I'm speaking in the proverbial...
Although there are buttons that someone does press to launch the weapon
that person isn't Trump however
Golden Globes
- Thread starter Thyrsis
- Start date
I'm speaking in the proverbial...
Although there are buttons that someone does press to launch the weapon
that person isn't Trump howeverThe main thing I gathered from the Golden Globes. Aside from the obvious messages. Is that even the smallest inkling of Oprah running for president terrifies the trumpsters. It's pretty funny and sad at the same time.
I'm speaking in the proverbial...
Although there are buttons that someone does press to launch the weapon
Maybe you should not speak in the proverbial. What exactly is not far fetched when you talk about a fictional button and then say Trump has come “very close” to this?
What he tweeted to KJ was similar to the scenario I've laid out above. It would not take a big leap to go from the tweets he has already written to the tweets I'm suggesting. That's what's not farfetched.
The MS thing would clearly be covered. I think the key is that the 25th should be invoked when the President is incapable, not merely incompetent. Trump is merely incompetent.
Utterly ridiculous. You hate Trump so much, you are proposing the undermining of Democracy.
Assuming he has a mental illness, which is the argument, that slide from incompetent to incapable is very possible.
Anything is possible. If a President suffers dementia, for example. Reagan's cabinet looked into it.
But it would need to be very last resort, and it would need to be a clear, open-and-shut case. It can't just be that he's a jackass.
I would enjoy the republican attack ads complaining she’s just a “tv personality” or “celebrity”.
I didn't say he should be removed for that specific tweet. I said it's grounds... As in it's evidence he is suffering from severe mental illness. It's possible Trump could tweet us into a conflict. That's a very scary thought.
Being capable to act but nuts, is worse than being incapacitated. What addresses that quandry?
4 years is a long time. presidents are not required to document mental competency. I support psychiatric evaluations of both parties nominees in the future.
Again, I don't understand how a pshycial illness that prevents you from acting is worse than a mental, in which you engage in insane acts. It's blantantly obvious Trump is deteriorating. God forbid this man could start a war over tweets. That's insane.
It sure is a long time. That’s why some would do well to not run purity tests or throw their votes away on a losing third party candidate just so they can pretend their hands are clean.
Not sure if that's directed at me, but I closed my eyes and pulled the lever for D. Actually, I didn't have to close my eyes because Trump was so atrocious.
I disagree with the notion that this is a death pact and for the sake of our democracy we need to avoid triggering the 25th amendment unless we've got absolute proof that Trump is in a coma or its equivalent. There's surely a difference between incompetent and incapable as you suggest, but there's plenty of reason to think Trump's issue isn't just one of competence. His reported memory lapses, stunted speech, emotional lack of control, narcissism, etc. paint a troubling picture. That we simply accept that without much questioning and say we need to just suck it up until the next election cycle in 2020 isn't a testament to the strength of our democracy; it's evidence that our republic is already broken.
Playing along with the corrupt sociopaths that run our government isn't the answer (not that those of us in the peanut gallery have a ton of power beyond our vote). Electing folks who seek personal gain despite the negative outcomes the rest of us may face isn't the answer. Patriotic and competent adults in charge is the answer. Despite all the hand-wringing and talk, I don't really see much effective posturing or push for that.
If someone has a disease that destroys his mental faculties, then 25 is possible. But that's not what we have here. We have a bunch of armchair quarterbacks claiming he is mentally unfit because they don't like him.
Well, the congressional elections are coming up. That could at least slow down the insane legislation like this tax heist they just passed. As for removing Trump from office, this country is just gonna have to deal with the idiotic choice made by enough people in the right places until 2020.
That’s why people need to make better decisions on Election Day. It’s not like all this wasn’t made abundantly clear way before the election.
Oh really? A leading psychiatrist from Yale, who just met with congressional members is an armchair quarterback?
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www....ump-mental-health-psychiatrist-25th-amendment
If it's all armchair quarterbacking, why on Earth did a Republican attend the meeting? There is clearly something going on.
For, you, maybe. But not everyone. You remove a President for mental incapacity, half the country will claim it's a coup. You don't do that unless you have no choice.
You can't diagnose someone through a TV screen.
No one is prescribing a precise diagnosis. The suggestion is that he maybe "dangerous" and an evaluation is required.
I understand that. I don't have medical basis to reach a conclusion (which isn't to say we shouldn't be securing an answer). I appreciate the consequences. But denying the reality (if that's what it is) because we don't want to upset the know-nothings (at least in a political sense) doesn't preserve our republic. It preserves a debate anchored by falsehoods, inanities, and compromise to our government (to say the least) and it simply drives the power held by those least able to wield it in sane/healthy/prudent/informed ways.
Has anything really happened that wasn't apparent before the election? It's all just more of the same the we've seen since this circus started in 2016, IMO.
I don't know how we got from I think something is wrong with him to the 25th. His constant repetition of stories within his speeches and to people he is talking to is another example. Remember when Thomas Eagleton couldn't be VP because he had a history of depression? To be clear, I think even people close to him are concerned about his mental health for whatever reason. But I don't think the 25th is in discussion. I do with his physical included a mental health wellness test though.
It was apparent he was unqualified for the office months prior to the election.
I'm not arguing qualifications. Esteemed psychiatrists are saying he maybe a danger and needs to be evaluated. One of them just met with a congressional group, which included one republican. If that occurred prior to the election, please jog my memory.
If voters couldn’t tell something was wrong with Trump’s mind before they voted for him, it isn’t Trump who needs to be evaluated.
Who cares what some "esteemed psychiatrists" are saying? The President undergoes regular health checks and is surrounded by the very people whose job it is to evaluate his capacity for constitutional reasons on a regular basis. If there is genuinely something wrong with his mind, they will know long before you or I or any "esteemed psychiatrists." But none of that changes the very real crisis we would face if Section 4 were actually invoked. That can't happen unless there is no choice, and we should all hope it never comes to that.
We are in agreement that there is nothing now to trigger removal. And I hope nothing appears. This is a political nuclear genie, we cannot release it.
http://www.cnn.com/2018/01/08/health/trump-physical-mental-health/index.html
I'm saying I think every candidate should not only show us their taxes, but also have a thorough physical and mental exam.
I'm saying I think every candidate should not only show us their taxes, but also have a thorough physical and mental exam.
Right. I just shared that after Ranger said I was in Breitbart conspiracy theory though. I don't think anyone should be pushing for 25. But I do think the president should have a physical and mental evaluation annually.
I understand that question, and while I sorta agree with the sentiment, another significant part of me says 'so what?' if indeed he deserves the be the subject of the 25th amendment.
Regardless, while I obviously and truly don't know the actual correct answer, I'd say his behaviors and reports that have come out since the election paint a clearer picture that suggests the issue is beyond one of competence.
How do we truly know this and that those people would act accordingly if the results were not ideal? And, beyond that, does EVERYONE that might matter wholly and unequivocally agree what exactly "unable to discharge" the duties of office means?
None of this is intended to start a push for invocation of the 25th amendment. I think I just disagree with the assumptions and parameters being discussed here.
If they aren't willing to do it, it's a pointless conversation. There is no alternative invocation path. Either the Cabinet does it, or no one does it.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
What the hell are schools supposed to do to stop the war in Gaza
- Latest: BradStevens
-
-
