Should the United States have a standard Psychological Test

[yuiyoshida]

Last edited Thu Apr 27, 2017, 02:18 AM - Edit history (2)

created by Non partisan Medical experts to qualify to become President of The United States, and should that Test Results be made Public to all Voters?

Added note: The test would not prevent someone for running for President, but it would be made public to all voters, so they can know who the person is who is running.

32 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Time expired
	Yes
	11 (34%)
	No
	20 (63%)
	I don't Know
	0 (0%)
	Maybe
	0 (0%)
	I don't care
	1 (3%)
	0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[NCTraveler]

1. No thank you.

Not in any way at all.

[jberryhill]

2. Ah, yes, the Non Partisan Expert Committee on Who Can Run For President

Because someone will come up with a test for the Non-Partisan Experts to make sure they are qualified and non-partisan.

Why not simply appoint a Non Partisan Expert to be president, and save a step?

[NCTraveler]

4. Agree.

"Why not simply appoint a Non Partisan Expert to be president, and save a step?"

Made me laugh.

[yuiyoshida]

6. I was thinking as in a Scientific or Medical experts

Who don't lean left or right. Yeah we all have our opinions but, in Science there is truth, and shouldn't that truth be revealed at least in part to the public, who will want to make a sound judgement on who they want to run the country?

[jberryhill]

7. I was thinking of political experts

Hey, Ben Carson is a "medical expert". You want his opinion?

Explain me the process for appointing these non-biased experts.

[yuiyoshida]

9. There are some top medical experts from different

Universities who could make those tests. Lets say a person doesn't pass the test. The results should be made public, even if the person does run for President. That information should be available to every voter, be they Republican, Democrat, or Independent.

[jberryhill]

14. I'm sorry, but you are hopelessly naive about this

Different universities... you mean like Liberty University? Regent University? Uncle Bubba's Service Station and Bible College?

Or are you talking about universities that only liberals say are "qualified".

Certainly, you can't mean universities with so-called "scientists" who think that global warming is anthropogenic, can you?

I mean, some of them do "fruit fly research in Paris, France":

A good chunk of this country has been led to believe that universities, in general, are simply breeding grounds for liberal thinking, and that they are structurally biased to crank out liberals.

[yuiyoshida]

16. I am talking about top Universities

in the countries. We still HAVE those don't we? Universities that have top experts in the field of Physiological and Psychological disorders. The Test would be standardized and Every person who would run for President would take the test. Even if they Don't pass, they can still run, provide that information is made public to all voters.

We have no idea how bad it will get under the Trump Administration, and should we some how survive this, there should be something in place, so we don't get someone in the future who is more reckless and stupid than this President.

But hey, this all may be moot, now..if This one gets us into a Nuclear war, than fuck it, we're all doomed.

[jberryhill]

19. Yes, known bastions of liberals, communists, feminists, homosexuals, minorities, etc.

Not gonna happen.

Again, these "top Universities" also have scientists who promote the "climate change hoax" do they not?

[yuiyoshida]

24. We have done this before, haven't we?

Not for this office but for other OFFICES like deans of Universities. If a person has a doctorate and recognized University credentials than that should qualify them to come up with a standardize test that THE PUBLIC can read and understand about the psychological profile of the person running for President..

In any time a Person runs for President, people look to their past, their histories, their dealings with people, all this is exposed. The person is an open book, so why not add another level, in finding out their psychological profile.

AGAIN, THE TEST would not DISQUALIFY a person from running, it would make the public aware of the person's tests results.

[jberryhill]

25. "If a person has a doctorate and recognized University credentials"

Which brings us back to Ben Carson.

Yale University and the University of Michigan Medical School - doctorate, check. Recognized universities, check.

[yuiyoshida]

29. Okay so he is a flaw in the ointment, are you going

to toss away the ENTIRE ointment because there was one aberration in it? THE IDEA IS TO GIVE THE VOTER the information they need to make a sound decision. Besides, looking at the Poll, a lot of people seem to want this test, even if you don't.

[jberryhill]

63. Yeah, it's how we got a second term of Nixon

From the "Obvious History You Would Like to Ignore" Department:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Eagleton

Thomas Francis "Tom" Eagleton (September 4, 1929 – March 4, 2007) was a United States Senator from Missouri, serving from 1968 to 1987. He is best remembered for briefly being the Democratic vice presidential nominee under George McGovern in 1972. He suffered from bouts of depression throughout his life, resulting in several hospitalizations, which were kept secret from the public. When they were revealed it humiliated the McGovern campaign and Eagleton was forced to quit the race.

[yuiyoshida]

66. And its the Electoral College that put in Trump

Most AMERICANS had the right idea and voted for Hillary. That's where we are now in this huge fucking mess, cause I truly believe some how that EC was rigged. I have no proof, but its totally against what the American people wanted.

[jberryhill]

67. Non-sequitur

The perception that Eagleton had "psychological problems" was a blow from which the McGovern campaign never recovered. Clearly, you don't know what happened in that election.

[yuiyoshida]

68. I am not a historian its true... nor was I around during that time period

But I can tell you since than we have had all kinds of scientific break thoughs in the field of Medicine and Disease. I do know that the internet and computers have improved life, as have many scientific discoveries. I am talking about the FUTURE now, and how we can deal with this kind of garbage happening, where someone like Trump gets put into office. I know it wasn't a majority of people who voted for him, it was the Electoral College who put him in office. Maybe we need to get rid of that. But, even after we do, there should be some kind of testing going on with running for the office of the President. It would only be used to make the public more aware of who is running, and I for one am more for information about a candidate before I pull a lever or push any buttons. Anyone who goes into it blindly have a right to do so, but its not going to be helpful if we get someone who just is itching to lob a nuclear missile because he simply FEELS LIKE IT and because its hasn't been done for a long time.

[jberryhill]

74. Okay, so history provides an example of this being a bad idea

But, hey, that's just history.

Sure, get Congress and a supermajority of states to amend the Constitution to add new qualifications to run for office, and you're set.

[yuiyoshida]

87. Thats the thing, they won't

Do you think Republicans want something to their disadvantage, that THEY can't put in a person who's only job it is to start WRECKING the entire government system? What if Trump hired someone to Trash all the monuments in Washington DC? What if he looted the Treasury and than left office with suitcases full of cash, I guess the American people would root for him, right?

There needs to be a better vetting process, something ... because this GOVERNMENT is no better than the Russians if this shit keeps up, and many will root for that, want a dictator!

[Yo_Mama]

166. Just the concept of "don't pass" doesn't make any sense.

Psychological tests are not pass/fail.

Also, I believe psychopaths are pretty good at gaming them. Your healthier person might well come out looking worse than a real nut case.

[yuiyoshida]

169. Well as I said on another post

First of all No Republican would vote for such a thing. They own this whole thing, they have the house, the Senate, the Supreme Court and the office of the President. Some Test??? No, they would never stand for it, unless they could use it, to find a way to unseat all the Democrats, and hey wouldn't they love a One Party system that was in power.

[Yo_Mama]

171. This would require a constitutional amendment which 3/4s of the states would have to ratify.

It's 2/3rds of both houses of Congress to propose one, or constitutional convention by the states.

And I think both Republican and Dem-leaning states would reject it for good reason.

[brooklynite]

89. ...and a non-partisan Committee of experts to pick the non-partisan Committee of Scientists?

...and who picks the non-partisan Committee of experts?

[yuiyoshida]

91. FINe TELL you what

fuck the country, you all seem to want it to fail anyway. I'm done with this, going to go smoke a bowl in peace.

[jberryhill]

103. "you all seem to want it to fail anyway"

So, the criterion for "wanting the country to fail" is asking how this panel is appointed?

It's an extremely basic question to your proposal. And the question is driving at something that is very basic to Constitutional thought - i.e. that one of the main ideas is it is not based on "trusting" anyone to do the right thing or to be unbiased.

There are a lot of academics in a lot of universities doing a lot of things. We could simply expand on this "experts" idea, and have judges appointed by the top law schools, the military run by the top military academies, and so on.

Any system establishes incentives. So, you set up this "Commission on Candidate Sanity" and clearly, one of the games becomes to get onto that Commission. Academic institutions run on their own set of politics (where "politics" is meant to refer to the peculiar politics of academia, and not public politics generally).

So, the game becomes "get on that Commission", and introduces a new set of unwritten criteria by which academic advancement might be influenced. I guarantee you that the Koch brothers are perfectly well able to endow academic chairs - and indeed they do precisely that sort of thing to turn out "research" that supports their agenda.

You have this image of "neutral academia" which can be applied to presidential politics. But doing that then injects presidential politics into that "neutral academia". It is unavoidable.

Have you considered, in this two hour effort to save the country with which anyone who disagrees is clearly looking to have the country fail, perhaps running this idea past an honest-to-betsy doctorate-possessing psychologist?

Because, and again I apologize for relying on "history", we've seen this program before. The Soviet Union, for example, certainly relied on the "scientific opinions of qualified psychologists" within that system in order to diagnose and disqualify persons from political participation; and the last time this kind of thing was seriously discussed in the US psychological community was when the APA developed what is called the "Goldwater Rule".

Rather than reacting with hostility, questioning the motives of persons who disagree with you, and smoking a bowl, perhaps you might flesh this out a little more and think about how one goes about selecting this "neutral" test and/or its administrators.

Because if you come up with that, then we can just skip a step and use this sort of "neutral body of unbiased people of good intentions" selection process to select judges, public officials of all sorts, and so on.

[Yo_Mama]

167. I'm not voting for you as president - too short fused. n/t

[yuiyoshida]

170. I would never run...

And first of all who would vote for some Asian Woman anyway? This IS AMURICA!!!! The Republicans want to make AMERICA WHITE AGAIN... don't they? Yeah, tell me how much of a someone like me, (Asian-American) would have much of a chance to be in charge of something in the US government. Do you even know how many Asians are in office now? I bet its not as many. Hell, its hard enough for Asian actors to get parts to play, especially when they can WHITE WASH Ghost in the Shell and get a white actress to play a Asian actress's part.

Maybe this is why Chinese people built their Chinatowns, it was a place for them to be with their own kind and stay out of the way of the White person who wanted them deported back to where ever the hell they came from.

Here's news for the Republican party, Asian American's aren't leaving or going anywhere. We have just as much right to be here as anyone!

[AgadorSparticus]

111. +1,000

[Yo_Mama]

165. Superb. That summed it up beautifully. n/t

[LongTomH]

3. There should at least be a test for psychopathy!

Like the Hare Psychopathy Checklist.

Actually, that would probably, for all practical purposes, eliminate the Republican party!!!!

[jberryhill]

5. And what if it turned out...

...that any person who thought themselves qualified and capable of being president of the United States was, in fact, deluding themselves?

[loyalsister]

31. Do you think maybe campaigns would be smart enough

to hire someone to teach the candidate how to beat it?

[steve2470]

128. The problem with the HPC and any psychopathy/sociopathy inventory is....

the vast majority of the diagnosable behaviors are going to be SECRET and probably so well covered up via threats, intimidation, bribes, payoffs, favors, apathy, etc , that you CANNOT get to the real stuff.

Sure, with Trump, I inferred a lot of dirty shit (aka diagnosable sociopathic behaviors) on his part from his public behavior and public statements, but that was my inference, not direct observation or testimony or hard evidence.

If anything, the freaking media NEEDS TO DO ITS JOB WELL and have an allegiance to the American voting public and not the highest commercial bidder. THAT's the real problem.

If the media actually did its job well, Trump might not be President. Some of the really dirty shit would have come to light. Yes, he was already dirty IMHO from what DID come out, but I am convinced 99% of it, if not 99.99% of it, is still hidden. I could be wrong, but that's my gut feeling about this guy. He acts way too much like a mafia guy. Way too much.

[MedusaX]

8. I'd settle for....

A test requiring one to demonstrate basic understanding of constitutional law & governmental processes/procedures....

[yuiyoshida]

10. Sure why not...

I tend to agree.

[democratisphere]

11. Good idea but none of the redumbliCONs could pass it.

They're all nuts!

[yuiyoshida]

13. It may take a few years

before this even comes up, and maybe after Trump inflicts unmeasurable damage on this Country.

[loyalsister]

28. Exactly

This would provide zero new information. It would be subject to interpretation and each side would spand months debating it as campaigns and hopefully substantive debate take place.

[JuJuYoshida]

12. They drug test for jobs, why not this?

[WinkyDink]

22. The evidence of drugs is science; psychology is not.

[yuiyoshida]

35. Psychology is not a science?

Are you saying its no better than reading astrology cards, what's the word, "woo"?

[moondust]

85. It's not a "hard" science

producing testable predictions, performing controlled experiments, relying on quantifiable data and mathematical models, a high degree of accuracy and objectivity, higher levels of consensus, faster progression of the field, greater explanatory success, and generally applying a purer form of the scientific method.

~

Psychologists use controlled experiments and economists use mathematical modelling, but as social sciences both are usually considered soft sciences...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_and_soft_science

[yuiyoshida]

88. So you are saying we need a Hard Science to come up with something

That's decent? The Republicans will never stand for that.

[moondust]

97. Well, Republicans

could probably find a hack psychologist from a Koch-funded psychology department to produce the assessment they want. I guess the problem with soft science is getting consistent, scientifically verifiable results.

[drray23]

15. it is a requirement for some jobs

For example, if you are going to be an astronaut, they check whether or not you are psychologically fit. Its true for many other high pressure jobs. I don't see what that should not be the case for the president.

[yuiyoshida]

17. l know right?

THIS is not like asking for Voter ID where someone may not get to vote, because they can't afford the card or something, this is A TEST that anyone can take, and the results would be posted somewhere in public for all the see.

A person can FAIL THE TEST and still run for President, but at LEAST allow the public to see the results, and make up their mind if the person is psychologically fit to be leader of the free world.

[Squinch]

18. Lincoln was extremely depressive, Kennedy appears to have had some sexual addiction. Who would you

have preferred, people who would have had a clean psychological bill of health, to have replaced those two?

Maybe a reading competency test. That would have weeded out Twitler(R)

[yuiyoshida]

20. Again, everyone would be required to take the test

but it would not disqualify them, simply it would allow the voters to know, about the person running for President. It would be a scientific and medical test that would have the information for every voter to read, and make up their own minds. This would increase the vetting system.

[Squinch]

23. And if Lincoln's depression or Kennedy's sexual addiction had come out during their

campaigns, neither one would have been elected.

So my question stands. Who would you have preferred to those two who would have a clean bill of psychological health?

[yuiyoshida]

26. That is the past, I am talking about the future...

Okay so we may have a Kennedy or Lincoln type person running in the future, but its not to say they will be disqualified. We know KNOWLEDGE IS POWER, and the Voter has the power in their hands to read all the information about the person running for President and make UP THEIR OWN minds, if this person is qualified or not. ITS the VOTER who makes the final decisions as It should be.

[Squinch]

34. The voters in this election knew Twitler(R) was crazy. It didn't stop them. But

I bet a diagnosis of depression or bipolar disorder would. By the way, did you know that Churchill was also extremely depressive? Imagine what the world would have looked like today without him!

[yuiyoshida]

38. Again the final decision is with the voter.

If they think a candidate is way too far out on a limb, and I could probably find a few past candidates who were in that category they have the option to vote for them or not.

[Squinch]

42. Well, here's the thing: it wouldn't have prevented Trump, but it would have prevented Lincoln.

So no. I think it's a bad idea.

[yuiyoshida]

53. YOU DON'T KNOW THAT...

Lincoln was popular despite the flaws people saw in him. Its the majority that vote for someone into office. SO you can't say a test like that would have prevented him, but it would have made the public more aware ,..besides were talking about the 1800's and what kind of test would anyone back then would have created would have been practically nonsense compared to our educational level today, and scientific research. Its like if they had a cure for the Mumps back then, I am sure they would have used it, but they didn't even know as much about medicine back than as they do now.

[Squinch]

56. In 1860, you think a person with a publicized "mental problem" could have been elected?

You think they could today? Especially if Republican strategists were the ones spinning it?

Yes. I do know.

And again, it would not have prevented Trump.

[yuiyoshida]

60. Well first of all the American people did vote for Hillary

I truly believe the electoral college was rigged in his favor, but I have no proof, but lets not forget it was the Electoral College that gave him the Presidency, and I agree, we need to get rid of that.

[SomethingNew]

107. The more times you say things like this,

the less convinced I am that you know what the Electoral College is.

[yuiyoshida]

118. The Results are there...

what more do you want? Trump was put into the Presidency by the Electoral College, maybe it was rigged, maybe it can't be.. i have no idea, but with all SHIT that HE said, they still voted for him and he won. The popular vote never really counted.

[Gravitycollapse]

121. The popular vote totally counted. Just not in the way you want.

And that's fine. I think we would probably both agree that the US electoral process failed the US people. But that's a different claim from the one that you're making.

Each electorate vote contributed to the distribution of electoral college votes. The process wasn't rigged at all. In fact, the electoral college functioned exactly as it was designed to do. Hence, there are a lot of people calling for the electoral college to be abolished.

[yuiyoshida]

124. I think it should be.

There isn't another country in the world that has anything like it. When you vote for a candidate it should count towards getting that person into office. What's the point of voting if some group of people representing the state, is going to vote for you?? You know, like the Supreme court letting George W. Bush win.

[MichMary]

140. The Electoral College

When we vote we are actually voting for the electors, even thought the candidates' names are on the ballot.

And there isn't one single election; there is an election in every state.

The interests of the states vary quite a bit--agricultural/industrial/tech/tourist . . . The interests of the people in Wisconsin will probably differ quite a bit from those of the people in California. The EC ensures that the voices of the people in Wisconsin are heard, and their interests are addressed. If there were no EC, candidates would only have to try to appeal to voters in high population areas. The rest could just forget it.

(BTW, candidate Clinton didn't go to Wisconsin at all. How did that work out for her?)

Also, as it was explained in my h.s. civics class back in the Dark Ages, since there is no limit to the number of candidates on the ballot, it could end up with a single-issue candidate winning the presidency with only a small percentage of the overall vote. Not good . . .

[WinkyDink]

21. No.

[loyalsister]

27. Only if it's acceptable for you and the rest of the country to be required one

for employment, marriage, child rearing, every education level.... It's at least as absurd as demanding a president show a birth certificate. In some ways worse, because those kinds of tests rely, significantly, on subjective interpretations.

[yuiyoshida]

32. In some cases it is Required for

Employment and Education. The idea is this. THE VOTER HAS THE LAST SAY. The information would be added to what history and information is available about the candidate. That test would not disqualify a person from running but it would MAKE THE PUBLIC AWARE of the kind of person who is running for the office. The VOTER has the option to heed the information or not. Its their choice in the end. They are the ones pulling the lever in the end.

[Squinch]

37. I have never seen where it is required for employment or education. Could you give some

examples where it is required?

[yuiyoshida]

40. Many times I have gone for employment

and required to take a test. To get into the University you have to qualify to become a student. You know that as well as I do.

[Squinch]

45. I have had umpteen jobs, and have a bachelors and a masters degree. I have never

been required to take a psychological test.

[yuiyoshida]

50. I am talking about a test period.

But yeah, if someone is going to be holding the buttons to the Nuclear codes, do you want someone who is crazy enough to use them? DO you really want that? TELL me you do.

[Squinch]

52. Depends on how you define crazy. Depressive? Bipolar? Do you think there was

anyone in the country who didn't know that Twitler(R) had a big problem with narcissism? Of course I don't want HIM to have the codes, but I never did. His craziness didn't faze his voters.

But as I think I have given examples to prove, people with other diagnoses can be world saviors in a crisis.

[yuiyoshida]

58. FOR one thing, TRump wasn't elected by a majority of the Popular vote

It was the Electoral College that got him the Presidency, and I kinda think that was rigged, but I have no proof. At any rate, the the majority of the American People did vote for Hillary.

[Yo_Mama]

175. There is a difference between most employment tests and pysch testing.

Most psychological testing is not all that reliable. In other words, it is not clear that the millions of people watching candidates run don't form a more accurate opinion about the candidates' psychological functioning than any test would provide.

[yuiyoshida]

179. And yet people practice it in this country...

Something that is not even accurate, and its taught in the universities, and research money is spent on it, so it must be more than just "woo".

Patients pay a lot of money for it. It must be worth something if you are willing to fork over money to have such a doctor.

[Gravitycollapse]

182. Are you familiar with the concept of normal science?

Scientific research is paradigmatic. Once a specific paradigm is established, the vast majority of research takes on the form of normal science, working to reinforce the paradigm. Little work is conducted to test the legitimacy of the paradigm, so the paradigm exists untouched until the normal science begins to uncover cracks in the theoretical structure. These cracks accumulate over time until there is a crisis of consensus, and the paradigm collapses. Once the paradigm has collapsed, revolutionary science begins, searching to find the next paradigm.

I tell you this because this is the way scientific certainty waxes and wanes. What is scientifically certain now may not be in the future. This failure of certainty is especially prominent within psychology, as psychology has throughout history been used as a method of social and behavioral control.

Simply because a practice draws immense funding and is subject to scientific consensus does not mean that practice is legitimate. It simply means that it fits the scientific paradigm. Electroshock therapy and lobotomies were all the rage 60 years ago. There's a reason why they are rarely ever used today.

As for patients paying money for procedures, we tend to defer to scientific authority on matters we don't understand. Why do you trust the word of your doctor when you go in for a check up or have a procedure done? You assume they know what they're talking about.

[loyalsister]

44. What if it is revealed that the candidate has a mild learning disability?

It's ultimately just another way for voters to express and revel in the still all too accepted ableist bigotry.

[yuiyoshida]

48. THE TESTS would not disqualify anyone from running

it would simply be made public, for everyone to read and access, and in the end its still up to the voters to decide.

[Squinch]

54. A server at home doesn't disqualify anyone from running, but it sure can be blown up

by Republicans into something more than it is.

I think a psychological diagnosis could too.

[yuiyoshida]

55. Than lets make sure the people who create the tests

are qualified, and DON'T FUCKING COME FROM FOX NEWS.

[Squinch]

57. How about the people commenting on the test results? Would they come from Fox News?

I think some of them would.

[yuiyoshida]

62. Whats wrong with people talking about the results?

That's why you would give the test, to generate that kind of conversation. But, remember we all voted for Hillary, it was the Electoral College that put Trump into the White house. Maybe the testing should come ,after we got rid of the Electoral College.

[MichMary]

141. "But, remember we all voted for Hillary"

Who is "we?" Do you mean everyone in the country? If everyone in the entire country had voted for Hillary, Hillary would be president. Unfortunately, that isn't what happened. Hillary knew about the EC, but chose a strategy that didn't involve it. That's why she lost.

[loyalsister]

59. Surely there wouldn't be judgement passed

that would affect others with the same conditions. We want to make it as easy as possible to disclose and ask for accommodations. This kind of publicly disclosed results turn it into an SNL joke. And the US voters who dislike the candidate stands around like elementary school children making ableist jokes.

[yuiyoshida]

61. Maybe we should get rid of he Electoral College,

they were the ones who had the final say in the process of who is the President, despite the voters, voting for Hillary.

[FakeNoose]

30. Until this year I never believed we would need a test

...but after this fiasco with Trump and the other fiasco with Putin, there is definitely a need.

If someone can't pass the test or get a favorable score, he / she should never be considered a major party candidate.

This has nothing to do with race, gender, creed or even educational background.

It has to do with the person's psychological demeanor, and does this candidate have the wherewithal
to be trusted with their finger on the button?

[athena]

33. No. It would be used against us.

Can you even imagine what the right wing would have done if they could have subjected Barack Obama to psychological exams in 2007?

This sort of thing, like curtailing free speech, always seems like a good idea at the time but ends up being used against the very people it was originally meant to protect.

[yuiyoshida]

64. Well as it is , the majority of the people voted for Hillary

this last time, and it was the Electoral College that put TRUMP in office. Maybe it was rigged, who knows, but we do need to reexamine that and get rid of it, if its truly anti democratic.

[athena]

86. Was this supposed to be a response to another comment on the thread?

I don't see how it relates to mine?

My point was that a psychological test might seem like a good idea, but in practice, it would end up being used against the liberal candidate by the right wing. For example, laws that curtail free speech always end up being used against the very people they are meant to protect. One example I can think of on the spot is how anti-obscenity laws in Turkey were used in the 1980s to require that a feminist novel that talked about birth control be sold in plastic packaging, while porn magazines were allowed to be sold open. At the same store, you would be able to flip through porn magazines showing naked women in sexual poses, but you wouldn't be able to flip through this feminist novel.

The bottom line is that the right would insist on repeated psychological exams until one psychologist could be manipulated to pronounce the liberal candidate unfit to govern. It would be too easy.

ETA: I want to emphasize how dangerous what you're proposing really is. You should really give this some thought. Many of America's greatest presidents (Lincoln and FDR come to mind) have suffered from depression. A history of depression, anxiety, or bipolar disorder should not disqualify a person from being president. And yet, that is precisely what would happen if a psychological test were required.

[nolabear]

36. No. Psych "tests" are practically useless for things that count.

I know a lot of people who do all kinds of assessments for various things. There's a stunningly wide range of things to test for if you want to go there, you can't brain scan for most things, self reporting tests are utterly useless, and anyone who wants the job and has gone to all that trouble isn't going to say they get depressed or have manic swings or hear voices. People are too sophisticated not to know what tests are getting at and can easily reply what's best for them. And frankly if you worked at it you could disqualify damn near anyone.

Psychologists aren't saints either. They have participated in some shady diagnoses and treatments over time.

History and actions are what has to be observed and somewhere along the line someone in the administration has to be Brave enough to point out potentially dangerous or impeachable behavior and decisions have to be made. But there's no way to screen for that kind of thing in any practical way.

[Squinch]

39. You said it well. And we had plenty of proof that Trump is crazy, but his voters didn't care.

[yuiyoshida]

72. And the amount of those voters who didn't care didn't amount to much

Everyone on this website Knows it was Hillary who won the popular vote, but it was the electoral college that put TRUMP in office. SO your statement that voters didn't care, is wrong, because there are a ton of people in this country who voted for Hillary.

[nolabear]

83. I think that was a reference to his voters. People see what they need to see.

You can't test the voters either. We count on there being more of us who want to do good things for us and have the knowledge to run a government, but there's a big old learning curve that says "for GOD'S sake, vote!"

I truly think people who voted for him saw what they needed to see, as do we all to some extent. But the one talent I am absolutely sure he has is the talent to latch onto a sucker, read him and manipulate him until he gets what he wants. We can be suckers too but he tapped into the fear and anger of people whose lives didn't turn out like they wanted and who desperately need to think it wasn't them. And in some ways it wasn't. Coal was awful and it's gone but those people had few other choices and were raising kids and living lives and trying to find meaning in that. They got snookered by a guy who's practically The Amazing Kreskin in his ability to watch for signs and read their desires from minute to minute. He just tells the lies that keeps them hooked until he's done with them. We're ALL getting screwed. They just haven't realized it yet. If they weren't such racists and misogynists and such I would feel bad for them. As it is I'm truing really hard to remember that they are who they are for a reason and hope for better for their generations.

[yuiyoshida]

46. Again knowledge is power...

and its in the voters hand, No doctor will disqualify someone from running for President, the results of the tests would be made public and its up to the voter to decide.

[nolabear]

94. What tests? What do you imagine they'd be like?

[yuiyoshida]

116. No idea, i am not a doctor

nor is my field of study Psychology.

[nolabear]

139. Mine is. It's extremely complicated and ongoing.

[MichMary]

142. Be careful what you wish for . . .

Remember, Dennis Kucinich believes in UFOs and Hillary claimed to have conversations with Eleanor Roosevelt. Should those types of questions be on you test? Delusions? Hearing voices?

Yes, I know, THE VOTERS GET TO DECIDE!!! But there would be an awful lot of ammunition given to the candidates' opponents--on both sides. Really want to do that??

[yuiyoshida]

145. Its supposed to be an election

not a Gladiator battle in the Colosseum. And if the information is full of facts, than I am sure the networks would twist and turn it what ever way they wish. Its already a totally corrupt system.

[Gravitycollapse]

102. I find it disturbing you don't have the foresight to see how this is a terrible idea.

Outside of voter disenfranchisement, public discourse is the overwhelming predictor of political race outcomes. You don't need a doctor to literally disqualify a candidate in order for an IQ test result to disqualify the candidate. Catch my drift?

The moment you dump a bunch of psychological or IQ test results into the hands of the general public, it will be weaponized.

I'd also recommend reading up on the ways that psychological and intelligence tests have been used historically to marginalize POCs and women.

[yuiyoshida]

117. Than why is it the poll seems to indicate

That many DUers consider it a good idea.

[Gravitycollapse]

120. Because they don't know what they're talking about?

Being a member of DU doesn't grant you omniscience.

[yuiyoshida]

123. wow, that's kind of a arrogant reply

So you really think you are smarter than the average DUer.. that's interesting...

[Gravitycollapse]

146. I actually find you to be the most arrogant one in this entire discussion.

You come across as a know-it-all who throws a fit the minute your rather flimsy arguments are challenged.

I am by no means claiming that I'm smarter than anyone here. I'm simply pointing out the flaw in your claim that the majority endorsement of DUers does not prove anything.

[yuiyoshida]

149. well, okay than!

Have a great day

[steve2470]

126. yep you nailed it

Anyone who wants to be President bad enough is not going to be open and honest about any possible symptoms. Your other points are spot on as well.

[Skittles]

41. whatever tests they use on airline pilots

use them for presidential candidates too

[jberryhill]

65. You do realize there is no such test for airline pilots, yes?

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/faa-rules-out-requiring-psychological-testing-for-airline-pilots/

WASHINGTON D.C. -- The Federal Aviation Administration has ruled out requiring psychological testing for airline pilots in favor of enhanced mental health support programs in response to a crash last year in which a German pilot deliberately flew an airliner full of passengers into a mountainside, agency administrator Michael Huerta said Thursday.

[Skittles]

75. they are routinely evaluated on how they handle stress

I wonder how they do that

it is obvious Trump cannot handle stress

[jberryhill]

76. Specifically how?

That's news to me.

Can you point me toward information about these routine stress test evaluations and who conducts them?

[Skittles]

77. it says that in the article

I have no idea

we could ask trof or Demotex

[jberryhill]

78. Sorry to be dense, but what article?

[Skittles]

80. aw sorry, it's me being dense

in articles that explain the lack of psychological testing for pilots, they seem to infer that it preferred to test their reaction to stress during the evaluation of their skills (like, putting them in extreme situations in a simulator)

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-faa-psychological-testing-airline-pilots-20160609-story.html

I know they have these kind of evaluations regularly

[jberryhill]

81. I react to stress just fine

Everytime I feel stressed, I simply remain calm by visualizing myself beating the shit out of whomever is causing me stress, and then hunting down and brutally killing every living relative of theirs.

Perfectly fine in the mental health department. No problem with stress at all.

[Skittles]

82. well you know my penchant for threatening to kick ass

it is oddly therapeutic; yes INDEED

[jberryhill]

100. Oddly enough

I was sitting here thinking "who TF in this thread posted an 'article'" until I realized you were referring to the one I posted.

So, there's that. Duh.

[Skittles]

112. oh that's funny

because I had googled for another source because I really thought they had actual pysche tests, but essentially came up with the same as you

[greytdemocrat]

43. No

Something like this would never be
considered Non Partisan.

[yuiyoshida]

47. It could be, put in the parameters

and let a computer come up with the results. Again, however, the information would be made available to the public so a voter can use this to further decide whether or not to pull the lever for the person running or not.

[MichMary]

143. Let a computer come up with the results??

You don't trust the voting machines not to be rigged, but you think a computer could come up with fair, accurate, and untampered-with results?

[yuiyoshida]

178. provided the computer has not been compromised...

and its doesn't have access to the internet.

[MichMary]

183. Ah! Just like the voting machines here in Michigan! n/t

[Yo_Mama]

174. I don't think you understand anything about psychological testing, and its limitations.

Start here before you get angry with those who disagree:
http://www.guidetopsychology.com/testing.htm

[dembotoz]

49. in theory yes in practice no

the produce a rather large range of scores that are open to interpretation.

the test is ok but would you trust someone say appointed by betsy devos to interpret it?

[yuiyoshida]

51. YES and its the VOTER WHO

in the end has the final say. If I am going to vote for someone, i damn well better be smart enough to know if the person running is qualified enough to be responsible for the rest of the people in my country.

[dembotoz]

130. Agreed but I fear test results reported by fox news

Jeffery dalmer would test out as a culinary expert if it suited fox policies

[yuiyoshida]

131. You know you post them on a website for all to see

all those candidates who are running. And everyone has access to them, via the internet. That way if Fox News throws out a lie, its easy to check.

[Marengo]

137. How do we determine if the voters themselves are smart enough, or psychologically capable, of...

Correctly Interpreting the results of the your proposed test? Should their intellectual and psychological competency be tested as well?

[retrowire]

69. YES

We want psychological background checks on purchasing firearms.

Why not do the same for the most powerful position in the world?

[yuiyoshida]

70. There will be some people here against that too

but hey, some people don't want to read any more information about a candidate and you know most people here did the right thing, they voted for Hillary.

In the end if was the electoral college that stuck that man in office, and so he can go play his rounds of golf everyday while raking in a fat paycheck. meh, this country is so fucked.

[retrowire]

79. We can save it Yui!

What did Obama say?

YES WE CAN

And that didn't just apply to him or his presidency!

[yuiyoshida]

92. Naw Retrowire, there are too many people who just think nothing will work

so let the Republicans own this country and everyones ass, i am going to go smoke bowl and forget about politics for a while.

[retrowire]

99. :( nt

[JuJuYoshida]

71. I'm gonna smoke a bowl, watch cartoons and eat Cheetos

[yuiyoshida]

73. god girl, can i join you?

Lets head to the Loft and share a bowl.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

84. And to be brought to you, no doubt,

by the very same people who write the high stakes tests students now have to take?

Who will write the test? How will it be validated? Or will it be just some crap someone made up?

My answer, in case you haven't already figure out, is no.

[yuiyoshida]

90. didn't you forget that it would have to be something

The Republicans can rig in their favor? Everyone seems to think that would happen. Fine, tell you what, i give up, let the fuckers have the country. What's the worst that can happen? Another Nazi Germany? maybe we should all sing spring time for Hitler! maybe we should all start raising our hands in salute, cause if this is the kind of country you want, I can't help you.

[athena]

93. I can guarantee you that

if there had been such a requirement in this past election, it would have been used against Hillary. It would have been yet another weapon in the right wing's arsenal.

Saying that a psychological test is not necessarily a good idea is not the same as saying we should give up. What is going to save this country is its institutions. You can already see that the justice system and the bureaucracy are resisting Trump, and the free press is doing its job, with the result that Trump is losing more of his supporters every day. Just be patient, and call your representatives every week (https://www.callmycongress.com).

[jberryhill]

114. Nazi Germany - another example of psychologists providing important public service

[yuiyoshida]

119. oh come on Jberryhill...

You FORGOT THE JAPANESE.,... YOU know you want to include them too. Yeah, lets not forget those damn Japanese!

[jberryhill]

133. I have absolutely no idea what you are on about there

Last edited Tue Apr 18, 2017, 09:58 AM - Edit history (1)

I'm not aware of psychologists playing an important role in the Japanese wartime political apparatus.

The history of psychology in Japan is an interesting subject relating to another subthread here about defining therapeutic outcomes within the relevant social context, particularly on the subject of the tension between social conformity and development of individual identity and what is considered "normal".

[former9thward]

95. There is no one "non partisan".

Everyone would decide such a test based on their own political bias.

[milestogo]

96. Trump isn't mentally ill - he has Narcissistic Personality Disorder.

If we eliminated all of the elected officials who have NPD from the White House and Capitol Hill, there wouldn't be many left.

[yuiyoshida]

150. So, you are at ease about him running the country

that one of his blundering, or tweets might get us into another shooting match with say North Korea?

[Squinch]

161. The poster above identified Trump as having a personality disorder. From that you conclude, "So

you are at ease about him running the country"?

Many of your responses in this thread have nothing to do with the posts you are responding to.

[yuiyoshida]

162. Not sure how that is happening

maybe is an internet glitch.

[Warpy]

98. Psychological, no. Cognitive, yes.

Psychologically unbalanced leaders can occasionally be good ones and psychological testing isn't an exact science.

Cognitive testing, which covers the ability to think, remember, and make appropriate decisions on concrete matters is more useful, especially when evaluating dementia. Think about how different the country might be if Reagan had been forced to resign in 1983, after he'd recovered physically from being shot but his dementia was apparent.

Think about Asshole being dislified from taking office, although his dementia is early enough that he might have squeaked by. He won't be able to in a very few years.

Think about Scalia being off the bench 10 years before he died. Think of Strom Thurmond being out in his early 80s.

Oh, yeah, I'd love to see cognitive testing for all government officials starting at 70 and being done every 2 years. I'm not in government, but I'll go first, show how it's done.

[Gravitycollapse]

101. That's a genuinely terrible, uninformed idea.

First off, measures of intelligence are historically rooted in biological racism and the results of large scale IQ tests reflect poorly on POCs. Second, IQ tests only measure a very narrow subset of what would be considered "intelligence." There would be little correlation, for instance, between a strict hierarchy of IQ scores and the ability to complete complex, real-world tasks. It certainly wouldn't contribute anything meaningful to debates on what constitutes true "leadership."

What your IQ test standard would effectively do is reconstitute political leadership along lines of race, class, and gender. Members of wealthy, white communities would be overrepresented in political office much in the same way they are now.

This isn't even diving into the more than likely situation that IQ results would be further politicized, associating specific voting patterns or public positions with greater "intelligence." Which sounds great if you're an ideologue and your party is in power. It won't be so great when you're the opposition.

Remember all the political rhetoric around Clinton supposedly being chronically ill and senile? Imagine if that kind of rhetoric became institutionalized. That's basically what you're advocating.

[jberryhill]

104. Hey, it worked for the Soviet Union!

The USSR regularly relied upon the best-qualified mental health professionals to diagnose people who were unsuited for political participation.

[Gravitycollapse]

115. I can't wait until we can decide which babies will be good Presidents.

That way we can put them on a path that will help better prepare them for the position...Wait, something about that sounds familiar. Hmmm...

[Warpy]

106. Better look up what I'm talkiing about before you try to blast me to smithereens

Cognitive testing is not IQ testing and has nothing to do with it.

Cognitive testing should be automatic and not based on rhetoric in the gutter press.

Now go look it up.

[Gravitycollapse]

109. I guarantee that whatever cognitive test it is you're advocating for, it is biased.

If you're referring to tests that measure cognitive impairment in the supposedly underdeveloped or the older, my original argument still stands. I might just expand it to cover ageism as well.

These tests are trying to measure something that is qualitative. You might be able to make very vague claims about someone's cognitive abilities under very stringent conditions, but you won't be able to extrapolate those claims into something like performance as President. It just simply doesn't work that way.

Theoretical assumptions about what is "normal" psychological or cognitive function invariably come from institutionalized power. Want to maintain the patriarchy? Pathologize women. Want to maintain white supremacy? Pathologize POCs. Want to maintain capitalism? Pathologize poverty.

Now, you might counter by saying that the cognitive tests you're interested in only measure "severe" cognitive impairments like dementia. I guarantee to you that the introduction of such strict and narrow cognitive tests into the political fold will lead to broader usage of things like IQ tests to predict performance in public office.

[Warpy]

110. Oh, my

There is nothing like willful ignorance.

Bye.

[jberryhill]

113. This is not "willful ignorance"

Theoretical assumptions about what is "normal" psychological or cognitive function invariably come from institutionalized power.

That's very true.

What it takes to function "normally" within a society is determined by what society we might be talking about. You might be perfectly well adjusted as a member of your community. I guarantee you that, say, Amazonian tribesmen would consider you to be completely off your rockers if you were dropped into theirs. Not only will you not "think right", but you would be completely oblivious to perceptual and social cues which are of tremendous importance to everyone else.

"Mental health", in many respects, depends on context. That context is determined by societal norms.

One of the therapeutic outcomes in psychotherapy is for the patient to function normally in society. But what is "normal" functioning in a given society depends on what the norms in that society happen to be.

Would you expect that psychologists in say, Japan and the US, take the same approach with their patients in developing a balance between individuality and conformity?

[L. Coyote]

105. After the last election, I wonder if voters should.

Trump did everything possible to show everyone he would undoubtedly not only fail a psychological test but also that he was unfit to be President.

But hey, they still sell us Roundup, tobacco, and gasoline, so why be surprised they sold a trump.

[Marengo]

136. Should certain outcomes be grounds for disenfranchising voters?

[yuiyoshida]

151. The outcomes would be shared with the public to help

make a more informed choice.

[Marengo]

176. Understood, but I believe the poster I was responding to was suggesting voters should be tested...

In some manner as well and I was asking for details.

[yuiyoshida]

180. voters tested? No , that would be the same as having to buy

a voter ID card in order to vote. If you can't afford it are you now disenfranchised? I suppose in the future it may happen, especially if the Republicans keep power for a while.

"You want DEMOCRACY? HOW much you willing to pay for it?? "

The Test is for the President of the United States, not for voters. Voters will take the information from the test and use their judgement as to whether or not they want to vote for someone.

[SomethingNew]

108. Pretty scary that this has majority support.

[Buckeye_Democrat]

122. Yes, but it wouldn't be very exclusive psychologically. I would prefer...

that we never have a President with mental conditions that would preclude them from owning a gun. If they can't own a gun because they're schizophrenic, for example, then they certainly shouldn't have the nuclear codes!

I would also prefer a test on knowledge, like a difficult civics exam! We have all kinds of professions that require tests of knowledge/competency before someone can legally practice them, yet we don't have similar tests for the most powerful job in the country?! Are you kidding me?!

[steve2470]

125. With all due respect my friend, yuiyoshida, I understand the rationale but...

Trump's brand of sociopathic tendencies (if not outright diagnosable sociopathy) and blatant narcissism was so obvious to anyone paying attention, that a "standard psychological test" was not necessary.

Let's think about this. You have, oh, over 100 million pairs of American eyes examining someone in public.

You have the foreign media, diplomats, foreign governments and people around the word examining someone.

Granted, over 99% of these people are not psychiatrists, psychologists or another mental health professional trained to examine but I think out of millions and billions of people examining someone, so to speak, you can get a pretty damn good idea of someone's character and their brand of mental health, or lack thereof.

I had to vote no.

[yuiyoshida]

129. Finding the voting

on this fascinating..

[Doodley]

127. Something needs to be done to prevent a psychopath from becoming president.

If we don't want dangerous, unstable, mentally ill people from getting their hands on guns, we certainly don't want them getting their hands on over 7000 nukes.

The question is how do we prevent a Trump from ever happening again.

[AngryAmish]

132. Every healthy democracy marks dissidents as mentally ill.

[LanternWaste]

134. Clever little allegation.

Another clever little allegation.

[Calista241]

135. You do realize there's huge potential for a requirement like this to be abused.

I'm against any kind of subjective requirements placed on any elected official.

[yuiyoshida]

160. The Republicans have already abused the system

It might just be too late for any kind of thing like this, because now the Republicans run everything, and Democrats have little power to say anything...Republicans would look at this as a way to smear their side, and they want every advantage for their candidate, and willing to cheat, lie and use their money to influence everything in our government. Its become corrupted and its likely the Republicans will rig the system so they will be in power from now on.

[Spider Jerusalem]

138. Probably not, people who are psychologically "normal" don't run for president (n/t)

[hughee99]

144. Why would any politician ever agree to take a test where they best they can do is gain nothing,

and isn't a requirement to run for president anyway?

[yuiyoshida]

155. The test would be a requirement

and the information gained would be publicly announced on some website, for all to see. The facts would not be twisted unless say, for example someone took those results and lied about them on Fox News, however, if its challenged, people can go to the website and see the results themselves.

The information would be there for all to see, and voters can than make up their own minds.

[hughee99]

177. So you're going to have a constitutional convention and THIS is what you're going to look to change?

If you're going to have the convention anyway, aim higher. If the voters aren't sure if the candidate is mentally stable, they shouldn't vote for them. No test should be required for this, the problem isn't that Trump fooled people, the problem is that enough people didn't care.

[yuiyoshida]

181. That's not what I heard....

"Enough people didn't care" ...no it was the Electoral college that put Trump into office, despite Hillary's high numbers.

[hughee99]

184. The electoral college "put him into office" because

He won Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Florida...

The electoral college didn't do anything unusual in this election to screw Clinton. It worked as expected. The problem is that Trump won those states, that's on the voters, not the system.

[Vinca]

147. Until this election, I would have said no, but we're in a really bad situation here.

This guy is batshit crazy and removing him from office requires convincing members of his own party to act and I don't see it happening short of an accidental launch of a nuclear bomb.

[0rganism]

148. problem is, who selects the "Non partisan Medical experts"?

eventually this metric would become subject to, and then a tool of, the same kind of corruption and decay as the rest of the government

[yuiyoshida]

153. Lets take for example Bill Nye the Science guy

Do you think his opinion would be scientific or partisan?

[0rganism]

158. hard to say, i don't know him very well

in any case, the problem i'm raising isn't with whatever panel you propose now, it's the people who select the panel 10 years from now

who chooses them?

[yuiyoshida]

159. Well who chooses football players for the NFL?

They come from colleges right? UCLA? USC? Michigan State etc. Maybe those chosen from the Universities that have a track record as being the best in their field..

I was just thinking about the movie "Arrival" , where Aliens come and the US and other countries scramble to get the best people to decipher the language. They go for the top people in the Universities. Legitimate Universities, not places like Bob Jones University or Trump University, but real, long time, standing Universities that are from the top schools.

They should be experts in their field. We did that once, and it was called The Mahatten Project, getting the best Scientists of their time to get the Atomic bomb before Germany.

This wouldn't be hard to do, you just need to get t hem to participate and come up with answers that would give an insight into the mind of the person running..

[0rganism]

163. i don't think the NFL is going to work as an analogy for our national democracy

a handful of elite billionaire owners paying a staff of mini-elite "experts" to select the most promising candidates for a violent-yet-slow-paced competition among behemoths as millions of rabid proletarian fans cheer from their couches... well congrats, maybe it is a working analogy after all, but i don't think it leans toward protecting us from having a psychopath as president.

here's the problem again. you want a panel of non-partisan experts putting together a screen to prevent nutjobs from running for president without the people knowing they are nutjobs. who selects the panel? what are their respective qualities? and who selects the selectors?

let's say we have the deans of widely respected university psychology departments pick the panelists who will construct the screen, who in turn represent the nominal best our medical field has to offer. this is immediately susceptible to attack from both the top and the bottom. at the bottom, Fox news tells its millions of true-believers that their preferred candidates are being attacked by liberal intellectual elites, with all that implies, and the utility of the test itself as electoral deterrent becomes compromised. at the top, you have the problem of grants and endowments influencing staff selection in universities -- the "trustees" do have a say in how things run, who gets tenure, etc., so that's a direct invitation for the billionaires to buy their way in more than they already are to shift the members of the panel-selection committee. both tactics are indirect and would take a while to impact events, but eventually it would happen.

ultimately we face an unholy alliance of faux-populism/traditionalism with moneyed interests wealthy beyond imagination. this is our true nemesis, and it is formidable indeed. as Plato notes, democracies are inherently unstable and prone to decay into tyranny, as democracies count on the majority to "choose wisely" for their survival.

as we have recently rererediscovered good decisions are difficult to sustain for hundreds of years.

i'm going to make my objection even simpler: look, have we ever had an election where the contrast between relative sanity of the candidates was more stark and obvious than the 2016 presidential election? and not only sanity, but also competence, literacy, even basic social hygiene, all these differences were quite obvious to anyone who cared to look for them. we still had 62 MILLION citizens choose poorly, and look where we are now. do you really think the results of a psychological screen would have shifted the balance? i mean, the candidate was videotaped bragging about his predilection for sexual assault. you honestly can't get more obvious than that. a very large segment of the electorate either ignored such information, regarded it as secondary in importance to other core issues or actually approved of it. i don't see how the test you propose, the results of which will necessarily be complex and probably difficult to communicate, addresses any of those 3 categories -- the results will still have to be conveyed to a subset of the population who
(a) doesn't care for such information, at least when applied to politics
(b) has other overriding priorities anyway
(c) desires, for whatever reason, an unstable leader
so long-term dangers aside, i think the idea fails prima facie for purely utilitarian reasons

[yuiyoshida]

168. Well lets put the truth out on the table.

The Republicans are in the majority. They like their power, right now. Its good to be the king, so to speak. They run the house, the Senate, the Supreme court, and the office of the President. So lets say a Democrat were to suggest that this process happen.

The Results would be that the Republicans in Unison would just shut it down. It will never get legs or even wings. We are totally being controlled by the Republican party right now. The greed is there, the secret ambitions, all of that, is their favor and they can do what they want.


Trump could take a loaded gun and shoot someone in the white house, for the fun of it, and no Republican will lift a finger to impeach him, never mind some standardize test.

This whole exercise was to float on DU what the possibilities would be if there was a test...but you know and I know no Republican would stand for such a thing, unless they could use it to unseat more Democrats and make this nation, a one party nation.

[demmiblue]

152. I am really surprised at these results (and not in a good way). n/t

[Gravitycollapse]

154. I think people are having a visceral, gut reaction to the election.

Their thinking is clouded. They are doubting the important convictions that separate us from reactionary movements. This is probably a natural process. I just hope that we all start coming around sooner than later.

[MicaelS]

156. Fuck no.

Would YOU be willing to have your private medical history available to everyone? Because that is where this would lead. Fuck privacy, right?

[yuiyoshida]

157. If you are running for President

Shouldn't you be an open book to the people you expect to vote for you? Since when has a President ever had privacy? You can google all you want about Trump and mostly find it or find people and places that know he's been there and what he was up to.

Privacy? For the President? I don't think so... The only privacy he might get is changing clothes or heading for the Bathroom.

[Yo_Mama]

172. Candidates are not required to reveal details of their private lives.

They can expect their pasts in the public eye to be thoroughly gone over.

[yuiyoshida]

173. not required but some newspaper will dig...

They would know if you stole that Toy from the Toystore, if you were caught and brought to the store manager and it might even be on tape. It was a good reporter who revealed what happened at the Watergate hotel and the break in.

Than again,if all Networks become like Fox News, its likely that most of the information they dig up is something they made up, like that stupid scandal with Hillary and the Pizza shop.

A President really has little privacy. I bet the Secret Service has a the President's bedroom under surveillance as part of their routine Security operation.

[Yo_Mama]

164. No. Few people would understand the results, and the ordeal of running for president lets us all

know a lot about personalities of the candidates, their reactions under stress and criticism, etc.

[Heddi]

185. As a Registered Nurse, I don't believe in stigmatizing mental illness more than it already is

A former medical director I worked with was very open about his struggle with schizophrenia, and how even being well medicated he was nearly denied entrance to med school because of it, and has had to fight three times as hard for every position of leadership he has had since then. He is one of the most intelligent, most compassionate, most understanding people I know. And he is open about the things he has had to deal with having a mental illness. This man, one of the top in his field, in his 50's, is still discriminated against when people find out about his diagnosis.

I work with people EVERY DAY who have to work 20x's harder to overcome the bigoted and hateful and INCORRECT stereotypes about mental illness, similar to the ones you've proclaimed throughout this thread and in your OP. People with mental illness aren't more likley to be violent, they're more likely to be the victims of violence. They are more likely to live in poverty. They are more likely to be unemployed and unemployaBLE because of the overt discrimination against them.

someone who is bipolar, or who has borderline personality disorder, or who has schizophrenia, or PTSD isn't "broken" and isn't any less qualified to hold ANY job -- including POTUS -- just because of mental illness. To think so is bigoted and hateful and abelist.

"Oh, but we'll just make the public aware of their mental illness and THEY can make the decision of whether we want someone who has a history of being hospitalized for severe depression to lead the country" is STILL bigoted, hateful, and abelist.

What other aspects of such personal issues should be made public? How many pubic hairs on their left testicle? Whether they use a vibrator? I mean, THE PUBLIC HAS A RIGHT TO KNOW.

What's next? Mental Health testing before someone gets pregnant? has an abortion? votes? goes to school? What other aspects of normal human life would you like those undesirable crazy people to be excluded from?