• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Cont: The Trump Presidency IX: Nein, Nein!

Status
Not open for further replies.
BobTheCoward said:
Let's try to enforce the 25th amendment in good faith. It says "unable"

Suppose a teenager is required to wash dishes. Instead, the child plays video games instead. Like most teenagers, they are narcissistic and think dishes are below them. I don't think people would describe that situation as unable to do dishes.
Click to expand...

I'm not addressing the 25th. I'm addressing your silly post to LSSBB. As I said, one would hope he wasn't happy with the way Trump handled it. I would hope everyone of conscious would be unhappy with it.
 
Foolmewunz said:
I'm not addressing the 25th. I'm addressing your silly post to LSSBB. As I said, one would hope he wasn't happy with the way Trump handled it. I would hope everyone of conscious would be unhappy with it.
Click to expand...

I know you were not addressing it. I used your post as a jumping off point.
 
LSSBB said:
I am not making the decision. What I like or don't like is unimportant. I am merely highlighting a path.
Click to expand...

Okay. In a less pithy answer, he addressed Russia and fulfilled his duties. Someone not liking how he didn't doesn't change the fact he possessed the ability to address it.
 
Fast Eddie B said:
Still wondering if any administration officials have used the word “lodestar” in their writings, or if this is a red herring.
Click to expand...

Pence has a habit of using it. No instances have been found by anybody I've seen who has looked of anybody else in the administration of ever having said it.

However, it's possible it was deliberately put in there in order to throw off suspicion from the real author.
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
Pence has a habit of using it. No instances have been found by anybody I've seen who has looked of anybody else in the administration of ever having said it.

However, it's possible it was deliberately put in there in order to throw off suspicion from the real author.
Click to expand...

Or pence doesn't write his speeches.
 
BobTheCoward said:
Okay. In a less pithy answer, he addressed Russia and fulfilled his duties. Someone not liking how he didn't doesn't change the fact he possessed the ability to address it.
Click to expand...

For the person making the decision, the criteria is whether he was able to adequately defend the nation in response to a proven and ongoing threat by how his NPD caused him to prioritize feelings about the legitimacy of his election over the needs of the nation to be secure in its borders from an external threat.

This is a path that I see can be taken by those employing the 25th amendment to legitimize their actions.

Aside from whether there is political support for this path, or whether you or anyone feels it it is right beyond the Supreme Court, it is one that can be taken.
 
Last edited:
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
Pence has a habit of using it. No instances have been found by anybody I've seen who has looked of anybody else in the administration of ever having said it.

However, it's possible it was deliberately put in there in order to throw off suspicion from the real author.
Click to expand...

If the author has at least two working brain cells, they must have known that this letter would be closely scrutinized. Putting in one or more red herrings would help protect their identity and spread maximum paranoia and dysfunction in the white house.

Hell, if this "resistance" is as widespread as implied, multiple authors may be in play here.
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
Yeah, I also pretty much agree with the first portion of his tweet. The ethical option for these people would to resign in protest and publicly oppose the president.

They are trying to thread the needle of keeping hold of the reigns of power via Trump while undercutting aspects of his presidency they find objectionable. Not exactly noble. It brings me comfort that Trump is actively being stymied by his own administration, but it doesn't reflect well on anyone involved on a personal level.
Click to expand...

And the problem is, Congressmen like Rubio are the constitutional check on an unfit or corrupt presidency, so he's basically just condemned his own behavior and at least pretending he didn't notice it.
 
LSSBB said:
For the person making the decision, the criteria is whether he was ably to adequately defend the nation in response to a proven and ongoing threat by how his NPD caused him to prioritize feelings about the legitimacy of his election over the needs of the nation to be secure in its borders from an external threat.
Click to expand...

Nowhere does it say the duties of the president need to be performed adequately.. In assessing ability, adequacy is not legitimately up for debate
 
Mumbles said:
And the problem is, Congressmen like Rubio are the constitutional check on an unfit or corrupt presidency, so he's basically just condemned his own behavior and at least pretending he didn't notice it.
Click to expand...

yeah, we have a total inversion of roles. Congressmen act like they are duty bound to support the president while executive branch staffers are the ones checking the worst abuses of the president. We're really playing calvinball now.
 
BobTheCoward said:
Nowhere does it say the duties of the president need to be performed adequately.. In assessing ability, adequacy is not legitimately up for debate
Click to expand...
I refuse to get in a debate with you about what "able" means, and how mental health renders one able or unable. Neither of us are neurologists, and I find a philosophical debate of the meaning of "unable" to be a waste of my time.
 
LSSBB said:
I refuse to get in a debate with you about what "able" means, and how mental health renders one able or unable. Neither of us are neurologists, and I find a philosophical debate of the meaning of "unable" to be a waste of my time.
Click to expand...

The cabinet, who are also not neurologists, are being asked to confront the question. That is why I find it interesting.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
It looks like it - from the published donations of the Trump Foundation in 1989, it donated $7 to the Boy Scouts. Journalists have tried to find out what it was for - the Boy Scouts didn't know, and none of the cookie packs cost that little.
The only $7 item available that year was a membership - and Donald Jr. (not Barron) became a Boy Scout that year.
Click to expand...

Wow, that's... I'm speechless.
 
Minoosh said:
This may be the actual thinking but the cabal wants to have it both ways. "He's not capable of doing the job, but we are, so don't be afraid to vote Republican in the midterms!"

Brilliant strategy or Hail Mary?
Click to expand...

Trying for a book deal, and realizes that that only works for the first couple of people, maybe. Who knows. All I can say is that it's not really brilliant, although the writer(s) may think it is.

Thing is, this is pretty much what an administration does when forced to have someone unfit at the helm. At the best, the President gives general direction, takes advise, and receives high-level reports on how things are going, what emergencies there are, and the like. Particulars get delegated in good faith.

Here, we have things being delegated in bad faith. This is what happens when you elect a bigoted mobbed-up narcissist who couldn't run a halloween store in the local mall through the holiday. Since he, unlike Obama/GWB/Clinton/GHWB, is manifestly unfit, the administration putters along and tries to sideline him. And he likely doesn't realize much of what's happening because, again, he's manifestly unfit.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom