Search the Community

When accusations arose that President Trump has dementia, that he exhibits characteristics of multiple mental health disorders, and that he is truly and objectively crazy, I smirked. When POTUS responded that he was a very stable genius I cracked up, laughing. Many psychologists and pundits did not. They took him serious, and said he had once again shown that he suffered from grandiose narcicism. One columnist insisted with uber sobriety that anyone who declared his own stability and genius was unstable and foolish. Step back. Recognize the "I be all and know-all" schtick for what it is. Rush Limbaugh has been doing the same for nearly 30 years. The President was tweaking his critics, intentionally poking, prodding and irritating them. And...they reacted just like he wanted them to. Along comes a cabal of psychologists, soberly warning that POTUS is a clear and present danger, saying that their 'duty to warn' exceeds the Goldwater Rule (prohibiting psychologist from publicly diagnosing those they have not professionally interacted with). Thankfully, the APA re-affirmed the Goldwater Rule, and urged its members to cease and desist with the political grandstanding. Bottom-line: Oppose the President's policies and actions. Question his wisdom and tactics. Do not use implied expertise and unverifiable mental health speculations to attempt to undermine an election. POTUS can defend himself, and I do not always want to. However, I bristle at highly trained people who squander their expertise and bring disrepute on their professions. FWIW, I hate it when clergy pontificate about politics in ways that imply that the truly faithful could not help but agree with them.