Independent, UK - Donald Trump has a “dangerous mental illness” and is not fit to lead the US, a group of psychiatrists has warned during a conference at Yale University.
Mental health experts claimed the President was “paranoid and delusional”, and said it was their “ethical responsibility” to warn the American public about the “dangers” Mr Trump’s psychological state poses to the country.
Speaking at the conference at Yale’s School of Medicine on Thursday, one of the mental health professionals, Dr John Gartner, a practising psychotherapist who advised psychiatric residents at Johns Hopkins University Medical School, said: “We have an ethical responsibility to warn the public about Donald Trump's dangerous mental illness.”
US politicians 'openly questioning Trump’s mental health' Mental health professionals warn Trump is incapable of being president US politicians 'openly questioning Trump’s mental health'
Chairing the event, Dr Bandy Lee, assistant clinical professor in the Yale Department of Psychiatry, said: “As some prominent psychiatrists have noted, [Trump’s mental health] is the elephant in the room. I think the public is really starting to catch on and widely talk about this now.”
3 comments:
With 45, is it mental illness or just a big cocaine habit? Much of 45's behavior, like his irrational 5am tweets, his inability to tell the truth, and his disjointed speech patterns, could as easily be the result of cocaine addiction as mental illness.
Still there is a more frightening possibility, perhaps 45 is a mentally ill cocaine addict. Watching 45's public conduct, and actions in office, it's likely he is suffering from both afflictions.
question: what is the meaning of your use of "45" as the reference for Trump? Beyond that clarification, how can we put "45" down, as in de-commissioned?
"45" refers to the 45th president. He loves to see his name in print, so I refuse to use it. One of MLK's daughter's suggested people do this.
How to decommision 45 is the 64 billion dollar question. Will it be his constant violation of the "emoluments clause" of the constitution or will it be something else.
Post a Comment