What should we say about the minds of Trump’s many vanquished opponents?
President Trump is Psychotic -- Psychiatrist L. Dodes Says
- Thread starter piezoe
- Start date
What should we say about the minds of Trump’s many vanquished opponents?
I would encourage you to read, not the book itself necessarily, but rather Kroll's review of it that I posted. The review goes precisely to the goldwater rule with an in depth discussion. and you, in particular, would will find it interesting, I think.
Trump's mental state and his ability to focus seems to be very rapidly deteriorating. Perhaps it is due to the increased stress he is under, as suggested by a number of psychiatrists and psychologists. Soon, I would think, it might become impossible for his republican colleagues to continue to sweep under the rug what is so obvious to the nation .
We are blazing new ground here, so who knows what will happen. Let's all hope that this situation can be resolved with cooperation from both sides. I fear that partisan politics and our natural human reluctance to admit mistakes will become a stronger force than objectivity. Although the majority is not always right, in the present instance, where laws which speak to the bedrock of our now fragile democracy will be tested, it would be best if our politicians were to listen closely to national majority opinion. Not to do so risks terrible consequences.
We are blazing new ground here, so who knows what will happen. Let's all hope that this situation can be resolved with cooperation from both sides. I fear that partisan politics and our natural human reluctance to admit mistakes will become a stronger force than objectivity. Although the majority is not always right, in the present instance, where laws which speak to the bedrock of our now fragile democracy will be tested, it would be best if our politicians were to listen closely to national majority opinion. Not to do so risks terrible consequences.
Last edited:
They can still follow a train of thought to its conclusion and speak in complete sentences.
Can’t we hold off on this for another six years? It’s not like the walls are closing in, right? Certaintly no bombshell since we’ve known Trump to be crazy for decades, right?
Maybe the Democrats can make a offer the Republicans can’t refuse in exchange for Trump’s Presidency. How about Democrats being held accountable to following rule of law? How about permanent consitutional protections with required enforcement protection to our bill of rights? How about a permanent requirement to limit government spending as a percentage of GDP, with an allowance for strictly defined national emergency exceptions? How about enforcement against media attempts to incite dissention among our population as well as media liability for “reporting” that is not in good faith. How about a legally enforceable requirement that takes politics out of our high schools and colleges as imposed on students by certain teachers? How about the English language being recognized as the official lanugage of the United States? How about voter ID requirements? How about immigration reform?
What’s that? You would rather keep Trump? Thought so.
Edit: Let’s add term limits to the mix.
Last edited:
Not without approved funding, no. But good luck with that.
As long as the Democrats don’t start talking about giving Trump four walls, I can rest easy...
Oh, I'm pretty sure he'll be able to talk himself into those.
Who knows? It could even turn out to be a family affair.
The danger I see immediately ahead is that interpretation of our laws depends heavily on precedent. If we play along to placate those with the loudest, most belligerant voices, we may set a terrible precedent that will come back to haunt us. We are, as I see it, at a crossroad. Do we want to maintain separation of legislative and executive branch powers?, or do we want to vest legislative power in the Executive?
For me personally the answer to that question is clear. So I see it as a matter of survival of the present Republic that the Executive not be allowed to subsume power given by the Constitution only to the legislative branch. If we to allow the President to circumvent the legislative branch solely because the legislature will not give him what he wants, regardless of his arguments, then the President must not, I would think, be allowed to turn the Constitution on its head by declaring an "Emergency". If the legislative branch determines that no true emergency exists, they must block the President's order so as not to set a precedent that might ultimately bring down the republic by subterfuge.
In a true emergency, the legislative branch has not time enough to react, and under those circumstances the President is authorized to take actions and assume responsibilities that are normally given only to the legislative branch. If there is time for Congress to block the Presidents "emergency order," then by definition, no true emergency exists.
No law exists that would allow the President to declare an emergency with regard to the Southern border, regardless of the facts on the ground. The Congress has had years to react legislatively to illegal and legal immigration via our Southern Border. It has done so as it saw fit. Even in the present manufactured crisis, the Congress has had many months to react. That certainly does net meet any definition of the word "emergency."
Do you recall that story of Franklin, possibly apocryphal? He was supposedly asked, " What kind of government is the new nation to have?" He responded, " A Republic Madame, if you can keep it."
"The brevity of that response should not cause us to under-value its essential meaning: democratic republics are not merely founded upon the consent of the people, they are also absolutely dependent upon the active and informed involvement of the people for their continued good health.These are words for all Americans to make note of in this time when the survival of our Republic is being challenged." -- Richard Beeman, Professor of History, University of Pennsylvania
Last edited: