Does the US need to require a mental examination before people can run for President?

[Anonymous]

I'm asking this question because we can now see the consequences of not performing such an examination. Had such an examination been performed prior to this person's first election, we might not be facing the current situation. Perhaps if a mental examination had been performed prior to the first election of this person, we would not be in this situation at this time. Is a pre-election mental examination a good idea?

[CalmUntilAbused]

Oh, come on... The USA is already a two-party country... Would You like it to be come a one-party country? Not a single Demo (n) crat could pass this test, You know? Or at least not a single one from the top echelon...

[BonzoInBitburg]

Maybe Americans should be smarter who they vote for in the primaries. There's a vetting process to run for President but if Americans want their country run by lunatics that's their right.

[Telekinetic-Potato]

There is one. If I'm not mistaken there was a controversy over Biden and Trump passed his "perfectly"

[Asker]

I don't think you really understand what that examination consisted of. I am very familiar with the "test" that was used. Since I was forced by regulation to use it many times when examining veterans. The joke among us, that is the medical staff, is that it was a test designed for plants, because even a plant could have passed it. I am a neuropsychologist. If you want to know what tests really need to be given that have never been given to anyone - Trump or Biden or anybody else that I'm aware of, ask me. I'll be happy to educate you a little bit about this.

[Telekinetic-Potato]

I mean, my understanding is it was basically a preschool aptitude test.

[Asker]

Pretty much, yes. That essentially means that someone could have a brain injury and pass it anyway. It was simply too easy.

[Telekinetic-Potato]

Though I'm interested in what you have to say.

[Asker]

What I'm trying to say here is that if you really want to know whether or not somebody has a neuropsychological problem or injury, you have to do the correct testing. You can't just simply give them an easy test, let them pass it, and say everything is okay, which is what happened with Trump. I can tell you the exact tests and procedures that should have been done if you were interested in that?

[Telekinetic-Potato]

Ya what would you give to the president

[Telekinetic-Potato]

And what specifically would you be testing for? What would be the mentality behind the choice

[Asker]

Okay, in terms of radiology, Abrain MRI with and without contrast, and another with DTI analysis. In terms of Neuropsych testing, A TOMM memory malingering test, an AMNART test, a Luxor Adult Intelligence Scale, 4th Edition. , and a Neurological Assessment Battery.

As you can see, this is a bit extensive, but this is what we use for virtually all adults. It provides the best set of results that are available at this time using the existing technology. As technology becomes more developed, these instruments and studies may change to some degree.

This is a lot different and infinitely more reliable than giving a little paper and pencil test like they did with Trump.

[Asker]

Sorry, that should be a Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale, 4th edition not "Luxor"

[Asker]

Also add a Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory to that battery I described.

[Asker]

There are many things that the proper testing will reveal, including:
- Brain damage or injury
- Psychiatric conditions as broad categories
Within each of those categories, there are an almost infinite number of difficulties that can be revealed.

[Telekinetic-Potato]

It makes a lot of sense why a doctor would say this but the idea is to test for aptitude not do an insurance screening lol.

I mean what are you gonna do if he fails one of the tests? "Nope, this person had a stroke nobody knew about, they might have too much white matter, turn over the election"

I don't think so.

[Asker]

This is not an insurance screening at all. It is far more extensive. It's not an issue of failing or passing one test versus another. It is an issue of function and how well the person functions. Somebody had a stroke that nobody knew about and it wasn't impairing their functioning. It wouldn't really mean very much in the context of an election. On the other hand, if somebody was incapable of critical thinking, that might have a big effect on their eligibility for an election. Likewise, if their judgment was impaired. If they couldn't do simple arithmetic but they could do everything else well, it might not matter at all. I think you can see that you would need to pick and choose very carefully which skills and abilities were important for the office that the person aspired to. You could probably make up a list of things that you think a president should be good at, and I think we could test for those.

[DryGermanGuy]

A maximum age limit would help there a lot. And you already have a minimum age limit.

[Asker]

There's no real need for a maximum age limit because age is not necessarily a good predictor of mental illness.

[DryGermanGuy]

It would prevent practically all forms of dementia, which is much more prevalent above a certain age and more common than mental illnesses. Examples: Ronald Reagan, Strom Thurmond, Diane Feinstein.

[Asker]

Dementia occurs at all ages and is not more common than mental illnesses.

[Asker]

You cannot engage in age discrimination because you're afraid somebody is going to get sick.

[DryGermanGuy]

Yes you obviously can, to protect the office. Since a candidate has to be 35 years old, this discriminates against all capable 18-34 year olds. You dig?

[Asker]

You aren't wrong about that, but I don't see anybody objecting to it either other than yourself. The fact that nobody is objecting doesn't mean it isn't wrong.

[Anonymous]

There needs to be a psych evaluation of the 77 million people who voted for that walking shit turd.

[888theGreat]

Yep , they can wipe the world and everyone on it with a push of a button.

[_piotr]

Yes. All that woke people who think trans-women are women, that men can give a birth and white people are evil should fail and be excluded from important government offices.

[exitseven]

yes, it would have spared us the previous administration.

[Pterodon]

You should’ve started with liberals getting tested what with their insane beliefs

[Asker]

Well, no, sorry. I'm the expert here. I decide who needs to get tested and who doesn't. At this point, the only people that need to get tested are those crazy enough to run for president.

[Anonymous]

Just out of curiosity, who do you think would be more likely to pass a "mental examination," Trump or Biden?

[Asker]

I don't think this is an either/or problem. I actually think neither of them would have done very well, but I don't know for sure, and I would not know for sure until I actually performed those examinations.

[CuriousMufuxka]

You should have this question 4 years ago!

[Asker]

You are absolutely right

[CuriousMufuxka]

And you are welcome.

[Asker]

If I had a time machine I would go back and fix this mistake of mine but unfortunately my time machine needs a part that I can't get in this year.

[CuriousMufuxka]

Yeah I heard flux capacitors are currently on back order heh heh.

[Asker]

Well, Amazon sells flux capacitors, but the problem is that the kind that I need, along with the size I need, is not available and it's on backorder, just as you said. I'm waiting anxiously to receive it if they ever deliver it. I've already paid for it and paid a lot for it.

[FunkyMonkee]

It WOULD'VE helped 5 years ago but, we're fine, now.

[Asker]

You make a very strong case for voters such as yourself undergoing the same examination if you are unable to recognize mental illness when it is literally screaming in your face.

[Asker]

Do you think that people disagreeing with you and people having mental illness are the same thing, essentially? Is that kind of where you're going with this?

[FunkyMonkee]

Absolutely not!! People that disagree can sit calmly (for the most part) and have a civil conversation to discuss their difference of opinion. The insane will do ANYTHING to cause trouble, destroy everything in sight, hurt and even kill innocent people just because they THINK they MIGHT be an enemy, you know, the same shit the lefties have been doing for at least the past 10 to 18 years!!

[Asker]

I don't disagree with any of that except that I think your perception of reality may be somewhat faulty. It is not the Left that's been doing this. Who do you think invaded the Capitol on January 6th? Do you actually think that was the Left?

[Asker]

Insane is a legal term that actually doesn't mean very much. You might want to substitute something like disabled or impaired, as opposed to insane, for your commentary conversations.

[Asker]

Rant Elsewhere

[Dargil]

How about before they vote?

[Asker]

I think that would be impractical, and beside that, I think that would limit voting to an extent that would be completely unacceptable from a constitutional standpoint.

[Dargil]

Oh goody. Selective enforcement of the Constitution don't you think that a mental exam requirement would also be unconstitutional?

[Asker]

I think if the mental exam requirement were applied to everybody, then yeah, it probably would be unconstitutional. I think that applying it to potential presidential candidates would not be nearly as egregious and objectionable, although it, too, ultimately might be deemed unconstitutional. I don't know. I'm not a lawyer.

[Dargil]

I can think requiring a mental examination is any different?

[Asker]

It may not be. That's something I need to think about. You've asked a good question here.

[Dargil]

Article Two of the Constitution is very clear about the requirements for being president. If anyone wants to regulate the executive branch, It has to be done by a constitutional amendment. No legislation can control the acts or qualifications of the president. For that matter, The US Congress, the judicial branch nor he state Courts can tell the president what to do and what he can't do. Only the Constitution interpreted by the Supreme Court can do that. But you have to remember, No branch of the government or state has enforcement power. So in the end, The president can do whatever he wants. Unless he is impeached and convicted by the Senate or is put out under Amendment 25 of the Constitution. Without a successful impeachment, the president really is king.

[Dargil]

Transcription error. The US Congress, the judicial branch nor he state Courts can't tell the president what to do

[andreasderjuengere]

The U. S. in general needs a "mental examination".

[purplepoppy]

Plus one to vote.

[Asker]

No, I don't think we can limit voting in that way. That would be anti-democratic, and I'm not willing to do that or even suggest it.