Countdown to Extinction: The 2016 Presidential Election

[Todd]

The terms any of us choose to use are immaterial

Of course you would write that, you resorted to actual dehumanizing language when you called Trump an insect.

The point is actually very clear and simple: You can dislike Trump, but saying Trump has a low IQ, or he's a psychopath, or suffers from some other psychological problem is nothing other than name calling.  People are just trying to use respectable terminology when doing so.  It supposedly sounds or reads so much more serious.  Except it doesn't. 

[kishnevi]

A rundown of Trump's retreats into Chapter 11
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/sep/21/carly-fiorina/trumps-four-bankruptcies/

[(poco) Sforzando]

Of course you would write that, you resorted to actual dehumanizing language when you called Trump an insect.

The point is actually very clear and simple: You can dislike Trump, but saying Trump has a low IQ, or he's a psychopath, or suffers from some other psychological problem is nothing other than name calling.

So is calling him an "arrogant, manipulative asshole." These things happen in the political heat of emotion all the time. Someone on That Other Board called Obama a "useful idiot" (better, I suppose, than calling him a "useless idiot"). So someone said Trump has a low IQ? Rudy Giuliani said of Joe Biden that: "I mean, there's a real fear if — God forbid — he ever had to be entrusted with the presidency, whether he really has the mental capacity to handle it. ...This guy just isn't bright, he's never been bright, he isn't bright."

It's just politics. All part of the game. Not to be taken so literally. When I called Trump an insect, I was complimenting him by placing him so high in the animal kingdom.

[Todd]

It's just politics. All part of the game. Not to be taken so literally. When I called Trump an insect, I was complimenting him by placing him so high in the animal kingdom.

Of course you weren't complimenting him, now you are just being dishonest.  That's fine, but let's not pretend otherwise.  (And yes, I got your clever new insult.)

I get it, now you are not so serious, but before your proclamations of Trump's psychopathy were very earnest indeed.  People like to use science-y words, specifically, because they provide a patina of objectivity and seriousness.  I know that game.  I know it's bullshit.  It's fun to watch people write about how it's not bullshit.

[(poco) Sforzando]

I get it, now you are not so serious, but before your proclamations of Trump's psychopathy were very earnest indeed.  People like to use science-y words, specifically, because they provide a patina of objectivity and seriousness.  I know that game.  I know it's bullshit.  It's fun to watch people write about how it's not bullshit.

I protest. I called him a sociopath, not a psychopath.

[Parsifal]

Of course you would write that, you resorted to actual dehumanizing language when you called Trump an insect.

The point is actually very clear and simple: You can dislike Trump, but saying Trump has a low IQ, or he's a psychopath, or suffers from some other psychological problem is nothing other than name calling.  People are just trying to use respectable terminology when doing so.  It supposedly sounds or reads so much more serious.  Except it doesn't.

And, of course, all of your self-important bloviating should be taken at face value...

[Rinaldo]

I see, one professor, who presumably has not met Trump and clearly has not worked with him professionally, now plays videos of Trump speeches, so therefore Trump is what you say he is.  No possibility of bias there.

If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck.. you know the drill. I don't think a professorship (nor bias) is needed to tell Trump is the poster boy for narcissism. As an experienced narcissist myself, I sure know one when I see one!

[Todd]

And, of course, all of your self-important bloviating should be taken at face value...

You can take my posts however you like.  But you really ought to expect others to point out that your supposedly thoughtful, informed post was anything but.

I don't think a professorship (nor bias) is needed to tell Trump is the poster boy for narcissism.

No, but one needs actual credentials and experience with the person in question to be able to make an actual diagnosis.  Otherwise, it's just bullshit. 

[Brian]

If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck.. you know the drill. I don't think a professorship (nor bias) is needed to tell Trump is the poster boy for narcissism. As an experienced narcissist myself, I sure know one when I see one!

Ha!

Part of what Todd is referring to is the "Goldwater Rule", issued by the American Psychiatric Association:

"On occasion psychiatrists are asked for an opinion about an individual who is in the light of public attention or who has disclosed information about himself/herself through public media. In such circumstances, a psychiatrist may share with the public his or her expertise about psychiatric issues in general. However, it is unethical for a psychiatrist to offer a professional opinion unless he or she has conducted an examination and has been granted proper authorization for such a statement."

Thus any accusations that Trump has a personality disorder will remain partisan political attacks - however self-evidently true - rather than credible expert opinions. I do personally believe Trump is mentally ill, but with the understanding that, no matter how many symptoms he displays, it will not be a proven fact.

[Todd]

Thus any accusations that Trump has a personality disorder will remain partisan political attacks - however self-evidently true - rather than credible expert opinions. I do personally believe Trump is mentally ill, but with the understanding that, no matter how many symptoms he displays, it will not be a proven fact.

Facts?  Credibility?  Credentials?  Pfft.  Opinions formed from snippets on TV or a few fleeting column inches online are much better, more reliable guides to the world. 

[(poco) Sforzando]

Ha!

Part of what Todd is referring to is the "Goldwater Rule", issued by the American Psychiatric Association:

"On occasion psychiatrists are asked for an opinion about an individual who is in the light of public attention or who has disclosed information about himself/herself through public media. In such circumstances, a psychiatrist may share with the public his or her expertise about psychiatric issues in general. However, it is unethical for a psychiatrist to offer a professional opinion unless he or she has conducted an examination and has been granted proper authorization for such a statement."

Thus any accusations that Trump has a personality disorder will remain partisan political attacks - however self-evidently true - rather than credible expert opinions. I do personally believe Trump is mentally ill, but with the understanding that, no matter how many symptoms he displays, it will not be a proven fact.

Yes, but we're not psychiatrists or pretend to be, and thus we're not bound by that rule. As for personality disorder, there have been many politicians I've disliked intensely for one reason or other, but he is the only one I have ever thought of as mentally unbalanced. And if you "do personally believe Trump is mentally ill," then you are saying nothing different from what Scarpia, Rinaldo, or I myself have been saying.

[Parsifal]

You can take my posts however you like.  But you really ought to expect others to point out that your supposedly thoughtful, informed post was anything but.

I should put together some sort of computer program that scans this site and automatically points out that your supposedly thoughtful, informed posts are bullshit.

[(poco) Sforzando]

I should put together some sort of computer program that scans this site and automatically points out that your supposedly thoughtful, informed posts are bullshit.

What, don't you realize that Todd is the only person among us with any kind of intellectual integrity? Why, he never ceases to remind us himself on every occasion.

[Todd]

Yes, but we're not psychiatrists or pretend to be, and thus we're not bound by that rule.

Now we're getting somewhere.  Since you are not psychiatrists and do not pretend to be, your statements are nothing more than name calling.  Much better to just say he's nuts rather than trying to use actual diagnoses you're not at all qualified to make.  Of course, it loses that science-y patina.  Dilemmas. 

I should put together some sort of computer program that scans this site and automatically points out that your supposedly thoughtful, informed posts are bullshit.

Have at it.  Let everyone know when you're ready for testing.

[Brian]

Facts?  Credibility?  Credentials?  Pfft.  Opinions formed from snippets on TV or a few fleeting column inches online are much better, more reliable guides to the world.

And in my case, actually attending a Trump rally

[(poco) Sforzando]

Now we're getting somewhere.  Since you are not psychiatrists and do not pretend to be, your statements are nothing more than name calling.  Much better to just say he's nuts rather than trying to use actual diagnoses you're not at all qualified to make.  Of course, it loses that science-y patina.  Dilemmas. 

No dilemma at all. The question is why this particular individual has incited so many similar reactions (I could easily scan the comments section from the NY Times or any other paper for numerous similar examples). I despise Paul Ryan, but I have never questioned his mental stability. I never even questioned Sarah Palin's (well . . . . . ) And it's not as if all we've seen from Trump are a few snippets on TV or a few column inches. He's been shown in numerous debates, rallies, and speeches at great length, and has been discussed in thousands of newspaper and magazine analyses. I don't need a clinical degree to be more worried by this individual than anyone I've seen enter politics.

[Karl Henning]

And in my case, actually attending a Trump rally

Did you score a hat?

[Todd]

And in my case, actually attending a Trump rally

I'm sorry.

I don't need a clinical degree to be more worried by this individual than anyone I've seen enter politics.

True.  But you do need one to credibly diagnose mental illness.  You get that, right? 

See, here's a problem that crops up on this forum a lot: taking a thoughtful opinion on a subject like Trump's fitness for office - and I agree, he is not fit for office - and then spicing it up with pseudo-scientific gibberish.  Throw in a science-y word or a medical diagnosis, and the intent is to make it seem more serious.  It actually seems less serious and purely partisan; it seems reflexive, not thoughtful.  Why not just quote a lengthy portion of one of his rally speeches, point out the inconsistencies, the rambling nature, the factual errors, the immoral or amoral promises, and so on?  Trump is an easy target.

Also, what about Tom Eagleton?  Do you really think he was stable enough to assume the Presidency?

[(poco) Sforzando]

1 True.  But you do need one to credibly diagnose mental illness.  You get that, right? 

2 See, here's a problem that crops up on this forum a lot: taking a thoughtful opinion on a subject like Trump's fitness for office - and I agree, he is not fit for office - and then spicing it up with pseudo-scientific gibberish.  Throw in a science-y word or a medical diagnosis, and the intent is to make it seem more serious.  It actually seems less serious and purely partisan; it seems reflexive, not thoughtful.  Why not just quote a lengthy portion of one of his rally speeches, point out the inconsistencies, the rambling nature, the factual errors, the immoral or amoral promises, and so on?  Trump is an easy target.

3 Also, what about Tom Eagleton?  Do you really think he was stable enough to assume the Presidency?

1 Of course "I get that." Condescend away; you do it so well.

2 "See, here's a problem that crops up on this forum a lot." Where, other than this issue?
And of course he's an easy target. That doesn't explain why he is realizing so much support, especially worrying for those of us who believe his possible presidency could be so dangerous.

3 Eagleton never got as far as Trump did, being McGovern's VP pick, and he quit the race before the election, to be replaced by Shriver.

[Todd]

2 "See, here's a problem that crops up on this forum a lot." Where, other than this issue?
And of course he's an easy target. That doesn't explain why he is realizing so much support, especially worrying for those of us who believe his possible presidency could be so dangerous.

The words "psychopath" and "sociopath", in particular, have shown up in a number of threads on a number of topics.  They have been intellectually trendy for a few years, so it is not surprising.  Variants on narcissism pop up here and there, too.  I wonder how long until some form of "intersectionality" gets misused on the forum.

I thought Trump's support was relatively easy to understand.  He is appealing mostly to disaffected whites who believe they are getting a raw deal, and Trump is resorting to tried and true nativism to point to the appropriate bad guys.  He also is resorting to that other old standby, economic nationalism, promising said disaffected whites that they will get their due.  Add the perceived threat of terrorism - which Obama has done a poor job communicating on, if a practically though not legally reasonable job addressing - and you have a pretty good set of conditions for a strong man to thrive in.

3 Eagleton never got as far as Trump did, being McGovern's VP pick, and he quit the race before the election, to be replaced by Shriver.

Though only after it was exposed after he been selected and his own doctors stated he could put the country at risk if his depression returned.  He got pretty darned close to being the VP selection to be crushed by Nixon.  I doubt Hillary wins by a similar margin this year.