Is Donald Trump mentaly \ morally fit for the presidency?

[Pontifex Maximus]

Unfortunately, the crime rate (specifically violent crime) has been dropping since the early 90s irrespective of any immigration policies. Pew Report

There are interesting theories, one of which is the ride of abortions. (sorry I do not have a link but it was controversial when first proposed).

If you want to talk about crime rates in this context, analyze the illegal immigration stat for me and I'll respond.

[Diocle]

Please don't call me and many other posters insane.
Because I do believe that Trump was right to hit Assad ..

Wow! We have a cheap imitation of Sen. McCain here!

Jokes apart, I think that if the USA want a world war with Russia and China, they will lose it, because 300 millions Americans can't beat 2 billions human beings, with so many atomic bombs that if Putin wants, the USA could lose 12 millions citizens in less than ten minutes (New York and Los Angeles are nuclear targets in case of war) ..



.. this is why Trump is absolutely crazy, ANYBODY who asks to engage a nuclear war with Russia and China, not only is TOTALLY INSANE, he is also a disgusting criminal, a retarded bastard and a ****ing mass murderer!

The point is that for you, alhoon, Trump was crazy exactly for the same motivations for which I found him a good politician when he wrote that "The only reason for which President Obama wants to attack Syria is to save face over his very dumb RED LINE statement. Do NOT attack Syria, fix USA."; symmetrically, today, for me Turmp must be considered totally out of mind and a serious threat for mankind, because he adopted your same table of contents in terms of foreign policy, that is the highway to WW3.

In any case, I don't complain too much, because on this planet there is still people as Vladimir Putin and President Bashar Al Assad with some still functioning brain cells!

[Pontifex Maximus]

Ironically it might take a nuclear strike on those targets to wake them from their anti-Trump/American/democracy sleep.

[PikeStance]

If you want to talk about crime rates in this context, analyze the illegal immigration stat for me and I'll respond.

The total immigrant population is less than 14%. Undocumented/Unauthorized immigrants represent only 1/4 of that number. I know there is a Pew Report on immigration and crime but I cannot find it. However, it is common knowledge that immigrants to bring crime. A quick google search found a number of sites that support this as well. I can cite sources that people's perception of crime is not the reality. I believe the link above has one graph on that. The same is true of immigrants. Most of the what people think about immigrants are actually statistically debunked myths and I am shocked that you actually subscribe to them.

edit...A more detailed report on immigration.(Pew report)

[Sint]

Well your entire post is full of hyperbole but:

Jokes apart, I think that if the USA want a world war with Russia and China, they will lose it, because 300 millions Americans can't beat 2 billions human beings, with so many atomic bombs that if Putin wants, the USA could lose 12 millions citizens in less than ten minutes (New York and Los Angeles are nuclear targets in case of war) ..

1.China has a population of 1,390,470,000 Russia has 146,877,088.I don't see how you get 2 billion.It may be a shock for you but Russia has a lower population than the USA ,well and there is the rest of the NATO.

2.The USA has enough atomic bombs to wipe out any numerical advantage China has.Having a bigger population won't help in a nuclear war and I doubt there would be a winner....

3.Trump doesn't want to start a war with Russia and attacking some targets in Syria would hardly start one.

[Cyclops]

The best argument is Andrew Johnson. I suspect you are not referring to this, so you writing a lot of nonsense. I don't mind dabbling here and there, but when I do, I prefer a more mature discussion.

That's a lovely hissy fit. Here's something to chew on while you compose yourself.

"An impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history."

https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory...hment_Role.htm

You are literally wasting my time. He is literally wrong and that interpretation is universally rejected by legal scholars and your question indicate fundamental lack of knowledge on the subject.

Cool could you let the US Senate know they are wrong so they can amend their site? #Dabbling

[PikeStance]

That's a lovely hissy fit. Here's something to chew on while you compose yourself.
https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory...hment_Role.htm
Cool could you let the US Senate know they are wrong so they can amend their site? #Dabbling

Well, you found a nice source, but it doesn't contradict anything I have said. BTW, there are better sites/ sources that explains the evolution of the phrase of "High Crimes and misdemeanors."
Personally, the statement you are defending was a quick cynical one-liner with no basis and now you are reaching for anything to support it.

[Cyclops]

Well, you found a nice source, but it doesn't contradict anything I have said.

Cool so if it doesn't contradict you at all, and in fact completely demolish your boldly declared position you won't need to deride it as baseless, inferior or "a cynical one liner" or suggest there's better sites/sources then.

BTW, there are better sites/ sources that explains the evolution of the phrase of "High Crimes and misdemeanors."

Be that as it may, they are not unanimous in their support of your position about the current understanding of the term.

Personally, the statement you are defending was a quick cynical one-liner with no basis and now you are reaching for anything to support it.

Your personal feelings are irrelevant, I am not defending it, it is based on the stated opinion of the House Minority leader on this topic, and it needs no further support as it is published by the US Senate.

[PikeStance]

Cool so if it doesn't contradict you at all, and in fact completely demolish your boldly declared position you won't need to deride it as baseless, inferior or "a cynical one liner" or suggest there's better sites/sources then.
Be that as it may, they are not unanimous in their support of your position about the current understanding of the term.
Your personal feelings are irrelevant, I am not defending it, it is based on the stated opinion of the House Minority leader on this topic, and it needs no further support as it is published by the US Senate.

Last I checked this is the Discussion and Debate Forum in which one would ordinarily find here, but you offer only an argumentative rant and half-hearted ad hom.
As I said, I offered a link that details the evolution of the expression used in the Constitution so if you bothered to read it then we might have something to discuss. As it is right now, there is nothing to discuss here. I can't exactly argue with the Senate page (not that it contradicts me in any way) or the House minority leader can I? Are you doing is finding sites that you think confirms your own bias and presenting as evidence absent of any argument or understanding the expression. So, if you want a debate, then debate, but stop responding with more nonsensical retorts that adds nothing to a discussion.

[Cyclops]

Last I checked this is the Discussion and Debate Forum in which one would ordinarily find here, but you offer only an argumentative rant and half-hearted ad hom.
As I said, I offered a link that details the evolution of the expression used in the Constitution so if you bothered to read it then we might have something to discuss. As it is right now, there is nothing to discuss here. I can't exactly argue with the Senate page (not that it contradicts me in any way) or the House minority leader can I? Are you doing is finding sites that you think confirms your own bias and presenting as evidence absent of any argument or understanding the expression. So, if you want a debate, then debate, but stop responding with more nonsensical retorts that adds nothing to a discussion.

Sweetie you responded to a reasonable comment with this:

You are literally wasting my time. He is literally wrong and that interpretation is universally rejected by legal scholars and your question indicate fundamental lack of knowledge on the subject.

This statement is demonstrably wrong (as established with a simple search on the Senate site, where the fact that the position is debated among legal scholars and more importantly, the politicians entrusted with the power to impeach), you present bald contradiction and vague appeals to authority ("universally rejected" lol [citation needed]) instead of argument and your ad homs are not so much half hearted as thinly veiled, exposing their pink bits like its Mardi Gras in New Orleans.

Its OK to be wrong. I love being wrong. I am wrong on this site all the time and I get caned for it and I thank whoever it was who caned me for correcting me and for helping me learn something. If I thought you were right I'd be thanking you right now.

[Elfdude]

1. His roll back of the mandate system allowed me to select my own limited coverage healthcare plan, saving me thousands. My coverage is identical as it would be under Obamacare with a significantly lower premium and deductible. (70%)

So the individual mandate (which is still in effect for 2018) repeal allowed you to select a new healthcare option for 2018. Somehow this sounds like a stupid statement and I'd hazard a guess the coverage you're referencing was still allowed under the mandate not that it allowed you to save. BTW the tax penalty is 625$ or 2.5% of your income whichever is lower for 2018 which means it's dubious this mandate forced you whatsoever to purchase any sort of healthcare coverage given the cost of that on a yearly basis.

Congratulations on your powers of assessment and political sensibility.

2. The job market has exploded, allowing me to seek competitive employment in just about any field relevant to my talents that I want. I've been able to reject certain opportunities in favor of others.

According to the Bureau of Labor and Statistics for 2018 the most currently available data shows the opposite:

https://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/ceshighlights.pdf

Sorry but you're wrong on this level. Dramatically wrong. Median household income has fell by $400

3. My limited stock portfolio has grown more in the last 2 years than it did under 6 in the Obama era

what are you invested in? Coal? Regardless even in fossil fuels the growth over the prior 6 years (2010-2016) is enormously greater than the last 2 years. Also keep in mind last 2 years includes 6 months of Obama era growth. It more than doubled in that period from about 9,000 to 19,000, whereas trumpian era growth has stalled almost entirely since it's high in Jan 2018 and considering the fiscal era policies in place pretty much none of 2017's growth can be attributed to Trump policies or changes. Soooo.

Again your political assessment is dizzying.

4. I paid less in taxes this year than I have in the past 9 years. Shockingly I am not a millionaire, which is the only group purported to benefit under the tax plan.

I'm sorry the tax break only applies to 2018 (as in not the taxes for 2017 you just filed for), if you paid less taxes this year it's not because of a trump policy change. http://fortune.com/2017/12/20/gop-tax-bill-cuts-start/

I'm so humbled here.



Now we can mention the spiraling debt and the massive increase in burn rate as revenues are falling dramatically short of their targets but who cares if your money is worth anything. At least trump will benefit from cheap coastal land from his new real-estate in Trump Puerto Rican Resorts good thing land costs are in a nose dive there eh?

[irontaino]

At least trump will benefit from cheap coastal land from his new real-estate in Trump Puerto Rican Resorts good thing land costs are in a nose dive there eh?

This. He's probably gonna keep ignoring the crisis in Puerto Rico so him and his real estate buddies can buy up the land once property values hit rock bottom and enough people have fled. Trump supporters are unsurprisingly mum on how hard he's failed down there. The Trump administration's handling of the crisis in Puerto Rico is even worse than the Bush administration's handling of Katrina.

[PikeStance]

Sweetie you responded to a reasonable comment with this:
This statement is demonstrably wrong (as established with a simple search on the Senate site, where the fact that the position is debated among legal scholars and more importantly, the politicians entrusted with the power to impeach), you present bald contradiction and vague appeals to authority ("universally rejected" lol [citation needed]) instead of argument and your ad homs are not so much half hearted as thinly veiled, exposing their pink bits like its Mardi Gras in New Orleans.

Its OK to be wrong. I love being wrong. I am wrong on this site all the time and I get caned for it and I thank whoever it was who caned me for correcting me and for helping me learn something. If I thought you were right I'd be thanking you right now.

LOL, sweetie? Your response to my appeal to a real argument from you is another ad hom? This is a perfect example on why participation the Mudpit has been decreasing.

This. He's probably gonna keep ignoring the crisis in Puerto Rico so him and his real estate buddies can buy up the land once property values hit rock bottom and enough people have fled. Trump supporters are unsurprisingly mum on how hard he's failed down there. The Trump administration's handling of the crisis in Puerto Rico is even worse than the Bush administration's handling of Katrina.

So the topic is morally fitness of the presidency. What does Federal response to Katrina have to do with Trump?
So, no one paid any attention to the issues affecting PR, but the minute a Hurricane hits suddenly the customary piss poor response of the federal government is the moral responsibility of whoever is currently president?

[Elfdude]

Yes, the piss poor response of the Executive branch is the responsibility of the Sitting President and to a degree the Party in Power.

Also this is a full magnitude worse than Trump's Response to Texas and Florida, which is several magnitudes worse than the response to Katrina. This is with complete control of the political branches. Also Competence is intrinsically connected to morality, i.e. if someone is known incompetent their shortcomings come from those responsible for their selection, if someone is unknown incompetent their shortcomings extend from either deliberate deception or willful ignorance, if someone is competent their failure is morally their own failing. No matter which way you spin it he doesn't come out looking good nor do his supporters nor does his party.

Perhaps this truth is the basis of your objection?

[PikeStance]

Being Southern I have a natural distaste for the federal government. I seriously doubt any president regardless of affiliation would have done much different. FEMA just sucks! For that matter, the response from the State was equally bad and Governor was a Democrat.

New Orleans is in an especially precarious geographical position. It surrounded by water on all sides (Lakes to the North and Northeast, River, and swamps to the Southeast, South, and West of the city. The only way in and out is through bridges. The I-1o Twin Span was destroyed and Southern Mississippi and the area North of lake Bourne was severely damaged by Katrina. Getting help to the city was not easy and at the time the frustration of the people and mayor was understandable. The situation was made worse is because the levees designed to protect city help contribute to its own downfall in two ways [1] It prevented the overflow of the river which meant the surround swamps which protected city was increasingly disappearing and [2] The levees themselves were poorly constructed and several fatal flaws. The sad thing is WE all knew it. Every year we cross our fingers and hoped that a Hurricane doesn't hit the city in the right way. Sure enough, Katrina did. So, in essence, the US Corps of Engineers and the Levee Boards all failed the city as well. So, when you or anyone else write and said it was Bush's fault I have to laugh. I want to agree because the Federal government and FEMA and any crap the Government can dream up is the problem. The harsh reality is far from obvious political expediency of some media hack reporter who knows very little of the internal policies that failed New Orleans long before any effort could have been made in the first place.

I think what many fail to realize is that New Orleans was not the only place affected. My sister lived in Slidell at the time. Her home had dead fish in it and was destroyed. She lived about a mile from the lake (technically one of the bayous). You could argue the buck stops with the president, but any idiot who happened to be president would have failed New Orleans.

DREW BREES IS THE GOAT!

[fkizz]

1. His roll back of the mandate system allowed me to select my own limited coverage healthcare plan, saving me thousands. My coverage is identical as it would be under Obamacare with a significantly lower premium and deductible. (70%)

2. The job market has exploded, allowing me to seek competitive employment in just about any field relevant to my talents that I want. I've been able to reject certain opportunities in favor of others.

3. My limited stock portfolio has grown more in the last 2 years than it did under 6 in the Obama era

4. I paid less in taxes this year than I have in the past 9 years. Shockingly I am not a millionaire, which is the only group purported to benefit under the tax plan.

These are all very relevant points. We were entering in a weird double-think world in economy;

1) More taxation and more wealth redistribution will fix it
2) More company growth and more incentives to job creation/entrepeneurship are needed

You can't execute 1 and 2 at the same time. There are serious tradeoffs.

And there is the 3) We need to keep up the same trade deals where we are at a trade deficit, and sustaining it with debt

Which hopefully will be adressed soon

[Elfdude]

*snip*

Somehow you failed to address every point. Do you even realize I was comparing FEMA ups to its own ups? Do you even realize FEMA Is an executive agency? Do you even realize that relative to Puerto Rico there is still a full magnitude differentiation?

Your random rant about federal government blah blah blah is hilarious. Trump has done nothing to limit government's outreach. He's also ed the Southern Economy royally with his trade war.

You need to come back to the real world.

[Prodromos]

Interesting article about the extreme viciousness of the anti-Trump "Resistance", and how much damage it may be doing to the country. They're like big babies.

Choice quotes:

On the domestic and foreign fronts, the Trump administration has prompted economic growth and restored U.S. deterrence. Polls show increased consumer confidence, and in some, Trump himself has gained ground. Yet good news is bad news to the Resistance and its strange continued efforts to stop an elected president in a way it failed to do in the 2016 election.

Indeed, the aim of the so-called Resistance to Donald J. Trump is ending Trump’s presidency by any means necessary before the 2020 election. Or, barring that, it seeks to so delegitimize him that he becomes presidentially impotent. It has been only 16 months since Trump took office and, in the spirit of revolutionary fervor, almost everything has been tried to derail him. Now we are entering uncharted territory — at a time when otherwise the country is improving and the legal exposure of Trump’s opponents increases daily.

Next was the sad effort to introduce articles of impeachment. After that came weird attempts to cite Trump for violations of the emoluments clause of the Constitution. That puerile con was followed by plans to declare him deranged and mentally unfit so that he could be removed under the 25th Amendment. From time to time, Obama holdovers in the DOJ, National Security Council, and FBI sought to leak information, or they refused to carry out presidential orders.

...

Trump has left the intelligence community unhinged. John Brennan (“When the full extent of your venality, moral turpitude, and political corruption becomes known, you will take your rightful place as a disgraced demagogue in the dustbin of history. . . . America will triumph over you”) and James Clapper (who called Trump a veritable traitor working for Putin) have both admitted to lying under oath to Congress in the past, and with their present invective, they have discredited the very notion of a Washington intelligence elite. At some point, Mueller’s zealotry will remind federal attorneys that equality under the law demands indictments of those with far greater legal exposure, regardless of the exalted status of Comey, Andrew McCabe, and — in the matter of lying under oath, leaking classified materials, and destroying evidence — John Brennan, James Clapper and Hillary Clinton.

In addition, a media, found to be more than 90 percent negative in its coverage of the Trump administration, sought to delegitimize the president. Journalists declare that disinterested reporting is impossible in the age of Trump — and therefore believe that Stormy Daniels or James Comey’s Dudley Do-Right’s memos are a pathway to accomplish what they are beginning to concede Robert Mueller cannot.

Everything from the NFL to late-night comedy shows have become Trump-hating venues. Almost every sort of smear from scatology to homophobia has been voiced by celebrities to turn Trump into a president deserving such abuse — and worse. Late-night television host Steven Colbert was reduced to incoherent and repellant venom: “You talk like a sign-language gorilla that got hit in the head. In fact, the only thing your mouth is good for is being Vladimir Putin’s holster.” Actor Robert De Niro has become deranged and dreams of pounding on Trump’s face. But then so does former vice president Joe Biden, who on two occasions boasted that Trump is the sort of guy that a younger he-man Biden used to take outside the gym to give a whippin’ to.

Each cycle of hysteria demands another, as the race to the bottom has descended into which celebrity or politician can discover the most provocative — or crude — Trump expletive. “” and “” are now the ordinary vocabulary of angry Democratic politicos and officeholders. Are we reaching a point in the so-far-failed Resistance where little is left except abject violence in the manner of the Roman or French Revolution? The problem for Trump’s pop-culture foes is not whether to imagine or advocate killing the president. That’s a given. They just need to agree on the means of doing so: decapitation (Kathy Griffin), incineration (David Crosby), stabbing (the Shakespeare in the Park troupe), shooting (Snoop Dogg), explosives (Madonna), old-fashioned, Lincoln-style assassination (Johnny Depp), death by elevator (Kamala Harris), hanging (a CSU professor), or simple generic assassination (a Missouri state legislator).

...

Insidiously and incrementally, we are in the process of normalizing violence against the elected president of the United States. If all this fails to delegitimize Trump, fails to destroy his health, or fails to lead to a 2018 midterm Democratic sweep and subsequent impeachment, expect even greater threats of violence. The Resistance and rabid anti-Trumpers have lost confidence in the constitutional framework of elections, and they’ve flouted the tradition by which the opposition allows the in-power party to present its case to the court of public opinion.

Instead, like the French revolutionaries’ Committee on Public Safety, the unhinged anti-Trumpists assume that they have lost public opinion, given their venom and crudity, and are growing desperate as every legal and paralegal means of removing Trump is nearing exhaustion. Robert Mueller is the last chance, a sort of Watergate or Abu Ghraib that could gin up enough furor to drive down Trump’s poll favorability to the twenties and thereby reduce his person to a demonic force deserving of whatever it gets.

After the prior era of hysteria, between 2005 and 2008, when books and docudramas staged the imagined assassination of George W. Bush, and celebrities like Michael Moore and activists such as Cindy Sheehan reduced Bush to the status of a war criminal, the Left in 2009 demanded a return to normal political discourse and comportment, with the election of Barack Obama. A newly contrite and apologetic America was abruptly worth believing in again. In 2009, the CIA and FBI suddenly were reinvented as hallowed agents of change.

Bush careerists, including Clapper and Brennan, were now damning the very counterterrorism practices that they once helped put in place, while offering Obama-like politically correct sermons on the benign nature of Islamism. Surveillance and jailing were appropriate punishments for suspected Obama apostates (ask James Rosen or Nkoula Basseley Nakoula). The IRS was weaponized for use against Obama’s ideological opponents. Suggestions that the president was unfit or worse became near treasonous. Unity was the new patriotism. The assumption was that Obama had ushered in a half-century of progressive norms, not that he so alienated the country that he birthed Donald Trump.

The danger to the country this time around is that the Left has so destroyed the old protocols of the opposition party that it will be hard to resurrect them when progressives return to power.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/...tionary-times/

[Heathen Hammer]

"Resistance", and its outrage of Trump is completely fake and out of touch with reality. Trump's main problem is that his foreign policy towards Russia and Iran is too harsh and "resistance" is... criticizing him for it not being harsh enough. Like nuclear war kind of harsh. Its one thing when you see some senile neocon like Bush senior or McCain spout this, but the notion of elites trying to Frankenstein a fake "popular social movement" that would be promoting neoliberal warhawk agenda is quite laughable and proves that America's elite is just as much out of touch with reality as an average "nevertrumper".

[alhoon]

Jokes apart, I think that if the USA want a world war with Russia and China, they will lose it, because 300 millions Americans can't beat 2 billions human beings, with so many atomic bombs that if Putin wants, the USA could lose 12 millions citizens in less than ten minutes (New York and Los Angeles are nuclear targets in case of war) ..

.. this is why Trump is absolutely crazy, ANYBODY who asks to engage a nuclear war with Russia and China, not only is TOTALLY INSANE, he is also a disgusting criminal, a retarded bastard and a ****ing mass murderer!

The point is that for you, alhoon, Trump was crazy exactly for the same motivations for which I found him a good politician when he wrote that "The only reason for which President Obama wants to attack Syria is to save face over his very dumb RED LINE statement. Do NOT attack Syria, fix USA."; symmetrically, today, for me Turmp must be considered totally out of mind and a serious threat for mankind, because he adopted your same table of contents in terms of foreign policy, that is the highway to WW3.

In any case, I don't complain too much, because on this planet there is still people as Vladimir Putin and President Bashar Al Assad with some still functioning brain cells!

Completely disagree. USA has as many nukes turned on China and Russia as they have of them. Thanks to some smart people, MAD is still in place despite the efforts of tree-huggers. As such, there's no way in hell Russia or China would start a nuclear war.
And USA's military can roll over the Chinese and Russian military easily. It's not the people that would line up and fire a-la Empire Total War. Number and quality of airplanes, aircarriers, missiles and artillery matter. Not the number of rifles.

USA's missiles penetrated Syria's all-lauded and supposedly powerful air defenses like a bullet through cotton. And as a note, it was not a surprise attack. After days of "the missiles are coming" USA told the Syrian regime "OK, we will come in a couple of hours and spank your bottoms raw. Empty these bases to avoid losing people. Or try to stop us, lolz."
And in a couple of hours, as promised USA came in and spanked Assad's bottom raw without breaking a sweat.

So, nooooope. Russia and China cannot beat the USA. They can seriously harm USA's economy, but that's a different matter.

So we have: Guaranteed defeat in conventional WW3 war for Russia and China or very high chance of defeat \ phyrric victory in the case of nuclear war for Russia and China.
No, they won't go that far for Syria.

It is "risky" to meddle because Russia and China may put the screws on USA's economy, support anti-American regimes, engage in troll-wars and help more Trump-likes to come to power etc.