Is Donald Trump mentaly \ morally fit for the presidency?

[IronBrig4]

Big article... what's the phrase?

"Priming the pump." It was introduced in the early 1800s and then popularized during the Hoover administration. https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-tak...144651039.html

The rest of the interview is just as painful to read. Especially when you consider that uneducated rural types probably believe him.

Edit: And the stupidity just keeps on coming. Now Trump thinks he knows about naval engineering. https://www.navytimes.com/articles/t...-carrier-emals

"You know the catapult is quite important," said Trump. "So I said what is this? Sir, this is our digital catapult system. He said well, we’re going to this because we wanted to keep up with modern [technology]. I said, 'You don’t use steam anymore for catapult?' 'No sir.' I said, 'Ah, how is it working?' 'Sir, not good. Not good. Doesn’t have the power. You know the steam is just brutal. You see that sucker going and steam’s going all over the place, there’s planes thrown in the air.'"

[Ludicus]

Now Trump thinks he knows about naval engineering

Well, Trump knows everything, Trump knows better than anyone else, the greatest President, the best thing that's ever happened, etc.

[Heathen Hammer]

HeathenHammer: All these don't change the fact that:
1. You're wrong about Lincoln which is a topic for a VV thread I hope someone opens
2. Andrew Jackson was a hardcore racist owing 120 slaves unlike Lincoln that wasn't egalitarian, but wasn't pro-slavery either and ended slavery after he preserved the Union
3. Andrew Jackson was dead and buried when the civil war started, thus he wasn't very disappointed it happened like Trump said
4. Since Andrew Jackson was pro-slavery, yes, the civil war would not have started if Jackon was alive and president in 1860s. There wouldn't have been any natives left probably either.

Still, I have to applaud the poster that said the Trump supporter answer to the whole debacle would include factual inaccuracies easily disproved and "but Hillary... ! ! ! ".
Bravo whomever predicted that...

1. I am correct regarding Lincoln's views on race. He said plenty of stuff that would make modern-day white supremacists sound like a bunch of tree-hugging hippies.
2. Lincoln clearly stated that abolition of slavery was a mean to an end, Africans and Whites aren't equal, etc.
3. I'm pretty sure he said he would be disappointed.
4. Yeah, and had there been no slavery, there wouldn't be any African people in US either, which was one of the reasons that motivated Lincoln.


The only ones posting factual inaccuracies are the ones that consistently make inane anti-Trump rants, without even trying to read into the context and just taking hysterial mass media articles at face-value due to obvious confirmation bias.

[ggsimmonds]

1. I am correct regarding Lincoln's views on race. He said plenty of stuff that would make modern-day white supremacists sound like a bunch of tree-hugging hippies.
2. Lincoln clearly stated that abolition of slavery was a mean to an end, Africans and Whites aren't equal, etc.
3. I'm pretty sure he said he would be disappointed.
4. Yeah, and had there been no slavery, there wouldn't be any African people in US either, which was one of the reasons that motivated Lincoln.


The only ones posting factual inaccuracies are the ones that consistently make inane anti-Trump rants, without even trying to read into the context and just taking hysterial mass media articles at face-value due to obvious confirmation bias.

Oh boy...
1. Quote some of the things he said that would make modern day white supremacists sound like tree-hugging hippies. A quote where he says the two races are not equal would not meet the bar you set.
2. What end was that? He did probably agree that the races are not equal, but he was also opposed to slavery.
3.lol, nope. Full quote: I mean had Andrew Jackson been a little later you wouldn’t have had the Civil War. He was a very tough person but he had a big heart. He was really angry that he saw what was happening with regard to the Civil War, he said “There’s no reason for this.” People don’t realize, you know, the Civil War, if you think about it, why? People don’t ask that question, but why was there the Civil War? Why could that one not have been worked out?
4. I don't even know how to respond to that. You take after Trump you know, throw at the wall hoping it would stick. Make up stories on the fly so long as they fit your narrative.

[alhoon]

Hmmm... Trump, "Lock-her-up! Sent classified stuff unprotected!"-Trump didn't go through the hassle of emails when talking to the Russians. He gave them the information himself.

I think that the lack of mental stability, not just lack of temperament, is back on the table. I think that Trump may actually be unstable.

I also wonder how Hillary-hating Trumpeteers will justify that sending classified material through unsecured emails is worse than telling classified information to another (and often competitive) country.

[ggsimmonds]

Hmmm... Trump, "Lock-her-up! Sent classified stuff unprotected!"-Trump didn't go through the hassle of emails when talking to the Russians. He gave them the information himself.

I think that the lack of mental stability, not just lack of temperament, is back on the table. I think that Trump may actually be unstable.

I also wonder how Hillary-hating Trumpeteers will justify that sending classified material through unsecured emails is worse than telling classified information to another (and often competitive) country.

Because with this incident, it is hearsay. We don't know that Trump actually did this.

[Love Mountain]

I'm not sure whether Trump is unstable or merely incompetent. Yes, his behavior is concerning but I've seen adults act like petulant children at work before. I mean come on, you've all met wildly incompetent and crazy people before. They're not actually "un-hinged", they're just narcissistic s who can't be bothered to think of anyone but themselves.

[Admiral Piett]

I like his ideas on protectionism (as do many in the Democratic party who voted for the Trade Representative today) and immigration control, and would like a similar political agenda in my country (which is unlikely).

However he has a tendency towards egotism and provocation especially through twitter. He is too impulsive in his public pronouncements, and seems to take decisions before putting his team in the loop (perhaps out of fear of leaks). On the other hand it probably helped get the AHCA through the House, and it seems he did a lot of negotiating over the phones according to Ryan. So maybe the "art of the deal" can work in Congress after all - but the real test will come if the Democrats retake Congress which I think is likely next year.

When you're a billionaire businessman, the concept of accepting limits on your power is probably a hard sell. Bluntness is fine in moderation but you need to be subtle too in order to be capable of flexibility (ie plausible deniability when you make policy U-Turns), and also to keep relations at a level where cooperation is possible.

Most balanced and accurate post in this thread I've seen. Although, I don't see the Democrats retaking the house anytime soon. They might have a shot at the senate though.

[Acco]

Because with this incident, it is hearsay. We don't know that Trump actually did this.

Trump just essentially confirmed the story on Twitter. By doing so he also threw his own staff under the bus, including Tillerson and McMaster, who were denying the report and trying to claim it was 'hearsay'.

[Roma_Victrix]

Most balanced and accurate post in this thread I've seen. Although, I don't see the Democrats retaking the house anytime soon. They might have a shot at the senate though.

I'm conflicted about this, since no one party represents my haphazard views on things. I don't want the Dems to have full control of everything, since I'm more aligned with Republicans when it comes to gun rights and immigration, and more aligned with libertarians when it comes to law enforcement. However, I'm also in favor of abortion rights (i.e. "women's right to choose"), full LGBT rights, healthcare reform (perhaps even adding a "public option" to the ACA, aka "Obamacare") and tougher regulations on the Wall Street banks. The Dems obviously won't deliver fully on any of these promises in their party platform, but none of them would be jeopardized either if they controlled the Senate. Hell, even when they had a super-majority with both houses of Congress and Obama as president they only managed to pass the ACA in its roughly present form, a piece of legislation once crafted and espoused by a conservative think tank (i.e. Heritage Foundation). It's similar to how the Republicans have a super-majority yet can't seem to pass any huge, significant pieces of legislation at present.

When it comes to foreign policy, both parties at the moment seem to be interventionist instead of isolationist, despite Trump's actions and rhetoric in leading the isolationist camp in American politics. I'm of a mind that the TPP, despite sounding good on paper and promising increased development and trade, would have eroded consumer protections, damaged living wages for workers, made it easier for multinational corporations to browbeat their opposition in court, and possibly threaten the environment by allowing multinational corps to bypass domestic regulations. On that issue I side with Trump and Sanders, one of the few big issues where they agree. Trade deals aside, I think promoting regime change is also a disastrous policy in most cases, given our lovely history in Latin America with Banana Republics and the mess we've left in Iraq, Afghanistan, and now Libya (although we had plenty of help there from the British and French).

I will admit, though, that Afghanistan was at least justified given the Taliban's open collusion with al-Qaeda before, during, and after 9/11.

Trump just essentially confirmed the story on Twitter. By doing so he also threw his own staff under the bus, including Tillerson and McMaster, who were denying the report and trying to claim it was 'hearsay'.

I also read somewhere that Trump yelled at McMaster when he perceived him to be undermining him, by talking to South Korean officials and assuring them that paying for THAAD was not an official policy, despite Trump's rhetoric. McMaster and Trump might have a rocky relationship. If McMaster resigns, his replacement would be the fourth US National Security Adviser of the Trump presidency thus far!

[alhoon]

Because with this incident, it is hearsay. We don't know that Trump actually did this.

Trump just essentially confirmed the story on Twitter. By doing so he also threw his own staff under the bus, including Tillerson and McMaster, who were denying the report and trying to claim it was 'hearsay'.

Ahh... Let's go back to speaking of the temperament and fitness to hold the office of POTUS of a person that does that along with sharing codeword information with Russia.
Trump after spending months on Hillary's handling of less damaging and secret information shares it with the Russians. Then when his stuff tries to repair the damage he throws them under the bus and says "Hey! I did it. And I was right to do it!"

Lock him up?

[IronBrig4]

And the hoopleheads are still cheering for him. The way they see it, upsetting the press and the educated classes is entertainment.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[Marcus Aemilius Lepidus]

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/15/o...data.html?_r=0 Everything that is to say about Trump. Pretty much what i wrote earlier.

[the_mango55]

Most balanced and accurate post in this thread I've seen. Although, I don't see the Democrats retaking the house anytime soon. They might have a shot at the senate though.

Many Republican states are heavily gerrymandered, which is what allows them to have more more seats in the house even with fewer votes. However gerrymandering can backfire in a wave election, since you have to spread your voters out carefully to maintain those few percentage leads while concentrating as many voters from the other party, but if a wave election comes you could lose most or all of your districts when if it wasn't gerrymandered you might only lose a few.

[Knight of Heaven]

Well, Trump knows everything, Trump knows better than anyone else, the greatest President, the best thing that's ever happened, etc.

He is Tremendous! I tell you!

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/15/o...data.html?_r=0 Everything that is to say about Trump. Pretty much what i wrote earlier.

That seems to make actualy a lot of sense to me.

[fkizz]

Lying Media now decides to attack Trump... it's been what, 2 years of repeated show? What a lack of imagination.

Kinda sad one lets a professional propagandist of Lobby interests to think for you.
And then people wonder why would wealth disparity on such a scale exist....

[Love Mountain]

Lying Media now decides to attack Trump... it's been what, 2 years of repeated show? What a lack of imagination.

Kinda sad one lets a professional propagandist of Lobby interests to think for you.
And then people wonder why would wealth disparity on such a scale exist....

Thank Reagan and Thatcher.

[fkizz]

Thank Reagan and Thatcher.

Seems all it takes to get big wealth disparaties is to hire a few good professional lobby propagandists. My instincts tell me it shouldn't be this easy, but what can one do..

[ggsimmonds]

Trump just essentially confirmed the story on Twitter. By doing so he also threw his own staff under the bus, including Tillerson and McMaster, who were denying the report and trying to claim it was 'hearsay'.

Yep, for the second time in about a week he contradicted his own people.

Yet he complains that they are the problem.

[Napoleonic Bonapartism]

Re: The Original Question

Judging by this I'd say no: http://time.com/4781153/donald-trump...-saudi-arabia/

Two possibilities, either he goes full campaign-trail and ends up with a fatwa against him; or (as I suspect might be the case) he becomes all conciliatory, takes the George Bush approach, and alienates his base.