General Discussion

I_UndergroundPanther

(12,956 posts) Sat Nov 2, 2024, 10:17 PM Nov 2

Maybe it's time

To put limits on who can run for president.

My suggestion for a disqualification would be

No narcissists, no sociopaths or authoritarian personality types.

( if we applied this simple mental fitness test as criteria for public office, the Republican Party would be fucked)

After all narcissists, authoritarians and sociopaths live to abuse people, abuse power they lie like they breathe and have no empathy .

All the qualities that make a bad president are in them by default because of who they are and they cannot be trusted with anything.
Let alone the nuclear button.

It would be also a safeguard against fascism. Because fascists have toxic personalities and cannot be trusted, abuse people and power. They have no empathy and they are known to be narcissistic.

We would disqualify a person suffering from active psychosis from running because thier mental health.

Why not disqualify narcissists for mental health reasons.?

A presidential hopeful’s mental health must be considered and more importantly it should be a disqualifies for this countries mental health and the health of our democracy too .we need to put qualifiers on who can run for president.

6 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Maybe it's time (Original Post) I_UndergroundPanther Nov 2 OP

Damn! imanamerican63 Nov 2 #1

I'd say at least you can't be a convicted felon. duncang Nov 2 #2

While a good idea in theory, Claustrum Nov 2 #4

Anything of that nature would require a Constitutional Amendment. TwilightZone Nov 2 #3

NOBODY WHO IS UNDER CRIMINAL INDICTMENT---- Jack Valentino Nov 2 #5

Lincoln quite famously battled lifelong clinical depression Sympthsical Nov 2 #6

imanamerican63

(14,446 posts)

1. Damn!

Reply to I_UndergroundPanther (Original post)

Sat Nov 2, 2024, 10:18 PM

Nov 2

That is all the GOBers!

duncang

(3,748 posts)

2. I'd say at least you can't be a convicted felon.

Reply to I_UndergroundPanther (Original post)

Sat Nov 2, 2024, 10:31 PM

Nov 2

I mean that’s not too much of a stretch.

Claustrum

(5,052 posts)

4. While a good idea in theory,

Reply to duncang (Reply #2)

Sat Nov 2, 2024, 11:35 PM

Nov 2

I could see it backfire on us because republicans put partisan judges in the court system and I can easily see them bend the rules to disqualify a democrat.

TwilightZone

(28,834 posts)

3. Anything of that nature would require a Constitutional Amendment.

Reply to I_UndergroundPanther (Original post)

Sat Nov 2, 2024, 10:50 PM

Nov 2

And we know the likelihood of that happening anytime in the foreseeable future. Zero.

"We would disqualify a person suffering from active psychosis from running because thier mental health. "

Mental health isn't a disqualifying condition. There are few requirements placed on prospective candidates, and we are all pretty familiar with those.

As for authoritarians, you'd have a difficult time gaining a consensus, because a significant chunk of the electorate is just fine with them, a fact which has become obvious.

Jack Valentino

(1,516 posts)

5. NOBODY WHO IS UNDER CRIMINAL INDICTMENT----

Reply to I_UndergroundPanther (Original post)

Sat Nov 2, 2024, 11:40 PM

Nov 2

(much less CONVICTION of felony crimes)

Seems like a "no-brainer"....

Sympthsical

(10,411 posts)

6. Lincoln quite famously battled lifelong clinical depression

Reply to I_UndergroundPanther (Original post)

Sat Nov 2, 2024, 11:48 PM

Nov 2

And had a full mental breakdown earlier in his life.

As much fun as people have diagnosing mental illness for sport in the people they dislike, I'd rather it not be any kind of official policy.

The voters/electoral college decide. And then the 25th Amendment if there's some kind of shitshow afterwards.

Reply to this discussion