Is Donald Trump mentaly \ morally fit for the presidency?

[irontaino]

Your facts and sources will fall on deaf ears. All critical thinking seems to go out the window when it comes to defending Trump. He's pretty much infallible to his supporters.

[Heathen Hammer]

So most of these "contradictions' ignore the context entirely (which is natural to expect form Huffpost, which is basically the liberal equivalent of Daily Stormer). Sure, he may have changed his view on certain things, as it was convenient for him politically, but that had been done by almost every major politician in history. Calling him "crazy" for that is just irrational and kinda proves my point about how one just claims he is unstable out of partisan bias.
The funny part is that there are plenty of points on which he can and should be criticized, from irrationally hostile stance towards Iran and Russia to appeasing the neocon infestation within the GOP (manifested by McCain, Bush-spawn and many others). Ironically his self-proclaimed opponents just pick a losing battle by arguing inherently false and often self-contradicting (ironic, right?) talking points.

[alhoon]

So most of these "contradictions' ignore the context entirely (which is natural to expect form Huffpost, which is basically the liberal equivalent of Daily Stormer). Sure, he may have changed his view on certain things, as it was convenient for him politically, but that had been done by almost every major politician in history. Calling him "crazy" for that is just irrational and kinda proves my point about how one just claims he is unstable out of partisan bias.
The funny part is that there are plenty of points on which he can and should be criticized, from irrationally hostile stance towards Iran and Russia to appeasing the neocon infestation within the GOP (manifested by McCain, Bush-spawn and many others). Ironically his self-proclaimed opponents just pick a losing battle by arguing inherently false and often self-contradicting (ironic, right?) talking points.

How exactly putting his own tweets side by side is ignoring the context? Did the ignorant buffoon say in 2013 till 2015 that attack on Syria would be a huge mistake only to fire at Syria within 4 months of getting the chair or not?
Did or did not the simpleton say that he could fix healthcare only to later admit he was completely ignorant of the situation and he had no idea that it would be hard work?
Did he claim that "sources" told him that Obama's birth certificate was false (which is x100 proven to not have been the case) only to later bash anonymous sources or not?
Did the classless redneck say that everything on the "grab them by the #####" tape was just locker-room talk (i.e. he said it) and now saying the tape is fake?

How exactly we missed the context here? Tell me.

I am not calling him unstable (and narcissistic) because of U-turns. I would just call him an opportunist and a hack.
I call him unstable because he insists on stuff that are frankly stupid and he keeps going at them because he's too hanged up to just ignore them and move forward.
He could have remained silent once he figured "Damn, the democrats were right; Healthcare is hard". He didn't have to go out and say "Nobody knew it!" when everybody knew it.
Since he had viciously attacked Carson's character in the primaries, he could have chosen someone else for his cabinet. Or if he wanted to get Carson and not sound as arbitrary as nearly everyone accuses him to be, he could have not attacked his character as viciously.
He could have swallowed the pill that he was flat wrong about Obama and stop bringing up the completely exposed as lie idiocy of the birth certificate.
He could choose to NOT remind everyone of the freaking tape with embarrassing stuff he said, by throwing rubbish like "you know what? It wasn't me! IT WASN'T ME!" It was TRUMP HIMSELF that brought the tape back to the forefront.


All that remains is for him to suddenly go on camera and say "I told you McCain was not a war hero cause he got captured!" reminding us of his attacks on McCain. Or he could bring back the Khans again.
That would be equally funny.

[NorseThing]

I think the stop Trump train is monetizing their protest much greater than Trump could ever monetize his family assets by being President. I am not certain what this means, but...

[Ludicus]

Trump strikes again,

Visa waiver program: Trump administration cracks down - USA Today

In 2016, more than 600,000 foreign travelers who legally entered the United States overstayed their visas and remained in the country at the end of the year, according to Homeland Security data.
The Visa Waiver Program countries in violation of the new overstay measurement are Greece, Hungary, Portugal and San Marino. They could be required to pay for public education campaigns to inform their citizens of the overstay problem.

... including that they use U.S. counterterrorism data to screen travelers.
Public education for what, really?
Thinking about it, last March, the European Parliament voted to end visa-free travel for Americans

within the EU...it came after the US failed to agree visa-free travel for citizens of five EU countries: Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Poland and Romania.US citizens can normally travel to all countries in the bloc without a visa.The vote urged the revocation of the scheme by May. If no action is taken, MEPs can consider action in the European Court of Justice

Let's do it, Saudi Arabia,Israel and Russia are the best tourist destinations for Americans. (j/k of course)
How sad,Trump's pathological obsession with foreigners.

Philip Zimbardo and Rosemary Sword of Stanford University hit the nail on the head (previous post, book),

Trump is an extreme present hedonist (like most children), without much thought of any consequences of his actions or of the future and says whatever it will take to pump up his ego and to assuage his inherent low self-esteem, without any thought for past reality.Trump’s chief motivations are self-aggrandizement and self-defense.
The latter is constantly in play because he is paranoid and hypersensitive, and because of underlying low self-esteem (characteristic of extreme narcissists).As a result, he strikes back at critics with the hyper aggressive reaction of a cornered wolverine — as he did in a tweet about "dumb as a rock Mika" [Brzezinski] "bleeding badly from a face-lift"

A splendid analysis.

[NorseThing]

The VWP is reciprocal so if the Europeans want out, they can be out. I really cannot see that happening though.

For what it I worth the aggregate numbers from the large volume countries such as Germany, UK, etcetera are probably no better than the Eastern Europeans. It gets messing when dealing with averages and percentages when in reality it is the aggregate numbers that are the problem.

So again -- how is this a problem and how does this relate to Trump? This is an old Obama era issue or maybe even earlier.

[Basil II the B.S]

The funny thing about questioning Donald Trump mental health is it's basically stage 2 of the Kubler-Ross model (aka stages of grief/loss), that is anger.

Which is still far better than many of those who are stuck in stage 1, denial. Those are the ones believing in the Russia collusion story and that early on wanted a recount but they gave up on that.

Look at the damage that's being done by liberal media to their own people.

[alhoon]

Trump strikes again,

Visa waiver program: Trump administration cracks down - USA Today


... including that they use U.S. counterterrorism data to screen travelers.
Public education for what, really?

We have a (Greek) student in my lab that was accepted for a PhD with scholarship in Kentucky. He's dirt poor but he's the brightest student I've ever seen and got the best grades in my department's three decades of operation. His diploma thesis was better than have the master thesis' I've seen.

Before Trump's tax plan and making it harder for foreigners, the taxes on his scholarship were minimal. He got a letter that now with the new tax plan he will have to pay way more. As I said, he's very poor and those 200$-400$ per month or so that he will have to give to taxes will hurt a lot, cause he won't be able to afford returning to Greece for vacations. And he had to dance through hoops with the new student visas.
He is optimistic that he could find a part-time job in the University to make a little money to have financial security and be able to afford some luxuries (like 2 trips to Greece per year). But that is because Trump just decided to make his life harder. He wouldn't have to.

[NorseThing]

We have a (Greek) student in my lab that was accepted for a PhD with scholarship in Kentucky. He's dirt poor but he's the brightest student I've ever seen and got the best grades in my department's three decades of operation. His diploma thesis was better than have the master thesis' I've seen.

Before Trump's tax plan and making it harder for foreigners, the taxes on his scholarship were minimal. He got a letter that now with the new tax plan he will have to pay way more. As I said, he's very poor and those 200$-400$ per month or so that he will have to give to taxes will hurt a lot, cause he won't be able to afford returning to Greece for vacations. And he had to dance through hoops with the new student visas.
He is optimistic that he could find a part-time job in the University to make a little money to have financial security and be able to afford some luxuries (like 2 trips to Greece per year). But that is because Trump just decided to make his life harder. He wouldn't have to.

I have faith that this will be worked out. My sympathies for people that are caught in the crossfire, but this is not the problem of the Tax Bill nor a bit of a problem with Trump. This is a problem of people professing to support higher education and wanting a free pass on the income tax laws for those with special privileges such as belonging to the right political party for one example. Special pleading by the Democrats on how life is unfair to treat all people equally does not make with me. No insult to you or your post. This just rankles me a bit. Sorry.

[alhoon]

I can't say I understand your post very well NT.
For example this: "This is a problem of people professing to support higher education and wanting a free pass on the income tax laws for those with special privileges such as belonging to the right political party for one example." leaves me
What do you mean a "free pass on the income tax laws"? How the new tax hitting scholarships to students from abroad has anything to do with "the people professing..."? What political parties have to do with it? What democrats have to do with it?

I get that you disagree with me but I can't understand your post beyond that.

[Heathen Hammer]

How exactly putting his own tweets side by side is ignoring the context? Did the ignorant buffoon say in 2013 till 2015 that attack on Syria would be a huge mistake only to fire at Syria within 4 months of getting the chair or not?
Did or did not the simpleton say that he could fix healthcare only to later admit he was completely ignorant of the situation and he had no idea that it would be hard work?
Did he claim that "sources" told him that Obama's birth certificate was false (which is x100 proven to not have been the case) only to later bash anonymous sources or not?
Did the classless redneck say that everything on the "grab them by the #####" tape was just locker-room talk (i.e. he said it) and now saying the tape is fake?

So calling him a "classless redneck" is all you've got? Thanks for proving my point. Again, none of those things disprove my point about huffpost and other leftist propaganda outlets just entirely ignoring context to make up their easily debunkable "points"

I am not calling him unstable (and narcissistic) because of U-turns. I would just call him an opportunist and a hack.
I call him unstable because he insists on stuff that are frankly stupid and he keeps going at them because he's too hanged up to just ignore them and move forward.
He could have remained silent once he figured "Damn, the democrats were right; Healthcare is hard". He didn't have to go out and say "Nobody knew it!" when everybody knew it.
Since he had viciously attacked Carson's character in the primaries, he could have chosen someone else for his cabinet. Or if he wanted to get Carson and not sound as arbitrary as nearly everyone accuses him to be, he could have not attacked his character as viciously.
He could have swallowed the pill that he was flat wrong about Obama and stop bringing up the completely exposed as lie idiocy of the birth certificate.
He could choose to NOT remind everyone of the freaking tape with embarrassing stuff he said, by throwing rubbish like "you know what? It wasn't me! IT WASN'T ME!" It was TRUMP HIMSELF that brought the tape back to the forefront.


All that remains is for him to suddenly go on camera and say "I told you McCain was not a war hero cause he got captured!" reminding us of his attacks on McCain. Or he could bring back the Khans again.
That would be equally funny.

I don't think that repeating already proven to be false arguments with bold text will make those arguments work again.
MCain is a war-mongering piece of shite, but since he is thankfully a dying piece of shite, Trump has been quite respectful to old racist rusophobic loser.

[alhoon]

So calling him a "classless redneck" is all you've got?

Nooooope, bringing up that he said numerous times from 2013 to 2015 Attacking Syria would be a mistake and then Attacking Syria is also part of what I said. Reminding you that he said he would fix healthcare to only exclaim later "nobody knew healthcare was that hard!" is another of "what I've got". Using anonymous sources numerous times and then demanding nobody believes anonymous sources is yet another thing I've got. Remind you that he had admitted to saying "grab them by the #####" and now he says it never happened is another thing I've got.
And somehow... you failed to address even one of those things. You just said "they're easily debunkable". Well, debunk them. I'll be waiting.


And also I would like you to enlighten me on how "He viciously attacked Carson's character and immediately put him on the cabinet once elected" is a false argument. Or how "He was flat wrong about Obama's birth certificate" is a false argument.

[Heathen Hammer]

Nooooope, bringing up that he said numerous times from 2013 to 2015 Attacking Syria would be a mistake and then Attacking Syria is also part of what I said.

All he did was a rather useless rocket barrage that slightly damaged an airfield. He still banned CIA from backing terrorist groups in Syria.

Reminding you that he said he would fix healthcare to only exclaim later "nobody knew healthcare was that hard!" is another of "what I've got". Using anonymous sources numerous times and then demanding nobody believes anonymous sources is yet another thing I've got. Remind you that he had admitted to saying "grab them by the #####" and now he says it never happened is another thing I've got.

All of that is clearly taken out of context, as was explained a billion of times in the course of last 2 years.

And somehow... you failed to address even one of those things. You just said "they're easily debunkable". Well, debunk them. I'll be waiting.

That has been done countless times already. You are literally brining up talking points that left itself abandoned year and a half ago because they were proved as wrong.

And also I would like you to enlighten me on how "He viciously attacked Carson's character and immediately put him on the cabinet once elected" is a false argument. Or how "He was flat wrong about Obama's birth certificate" is a false argument.

And how did he "viciously attack Carson's character?"

[alhoon]

All he did was a rather useless rocket barrage that slightly damaged an airfield. He still banned CIA from backing terrorist groups in Syria.

I never said he was effective. Still counts as an attack while he spent two years screaming that USA should not get involved in Syria ... while saying USA should do more to fight ISIS (that was in Syria).
It was simply a knee-jerk reaction because he's lacking the patience and temperament required from a president.

All of that is clearly taken out of context, as was explained a billion of times in the course of last 2 years.

That has been done countless times already. You are literally brining up talking points that left itself abandoned year and a half ago because they were proved as wrong.

Nah it was proven time and again the past 2 years and you just refused to accept the obvious. As you do here. Those talking points were never abandoned, the majority of Americans acknowledges them, even many of Trump supporters; they just don't care.
Trump said the "Nobody knew Healthcare was so complicated!", Trump mentioned anonymous sources, And there's little lack of context in "Grab them by the #####". You can try to close your eyes and ears all you want, but he did say those and that's not taking it out of context. You can say "I don't care about this stuff" as other Trump supporters do. Or say "Pfft, that was just air talk, I don't believe he stands behind those" (hence admitting that Trump often speaks out of his butt). But he did say those.
They have never been "proven wrong" or "out of context". It's just that some people for their own reasons don't mind them.

And how did he "viciously attack Carson's character?"

https://www.politico.com/story/2015/...on-iowa-215819

"Carson wrote that he was "pathological" and that he had "pathological disease, And I don't want a person that's got pathological disease, I don't want it." Trump about a future member of his cabinet. One of the longest serving actually.
+
"He said he's got pathological disease. He actually said 'pathological temper,' and then he defined it as 'disease,' so he said he has 'pathological disease.' Now if you're pathological, there's no cure for that, folks. OK? There's no cure for that"
I guess Trump managed to find a cure for that, eh?

[NorseThing]

I can't say I understand your post very well NT.
For example this: "This is a problem of people professing to support higher education and wanting a free pass on the income tax laws for those with special privileges such as belonging to the right political party for one example." leaves me
What do you mean a "free pass on the income tax laws"? How the new tax hitting scholarships to students from abroad has anything to do with "the people professing..."? What political parties have to do with it? What democrats have to do with it?

I get that you disagree with me but I can't understand your post beyond that.

First look at the IRS and they do define income as receipt in the form of money, property, or services. Scholarships meet that definition. In the past scholarships were treated as non taxable income, but they were still income. When the tax bill was started, there was a desire to start eliminating special interest privileges to make the code fairer for the working blue collar among others. Maybe that was false goals by the Republicans. But college scholarships, specially for athletics such as big time football certainly were abusing the nontaxable purpose. The high priced schools were also doing so claiming how diverse they were by offering some scholarships to the 'poor' which ironically meant children of their own employees. I know that many people are now caught in this crossfire. Many people have expressed this on this very forum about the graduate school stipends (already taxable as work study income) combined with the tuition deferral (soon to be considered taxable income) that will put too many students into the hole with no money to live on. I understand this problem, but it is a problem best resolved by the schools and not by the tax code. I expect solutions will be coming by all of the schools. But to blame Trump and the tax Bill for a reclassification from non taxable to taxable is really not a reasonable argument just because people are hurt by the change.

I do not know if this makes my position clearer or not. I am currently on a sugar high.

[alhoon]

It does make your position clearer. But we still disagree. I just know where we disagree now.

[NorseThing]

It does make your position clearer. But we still disagree. I just know where we disagree now.

My buddy pointed me to this:

Update on Proposed U.S. Tax Plan Reforms Relevant to Graduate Students

The U.S. House of Representatives tax proposal in H.R. 1 (link is external) includes several provisions of concern to Cornell regarding the potential negative impacts on the university’s mission of teaching, research, and service. These include proposed changes that would tax university endowments, implications for deductions associated with students loans and other current tax credits for taxpayers related to education, and treatment of tuition benefits under the tax code.
Cornell’s leadership, trustees, alumni and government affairs team are fully engaged on this issue, working closely with other higher education peers and organizations such as the Council of Graduate Schools, the Association of American Universities, and the National Association of College and University Business Officers not only to understand more completely the potential implications of the proposed changes to the U.S. tax code, but also to lobby members of Congress to revise the tax proposal before it is voted on in the House of Representatives, or a similar bill is introduced in the U.S. Senate, to modify these provisions of concern.
While the prospects for passage of any tax proposal, let alone the version revealed last week in the House, are far from certain, Cornell is not taking anything for granted. We are engaging in a significant way. We understand that one provision of H.R. 1 in particular, detailed below, may cause consternation among graduate students whose assistantship and/or fellowship funding from the university includes stipend, student health plan, and full university graduate tuition scholarship.
One of the sections of H.R. 1 proposes to repeal subsection 117(d) of the current tax code. Some observers have interpreted repeal of subsection 117(d), if signed into law, as changing the current non-taxable status of tuition scholarships for funded graduate students to instead be considered taxable income. Other universities, particularly public universities, may be required by state law to treat certain graduate students as employees under state law, and therefore may be reliant on 117(d) for favorable tax treatment for their graduate students.
Cornell University does not rely on 117(d) for favorable tuition-related tax treatment of funded graduate students, who are considered students, not employees, at Cornell. Because Cornell pays graduate students reasonable compensation for teaching, research, or other services they provide to the university, Cornell graduate students receiving a tuition scholarship are receiving a qualified scholarship as described under sections 117(a), 117(b), and 117(c) of the current tax code, provisions which are not proposed for repeal in H.R. 1. Thus, the proposed repeal of section 117(d), if passed into law, will not have an impact on how Cornell graduate students’ tuition scholarships are handled.
While the stipend for graduate students may be taxable under the current tax code, the tuition scholarship is not, and would not be affected by repeal of 117(d). As H.R. 1 is written, Cornell graduate tuition scholarships will continue to be treated as qualifying (tax free) scholarships under 117 (a), thus, there would be no change from current tax law that treats these tuition scholarships for students as tax free.
Along with Cornell’s government affairs team and University Counsel, we are continuing to monitor the tax reform discussions in Congress and to work with our partner organizations on expressing concerns about proposed provisions that may negatively affect Cornell’s mission and our students, staff, and faculty. We will continue to update graduate students through Graduate Announcements as pertinent information becomes available.

http://gradschool.cornell.edu/about/...ode-are-passed

So there is some disagreement on what the tax bill actually does with the scholarship question. I have my doubts that it will be as Cornel thinks, but as of now we probably know nothing. If so we may have nothing to disagree on. Thanks for responding.

[NorseThing]

Vanity Fair wants to sell their mag, so I do not doubt that played a part in publishing this bit of click bait:
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politi...b7Kz&ocid=iehp

I do not know whether there is the momentum in enough US House districts for the Democrats to take the House in 2018. If there is a chance, does this impeach the President talk help or hinder such an effort. Since the House seats are held by Republicans that the Democrats need to win to take control, how can this impeachment talk be at all a viable tactic? How can that many people that voted for a Republican House member now be ready to support impeachment of a Republican President? Clinton's Impeachment was a huge political gamble that failed and there was at least some germ of reality. I remember the Earl Warren Impeachment talk -- that was silly. Is this Impeachment talk anything better? This is why we should resolve these issues via the ballot. Impeachment is a political crime, but the basis needs something more -- something not known at the time of the previous election.

[Elfdude]

Vanity Fair wants to sell their mag, so I do not doubt that played a part in publishing this bit of click bait:
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politi...b7Kz&ocid=iehp

I do not know whether there is the momentum in enough US House districts for the Democrats to take the House in 2018. If there is a chance, does this impeach the President talk help or hinder such an effort. Since the House seats are held by Republicans that the Democrats need to win to take control, how can this impeachment talk be at all a viable tactic?

Actually it's a very valid tactic from a purely theoretical perspective and is quite similar to the tactics GOP used to win the last election.

1. Controversy breeds engagement - Dems have low engagement
2. The majority of people support impeaching trump - While Dems will always vote for Dems and Republicans will always vote Republican, it's the independents we're curious about, they're overwhelming in favor of impeachment
3. The Dems have ignored what their base wants too much and this was the primary reason that turnout was so down last election
4. There's far more than the current house majority in "purple" districts with a total of 47 seats up for grabs, Dems need 27 to control the house.

How can that many people that voted for a Republican House member now be ready to support impeachment of a Republican President?

It's important to note that about 47 of the seats up for grabs are in districts which are very close. Dems actually have superior membership in these districts, Republicans turn out more often to elections. If the Dems want to win a majority of these seats they need to employ tactics which turn their membership out to vote.

Clinton's Impeachment was a huge political gamble that failed and there was at least some germ of reality. I remember the Earl Warren Impeachment talk -- that was silly.

Clinton's only issue was lying about an Affair which pretty much no one found surprising or worthwhile. It did however help the 2000 and 2002 elections significantly for the GOP.

Is this Impeachment talk anything better? This is why we should resolve these issues via the ballot. Impeachment is a political crime, but the basis needs something more -- something not known at the time of the previous election.

There's a variety of reasons currently valid for impeachment. Dems are unlikely to be hurt by talking about impeachment, they are very likely to be helped, regardless of whether they actually go through with it.

[Ludicus]

Trump says:" I am a very stable genius"
Twitter reacts to Trump's 'stable genius' tweet

And..."Since taking office I have been very strict on Commercial Aviation, Good news - it was just reported that there were Zero deaths in 2017"
Trump's False Claim of Credit for Aviation Safety - The Atlantic

No U.S. airline has had a fatality since 2009.In fact, it’s hard to find any evidence that Trump has affected aviation at all. If anything, Trump has promised to loosen regulations on aviation