Donald Trumpy Mentally Unfit Declared by US doctors

[Jungibaaz]

The UK does not have a written Constitution, but USA does. That is a key difference. Both countries still have many safeguards against the rise of fascism, given that their societies, despite popular diatribes here on PDF, basically remain open and fair. That is the best inoculation by far.

The Weimar Republic had many checks and balances against tyranny too, and also a very well written constitution. They had multiple forms of representation, the President was elected by the people, the Reichstag was by PR, and the Reichsrat was based on regions, and the constitution was extensive, the only weaknesses were Article 48 that allowed too much power to the President and the weird power structure between Chancellor and President. But Hitler had no issues undermining all of it through the Enabling Act that included getting rid of things as fundamental as habeus corpus.

Look, obviously we aren't where Weimar Germany was, but our democracies are functioning properly anymore. They're functioning more like oligarchies in practice, if not in name. And when times are tough people will abandon the establishment in droves for an alternative. So while I'm not claiming a Hitler reincarnate is about to rise up in either case. There is a threat of further deterioration of the current climate that could pave the way for a fascist.

Right now, with Brexit, I see people who voted leave who seem gleeful about the prospect of the collapse of the EU. Without a care for what damage it will do to their pocket, and more importantly what kind of a political climate a stagflationairy and deflationary Europe will develop as a result.

You're right to say that checks and balances are essential, that they're not just the reason for the success of nations but also insurance policies on what could occur during the worst of times. I'm saying we've not had it this bad in our countries in a while, and these safeguards aren't there to make us complacent.

 

[schoolboy]

Also, I'm not implying that he should be hospitalized. Just that he does not have the temperament to be President (unlike George W. Bush).

Then we agree that there's a big gap between 'mentally unfit' as these newspapers cry and 'lacking temperament'

Because so many of his businesses have failed. Please look through the whole list.

I'm not sure how someone who ran up massive losses in a variety of different companies (they were not making money) that eventually went under can be considered a very successful businessman. I'm not sure if anyone would agree with your definition. Again, enriching one's self (while your companies are losing money) should not confused with business acumen.

I am simply putting a before and after set of facts and saying that a man who went from dire straits in 1995 to $3.xx bn net worth in 2016 (without running afoul of the law) is, in my book, a successful businessman. As of today there is no charge of embezzlement or self-dealing against him (no mean feat in litigation friendly america) and certainly such a record is not something a mentally unfit person could have accomplished.

This is simply incorrect. The Electoral College was established to prevent people from directly voting for President. In those days the people could not even vote for their Senators directly. The Electors were seen as a buffer between the common people, and could potentially not follow what the people voted for.

Voting for the electoral college (or any other post) is governed by state law, not federal. In the early elections even women had no voting rights. Some states adopted direct elections sooner than others. Having a electoral college did not in any way affect the way individual states would choose as the process for electing / appointing the electors. Even today any state can legally change its law and go back to an indirect appointment of the electors of that state.

I repeat, the Electoral College does not protect small states. Not at all.

I see your article quotes Amar - that's interesting because I currently have a course with him (not name dropping here - please excuse if it seems that way).

Amar's theory [and I have to say it is not a mainstream theory - which he himself has acknowledged] still relies on the understanding of slave states as unpopulous because slaves were not granted voting rights. Viewed from that perspective the electoral college protected them and the 3/5 compromise attempted to compensate for any benefit they received [due to the electoral college].

Whatever the cause there's no denying that the college was in place to counter the effects of direct democracy.

Take the 2016 election. You've posted some stats on how someone could become POTUS by 'merely' winning 11 states with the current electoral college (as a means of showing that they can still ignore less populous states).
Well consider this - Clinton won California by 4.2 mn votes and NY by 1.6 mn votes - a combined total of 5.8 mn. Now excluding these two states Trump beat Clinton by 3 mn votes. In other words if there was no electoral college Clinton could have won the presidency by virtue of massive margins in those two states alone (out of 50). That's what the college is there to prevent.

my point was only that business record cannot be used to deflect his poor temperament and erratic behavior as President.

And my point is that his business record proves he's not mentally unfit.

 

[VCheng]

The Weimar Republic had many checks and balances against tyranny too, and also a very well written constitution. They had multiple forms of representation, the President was elected by the people, the Reichstag was by PR, and the Reichsrat was based on regions, and the constitution was extensive, the only weaknesses were Article 48 that allowed too much power to the President and the weird power structure between Chancellor and President. But Hitler had no issues undermining all of it through the Enabling Act that included getting rid of things as fundamental as habeus corpus.

Look, obviously we aren't where Weimar Germany was, but our democracies are functioning properly anymore. They're functioning more like oligarchies in practice, if not in name. And when times are tough people will abandon the establishment in droves for an alternative. So while I'm not claiming a Hitler reincarnate is about to rise up in either case. There is a threat of further deterioration of the current climate that could pave the way for a fascist.

Right now, with Brexit, I see people who voted leave who seem gleeful about the prospect of the collapse of the EU. Without a care for what damage it will do to their pocket, and more importantly what kind of a political climate a stagflationairy and deflationary Europe will develop as a result.

You're right to say that checks and balances are essential, that they're not just the reason for the success of nations but also insurance policies on what could occur during the worst of times. I'm saying we've not had it this bad in our countries in a while, and these safeguards aren't there to make us complacent.

Well said. The freedoms that we presently enjoy need constant effort to maintain, undoubtedly. Complacency would be deadly, as you opine, and I agree. ACLU received 24 millions dollars in donations the day after Trump issued his Executive Order on immigration, and how the courts acted does give me some satisfaction that the system is healthy, at least for the time being. Even Trump could see that appealing to the Supreme Court may not work, so now let's see what he comes up on the subject soon, as he has indicated. What happens after that will give us another test of how robust the system remains, or not. The next four years will be trying indeed, and not just for us dumb Murrikans.

 

[XDescendantX]

Now I see why Trump and Modi get along so well. They're both mentally unstable.

 

[schoolboy]

Now I see why Trump and Modi get along so well. They're both mentally unstable.

But...but...I thought Nawaz was Trump's first international bestie after that fantastic telephone call, no ? Absolutely Terrific relation they have. Amazing even.

 

[LA se Karachi]

I am simply putting a before and after set of facts and saying that a man who went from dire straits in 1995 to $3.xx bn net worth in 2016 (without running afoul of the law) is, in my book, a successful businessman. As of today there is no charge of embezzlement or self-dealing against him (no mean feat in litigation friendly america) and certainly such a record is not something a mentally unfit person could have accomplished.

Well my point is that he, by and large, is an unimpressive businessman. My point was never that he was "mentally unstable"---but that's an incredibly low standard for a President.

Voting for the electoral college (or any other post) is governed by state law, not federal. In the early elections even women had no voting rights. Some states adopted direct elections sooner than others. Having a electoral college did not in any way affect the way individual states would choose as the process for electing / appointing the electors. Even today any state can legally change its law and go back to an indirect appointment of the electors of that state.

Yes, but the point was that the electors have the ability to cast their votes as they see fit.

I see your article quotes Amar - that's interesting because I currently have a course with him (not name dropping here - please excuse if it seems that way).

Amar's theory [and I have to say it is not a mainstream theory - which he himself has acknowledged] still relies on the understanding of slave states as unpopulous because slaves were not granted voting rights. Viewed from that perspective the electoral college protected them and the 3/5 compromise attempted to compensate for any benefit they received [due to the electoral college].

Are you an undergraduate or a law student?

Whatever the cause there's no denying that the college was in place to counter the effects of direct democracy.

Correct.

Take the 2016 election. You've posted some stats on how someone could become POTUS by 'merely' winning 11 states with the current electoral college (as a means of showing that they can still ignore less populous states).

Well consider this - Clinton won California by 4.2 mn votes and NY by 1.6 mn votes - a combined total of 5.8 mn. Now excluding these two states Trump beat Clinton by 3 mn votes. In other words if there was no electoral college Clinton could have won the presidency by virtue of massive margins in those two states alone (out of 50). That's what the college is there to prevent.

Yes, but you are comparing it to the popular vote in this particular election.

This is what you wrote, and it is what I take issue with:

...ignoring smaller sparsely-populated ones

So I responded: "And no, it does not protect smaller states at all. It only gives an out-sized influence to "swing states." My point still stands.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

@Jungibaaz - Sir, don't you feel that this thread belongs in the Americas section? I'm not sure what it's doing here.

 

[schoolboy]

Yes, but the point was that the electors have the ability to cast their votes as they see fit.

Not fair - you're just shifting the goal post. Well, the answer is complicated - electors have flexibility determined by state law (similar to how state law governs their elections/appointment). I'm copying a small bit of the Wikipedia article on Faithless Electors - it's accurate.

Twenty-one states do not have laws compelling their electors to vote for a pledged candidate.Twenty-nine states plus the District of Columbia have laws to penalize faithless electors, although these have never been enforced.In lieu of penalizing a faithless elector, some states, such as Michigan and Minnesota, specify the faithless elector's vote is void.

Are you an undergraduate or a law student?

Law, and now history.

Yes, but you are comparing it to the popular vote in this particular election.

Actually I used this election to demonstrate the effect of direct democracy. In theory, in direct democracy even a large enough win in one very populous state (like California) would be enough to send a candidate to the WH (Clinton nearly did that with two states). [since you used the theoretical 11-states to WH route to attempt to prove that the electoral college cannot protect smaller states.]

Obviously the college cannot put Maine as the equal of California but to the extent it still makes it necessary for a candidate to win at least 11 states, its a good check on direct democracy whereunder that theoretical minimum is one state.

 

[LA se Karachi]

Not fair - you're just shifting the goal post. Well, the answer is complicated - electors have flexibility determined by state law (similar to how state law governs their elections/appointment). I'm copying a small bit of the Wikipedia article on Faithless Electors - it's accurate.

Twenty-one states do not have laws compelling their electors to vote for a pledged candidate.Twenty-nine states plus the District of Columbia have laws to penalize faithless electors, although these have never been enforced.In lieu of penalizing a faithless elector, some states, such as Michigan and Minnesota, specify the faithless elector's vote is void.

I'm well aware of that. Keep in mind that these laws were not in place when the first elections were held. Many states have since enacted laws that penalize faithless electors. However, even now they can cast their vote as they see fit in those states, if they are willing to risk punishment. The power is still there. You bring up Michigan and Minnesota, but their laws are legally dubious. If they were challenged, it's likely that the Supreme Court would rule them to be unconstitutional.

In any case, my point was simply that the electoral college was used to further dilute direct democracy---a point we seem to agree on (and to increase the clout of slave states).

Law, and now history.

Graduate student? Are you an international student, or were you raised here?

Actually I used this election to demonstrate the effect of direct democracy. In theory, in direct democracy even a large enough win in one very populous state (like California) would be enough to send a candidate to the WH (Clinton nearly did that with two states). [since you used the theoretical 11-states to WH route to attempt to prove that the electoral college cannot protect smaller states.]

Obviously the college cannot put Maine as the equal of California but to the extent it still makes it necessary for a candidate to win at least 11 states, its a good check on direct democracy whereunder that theoretical minimum is one state.

I agree on that. What I disagree with is the statement you made in one of your earlier posts when you said that it prevents nominees from "ignoring smaller sparsely-populated ones". That's not true. It forces them to focus on "swing" states. You are still fixated on comparing it with the popular vote, I am not. Obviously there are significant differences between the two systems, or the difference in results would not have happened five times. But that's not my issue.

Let me put together another example:

Let's say that hypothetically a Republican candidate (far more popular than Trump) wins almost all of the small, rural mostly White states by huge margins (something like 35+ states). The Democratic candidate, on the other hand, wins the big states and coastal states by small margins. The Republican candidate wins the popular vote by a few percentage points, but the Democratic candidate wins the Electoral College. Did that "protect" the smaller states? No.

 

[schoolboy]

it's likely that the Supreme Court would rule them to be unconstitutional

That depends entirely on the composition of the court. Till date the court has struck down election laws only on grounds of subs. due process - inequality, civil rights, etc. Striking down an elector law in MN would require, IMO, plenty of second guessing and conjecturing that I think is unlikely even for Ginsberg.

Graduate student? Are you an international student, or were you raised here?

Grad, now doctoral, close to those letters. Sadly int'l so these 9 yrs (including a few on PQE) get me no closer to LPR status...but I'm working on it.

Let's say that hypothetically a Republican candidate (far more popular than Trump) wins almost all of the small, rural mostly White states by huge margins (something like 35+ states). The Democratic candidate, on the other hand, wins the big states and coastal states by small margins. The Republican candidate wins the popular vote by a few percentage points, but the Democratic candidate wins the Electoral College. Did that "protect" the smaller states? No.

Again - You are using the 11-state minimum path. I've already said there's a limit on what the electoral college can do. It does however 'cap' the upside from populous states [to their share of the electoral college].

I think this example is better. California has about 25x the population of Maine. In a direct election a simple strategy would be to infer that CA is 25 times more important and allocate resources accordingly. Now under the electoral college CA has 13.75x the electors that ME has. In other words the effect of the college is to double the importance of ME. I call that protecting the interests of ME because now a candidate would have to rewire his strategy to take this into account.

In your example Trump could win by carrying 35-38 such states. In direct democracy he could win those and still loose - by a big margin at that.

 

[Baghial]

Now I see why Trump and Modi get along so well. They're both mentally unstable.

PLUS NAWAZ SHARIF IN IT TOO

 

[LA se Karachi]

That depends entirely on the composition of the court. Till date the court has struck down election laws only on grounds of subs. due process - inequality, civil rights, etc. Striking down an elector law in MN would require, IMO, plenty of second guessing and conjecturing that I think is unlikely even for Ginsberg.

Well, court composition always matters. I think what's most relevant to this topic is the fact that the Constitution does not stipulate that the electors must follow the popular vote result of their states when they cast their votes. But my point only is that it's at not all clear that laws voiding the votes of faithless electors are constitutional. There's a lot of room for debate.

I've already said there's a limit on what the electoral college can do. It does however 'cap' the upside from populous states [to their share of the electoral college].

Correct. However, it does exactly the same thing to small states, and that's my point. You could also just as easily have a scenario where a candidate runs up their margins in small states, but narrowly loses many large states, and therefore the election.

I think this example is better. California has about 25x the population of Maine. In a direct election a simple strategy would be to infer that CA is 25 times more important and allocate resources accordingly. Now under the electoral college CA has 13.75x the electors that ME has. In other words the effect of the college is to double the importance of ME. I call that protecting the interests of ME because now a candidate would have to rewire his strategy to take this into account.

Well if you look at the map of the Electoral College, that still doesn't make much of a difference.

For example, Maine had about 0.4% of the country's population in 2010, and it has about 0.74% of the vote share in the Electoral College. Is that is a significant increase? Yes. Is that going to force any candidate to "rewire" his or her campaign strategy? Absolutely not. Even if you take all the small states as a group, the bottom line is that all of them combined cannot even bring you close to 270 votes in the Electoral College.

Essentially, what the Electoral College does is force both nominees to pay close attention to "swing" states---especially the big ones. Even if that was not what it was originally intended for. This election was no different. It does give small states a bit more influence, but only just a little bit.

Grad, now doctoral, close to those letters. Sadly int'l so these 9 yrs (including a few on PQE) get me no closer to LPR status...but I'm working on it.

Nice, best of luck to you. Hopefully, Trump won't mess with your situation.

I assume the weather isn't too great in New Haven right now. Here in Los Angeles, we've been freezing in sub-70 degree weather all winter (lot's of rain too). Hang in there.

 

[schoolboy]

I assume the weather isn't too great in New Haven right now. Here in Los Angeles, we've been freezing in sub-70 degree weather all winter (lot's of rain too). Hang in there.

Thanks. It's cold but tolerable. Better than last year and certainly better than the year before - 2015 Feb. I simply can't stand sub-zero temperatures do its very distressing for me. A freak benefit of global warming I suppose. I'd give an arm and a leg to be in CA or FL right now. I passed thru FLL airport in December and it was heaven

The CT electoral map is a classic illustration of the trump effect. Outside Stamford and New Haven there is a swathe of red counties dominated by poor white working class voters. Every time I take the metro north to NYC the train passes through this ring and a few angry folk (now somewhat happy) wearing well-used jeans and steeltoe boots embark. More than once i've caught them muttering 'Why do we get screwed'.

 

[mike2000 is back]

Let's stay away from this please. There is no "angst" here. Trump is behaving in a way that virtually no other President has in recent memory. That's why many people are upset. His ideology is not the main concern (though it is indeed a concern as well), his temperament is.




You missed the point. Whether or not he is intelligent, his emotional health is a separate issue.




It's not about morality (per se), or legality. The point is that Trump is a terrible a businessman. Enriching one's self should not be confused with business acumen. This is what you wrote:


He ran many unsuccessful businesses for decades.




The point was not that he might be a crook or even dishonest, but that his tax returns likely show just how much of a business failure he really is.




The field could have definitely been better. Kasich and Cruz were the only two truly viable challengers.

But, I wasn't commenting on the field. What I was saying was that his dominating win in the Republican Primary showed the true colors of many Republicans and illustrated the state of the present-day Republican Party.




Many Presidential nominees did not want their political predecessors to campaign for them. In any case, the only point I was making was there is nothing impressive about beating an unpopular nominee.

If he had beaten Bernie Sanders or Obama instead, for example, that would have been much more impressive. Not someone with a net favorability rating of -15 (Hillary Clinton).




I said that to illustrate yet again how unimpressive his performance in November was. He is only the fifth President in US history to lose the popular vote.

As for the Electoral College, it was actually established primarily to keep the people from voting directly for President (the electors would vote instead). Keep in mind that this was a time when the state legislatures elected senators and that only property-owning White males could vote. Things have since changed. The advantage for smaller states wasn't the main reason at all.

And no, it does not protect smaller states at all. It only gives an out-sized influence to "swing states". For example, if Hillary had won Texas (a large state), she would have won the Electoral College. In fact, a nominee can potentially win just 11 states (out of 50 + D.C.), and still win the electoral college. The Electoral College forces the candidates to focus on swing states (especially the big ones), not small states.

His victory in the electoral college wasn't impressive, either:

View attachment 378296

And he wouldn't have won at all if he lost these states:

Michigan: 0.3% victory

Wisconsin: 0.7% victory

Pennsylvania: 0.7% victory

Not exactly what I'd call an "impressive" victory.


Also, we're all entitled to our opinions:

Agree to some extent.
However, Trump was elected by the American people, it's not like he rigged elections like they do in many developing countries. So I don't see why people act as if he just came out of nowhere to become president. He has been doing exactly he said he will do. To be honest, I don't like some of his policies, but I have to admit that he is farrrr more honest about his intentions than many American and even European politicians/leaders have ever been . Promises he made are being kept(at least many/most key promises). I can't say the same about many other American and European leaders recently. Lol. That's the paradox.

So the mainstream media should tone down their anti trump rhetoric, I'm tired of getting home from work and everything I see on my newspapers and my T.V screen from BBC, to ITV to CNN, to SKY is Trump Trump Trump . Seriously it's getting tiring . Its like he's the most eveil person on earth right now, many other U.S leaders have been worse but they never attracts so much media hatred and stuffs. Its tiring to be honest.

I recognise that the biggest flaw Trump has is that he tends to speak his mind openly and publicly without any second thoughts about the effects that might have on his presidency and legacy. As. Politicians he has to learn to be a hypocrite and very good liar. He should learn to try and avoid making grandiose and flamboyant statement's that catches media attention. Best way to do things is in calmly behind the scenes without much talk about it except if pressed to do so. This will be more effective and people won't even take note of that. He's to open and direct for a leader I admit. Which is not always good thing in politics. A politician should always be shrewd and never speak his mind publicly (especially if it doesn't sound politically correct or generally acceptable) , actions can just been taking quietly behind the scenes without much talk .

 

[Dungeness]

Great, the most powerful democracy in the world just elected a psychopath to be the president. Just imagine the democracies in the developing part of world.

 

[maximuswarrior]

Great, the most powerful democracy in the world just elected a psychopath to be the president. Just imagine the democracies in the developing part of world.

They say that you reap what you sow. Also, nations get the leadership that they deserve.

Is Trump mentally unstable? This is not a matter of dispute anymore.

 

[NakedLunch]

Great, the most powerful democracy in the world just elected a psychopath to be the president. Just imagine the democracies in the developing part of world.

And the largest democracy in the World, India, elected a murdering psychopath. Maybe there is a problem with democracy.