• 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!

Should psychiatric tests be compulsory for those seeking the Presidency?

Should psychiatric tests be compulsory for those seeking the Presidency?

  • Yes

    Votes: 16 34.0%
  • No

    Votes: 28 59.6%
  • Other

    Votes: 3 6.4%

  • Total voters
    47
We already do this for many other jobs so as long as it was done just like those ones I'd have no problem with it. Actually seems kind of backwards it's not. I mean if we compare the other jobs that require it it seems a little silly we don;t do it for the president.
 
The problem is the voting public voted for the other person and by quite a bit too - it is the Electoral College which placed Trump in power.

Yes as it was designed to do.
 
No, but they should be required to pass a security clearance before filing.
 
Yes as it was designed to do.

yes - it was designed to thwart the will of the people - and that is what it did. So when you say

Quote Originally Posted by lefty louie View Post
If the voting public votes in someone that's nuts they get what they deserve.

let us remember that
1- the VOTING PUBLIC selected the opponent by over 2.8 million more votes than they gave to Trump, and
2 - the voting pubic did NOT GET what they DESERVED since they voted for the opposition

It is only an anti-democratic mechanism left over from the 1700's that elected Trump and even then completely FAILED to be exercised as the Founders promised it would be to protect us from a foreign adversary putting a creature of their own in power as Hamilton promised in Federalist 68.
 
By convention and tradition, we currently delegate the responsibility for vetting candidates of the major parties to the good people of Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina.
 
Quote...
" when someone who is mentally unstable becomes President. "
This was evident when this dude ran for office eight years ago and we never picked up on it. This dude got worst the latter part of his second term and we paid for it.
I'm sure all presidents go through batteries of tests and regular annual checkups. I believe our President Trump recently had a physical before the Holiday and passed with flying colors which included mental stress tests.
Sad to say our former dictator slipped a few bucks under the table and bought a clean bill of health. The liberal/Demos know how to get around the law without notice to the public bah rump.
 
We are seeing what happens when someone who is mentally unstable becomes President. Should mental/psych tests be compulsory at some point in the Presidential race with nominees being barred from the office on the advice of medical professionals? Either before the polls or at the President-elect stage (and the veep possibly taking over).

edit: not letting me do a poll. A yes/no poll if any mods are listening!


No, there shouldn't be a test. If a person gets that far, then things must be okay. There does however need to be a law that keeps sycophant politicians from denying the reality and enabling obviously disturbed leaders such as Trump. Sarah Huckabee Sanders for instance needs to be thrown out on her fat ass for all the outright lying she is doing and Mitch Mcconell and Paul Ryan should be censured for allowing the harm that has come to this country.

The problem is - agenda over everything else.
 
Big fail for the liberals accusing Trump of stealing the election, so the next trial balloon was the Russia deal, which also proved to be a lot of hot air. No one went for the Dementia angle, it fell through. In desperation, they now make a charge that Trump is crazy. The lengths people will go to who can't accept that Trump is our president. He won; get over it....
 
I voted No. It was 100% apparent during the campaign (and from his background that is well-documented) that The Donald was not qualified to be a good president.

The people who voted for him are to blame and perhaps a deeper examination of their reasons from a psychological perspective is more valuable.
 
I would favor a civics test for voters.
 
In their beliefs generally, sure. In their professional opinions, often not.


We see this is not true just by looking at supreme court decisions which most of the time along party lines. We see this with Psychologists who go on tv saying Trump is insane or mentally unfit without even having a session with him. We see this with scientists and doctors who agree with who ever is footing the bill for their research or medicine. I am sure as a liberal you vehemently disagree with Citizens United and many other supreme court decisions that did not go the way you think they should.
 
We are seeing what happens when someone who is mentally unstable becomes President. Should mental/psych tests be compulsory at some point in the Presidential race with nominees being barred from the office on the advice of medical professionals? Either before the polls or at the President-elect stage (and the veep possibly taking over).

edit: not letting me do a poll. A yes/no poll if any mods are listening!

First I doubt your credentials but being able to diagnose anybody is mentally unstable. Second I don't know how you can do that without an examination of the person outside of just watching TV.

If you don't like the guy call him a bastard it's okay it's your right but don't pull the pseudo-intellectual garbage that you're all the sudden up expert that can tell someone's mental State based on their public appearance.
 
We see this is not true just by looking at supreme court decisions which most of the time along party lines. We see this with Psychologists who go on tv saying Trump is insane or mentally unfit without even having a session with him. We see this with scientists and doctors who agree with who ever is footing the bill for their research or medicine. I am sure as a liberal you vehemently disagree with Citizens United and many other supreme court decisions that did not go the way you think they should.

No, we don't. You're just confused about the nature of professional opinions: they need not all be in perfect agreement to have value.

You have no credibility with which to wish away the professional opinions of psychiatrists and psychologists who have expressed concern over the dangerous detachment our president has with reality.
 
yes - it was designed to thwart the will of the people - and that is what it did. So when you say



let us remember that
1- the VOTING PUBLIC selected the opponent by over 2.8 million more votes than they gave to Trump, and
2 - the voting pubic did NOT GET what they DESERVED since they voted for the opposition

It is only an anti-democratic mechanism left over from the 1700's that elected Trump and even then completely FAILED to be exercised as the Founders promised it would be to protect us from a foreign adversary putting a creature of their own in power as Hamilton promised in Federalist 68.

Oh but there's that sticky little thing called "Democratic republic", we are not democratic, nor are we a democracy, the sooner you learn and accept that the sooner you will sleep better at night. We protect that rights of everyone, even the minority in this country. If we were a "democracy" we could vote that minorities don't get to vote, or go to the same schools, you know all thos old things that democrats backed, back in the day.
 
No, we don't. You're just confused about the nature of professional opinions: they need not all be in perfect agreement to have value.

You have no credibility with which to wish away the professional opinions of psychiatrists and psychologists who have expressed concern over the dangerous detachment our president has with reality.
What about their colleagues and consumers of mental health services? They aren't exactly thrilled with the fear mongering and stereotyping that they are seeing these supposedly credentialed professionals doing.

Sent from my LG-H910 using Tapatalk
 
What about their colleagues and consumers of mental health services? They aren't exactly thrilled with the fear mongering and stereotyping that they are seeing these supposedly credentialed professionals doing.

Sent from my LG-H910 using Tapatalk

What fear mongering and steretyping?

Read Bandy Lee's interview:

https://www.vox.com/science-and-hea...ump-mental-health-psychiatrist-25th-amendment

And let me know why you think her professionalism is a problem, in order to excuse President Trump's dangerous unprofessionalism.
 
What fear mongering and steretyping?

Read Bandy Lee's interview:

https://www.vox.com/science-and-hea...ump-mental-health-psychiatrist-25th-amendment

And let me know why you think her professionalism is a problem, in order to excuse President Trump's dangerous unprofessionalism.

Are you kidding? This entire campaign has been a rant against the mentally ill and their unfitness for public life--all without a shred of proof. It's manifestly unprofessional and their the vast majority of the professional body knows it.

Sent from my LG-H910 using Tapatalk
 
Are you kidding? This entire campaign has been a rant against the mentally ill and their unfitness for public life--all without a shred of proof. It's manifestly unprofessional and their the vast majority of the professional body knows it.

Sent from my LG-H910 using Tapatalk

Are you kidding? What "entire campaign" are you referring to? Maybe you could specify what, out of the interview i linked, is a "rant against the mentally ill and their unfitness for public life--all without a shred of proof," since Bandy Lee does go to lengths to explain the specific observations that guide her assessment that our president could be a danger to himself or those around him.

Actually, there's nothing unprofessional, at all, about a psychiatric hold on a patient who is a danger to themselves or those around them. You're arguing against the law of the land here, conceptually, and in favor of an exception for the president (or perhaps all public figures) out of nothing more than your irrational and emotional rejection of assessment.
 
No, we don't. You're just confused about the nature of professional opinions: they need not all be in perfect agreement to have value.

You have no credibility with which to wish away the professional opinions of psychiatrists and psychologists who have expressed concern over the dangerous detachment our president has with reality.

What a load of horse****. Those are not the professional opinions of psychiatrists and psychologists.Those are the opinions of quacks trying to do any and everything they can to derail the presidency.Even the APA came out against what those so called professionals are doing.

https://www.psychiatry.org/newsroom/news-releases/apa-calls-for-end-to-armchair-psychiatry
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Today, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) reiterates its continued and unwavering commitment to the ethical principle known as "The Goldwater Rule." We at the APA call for an end to psychiatrists providing professional opinions in the media about public figures whom they have not examined, whether it be on cable news appearances, books, or in social media. Armchair psychiatry or the use of psychiatry as a political tool is the misuse of psychiatry and is unacceptable and unethical.
 
Oh but there's that sticky little thing called "Democratic republic", we are not democratic, nor are we a democracy, the sooner you learn and accept that the sooner you will sleep better at night. We protect that rights of everyone, even the minority in this country. If we were a "democracy" we could vote that minorities don't get to vote, or go to the same schools, you know all thos old things that democrats backed, back in the day.

The changes that have occurred over the past two centuries have made us a democratic republic. That is simply the evolution of our system. Nothing you can say changes that history.
 
What a load of horse****. Those are not the professional opinions of psychiatrists and psychologists.Those are the opinions of quacks trying to do any and everything they can to derail the presidency.Even the APA came out against what those so called professionals are doing.

https://www.psychiatry.org/newsroom/news-releases/apa-calls-for-end-to-armchair-psychiatry
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Today, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) reiterates its continued and unwavering commitment to the ethical principle known as "The Goldwater Rule." We at the APA call for an end to psychiatrists providing professional opinions in the media about public figures whom they have not examined, whether it be on cable news appearances, books, or in social media. Armchair psychiatry or the use of psychiatry as a political tool is the misuse of psychiatry and is unacceptable and unethical.

Yes, yes they are. Bandy Lee is a Yale psychiatrist, one who has worked with violence for over twenty years. You're free to put your head in the sand, but nobody is obligated to join you for your terrible justification that you simply find the conclusions undesirable.

The APA has no medical objection, it is not a professional counter opinion; it is an ethical objection to making any comment. They changed the Goldwater rule to make it more strict. They want a gag order on all mental health professionals, tying their hands indefinitely for public figures.
 
Are you kidding? This entire campaign has been a rant against the mentally ill and their unfitness for public life--all without a shred of proof. It's manifestly unprofessional and their the vast majority of the professional body knows it.

Sent from my LG-H910 using Tapatalk

The inherent problem with the whole discussion is that in saying Trump is unqualified for his job due to the possibility of mental illness, the implication many people are hearing is that all people with mental illnesses are unqualified to hold their own jobs. And while I understand where that interpretation comes from, it should by necessity be divorced from that implication because the particular job Trump is mentally unfit for has unique demands with exponentially greater ramifications.

Does that mean that the discussion of Trump's mental unfitness is above criticism? Certainly not. But I believe that discussion needs to take place, even if how we approach it needs to be adjusted.
 
The inherent problem with the whole discussion is that in saying Trump is unqualified for his job due to the possibility of mental illness, the implication many people are hearing is that all people with mental illnesses are unqualified to hold their own jobs. And while I understand where that interpretation comes from, it should by necessity be divorced from that implication because the particular job Trump is mentally unfit for has unique demands with exponentially greater ramifications.

Does that mean that the discussion of Trump's mental unfitness is above criticism? Certainly not. But I believe that discussion needs to take place, even if how we approach it needs to be adjusted.

Apparently, we can't have the discussion, because President Trump's supporters are prepared to prevent such discussion with threats of violence:

To Lee, the threats that led to the event’s cancellation reaffirmed what she and other mental-health professionals have been arguing for a year, “that our fears were correct, that our predictions were correct, that the president’s supporters are very violent and ready to inflict violence,” she said.
...
“The only important question is: Is he dangerous? And there I think I would disagree with APA that you’d need a personal interview with somebody to make that determination,” Gilligan said.

The psychological reasons for Trump’s statements aren’t relevant, says Gilligan. “When I talk about the public health, it’s not what’s going on in his mind, but rather, what’s the effect of his behavior on other people.” Most violent individuals, Gilligan noted, are not diagnosed with a specific mental-health condition and, conversely, most mentally ill people are not violent and do not commit acts of violence.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/viole...ith-psychologists-on-trump-inspiring-violence

Ironically, they are proving Yale psychiatrist Bandy Lee right.
 
An actually mental ill person would not be able to do the amount of involvement that a campaign requires. Plus, this could be used to filter anyone out who doesn't side with the establishment.
 
Back
Top Bottom