That Trump has Narcissistic Personality Disorder is not just a possibility, it's a certainty, and one need only read his tweets to see that he satisfies at least seven of the nine signs of NPD, when only five are required:

- Exaggerates own importance;
- Is preoccupied with fantasies of success, power, beauty, intelligence or ideal romance;
- Believes he or she is special and can only be understood by other special people or institutions;
- Requires constant attention and admiration from others;
- Has unreasonable expectations of favorable treatment;
- Takes advantage of others to reach his or her own goals;
- Disregards the feelings of others, lacks empathy;
- Is often envious of others or believes other people are envious of him or her;
- Shows arrogant behaviors and attitudes.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/conditions/narcissistic-personality-disorder

A touch of narcissism can be useful in a leader, and help to reassure the public when a show of confidence is needed. Heck, sometimes it's even required just to rise through the ranks of a world as cut-throat as politics (you'd probably find that most of the world's leaders throughout history were narcissistic to at least some small extent).

But when narcissism extends into a fullblown disorder, as Trump's evidentally does, then it is just downright dangerous. Which is probably why the White House is allegedly spending much of its time just trying to contain the man-child.

Former Harvard Law School Professor Alan Dershowitz
stated that - "If you don't like someone's politics
you can rail against him, campaign against him,
but you don't use the psychiatric system against him."

He said that people who thought the 25th Amendment of
the US Constitution would end the Trump Presidency
were putting "hope over reality."

That only a major psychotic breakdown would result in
this happening.

It is interesting how some psychologists can be so frivolous as to ignore their training, to side-step professional ethics and presume to arrive at a diagnosis, particularly one so serious, without the target's consent and no interview or tests. And no care for the future of the target either!

They make it obvious that they could be easily replaced by a cheap machine with the simplest of programs. Quacks. Sloppy science.

Maybe they need to make the choice between being a politician or following their previous calling. Because they are undoing the work of the many and are bringing the science of psychology into disrespect.

Everybody 'gets' that some will never accept the result of the presidential election where it didn't go their way.

As for Trump, it is part of his public persona (groomed through his real estate days) that he is awkward and difficult to negotiate with. Where he is apparently random and does not perceive any responsibility to act 'nice', the other party might have to concede some valuable ground. He does use standover tactics, but usually open, publicly, unlike some.

Now, what about 'neurotic' Hillary Clinton? Hmmm and her propensity to lie and then there is that military problem.

Or closer to home, there is the passing parade on Q&A.

Perhaps the ABC has it right, it is all just light entertainment and dumbed down to occupy serially bored voyeurs and the slack brained. - Who will never be obliged to think or provide for themselves where there is a 'Wonderful Centrelink' tree to support them and others to take care of their shelter, safety and even the consequences of their drunken bonking.

My lies and deceit ah Steelie. When did regressives ever start believing in absolutes. Again you r hatref allows you to twist facts in order to back your flawed narrative. Good to see you demonstrate that you do believe in absolutes. Always fascinating to see regressives contradict themselves. No absolute truth but somone lying? Well well. Give Donald some credit Steelie. Go on.

The following link from the New England Journal
of Medicine raises some interesting questions:

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1714828#t=article