the American Psychiatric Association reiterated in a statement. The association was reminding members about what is known as “The Goldwater Rule” — a guideline penned in 1973 after more than 1000 psychiatrists went public with views about US presidential candidate Barry Goldwater’s fitness to hold office, calling him, among other things, “a dangerous lunatic.”...

One reason for The Goldwater Rule is the likelihood of error in a diagnosis made at a distance. A proper diagnosis requires much more than “a review of television appearances, tweets, and public comments,” the American Psychiatric Association noted in its statement. “The standards in our profession require review of medical and psychiatric history and records and a complete examination of mental status. Often collateral information from family members or individuals who know the person well is included, with permission from the patient.”

Armchair diagnosis can also harm trust in the medical profession, according to Brendan Leier, a clinical ethicist at the John Dossetor Health Ethics Centre. Doctors are stewards of an inherited trust. “What you do can undermine that trust,” he said, because diagnosing public figures on cable TV could cause you to be perceived more as a political advocate than a physician.​


They were already pretty far down that path with the whole let's-cut-up-the-kiddies stuff. I guess technically this is tame
 
cpwill said:
I 1,000% think this diagnosis is likely correct.

However, I also think that the psych field has become delegitimizingly politicized, and this is another example.

Psychiatrists should never provide professional opinions in the media about public figures they have not personally examined, the American Psychiatric Association reiterated in a statement. The association was reminding members about what is known as “The Goldwater Rule” — a guideline penned in 1973 after more than 1000 psychiatrists went public with views about US presidential candidate Barry Goldwater’s fitness to hold office, calling him, among other things, “a dangerous lunatic.”...​
​
One reason for The Goldwater Rule is the likelihood of error in a diagnosis made at a distance. A proper diagnosis requires much more than “a review of television appearances, tweets, and public comments,” the American Psychiatric Association noted in its statement. “The standards in our profession require review of medical and psychiatric history and records and a complete examination of mental status. Often collateral information from family members or individuals who know the person well is included, with permission from the patient.”​
​
Armchair diagnosis can also harm trust in the medical profession, according to Brendan Leier, a clinical ethicist at the John Dossetor Health Ethics Centre. Doctors are stewards of an inherited trust. “What you do can undermine that trust,” he said, because diagnosing public figures on cable TV could cause you to be perceived more as a political advocate than a physician.​


They were already pretty far down that path with the whole let's-cut-up-the-kiddies stuff. I guess technically this is tame
Click to expand...
What they are doing and what they did during Barry Goldwater's time are two separate things or so it seems. The professional opinion of calling Goldwater a "lunatic" … that's more in line with opining about someone you know nothing about. But saying, like this ad is saying, that Trump has something in -common- with the diagnosis, and here are the specific behaviors -- that's different. This ad is saying, "All malignant narcissists do this, and Trump also shows this symptom, and the way he acts leads me to this conclusion" as opposed to "Trump -is- one and I professionally know him to be one.
 
PoliSciPulse said:
What they are doing and what they did during Barry Goldwater's time are two separate things or so it seems. The professional opinion of calling Goldwater a "lunatic" … that's more in line with opining about someone you know nothing about. But saying, like this ad is saying, that Trump has something in -common- with the diagnosis, and here are the specific behaviors -- that's different. This ad is saying, "All malignant narcissists do this, and Trump also shows this symptom, and the way he acts leads me to this conclusion" as opposed to "Trump -is- one and I professionally know him to be one.
Click to expand...

"wH3n wEE dU iT iTs DiFfrUnT!" is not exactly an incredibly compelling argument.

When I was in the military, we had very clearly established rules. We were allowed to speak politically, and advocate for the candidates and causes we supported. We were not allowed to do so while trading on our status as members of the military. The public trust in our institution was too important, and we undermined it by making it partisan.

These psychiatrists - as much as I agree with their specific judgment here - should have done the same.
 
cpwill said:
"wH3n wEE dU iT iTs DiFfrUnT!" is not exactly an incredibly compelling argument.
Click to expand...
You posted an example: Barry Goldwater. I showed you why I think that ad is different. And also, how am I saying that "when we do it, it's different." Goldwater's opponent was … a Democrat. So even if I was a Democrat, which I'm not … it can't possibly be different because it's the same type of attack done by the same party, just in different eras.

What I'm saying is that calling Barry Goldwater a "lunatic" crossed the line to diagnosis, while this one does not. I was giving you an analysis of the ad, not saying that if was somehow "different" in a "bad" sort of way. That's a value judgement you are giving to my analysis -- and further, that was not my intent. to somehow "wipe away" or "forgive" the ad.

Personally, I would love an election whee all it was was whoever made the most positive ad won. But we're not a land of ideals :p

----
Whether the ad is somehow ethically different or not doesn't matter in the grand scale of things. I've already voted, for better or worse. Most people on this forum have voted already. And of those who haven't, I would wager 95% of people had made up their mind already, and if they haven't, this ad is not going to change their minds.

George Conway trolls Trump at every chance he gets. Trump supposedly almost fired Kellyanne Conway because her husband's trolling was getting to him. The two have history and this ad is of the type I'd expect from him. But knowledge of what psychological disorder Trump could maybe might have didn't and wouldn't change my mind about whether I voted for him or not. Some malignant narcissists have been powerful leaders. Others, not so much. All depends on the the leader and how effective they are at being a malignant narcissist :p

-----
Finally, I do not belong to the tribe known as the Democrats. I belong to no tribe and am not registered with any tribe. I may have more in common with the Democrats right now, but my political predisposition has changed over time, and I expect it will change again in the future at some point.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom