Is Trump mentally unfit for the presidency to the point that he ought be removed from office?

Is Trump mentally unfit for the presidency to the point that he ought be removed from office?

  • Total voters
    56
Status
Not open for further replies.
AdrienIer said:
The point of this thread is to ask whether he is mentally fit. You seem to think he is. But that some people believe that he isn't doesn't mean that democracy is in danger.
Click to expand...
I still remain agnostic agnostic in regards to that question, but yeah, being of that opinion, or discussing that topic are fine, but my post was a reply to metalhead, who had made a reply to Hehehe, who had made a sarcastic post about people who try to declare Trump to be mentally unfit because they don't like the things he does.

Metalhead's response didn't address that in any way, and instead just stated that yeah, there are ways to get rid of a mentally unfit president, but that's still not the point - the point is that you have to establish his unfitness first in some pseudo-objective way, if you don't do that, then you're indeed damaging or destroying the democratic system.
 
We can talk about mental fitness along other dimensions. Let's take Obamacare. There's no doubt that the current legislation needs to be changed, significantly

Fitness: when Trump was promising his vague promises, did he know they were false and impossible? Like, was he lying to be popular, or deluded?

When he confidently spoke of the recent bill on health care, speaking on how it was impressive and worthy, did you actually believe that he understood what was in the bill? Of course not. He's not articulate or curious about important things.

But he talked confidently. So. Mental fitness. Did he actually have confidence that he knew? Or was he lying for political reasons?

That's where his delusional mindset is importantly questioned. He can't lead, because nothing he says is trustworthy. But that's not the underlying concern. Does he actually think he's informed? Or is he so delusional that he thinks he is?

Stormfront appreciated his stance on Charlottesville. But I seriously doubt he had an informed view when he went off script. He went off script for political reasons. Again, I'm not surprised when a magic eightball is pseudo correct on in eight times
 
El_Machinae said:
We can talk about mental fitness along other dimensions. Let's take Obamacare. There's no doubt that the current legislation needs to be changed, significantly

Fitness: when Trump was promising his vague promises, did he know they were false and impossible? Like, was he lying to be popular, or deluded?

When he confidently spoke of the recent bill on health care, speaking on how it was impressive and worthy, did you actually believe that he understood what was in the bill? Of course not. He's not articulate or curious about important things.

But he talked confidently. So. Mental fitness. Did he actually have confidence that he knew? Or was he lying for political reasons?

That's where his delusional mindset is importantly questioned. He can't lead, because nothing he says is trustworthy. But that's not the underlying concern. Does he actually think he's informed? Or is he so delusional that he thinks he is?

Stormfront appreciated his stance on Charlottesville. But I seriously doubt he had an informed view when he went off script. He went off script for political reasons. Again, I'm not surprised when a magic eightball is pseudo correct on in eight times
Click to expand...

Maybe it wouldn't be a bad idea to start jailing politicians for broken campaign promises. The only problem is that if we did that we'd have to jail every politician.

As for Trump, one can disagree with him and his political positions. Fair enough. But it's a huge leap to assert that he's crazy for holding such opinions. Do you even hear yourself? You're talking about removing a lawfully elected president on account of him being crazy, and as evidence you offer the fact that he holds differing opinions? I just find this trend very worrying. I've heard people who I respect, such as Sam Harris, calling for Trump's impeachment. I mean imagine if republicans had seriously pushed for removing Obama out of office, on the grounds that he is a Kenyan Muslim? I think this entire forum would have flipped out had Obama been removed, and for a good reason. But now that the tables are turned, a lot of people are suddenly all for it

As for Trump's comments about Charlottesville, I don't follow his twitter that closely. I just can't bring myself to care about the real or contrived outrage anymore. But while I don't defend the white nationalists in any way, Trump may not have been wrong about Antifa (or the alt-left, whatever it is called). Antifa are definitely trash. I mean I sure feel a lot safer now that Antifa were burning up Hamburg to stop the "fascist" leaders of G20 countries. They're nothing more than a trash mob dedicated to petty political violence.
 
Valessa said:
And if you abuse that mechanism to get a mentally sufficiently fit, but disliked president removed from office, then you're destroying the system, or at least demonstrating that it's a democracy only as long as the right people are okay with it.

That's the point.
Click to expand...

That's not the point being discussed, that's a point you just invented for no apparent reason.
 
I think the problem is rather that you missed the point of Hehehe's post, not so much that I invented a point that wasn't there.
 
metalhead said:
That's not the point being discussed, that's a point you just invented for no apparent reason.
Click to expand...
Invented? That is what it looks like to me. It looks like you people are trying to destroy democracy because you don't like the outcome. Or does Trump have a diagnosis for a mental disorder? Yes or no? Are you qualified to give one based on the information media has given you?
 
Trump's not the problem, he just a symptom of a much larger problem. The current form of "democracy" in the US is broken and need to be rebuilt.
 
Yes, well, he's managing to be a symptom of a problem in the USA, and a problem on his own for the rest of the world :p
 
Hehehe said:
Invented? That is what it looks like to me. It looks like you people are trying to destroy democracy because you don't like the outcome. Or does Trump have a diagnosis for a mental disorder? Yes or no? Are you qualified to give one based on the information media has given you?
Click to expand...

"Destroy democracy" :rolleyes:

The question here is about using one of the levers of said democracy. No one at CFC is responsible for using that lever, and therefore no one here has the burden of proof. The debate is about whether the lever should be pulled, probably by getting such a diagnosis first. For that Trump would need to be actually mentally ill (the point of the debate), and Pence would need to do something about it (not happening anytime soon). Stop being so dramatic
 
AdrienIer said:
"Destroy democracy" :rolleyes:

The question here is about using one of the levers of said democracy. No one at CFC is responsible for using that lever, and therefore no one here has the burden of proof. The debate is about whether the lever should be pulled, probably by getting such a diagnosis first. For that Trump would need to be actually mentally ill (the point of the debate), and Pence would need to do something about it (not happening anytime soon). Stop being so dramatic
Click to expand...
I see people here who clearly want to pull that lever. Is it unfair of me to ask them to prove their case? To place the burden of proof on them? Perhaps if it really were the case that Trump really has legitimate mental issues, then we absolutely should be having this discussion. But so far I haven't seen any evidence to back that up. All I see is people who want to get rid of Trump.

As for your point about "levers of democracy". Yes indeed there are levers in a democracy, but it seems to me like you people are trying to abuse one of them, which brings us back to the question of evidence
 
I think everyone here would be content with him seeing a psychiatrist to make sure. No one wants to out him on a whim. No one wants to abuse it.

Edit : my personal preference would be for him to get impeached/forced out via the Russia scandal, but same thing here : we're waiting for the investigation to go through, no one wants to remove him from office just because they don't like it. If the investigation on Russia fails to find enough evidence then everyone will wait for 2020.
 
El_Machinae said:
Well, it's not just that, obviously. It's one more straw. It was the mishandling of Charlottesville that helped people realize that he actually cannot lead.
Click to expand...
I couldn't disagree more. Having seen him call out the press for their incredibly inaccurate interpretation of events and seeing him stand up for free speech and the right of those people to protest has shown that he is truly a great president. He is truly a man of principles.

As for the press, they have fully exposed themselves. Having watched all the events take place live, and then seeing the media tell a completely different story was unbelievable. They truly are fake news.
 
civver_764 said:
I couldn't disagree more. Having seen him call out the press for their incredibly inaccurate interpretation of events and seeing him stand up for free speech and the right of those people to protest has shown that he is truly a great president. He is truly a man of principles.

As for the press, they have fully exposed themselves. Having watched all the events take place live, and then seeing the media tell a completely different story was unbelievable. They truly are fake news.
Click to expand...

Yes, but you don't care about his racism, you won't notice those errors on the topic so of course you like it when he actually presents a statement that ends up being a middle-ground. If you think he actually held a nuanced position on the topic, you're sorely mistaken. He waffled to appease his base, and was accidentally was correct.
 
Last edited:
Um, Congress as a body deciding Donny Tiny-hands is unfit is the polar opposite of "destroying democracy" because they themselves are "democratically elected representatives of the people." Since it'd take a larger % majority of congress to pass a removal/impeachment than an electoral college victory you can bet your ass it'd have to be backed by massive popular support.

I think we've gotten a little too used to Congress not enacting the people's will and forget that that's exactly what we elect them to do. They won't commit political suicide by doing something ridiculously unpopular on something as high profile as removing the President (see the various repugnant ACA repeal/replace bills as an example).

Honestly its quite silly to believe getting rid of him is "destroying democracy". Ridiculous gerrymandering, biased voter id laws, Citizens United, etc are what's destroying democracy. Getting the nutjob that barely squeaked out a victory while half his voters held their nose while voting for him removed from office is hardly going to harm democracy.
 
I don't think anyone has said that removing Trump was destroying democracy. I'm pretty sure that what was said, was that pretexting something to remove him would be a problem. The worry was more about respecting due process (which, admitedly, is exactly what seem to be going, I'm pretty sure Donald running amok and trying to turn the presidency in some sort of tweet-based populist dictatorship is the actual thing doing damage to democratic structures ; if there is a problem in due process, it seems to come more from Republican blindly partisan obstructionism, than risks of unlawful impeachment).
 
They're wearing Trump like ablative armour. They use him to move their policies forward, and they hope that the explosion of ridding themselves of him will end up protecting them from the blowback of having him around.
 
Akka said:
I think Trump is not mentally fit for being a President, but he's mentally fit enough to not be considered clinically unfit.
Have fun untangling that.
Click to expand...

Macnaughton, Expeliamus Nonsensus.
 
Traitorfish said:
Well, firstly, I don't think that's sound reasoning. If somebody claims to have achieved something in a far shorter stretch of time than precedent would allow for, the properly sceptical response is to interrogate their claims, not to attribute to them super-human abilities. And, indeed, Trump's slapdash coalition hasn't made it past his first year in office, while Caesar's, in some form or another, outlived him by a century.

But, secondly and more importantly, it's really not a question of skill or technology. Robust alliances aren't just about a coincidence of belief or interest. They're build on established gave-and-take. Caesar's patronage network worked because it was based on well-established and well-tested relationships, its participants had spent decades deriving tangible benefits from it, decades of satisfied expectations. The network was proven to work. Trump's coalition is people who, at their most optimistic, imagine they can put aside their enormous differences for the sake of the country, and at their most cynical, that they could take all the other guys for suckers. There's no proof of concept, there, Trump left that until he actually took over the administration, and it's almost immediately fallen to pieces. Trump talks about a movement, but he's put absolutely zero effort into movement-building.
Click to expand...

I think Trump is more clever than you're giving him credit for. What I don't appreciate is so many "experts" always doubting him. As soon as he announced his run for presidency everyone laughed at him. Then he won the Republican primary. Then they were still sure he didn't have a chance in the general election. Then despite all the "experts" even including people like Nate Silver, Trump still won. Now you all continue to doubt him, that it was all just a fluke that is about to go away. It's far from impossible that Trump would get elected to a second term. My prediction of him getting assassinated by a fellow Republican is also far from impossible.

Trump will probably get assassinated from the inside, from someone close to him. For two reasons: 1) these are the people that are hardest to defend against. Sort of like a security breach by a former (or current) employee is difficult to defend against. the second reason is these are the people that would mainly benefit from his death. They could collaborate together and decided the spoils that will be divided amongst each other after his death. At this point, it's just my word against yours, and we'll have to wait and see. Five years from now we will see which one of us was right. Until then, I will still believe I'm on to something here.
 
Never heard of this. Link?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom