Needs to be said again and again. Unfortunately, there are lots of dummies around.

I have just finished reading a fascinating book entitled "The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump: 39 Psychiatrists and Mental Health Experts Assess a President."

The collective opinion of the mental health experts in this book centres on the idea that they had a "duty to warn" the public about what they considered his psychological unfitness for the presidency and the potential danger his personality posed to the nation and the world.

Key themes and characteristics that the contributors discuss include:

Dangerousness: This is emphasised as the primary concern, arguing that the issue is not about diagnosing a mental illness, but assessing the danger posed by his behaviour and patterns of relating to reality.

Malignant Narcissism: This is a recurring term, describing a severe form of narcissism combined with features such as paranoia, aggression, and sociopathic traits. They suggest this pattern makes him profoundly destructive.

Sociopathic Traits: Several contributors point to characteristics like an inability to feel empathy, a pattern of continuous lying, and a disregard for the rights of others.

Paranoia and Grandiosity: The experts discuss an increasing tendency toward paranoia, distrust of others, and an exaggerated sense of self-importance and power.

Impulsivity and Lack of Reflection: His personality is described as being driven by immediate reactions rather than careful, informed deliberation, which creates a high-risk situation given the power of his office.

I am not a psychologist, but I do respect the professional judgment of experts in the field. Given Trump's age, temperament, and some of his erratic political and economic actions, one wonders whether the USA would have been served better by choosing a far more stable person as its commander-in-chief.

It's not surprising that only 36% of Australians do not suffer from terminal stupidity when it comes to the US and its and Trump's value to Australia.

The majority (of those polled) prove their own stupidity by calling Donald Trump “stupid”. Call Donald Trump what you like, but he is not stupid; certainly not as stupid as his detractors. If ever there was a good example of people projecting their own failings on to someone else, this is it.

He seems a bit erratic at times, but it must be remembered that he is not a professional politician locked into ideology; and being human, he is often irritated by the nitwits he has to deal with.

I and the rest of the 36% who like him would swap Albanese for Trump any day.

"The Goldwater Rule is a statement of ethics first issued by the American Psychiatric Association in 1973 restraining psychiatrists from speculating about the mental state of public figures. The rule enjoins psychiatrists from professionally diagnosing someone they have not personally evaluated. The APA’s Ethics Committee affirmed and even expanded the rule beyond diagnosis to cover almost all psychiatric opinion in 2017, amid widespread public discussion of the mental health of President Donald J. Trump. The rule has also been affirmed by the American Psychological Association."

"
The collective opinion of the mental health experts in this book ..."

If you want to adhere to the views of so-called professionals who are prepared to flout their own profession's standards of ethics for political and/or financial gain, then let that be on you.

Every day of Trump's presidency consists of reports of what he did followed by many hours of analysis explaining that what he did was terrible. And not a jot of attention for the autopen president until his brain freeze at the debate which his minders couldn't hide.

Trump is a bit like Israel: the press never misses an opportunity to vilify him, yet show no interest in events and conduct that many might find more concerning.

From being a trustworthy ally the US of paranoia under that idiot is becoming a real worry....

The TDS mob is panicking ! Some of the hypocritical are switched on enough to realise !

there are lots of dummies around.
TomBie,
Enough to get Labor in last time !

Graham article tries to sell Trumpism as corporate triage instead of what it actually is: chaos retrofitted with meaning after the fact.

The whole article rests on three moves: inflate the crisis, sanctify the strongman, and dismiss all contrary evidence as media corruption. Once you notice that structure, the rest reads like political fan-fiction.

Start with the headline claim: Australians only distrust Trump because of "deliberate misreporting." No evidence. None. Young names the ABC as a villain but never demonstrates how they "framed" Trump for January 6. This hand-waving conveniently ignores bipartisan Senate findings, court rulings, and Trump’s own advisers who testified that he sparked the riot and then refused to stop it. "Russiagate Hoax" gets tossed in too, again without acknowledging the Mueller Report’s core findings: documented Russian interference and repeated contacts between Trump’s team and Russian actors.

Declaring something a hoax is not the same as disproving it.

Young then paints a baroque crisis narrative where every American institution is failing, every university is "ideological," every city lawless, the border undefended, the courts corrupt, the agencies weaponised, and China is simultaneously running cyberwar, drug warfare, manufacturing warfare, IP warfare, and espionage through solar panels. This is not analysis. It’s a mood board.

From this inflated crisis he conjures a saviour: Trump as the "company doctor" who sees truths others can’t. The problem is that none of the policies Young admires actually worked. Tariffs hurt US consumers and farmers, didn’t revive manufacturing, and handed China market share. Tax cuts exploded deficits without producing the promised growth. "Ending forever wars" was often incoherent retreat, not strategy. And withdrawal from the Paris Agreement weakened US influence for no strategic gain.

His immigrant numbers are wildly inflated (no, there are not 40-50 million undocumented people in the US) because the fantasy requires a looming insurgency only Trump can solve.

Young’s argument collapses under the simplest test: it only makes sense if every critic, court, expert, journalist, ally, and statistic is wrong, and Trump alone is right.

That’s not geopolitics. It’s hero-worship.

No evidence. None.
John Daysh,
Not a little too confident about that, are you ?

Oh JD's back. Enough time has passed since his last humiliation I guess.

"Australians only distrust Trump because of "deliberate misreporting." No evidence. None."

I think Graham was probably writing to an audience that had a vague knowledge of the facts surrounding the ABC's lies about Trump. Clearly you don't fall into that category. He was referring to Ferguson's doctoring of the Trump January 6 speech - the exact same doctoring that led to the BBC's utter humiliation. And he was referring to Ferguson's embarrassment of a report on the RussiaGate hoax where her assertions and claims were totally discredited once the Mueller Report was forced to admit there was no evidence of collusion between Russia and Trump.

I can't be bothered to fisk all of JD's laughable assertions - I'll leave that to GY. But just one. The USA has been handing its manufacturing dominance to China via failed trade policies, failed international institutions and failed attempts to stop intellectual property thefts for over 30 years now. And JD then asserts that 6 months of Trump tariff policy has failed to undo 30 years of errors and therefore they've failed. Someone with a modicum of sense would realise that it might take a little longer than that

What humiliation was that, mhaze?

//Enough time has passed since his last humiliation I guess.//

Personal abuse is doing the work here because the argument isn’t. If you think something I wrote is wrong, quote it and rebut it. Posturing isn't evidence.

//I think Graham was probably writing to an audience that had a vague knowledge of the facts surrounding the ABC's lies about Trump.//

That’s not how serious argument works. If you accuse the national broadcaster of lying, you demonstrate it. You don’t rely on assumed background knowledge.

//He was referring to Ferguson's doctoring of the Trump January 6 speech...//

Then show it. Quote the original speech, quote the edited version, explain how meaning was altered, and explain why that outweighs court rulings, congressional findings, sworn testimony, and Trump’s own recorded conduct. Assertion is not proof.

//…the RussiaGate hoax where her assertions and claims were totally discredited once the Mueller Report was forced to admit there was no evidence of collusion…//

This is false.

The Mueller Report did not say "no evidence." It said it could not establish criminal conspiracy to the required legal standard, while documenting extensive Russian interference and multiple contacts between Trump campaign figures and Russian actors. Those are different claims.

//I can't be bothered to fisk all of JD's laughable assertions...//

Translation: no rebuttal. I wouldn't count on Graham coming to the rescue there, either.

//The USA has been handing its manufacturing dominance to China… for over 30 years now.//

Agreed. That does not validate Young’s argument. Long-term structural decline does not justify incoherent short-term policy.

//…JD then asserts that 6 months of Trump tariff policy has failed…//

I said the measurable outcomes so far include higher consumer prices, retaliation, and negligible reshoring. You haven’t disputed that evidence.

//Someone with a modicum of sense would realise that it might take a little longer than that//

By that logic, no policy ever fails. It just hasn’t "had enough time."

The core problem remains untouched: Young’s thesis only works if every critic, institution, court, and dataset is wrong, while Trump alone sees clearly.

Try again.

If you're unaware of how Ferguson doctored the Trump speech then we really have nothing to discuss. We've covered it in previous threads and I have no interest in relitigating it here just so you can try to catch up.

Equally, if you think Mueller found ANY evidence of Russian/Trump collusion to steal the 2016 election, we have nothing to discuss. Such wanton disregard for the facts can't be resolved in 350 words.

Just FYG..."Special Counsel Robert Mueller explicitly stated that the investigation "did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government,"

"Attorney General William Barr's summary emphasized this finding, noting Russia interfered "in sweeping and systematic fashion" but the Trump campaign did not join those efforts."

This is evasion, nmhaze, not an argument.

//If you're unaware of how Ferguson doctored the Trump speech then we really have nothing to discuss.//

You're asserting misconduct while refusing to demonstrate it. If the claim is solid, it should survive quotation and comparison. Declining to show evidence doesn't strengthen it.

//We've covered it in previous threads and I have no interest in relitigating it here just so you can try to catch up.//

Translation: trust me, bro. Past threads don't substitute for evidence in this one. If Young relies on this claim, it's his burden to establish it.

//Equally, if you think Mueller found ANY evidence of Russian/Trump collusion to steal the 2016 election, we have nothing to discuss.//

This misstates my position. I did not claim Mueller established criminal conspiracy. I said the report documented extensive Russian interference and numerous contacts between Trump campaign figures and Russian actors. That is factual.

//Such wanton disregard for the facts can't be resolved in 350 words.//

And yet I seem to manage it.

What's actually unresolved is your refusal to distinguish between "did not establish prosecutable conspiracy" and "no evidence existed." Those are not the same claim.

//Just FYG..."Special Counsel Robert Mueller explicitly stated that the investigation "did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government,"//

Correct. And entirely consistent with what I said. "Did not establish" is a legal conclusion about prosecutability, not a claim that evidence was absent.

//"Attorney General William Barr's summary emphasized this finding… but the Trump campaign did not join those efforts."//

Barr's summary is not the Mueller Report. Mueller explicitly corrected Barr for mischaracterising the report's conclusions. Citing Barr to override the report's documented facts is selective quotation, not clarification.

You keep collapsing a careful legal finding into a political slogan. That's why the word "hoax" does the work your argument won't.

The pattern remains unchanged:
- Evidence is asserted but withheld.
- Legal nuance is flattened into absolutes.
- Contradiction is avoided by declaring discussion closed.

That's not how facts get established. It's how beliefs get insulated.

Why not check out these US based sites:
An extensive examination of the all-the-way-down-the-line cultural consequences the multiple narcissistic personality disorders of the Trumpen-Fuhrer

http://bandyxlee.substack.com

http://politicsusa46.substack.com Truth Matters

http://jaredyatessexton.substack.com Dispatches From a Collapsing State