Is Trump Mentally Well Enough to be President?

[YmirGF]

When it is proven in a court of law then I will accept it. I try not to make assumptions based on accusations that are not proven. You know, something like innocent until proven guilty.

Indeed. Allegation versus conviction is not quite the same thing. If convicted, roast him alive.

 

[Falvlun]

When it is proven in a court of law then I will accept it. I try not to make assumptions based on accusations that are not proven. You know, something like innocent until proven guilty.

There's also the ability to critically look at the evidence presented and determine whether you think there's something there or not.

It's amazing how dependent Republicans have become upon authority figures to tell them what to think in the last 6 months. They seem to have completely lost the ability to think for themselves.

 

[Falvlun]

Indeed. Allegation versus conviction is not quite the same thing. If convicted, roast him alive.

That doesn't mean we should ignore everything until it gets through the courts. You can still examine the evidence.

 

[YmirGF]

There's also the ability to critically look at the evidence presented and determine whether you think there's something there or not.

It's amazing how dependent Republicans have become upon authority figures to tell them what to think in the last 6 months. They seem to have completely lost the ability to think for themselves.

And those of us with a functioning brain insist that if there is substance to the allegations, charge him and proceed through the courts. Let them decide his deserved fate. Again, in theory, the US court system is based on the presumption of innocence and fortunately not infected by the court of (uninformed) public opinion.

 

[Falvlun]

And those of us with a functioning brain insist that if there is substance to the allegations, charge him and proceed through the courts. Let them decide his deserved fate. Again, in theory, the US court system is based on the presumption of innocence and fortunately not infected by the court of (uninformed) public opinion.

I'm not saying that we should throw him in jail before a trial.

I am saying that it is possible for anyone to review the evidence and discuss whether the allegation in question is reasonable, or valid, or should be looked further into, or is poorly supported, or is completely made up blather.

It is also possible that something is legal, but morally reprehensible.

This really has nothing to do with innocent until proven guilty. It is merely being willing to look into the allegation itself to see whether you find it reasonable or not. It's a discussion and a debate, you know, the whole point of the forums.

What is your opinion regarding the odd financial issues regarding the Eric Trump Foundation? In your opinion, does it make sense that expenses rose 500% from the year in which they raised the most money? Do you think that it is ethical to divert money that donors expected to go to charity into a for-profit business? Do you think it was appropriate for Trump to use $100,000 of Trump Foundation money to pay for Eric Trump Foundation's use of Trump property?

 

[YmirGF]

What is your opinion regarding the odd financial issues regarding the Eric Trump Foundation? In your opinion, does it make sense that expenses rose 600% from the year in which they raised the most money? Do you think that it is ethical to divert money that donors expected to go to charity into a for-profit business? Do you think it was appropriate for Trump to use $100,000 of Trump Foundation money to pay for Eric Trump Foundation's use of Trump property?

Due to the hyperventilating over all things Trump, this is an area I've yet to investigate. One only has so much free time for trivia, after all. That said, there is a distinct seamy underbelly in the world of Charitable organizations where vast sums often are routinely siphoned off to pay large salaries, massive overheads, wining and dining, etc. Unseemly, but not illegal. Again, if he broke laws. Prosecute.

 

[Stevicus]

That doesn't follow at all.

We're a country which was born of revolution and rebellion, establishing a system of separation of powers and checks and balances precisely because there was an inherent mistrust of the power of government. It was supposed to have been a government "of the people, by the people, and for the people," but somehow, this sentiment has become watered down and the public's faith has also diminished.

This was also something the left brought up during the 60s. The right was largely supportive of the establishment and government, while the left was largely against it. The left was protesting against it, while the right was saying "America - love it or leave it." Many on the left argued that they did love America very deeply, but they only hated what the government was doing. Being able to dissent against government is one of our most closely-guarded and sacred rights, and that's something that can be very pro-American when viewed in that context.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

My mistake "others".

Ya, that is not what I am talking about. I don't care about punctuation or spelling errors. They happen to everyone.

 

[Falvlun]

Due to the hyperventilating over all things Trump, this is an area I've yet to investigate. One only has so much free time for trivia, after all. That said, there is a distinct seamy underbelly in the world of Charitable organizations where vast sums often are routinely siphoned off to pay large salaries, massive overheads, wining and dining, etc. Unseemly, but not illegal. Again, if he broke laws. Prosecute.

I understand that there are a lot of objections to Trump and some are more petty than others. But it is frustrating when one specific objection is brought up, and Trump supporters refuse to even discuss it.

I am starting to agree with you regarding the sliminess that seems to cling to many of these large charitable foundations. Though, even if widespread, it does add to the sleazy character of Trump.

Legally, I think the thing that really raises questions for me is the $100,000 Trump Foundation "donation". As the article mentions, it seems to me a blatant way to launder charitable donations into personal money. We shall see.

 

[YmirGF]

I understand that there are a lot of objections to Trump and some are more petty than others. But it is frustrating when one specific objection is brought up, and Trump supporters refuse to even discuss it.

I am starting to agree with you regarding the sliminess that seems to cling to many of these large charitable foundations. Though, even if widespread, it does add to the sleazy character of Trump.

Legally, I think the thing that really raises questions for me is the $100,000 Trump Foundation "donation". As the article mentions, it seems likely me a blatant way to launder charitable donations into personal money. We shall see.

Hehe. I thought Trump was pretty sleazy 30 years ago... jus' sayin'...

 

[Jeremiahcp]

And those of us with a functioning brain insist that if there is substance to the allegations, charge him and proceed through the courts. Let them decide his deserved fate. Again, in theory, the US court system is based on the presumption of innocence and fortunately not infected by the court of (uninformed) public opinion.

I am sorry, but who was suggesting we skip the courts? I think it is pathetic how desperate you are to criticize the "opposition."

 

[Falvlun]

We're a country which was born of revolution and rebellion, establishing a system of separation of powers and checks and balances precisely because there was an inherent mistrust of the power of government. It was supposed to have been a government "of the people, by the people, and for the people," but somehow, this sentiment has become watered down and the public's faith has also diminished.

This was also something the left brought up during the 60s. The right was largely supportive of the establishment and government, while the left was largely against it. The left was protesting against it, while the right was saying "America - love it or leave it." Many on the left argued that they did love America very deeply, but they only hated what the government was doing. Being able to dissent against government is one of our most closely-guarded and sacred rights, and that's something that can be very pro-American when viewed in that context.

Thank you for the explanation of your statement. I can agree that being anti-government can be pro-America; but I don't see it as absolute, as your original statement seemed to suggest:
"America was founded on the principle of mistrust of government, so to be anti-government is to be pro-America."

Yes, America was founded in overthrowing a tyrannical form of government. Yes, our Founding Fathers were careful to construct a balanced government to ensure that citizens retained control.

But I think that was to make a better form of government, rather than out of some sense that government is inherently bad. If that were the case, then they would have been anarchists.

Yes, there are times we must fight our government in the name of protecting American freedom and principles, but that doesn't mean that being anti-government is always Pro-American. To me, that sets us up to have an unnecessary antagonistic approach to our own government that is ultimately unconstructive.

 

[esmith]

There's also the ability to critically look at the evidence presented and determine whether you think there's something there or not.

It's amazing how dependent Republicans have become upon authority figures to tell them what to think in the last 6 months. They seem to have completely lost the ability to think for themselves.

Hmm, if your opinion was correct it would seem that a number of bills put forth would have been accepted in lockstep and not contested. However, it seems that it is the Democrats that are the ones in lockstep.

 

[esmith]

Ya, that is not what I am talking about. I don't care about punctuation or spelling errors. They happen to everyone.

So what is your objectionable critique of what I wrote? I'm always open for self-improvement; however after 3/4 of a century I'm little set in my ways.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

And just what do you expect to happen?

I'm expecting the investigations to turn up evidence of criminal activity by Trump, assuming that he doesn't resign first to try to put an end to them. If he doesn't resign or isn't declared mentally incapacitated and removed from office on that basis, I expect his party to end his toxic presidency via impeachment. It seems like each month, evidence of another felony surfaces, most recently, blackmail. Add that to obstruction of justice, illegal relations with the Russians, money laundering, and emoluments violations. I expect that there is substance to all of those, but any one by itself will do it.

Revelations are surfacing at an accelerating rate now. Manafort, Page and Flynn have likely already flipped on Trump, Comey will be a problem for Trump, and possibly also Sessions. Much of Trump's inner circle including family members have lawyered up.

Based on the results of the special congressional elections last month, it's looking like the Republicans will lose both houses of Congress in the midterms. If the congressional Republicans running in 2018 are to avoid that fate and keep their jobs, at a minimum, they'll need to turn on Trump, and sooner rather than later. That election is just 16 month away, and Trump's approval rating

He's got all of this going against him. I don't see him surviving it, possibly not even literally. He might well be close to natural death judging by his age, weight, stress level, and endless raging.

 

[Falvlun]

Hmm, if your opinion was correct it would seem that a number of bills put forth would have been accepted in lockstep and not contested. However, it seems that it is the Democrats that are the ones in lockstep.

What does this have to do with republican citizens refusing to review any evidence of Trumpian bad behavior simply because a specific authority figure hasn't told them to believe it yet?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I'd rather have an actual mental health professional/psychiatrist decide such a thing. What we have to go on, Trump could be a very lucky fool or a deceptive mastermind. We are, however, in a much better position to challenge his ability and competency based on things like his shady business dealings and mountain of lawsuits aimed against him. He may not fully understand consequences and morality, or he may just be scheming as a "good capitalist" would do. We also have a better case with him so freely giving out his cell phone number, and the seriously high risk of conflicting interests.
No need to tread into unethical grounds of mental health speculation when we have so much already at hand.

 

[esmith]

As I suggested in another post it would behoove you to read the following
Commentary: An obscure way to oust an American president

 

[Stevicus]

Thank you for the explanation of your statement. I can agree that being anti-government can be pro-America; but I don't see it as absolute, as your original statement seemed to suggest:
"America was founded on the principle of mistrust of government, so to be anti-government is to be pro-America."

Yeah, I can see your point, although I didn't really intend for it to come across as an absolute.

Yes, America was founded in overthrowing a tyrannical form of government. Yes, our Founding Fathers were careful to construct a balanced government to ensure that citizens retained control.

But I think that was to make a better form of government, rather than out of some sense that government is inherently bad. If that were the case, then they would have been anarchists.

I don't think they were anarchists, but in America at the time, a lot of people lived under rural conditions and essentially had to fend for themselves and be self-sufficient. The "government" was someplace far away and somewhat out of touch due to limitations in communication and travel in colonial America.

Yes, there are times we must fight our government in the name of protecting American freedom and principles, but that doesn't mean that being anti-government is always Pro-American. To me, that sets us up to have an unnecessary antagonistic approach to our own government that is ultimately unconstructive.

I believe in the idea that we should "question authority." Some might view government as a "necessary evil" which should be made as benign as possible in order to ensure freedom for the citizenry. Or at the very least, it should be more transparent and accountable to the people. If the people are the government and the government is the people, then favoring the people should be considered pro-American. If the government does something against the people (such as lie or withhold information), then to be anti-government is pro-people, and ultimately, the people are America.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

So what is your objectionable critique of what I wrote? I'm always open for self-improvement; however after 3/4 of a century I'm little set in my ways.

"So what is your objectionable critique of what I wrote?"

Your troglodytic semantics are nothing but a shoddy straw-man. Don't like my choice of words? Oh well, deal with it. However, that does not really matter, as a game of semantic checkers does not actually address the unethical behavior of Crooked Trump and if that is the best gambit you have, then you really have nothing at all. It does not change the fact that money, which was donated to cancer kids, ended up in Crooked Trump's pockets.