In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
On June 10 2017 08:50 Buckyman wrote: IMO the most likely viable third party scenarios for the near future are: * A Democratic Party split, where the smaller half attracts some typically-Republican voters. * The emergence of a regional party that does not contest the presidential election so that it can focus entirely on state and local elections.
Winning local elections without allies on the larger stage is less effective than being part of one of the two big alliances.
Lone wolf parties are good for protests, not so much for effective governance. It's the same thing as a coalition in Europe.
On June 10 2017 08:22 KwarK wrote: Out of curiousity, are you opposed to the overtime or fiduciary EOs?
I think the overtime EO was an overreach that moderately harmed retail chains, where it actually made work worse for the bottom-level management employees it was supposed to help - although IIRC it was suspended by court order anyway. I don't have enough information on the fiduciary EO.
On June 10 2017 08:30 GreenHorizons wrote: I'm impressed that people managed to convince themselves that they had no choice but to vote for Clinton, and are prepared to vote for the most despicable person they can imagine, so long as someone else can imagine a more despicable one.
That sounds really dumb. But explains why people would vote for the slaaayyyve queen.
Do I need to walk you through the game theory of a FPTP system again? Because I will, but I shouldn't have to.
No. I'm aware of how it works and why we can't join a race to the bottom which you essentially say is inevitable.
Ah yes, and then if enough moral people refuse to participate on moral grounds then the immoral people will just get tired out from all the constant winning they're doing.
No, if people fight for people to see that the party doesn't represent them and that accepting a corporate party that hates you slightly less than the other corporate party is a stupid voting decision and people need to stop trying to make it sound like the only choice because it's actively harming the ability to change it.
Or we could stick with the absurdly stupid plan you and others are offering.
Republicans are running on killing 1000 people this year and Dems 500, gotta vote Dem
Dem's are running on killing 1000 people, but the Republicans are running on killing 1500 gotta vote Dem
Dem's are running on killing 10,000,000, but Republicans are running on killing 11,000,000 gotta vote Dem....
Yeah, and then the Republicans go "wait a second, it looks like people are voting for the Dems because of our plan to kill 11,000,000 people. What if this year we run on killing 9,000,000 and then the Dems will lose". Then the Democrats run on killing 8,000,000 and after a few years we're back to killing nobody. The same system you're inevitably calling a race to the bottom is also a race to the top. Voting for the least bad of the two is also voting for the most good of the two. And if the least bad candidate wins by virtue of being the least bad then the other side is incentivized to run someone even more least bad next time.
Except that's not what's been happening for at least the last 60 years.
Because people do not vote in there own self interest. Its an unusual fact that of the things that affect peoples votes and party affiliation self interest is actually fairly low on the list. If it were higher on the list the parties would be better but America is FAR from a well-informed nation and on both sides (granted at the moment its more on one but both sides are equally vulnerable to it) people do not vote what will be best for them or their families so politicians can get away with pretty much whatever they want.
On June 10 2017 08:41 Nyxisto wrote: No third party is viable in the US. Seriously Democrats need to wake up and understand how power works. In a parliamentary democracy you change things by getting elected and drafting law, not by voting for Jill Stein or kicking trash bins over on a campus.
The people who voted for anyone not named Bernie Sanders have themselves to blame, but the Dems also screwed themselves by being staunch Clinton cronies.
I didnt vote for Bernie because when it came to policy he was basically the lefts Trump. He had a bunch of plans that did not add up on the math but got by with personality and charm. Of the four finalists for president (Cruz Trump Sanders Clinton) Hilary was the only one who had plans which had math add up so in that regard she was the most honest of the bunch and that is a sad commentary of what the final 4 for a presidential primary turned into.
In regards to FPTP system and the inherent problems, this might be a good explanation to some.
Apart from that, someone on reddit seems to have dug up multiple criminal cases where "i hope" lead to a conviction of obstruction (not sure if that sentence make sense as is oO), effectively taking the wind out of the sails of the stupid-naive "well he said i hope, so can't do shit". That'll also be the reason that in case tapes exist, trump will make sure to not release them because effectively he'd open himself to a case where precedents exist.
Sorry if that was mentioned already, don't to what conclusion you came yesterday in regards to "i hope".
On June 10 2017 08:30 GreenHorizons wrote: I'm impressed that people managed to convince themselves that they had no choice but to vote for Clinton, and are prepared to vote for the most despicable person they can imagine, so long as someone else can imagine a more despicable one.
That sounds really dumb. But explains why people would vote for the slaaayyyve queen.
Do I need to walk you through the game theory of a FPTP system again? Because I will, but I shouldn't have to.
No. I'm aware of how it works and why we can't join a race to the bottom which you essentially say is inevitable.
Ah yes, and then if enough moral people refuse to participate on moral grounds then the immoral people will just get tired out from all the constant winning they're doing.
No, if people fight for people to see that the party doesn't represent them and that accepting a corporate party that hates you slightly less than the other corporate party is a stupid voting decision and people need to stop trying to make it sound like the only choice because it's actively harming the ability to change it.
Or we could stick with the absurdly stupid plan you and others are offering.
Republicans are running on killing 1000 people this year and Dems 500, gotta vote Dem
Dem's are running on killing 1000 people, but the Republicans are running on killing 1500 gotta vote Dem
Dem's are running on killing 10,000,000, but Republicans are running on killing 11,000,000 gotta vote Dem....
Yeah, and then the Republicans go "wait a second, it looks like people are voting for the Dems because of our plan to kill 11,000,000 people. What if this year we run on killing 9,000,000 and then the Dems will lose". Then the Democrats run on killing 8,000,000 and after a few years we're back to killing nobody. The same system you're inevitably calling a race to the bottom is also a race to the top. Voting for the least bad of the two is also voting for the most good of the two. And if the least bad candidate wins by virtue of being the least bad then the other side is incentivized to run someone even more least bad next time.
Except that's not what's been happening for at least the last 60 years.
Because people do not vote in there own self interest. Its an unusual fact that of the things that affect peoples votes and party affiliation self interest is actually fairly low on the list. If it were higher on the list the parties would be better but America is FAR from a well-informed nation and on both sides (granted at the moment its more on one but both sides are equally vulnerable to it) people do not vote what will be best for them or their families so politicians can get away with pretty much whatever they want.
Even then, things have gotten better since the late 50s. I know it's hard to believe given Trump but they have. The idea that a two party tactical choice rewards a candidate who is only marginally less bad than the other candidate is true, but the other side of that equation is that it punishes the most bad candidate and encourages both candidates to be marginally less bad than the other one.
It's a positive cycle. It gets a bit wonky when the country can't agree on what bad looks like (wall etc) or doesn't know what bad is due to misinformation (Clinton cash etc) but the theory is still sound overall and the broad trend is upwards.
On June 10 2017 08:30 GreenHorizons wrote: I'm impressed that people managed to convince themselves that they had no choice but to vote for Clinton, and are prepared to vote for the most despicable person they can imagine, so long as someone else can imagine a more despicable one.
That sounds really dumb. But explains why people would vote for the slaaayyyve queen.
Do I need to walk you through the game theory of a FPTP system again? Because I will, but I shouldn't have to.
No. I'm aware of how it works and why we can't join a race to the bottom which you essentially say is inevitable.
Ah yes, and then if enough moral people refuse to participate on moral grounds then the immoral people will just get tired out from all the constant winning they're doing.
No, if people fight for people to see that the party doesn't represent them and that accepting a corporate party that hates you slightly less than the other corporate party is a stupid voting decision and people need to stop trying to make it sound like the only choice because it's actively harming the ability to change it.
Or we could stick with the absurdly stupid plan you and others are offering.
Republicans are running on killing 1000 people this year and Dems 500, gotta vote Dem
Dem's are running on killing 1000 people, but the Republicans are running on killing 1500 gotta vote Dem
Dem's are running on killing 10,000,000, but Republicans are running on killing 11,000,000 gotta vote Dem....
Yeah, and then the Republicans go "wait a second, it looks like people are voting for the Dems because of our plan to kill 11,000,000 people. What if this year we run on killing 9,000,000 and then the Dems will lose". Then the Democrats run on killing 8,000,000 and after a few years we're back to killing nobody. The same system you're inevitably calling a race to the bottom is also a race to the top. Voting for the least bad of the two is also voting for the most good of the two. And if the least bad candidate wins by virtue of being the least bad then the other side is incentivized to run someone even more least bad next time.
Except that's not what's been happening for at least the last 60 years.
Did you miss the part where they stopped shouting about the damn niggers? Or when gays got rights? Things have gotten better over the years because both parties know that if they run candidates as unpopular as their old candidates would be today they will instantly lose. Even Trump is better than Woodrow Wilson for example.
They both realized they could give a little socially to get a lot economically and increased both of their kill numbers in the process. They have mutual interests in giving as many sacrifices to their corporate overlords as they can get and you're counting on the invisible hand keeping them honest.
On June 10 2017 08:41 Nyxisto wrote: No third party is viable in the US. Seriously Democrats need to wake up and understand how power works. In a parliamentary democracy you change things by getting elected and drafting law, not by voting for Jill Stein or kicking trash bins over on a campus.
The people who voted for anyone not named Bernie Sanders have themselves to blame, but the Dems also screwed themselves by being staunch Clinton cronies.
I don't see how people voting for someone other than bernie sanders would have themselves to blame for anything. that seems unfounded without a better backing for it.
On June 10 2017 08:50 Buckyman wrote: IMO the most likely viable third party scenarios for the near future are: * A Democratic Party split, where the smaller half attracts some typically-Republican voters. * The emergence of a regional party that does not contest the presidential election so that it can focus entirely on state and local elections.
the republican party is in more strain; and has shown more signs of being at risk of an actual rupture, than the dems. both do have some chance of doing so in the future; but imho it's a bit stronger/more likely in the Republicans. At least it was last year; haven't read enough assessments of how things have changed party-wise this year.
On June 10 2017 08:30 GreenHorizons wrote: I'm impressed that people managed to convince themselves that they had no choice but to vote for Clinton, and are prepared to vote for the most despicable person they can imagine, so long as someone else can imagine a more despicable one.
That sounds really dumb. But explains why people would vote for the slaaayyyve queen.
Do I need to walk you through the game theory of a FPTP system again? Because I will, but I shouldn't have to.
No. I'm aware of how it works and why we can't join a race to the bottom which you essentially say is inevitable.
Ah yes, and then if enough moral people refuse to participate on moral grounds then the immoral people will just get tired out from all the constant winning they're doing.
No, if people fight for people to see that the party doesn't represent them and that accepting a corporate party that hates you slightly less than the other corporate party is a stupid voting decision and people need to stop trying to make it sound like the only choice because it's actively harming the ability to change it.
Or we could stick with the absurdly stupid plan you and others are offering.
Republicans are running on killing 1000 people this year and Dems 500, gotta vote Dem
Dem's are running on killing 1000 people, but the Republicans are running on killing 1500 gotta vote Dem
Dem's are running on killing 10,000,000, but Republicans are running on killing 11,000,000 gotta vote Dem....
Yeah, and then the Republicans go "wait a second, it looks like people are voting for the Dems because of our plan to kill 11,000,000 people. What if this year we run on killing 9,000,000 and then the Dems will lose". Then the Democrats run on killing 8,000,000 and after a few years we're back to killing nobody. The same system you're inevitably calling a race to the bottom is also a race to the top. Voting for the least bad of the two is also voting for the most good of the two. And if the least bad candidate wins by virtue of being the least bad then the other side is incentivized to run someone even more least bad next time.
Except that's not what's been happening for at least the last 60 years.
Did you miss the part where they stopped shouting about the damn niggers? Or when gays got rights? Things have gotten better over the years because both parties know that if they run candidates as unpopular as their old candidates would be today they will instantly lose. Even Trump is better than Woodrow Wilson for example.
They both realized they could give a little socially to get a lot economically and increased both of their kill numbers in the process.
Medicare, Medicaid, Food Stamps etc, all less than 60 years old.
The Republicans already had their Tea Party crisis and it didn't split the party.
Meanwhile, the Democrats are dealing with hard feelings after their primary - they might be in real trouble as an organization if the "fraudulent primary" lawsuit goes anywhere - and all it'd take to split is for one of their three vocal factions (Green, Social Justice, Public Employee Unions) to realize the other two are acting against their interests.
On June 10 2017 08:41 Nyxisto wrote: No third party is viable in the US. Seriously Democrats need to wake up and understand how power works. In a parliamentary democracy you change things by getting elected and drafting law, not by voting for Jill Stein or kicking trash bins over on a campus.
The people who voted for anyone not named Bernie Sanders have themselves to blame, but the Dems also screwed themselves by being staunch Clinton cronies.
I don't see how people voting for someone other than bernie sanders would have themselves to blame for anything. that seems unfounded without a better backing for it.
I meant voting for Jill Stein and the other guy. And also Harambe. Those people.
Hey, Trump committed to upholding article 5 under NATO. If I understand correctly, that means he's promising to defend our allies if they're attacked. Who talked a little sense into him?
On June 10 2017 09:15 ChristianS wrote: Hey, Trump committed to upholding article 5 under NATO. If I understand correctly, that means he's promising to defend our allies if they're attacked. Who talked a little sense into him?
On June 10 2017 09:04 Buckyman wrote: The Republicans already had their Tea Party crisis and it didn't split the party.
Meanwhile, the Democrats are dealing with hard feelings after their primary - they might be in real trouble as an organization if the "fraudulent primary" lawsuit goes anywhere - and all it'd take to split is for one of their three vocal factions (Green, Social Justice, Public Employee Unions) to realize the other two are acting against their interests.
the republican tea party crisis is still ongoing; it's hardly over. the strain is still VERY present; and still risks a break (though realignment is more likely than a break).
The dems also do have a lot of hard feelings. but that's more that one primary than the ongoing issues the tea party base raised for republicans. Sure there's always the differences about hard to go after various things, but that applies to all parties fairly similarly.
your claim that the factions are acting against each others interests is unfounded, and basically false; those aren't issues with so high an intersection as to require opposition. and at any rate, the republicans also have factions that fight each other a lot too, so no real difference between the parties there. and that could, from a certain perspective, be fighting against each others interests.
On June 09 2017 14:20 ChristianS wrote: Here's where I think conservatives are crazy to be celebrating about the hearings: their cause for celebration is that we didn't see smoking gun evidence of collusion or obstruction of justice. That's an insanely low bar. It wasn't even that the accusations were dropped or disproven. We know pretty much the same stuff we knew before, but some stuff we know more certainly (i.e. confirmed directly from Comey rather than anonymous sources), some stuff we know in more detail (e.g. "honest loyalty"), and some more explosive allegations didn't happen (e.g. "Comey sez Trump threatened his wife if he didn't burn the evidence"). If anyone thought this would be resolved after today, they were wrong.
If Trump's guilty, that's very good news for Trump. If he's not, that's bad news for Trump. Because if it was resolved, he could put this behind him, but with the water still murky, this promises to drag on a great deal longer. Liberals and some conservatives will say there's enough evidence of wrongdoing, conservatives will say there's not, and the stalemate will lead to more investigation, which will mean it will return to the foreground again and again and again.
It's like the emails last year. It wasn't just about how bad the scandal was, it was the longevity of the story. That one scandal dominated coverage for basically the entire year, whereas a lot of other big scandals fell out of the news cycle and didn't have such a big impact on the election. The Khan thing, Judge Curiel, even the Access Hollywood tape had a big impact on the polls when they landed, and then faded away, whereas the emails kept coming up again and again (with one last hit in the form of the Comey letter).
That's what this scandal is for Trump - and with Comey's testimony, he can't even deflect to criticizing the media at the moment. His accuser is James Comey, who's got about as good a reputation as anybody can have right now. Trump's advocates aren't even bothering to argue why what he did was good or just or proper. The best they can argue is that based solely on the actions described Trump can't quite be convicted of a felony.
Yes this is celebrating with a very low bar. Quick reminder that even his supporters in this thread have very little good to hope for from the man (on the whole), so I'll take the good I can get. A lot of that is at the margins ... I'll break out the good stuff if he doesn't squander this in tweeting by the end of the week.
if you have little hope, wouldn't it be better to just invoke article 25 and remove him, so you can have Pence who can get in some actual progress for your goals?
The 25th amendment (the relevant part of that amendment) should only serve for medical incapacitation e.g. stroke and not a political device.
certainly it's best for a stroke; but there's ground enough to claim (mild) insanity here, shaky grounds of course, but enough to provide plausible cover. it's not purely a political device; there is grounds enough present to fit the wording of the amendment. especially by the standards trump would use At any rate, it's far easier to do than an impeachment. main point is that your legislative goals would be far greater accomplished if you ditch trump and bring in pence. also, this is politics; should doesn't count for much. If should mattered, then Trump shouldn't have been president, period. yet here we are.
Nah, it's more just people who see Trump behaving like Trump. I see a continuum of bad behavior and no suggestion of insanity. If Democrats take back the house under Republican scandal, I'm expecting impeachment proceedings.
trump behaving like trump does not preclude insanity. Clinical narcissism is indicated of course; and there's numerous times where he asserts things that are blatantly false/directly contradicted by evidence. It's quite mild of course, but it's enough to argue an inability to see reality/mental illness. it doesn't remotely compare to the far more serious cases of mental illness; it's just enough to provide a (weak) cover story for an otherwise political action. it also depends whether "insanity" includes mild mental illness or not.
I'm also against using these pop-psych medical assertions as cover for improper use of the 25th amendment. Pence nor Trump's cabinet is stupid enough to even consider it. But enough of this dreaming to be honest. It's about as distasteful as wishing Trump to suffer a stroke in office.
it's not pop-psych, it's actual psych. not my fault if you don't care about actual medical science. calling it pop-psych is your own bias speaking; it's just a word you're using to dismiss a sound point. I know it's a less than proper use for the 25th amendment; I stated as much. It's also not completely out of line; just a major stretch (probably less stretched than the commerce clause is though).
It's too bad there isn't a better system for simply removing a grossly unfit president.
calling it as distasteful as wishing death on someone is ENTIRELY wrong adn unjustified; SHAME on you for making such an unfounded assertion and backhanded insult. It's hoping that someone unfit for office is removed from office so they stop harming the country more than they already have. Pence's cabinet will consider it; they'd likely only do it in VERY extreme circumstances though; they'd rather he be impeached than take the heat for removing him.
i am fairly confident that you are mentally ill, slefin: flat affect, lack of empathy, cathexis on insignificant minutiae, pathological avoidance of capital letters, delusions of grandeur. it's all there. maybe you should have a warning label on all your posts
On June 09 2017 14:20 ChristianS wrote: Here's where I think conservatives are crazy to be celebrating about the hearings: their cause for celebration is that we didn't see smoking gun evidence of collusion or obstruction of justice. That's an insanely low bar. It wasn't even that the accusations were dropped or disproven. We know pretty much the same stuff we knew before, but some stuff we know more certainly (i.e. confirmed directly from Comey rather than anonymous sources), some stuff we know in more detail (e.g. "honest loyalty"), and some more explosive allegations didn't happen (e.g. "Comey sez Trump threatened his wife if he didn't burn the evidence"). If anyone thought this would be resolved after today, they were wrong.
If Trump's guilty, that's very good news for Trump. If he's not, that's bad news for Trump. Because if it was resolved, he could put this behind him, but with the water still murky, this promises to drag on a great deal longer. Liberals and some conservatives will say there's enough evidence of wrongdoing, conservatives will say there's not, and the stalemate will lead to more investigation, which will mean it will return to the foreground again and again and again.
It's like the emails last year. It wasn't just about how bad the scandal was, it was the longevity of the story. That one scandal dominated coverage for basically the entire year, whereas a lot of other big scandals fell out of the news cycle and didn't have such a big impact on the election. The Khan thing, Judge Curiel, even the Access Hollywood tape had a big impact on the polls when they landed, and then faded away, whereas the emails kept coming up again and again (with one last hit in the form of the Comey letter).
That's what this scandal is for Trump - and with Comey's testimony, he can't even deflect to criticizing the media at the moment. His accuser is James Comey, who's got about as good a reputation as anybody can have right now. Trump's advocates aren't even bothering to argue why what he did was good or just or proper. The best they can argue is that based solely on the actions described Trump can't quite be convicted of a felony.
Yes this is celebrating with a very low bar. Quick reminder that even his supporters in this thread have very little good to hope for from the man (on the whole), so I'll take the good I can get. A lot of that is at the margins ... I'll break out the good stuff if he doesn't squander this in tweeting by the end of the week.
if you have little hope, wouldn't it be better to just invoke article 25 and remove him, so you can have Pence who can get in some actual progress for your goals?
The 25th amendment (the relevant part of that amendment) should only serve for medical incapacitation e.g. stroke and not a political device.
certainly it's best for a stroke; but there's ground enough to claim (mild) insanity here, shaky grounds of course, but enough to provide plausible cover. it's not purely a political device; there is grounds enough present to fit the wording of the amendment. especially by the standards trump would use At any rate, it's far easier to do than an impeachment. main point is that your legislative goals would be far greater accomplished if you ditch trump and bring in pence. also, this is politics; should doesn't count for much. If should mattered, then Trump shouldn't have been president, period. yet here we are.
Nah, it's more just people who see Trump behaving like Trump. I see a continuum of bad behavior and no suggestion of insanity. If Democrats take back the house under Republican scandal, I'm expecting impeachment proceedings.
trump behaving like trump does not preclude insanity. Clinical narcissism is indicated of course; and there's numerous times where he asserts things that are blatantly false/directly contradicted by evidence. It's quite mild of course, but it's enough to argue an inability to see reality/mental illness. it doesn't remotely compare to the far more serious cases of mental illness; it's just enough to provide a (weak) cover story for an otherwise political action. it also depends whether "insanity" includes mild mental illness or not.
I'm also against using these pop-psych medical assertions as cover for improper use of the 25th amendment. Pence nor Trump's cabinet is stupid enough to even consider it. But enough of this dreaming to be honest. It's about as distasteful as wishing Trump to suffer a stroke in office.
it's not pop-psych, it's actual psych. not my fault if you don't care about actual medical science. calling it pop-psych is your own bias speaking; it's just a word you're using to dismiss a sound point. I know it's a less than proper use for the 25th amendment; I stated as much. It's also not completely out of line; just a major stretch (probably less stretched than the commerce clause is though).
It's too bad there isn't a better system for simply removing a grossly unfit president.
calling it as distasteful as wishing death on someone is ENTIRELY wrong adn unjustified; SHAME on you for making such an unfounded assertion and backhanded insult. It's hoping that someone unfit for office is removed from office so they stop harming the country more than they already have. Pence's cabinet will consider it; they'd likely only do it in VERY extreme circumstances though; they'd rather he be impeached than take the heat for removing him.
i am fairly confident that you are mentally ill, slefin: flat affect, lack of empathy, cathexis on insignificant minutiae, pathological avoidance of capital letters, delusions of grandeur. it's all there. maybe you should have a warning label on all your posts
i'm not sure what your point is here. it seems unsound, and dumb at any rate. also unhelpful and trollish.
On June 10 2017 09:04 Buckyman wrote: all it'd take to split is for one of their three vocal factions (Green, Social Justice, Public Employee Unions) to realize the other two are acting against their interests.
your claim that the factions are acting against each others interests is unfounded, and basically false; those aren't issues with so high an intersection as to require opposition.
Did I misinterpret Black Lives Matter? I thought what happened there was basically Social Justice (Black) vs. Public Union (Police) where the movement got nothing done because the party mostly sided with the public union.
On June 10 2017 09:15 ChristianS wrote: Hey, Trump committed to upholding article 5 under NATO. If I understand correctly, that means he's promising to defend our allies if they're attacked. Who talked a little sense into him?
Theresa May.
No one listens to her. Let alone Trump. We know you are a conservative and we know May needs all the positive talk she can get now. But all she is is someone who is in cahoots with Islamic terrorists after her own people were brutally attacked. She promises to give the terrorists exactly what they want. She is a despicable person.
And after the May failure, UK is ready for a Trump type. I mean, what else can the right wing do? Vote for a left wing version of Corbyn? They won't. They will revert to the right wing even more, after seeing their 'moderate' right wing politicians fail.
On June 09 2017 14:42 Danglars wrote: [quote] Yes this is celebrating with a very low bar. Quick reminder that even his supporters in this thread have very little good to hope for from the man (on the whole), so I'll take the good I can get. A lot of that is at the margins ... I'll break out the good stuff if he doesn't squander this in tweeting by the end of the week.
if you have little hope, wouldn't it be better to just invoke article 25 and remove him, so you can have Pence who can get in some actual progress for your goals?
The 25th amendment (the relevant part of that amendment) should only serve for medical incapacitation e.g. stroke and not a political device.
certainly it's best for a stroke; but there's ground enough to claim (mild) insanity here, shaky grounds of course, but enough to provide plausible cover. it's not purely a political device; there is grounds enough present to fit the wording of the amendment. especially by the standards trump would use At any rate, it's far easier to do than an impeachment. main point is that your legislative goals would be far greater accomplished if you ditch trump and bring in pence. also, this is politics; should doesn't count for much. If should mattered, then Trump shouldn't have been president, period. yet here we are.
Nah, it's more just people who see Trump behaving like Trump. I see a continuum of bad behavior and no suggestion of insanity. If Democrats take back the house under Republican scandal, I'm expecting impeachment proceedings.
trump behaving like trump does not preclude insanity. Clinical narcissism is indicated of course; and there's numerous times where he asserts things that are blatantly false/directly contradicted by evidence. It's quite mild of course, but it's enough to argue an inability to see reality/mental illness. it doesn't remotely compare to the far more serious cases of mental illness; it's just enough to provide a (weak) cover story for an otherwise political action. it also depends whether "insanity" includes mild mental illness or not.
I'm also against using these pop-psych medical assertions as cover for improper use of the 25th amendment. Pence nor Trump's cabinet is stupid enough to even consider it. But enough of this dreaming to be honest. It's about as distasteful as wishing Trump to suffer a stroke in office.
it's not pop-psych, it's actual psych. not my fault if you don't care about actual medical science. calling it pop-psych is your own bias speaking; it's just a word you're using to dismiss a sound point. I know it's a less than proper use for the 25th amendment; I stated as much. It's also not completely out of line; just a major stretch (probably less stretched than the commerce clause is though).
It's too bad there isn't a better system for simply removing a grossly unfit president.
calling it as distasteful as wishing death on someone is ENTIRELY wrong adn unjustified; SHAME on you for making such an unfounded assertion and backhanded insult. It's hoping that someone unfit for office is removed from office so they stop harming the country more than they already have. Pence's cabinet will consider it; they'd likely only do it in VERY extreme circumstances though; they'd rather he be impeached than take the heat for removing him.
i am fairly confident that you are mentally ill, slefin: flat affect, lack of empathy, cathexis on insignificant minutiae, pathological avoidance of capital letters, delusions of grandeur. it's all there. maybe you should have a warning label on all your posts
i'm not sure what your point is here. it seems unsound, and dumb at any rate. also unhelpful and trollish.
im glad you didnt dispute my diagnosis. admittedly it is only a mild mental illness
EPT
