Trump is Not Well

[Mason Riggle]

@Bodigger Let me first just point out that Donald Trump is currently sitting in the Oval Office, and Obama is not.  Obama's state of mind may have been relevant 4 years ago, but it's not 'the other side of the story' when talking about Donald Trump.   There really is no 'other side' to the topic 'Trump is not well' besides taking the stance that 'Trump is well', which you don't seem to be taking. 

As I've explained, it's not simply a partisan talking point.  George Conway, a Republican, recently wrote an almost 12,000 word article outlining his experiences with Donald Trump and his concerns over his 'Fitness for office' which I linked to above.  I don't recall ever seeing anything like this from Democrats surrounding Obama's state of mind.  Was Obama guilty of giving 'political' answers, giving 'non-answers', and deflecting from questions? No doubt. Did his supporters engage in the same types of deflective behaviors when presented with Obama's shortcomings? Again, without a doubt.   This is not a Republican/Democrat issue.  

The extent to which Donald Trump exhibits behaviors which are classic signs of Narcissism and Self Delusion are at a level unlike any President in recent history. Here is just a small sample of quotes from Trump that display his narcissism in plain view.

"In my great and unmatched wisdom"

"I think nobody knows more about taxes than I do, maybe in the history of the world."

"There's nobody bigger or better at the military than I am."

"I think I'm much more humble than you would understand."

... if you don't mind.. for comparison, perhaps you would like to provide some evidence that rises to this level of narcissism that you suggest Obama is guilty of. 

Edited October 8, 2019 by Mason Riggle

[Forestluv]

41 minutes ago, Bodigger said:

The scale is even depending on the perspective you have.  I do not buy into the idea of right and wrong in this matter.  Only different.  Maybe Trump isn't well, only different in the way he presents himself.  We are kidding ourselves if we don't see it from, and on, both sides.

I think we need to be careful conflating absolute and relative. In an absolute sense, all perspectives are equal - there is a singularity. Yet we live in a relative world. The danger of conflating absolute with relative is that it spawns "Both Sides-ism" and false equivalencies. The underlying energy is often desire to maintain status quo and resistance to evolution. A mature holistic view is highly integrative: it will consider and integrate multiple perspectives from intellectual, empathic, spiritual modes. It will integrate both individual and collective. Importantly, such integrative views will not value every input equally. There are aspects of relativity. 

This gets into what was discussed earlier with centrism and balance. A high conscious balanced view is not the centrist view. A dramatic example would be with slavery. In a dualistic framework we could create pro-slavery and anti-slavery categories. From an absolute perspective, slavery is neither right nor wrong - right/wrong is a relative construct. Yet in a relative context, slavery is clearly wrong. The problem with conflating absolute and relative is that absolute is used in a relative nature to cancel out the opposing view. This is a false equivalency. One may say "We are only kidding ourselves if we don't see it from the slaveholders side as well as the slave side. We need to consider both sides". There is value in considering both sides and there are nuggets of truth in all perspectives, yet an integrated holistic view will not weigh all perspectives equally. A centrist view during that time would be the mid-point. A centrist might say "Slaves should be allowed to have two days of freedom per week, in which they don't work and can leave the plantation". . . A more modern example is with same-sex marriage. Fifteen years ago, the centrist position was that homosexuals should be allowed domestic partnerships, yet not marriage. However, this is not the conscious balanced position - which would integrate multiple perspectives from religion, politics, social science, physical science, LGBTQ etc. The conscious balanced position would be in favor of same-sex marriage. The conscious balanced position is not restricted to Both-sidesism and false equivalencies motivated through personal identity, deflection and desire to maintain status quo. The balanced position is much more integrative meta than that. 

In our current context, the conscious balanced position is not that the scale is even, everyone has their own equal perspective and Trump just expresses himself differently. There are a lot of selective filters needed to maintain that position. 

[Bodigger]

35 minutes ago, Mason Riggle said:

... if you don't mind.. for comparison, perhaps you would like to provide some evidence that rises to this level of narcissism that you suggest Obama is guilty of. 

Are you saying that Obama was not narcissistic, or at a lower level of narcissism than Trump?  If Obama were to say similar things and carry out the progressive agenda would we be talking about how he is not well?

[Mason Riggle]

@Bodigger Yes, my personal opinion is that Obama did not exhibit behavior that gave me the impression he was Narcissistic. This isn't to say he isn't a narcissist or unwell. 

I am giving you the opportunity to persuade me that my assesment is wrong. 

[Bodigger]

40 minutes ago, Mason Riggle said:

I am giving you the opportunity to persuade me that my assesment is wrong. 

If you are open and willing for persuasion and 'want to expand, you will need to put in some effort'.  Yes, I have heard this statement before and I have seen the outcome.  Thank you @Serotoninluv

[abrakamowse]

If this is OK, then Trump is well... I don't know what to say really.

[giglio]

@Mason Riggle fair points. I can see both sides. We'll see what happens.

[giglio]

@Serotoninluv Fair enough. What code section is that in the US code that says it's illegal to ask a foreign government to investigate a person that happens to be a political opponent? 

[Mason Riggle]

5 hours ago, giglio said:

@Serotoninluv Fair enough. What code section is that in the US code that says it's illegal to ask a foreign government to investigate a person that happens to be a political opponent? 

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/52/30121

52 U.S. Code § 30121.Contributions and donations by foreign nationals  (

A

(a)Prohibition It shall be unlawful for—(1)a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make—(A)

a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election;

(B)

a contribution or donation to a committee of a political party; or

(C)

an expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication (within the meaning of section 30104(f)(3) of this title); or

(2)

a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) from a foreign national.

(b)“Foreign national” definedAs used in this section, the term “foreign national” means—(1)

a foreign principal, as such term is defined by section 611(b) of title 22, except that the term “foreign national” shall not include any individual who is a citizen of the United States; or

(2)

an individual who is not a citizen of the United States or a national of the United States (as defined in section 1101(a)(22) of title 8) and who is not lawfully admitted for permanent residence, as defined by section 1101(a)(20) of title 8.

Edited October 9, 2019 by Mason Riggle

[abrakamowse]

9 hours ago, giglio said:

@Serotoninluv Fair enough. What code section is that in the US code that says it's illegal to ask a foreign government to investigate a person that happens to be a political opponent? 

There's not an specific law that says that, he can investigate. The problem is when he does it because he wants a political gain, like in this case Biden is an opponent and it is possible that he is doing it because of that. In my opinion, he is not doing it because he want to get rid of Biden as a future political opponent to become president, but because he wants to show that there's other guys that are doing as corrupted things as he does and they don't get punished. But that's my take on it, not sure if that's why he is doing it.

It is possible that Biden really was doing something corrupt, but is the job of the democrats to prove that he was doing that for the wrong reasons, if they can prove that it can be abuse of power and that's a reason for impeachment.

And if the job of the Republicans to show the contrary is true.

I think the democrats have a stronger case for impeaching Trump in his denial to provide documents to the senate than in this case of Biden possible case of corruption.

Here is what Graham (Republican) said about that in 1998/1999 ...

 

 

Nixon was impeached because he failed to comply with subpoenas from congress

 

Standards for Impeachment (from the Constitution):

"The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."

ARTICLE II, SECTION 4

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

Interpretation by The Heritage Guide to The Constitution:

"Because "high Crimes and Misdemeanors" was a term of art used in English impeachments, a plausible reading supported by many scholars is that the grounds for impeachment can be not only the defined crimes of treason and bribery, but also other criminal or even noncriminal behavior amounting to a serious dereliction of duty. That interpretation is disputed, but it is agreed by virtually all that the impeachment remedy was to be used in only the most extreme situations, a position confirmed by the relatively few instances in which Congress has used the device."

Edited October 9, 2019 by abrakamowse

[Bodigger]

2 hours ago, abrakamowse said:

I think the democrats have a stronger case for impeaching Trump in his denial to provide documents to the senate than in this case of Biden possible case of corruption.

It is my understanding that the documents are ready to be released once the impeachment proceeding's begin.  Not sure when the vote for the impeachment inquiry is to take place. 

[abrakamowse]

1 hour ago, Bodigger said:

It is my understanding that the documents are ready to be released once the impeachment proceeding's begin.  Not sure when the vote for the impeachment inquiry is to take place. 

Well, that's why it will depend on what happens and what they understand Trump was doing when he asked Ukraine to investigate Biden. 

I'm not sure if that's about other documents too. Democrats now are showing those Lindsey Graham videos, they say that there's documents about the Russian investigation that weren't released by Trump and that it can be seem as "obstruction of justice" and that's an impeachable offense. Let's see what happens, we won't know until the cards are placed on the table. hehehe...

:-)

This talks about documents that weren't released by Trump (but maybe he did it know, it's an old news).

https://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2019/03/04/Lawmakers-demand-documents-from-White-House-for-Trump-investigation/3861551718146/

Edited October 9, 2019 by abrakamowse

[Forestluv]

To me, the demand for an impeachment inquiry vote is a procedural power play by Trump - to regain some control and call some shots. Suggesting he will release documents and comply with subpoena after an official impeachment inquiry vote is similar to Trump suggesting he would donate $1 million to Warren's favorite charity if she took a DNA test. Warren took the test and then came after Trump for the $1 million. He had all the power and leverage at that time. He said he would only pay up if he could do the test himself or if she became the nominee. Of course he won't pay. To make matters worse, Warren tweeted Trump that since she took the test, he should release his taxes. Please. This is Trump's game. He humiliated Warren and she looked very weak. It nearly ended her candidacy. To her credit, she learned and changed strategy.

Plus, the WH just sent the House a letter saying the entire impeachment inquiry is illegitimate. Does anyone really think Trump will comply with subpoenas because the Dems held a vote like he demanded? I don't think so. He will have a more powerful position and know that he can manipulate procedure. His leverage are withholding documents and noncompliance with subpoenas - compliance would be surrender to Trump. The only way he complies is if 20+ republican senators come out against him. 

[Bodigger]

23 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

To her credit, she learned and changed strategy.

Does Trump get any credit for playing smart?  According to many he is an idiot, and the people who voted for him are idiots.

25 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

To me, the demand for an impeachment inquiry vote is a procedural power play by Trump

Plus, the WH just sent the House a letter saying the entire impeachment inquiry is illegitimate. Does anyone really think Trump will comply with subpoenas because the Dems held a vote like he demanded?

The way I understand it is once the vote for an impeachment inquiry is approved, the inquiry begins and the accused prepares a defense.  Keep in mind, the defense has the same rites as the accuser.  they also need to comply with subpoenas and if the rules get changed for one, they change for all.  I don't think that kind of change is what the Dems are looking for.

It is probably going to be an interesting couple of months.  I always like it when the truth gets out there for everyone to see.  Everyone has the ability.....few utilize it.

[Forestluv]

23 minutes ago, Bodigger said:

Does Trump get any credit for playing smart?  According to many he is an idiot, and the people who voted for him are idiots.

I guess from one perspective he his smart. From a manipulative boss kinda way. 

I would say there are different forms of intelligence. For example, Nelson Mandela had high social intelligence. Mozart had high creative intelligence. Isaac Newton had high intellectual intelligence. I would say Trump has a form of social intelligence that goes through a personal filter. He is very good at resonating and controlling his base for his personal interests. In terms of intellect, I would consider Trump to be very intellectually incurious and to have a dull mind. 

23 minutes ago, Bodigger said:

The way I understand it is once the vote for an impeachment inquiry is approved, the inquiry begins and the accused prepares a defense.  Keep in mind, the defense has the same rites as the accuser.  they also need to comply with subpoenas and if the rules get changed for one, they change for all.  I don't think that kind of change is what the Dems are looking for.

I'm not a constitutional lawyer, yet I read that the House does not need to vote for an impeachment inquiry to begin an impeachment inquiry. I don't think that is in the constitution or was done during any of the three previous impeachment inquiries. In terms of accusation and defense, that seems more like a trial which takes place in the Senate. The House Impeachment proceedings don't involve rites for a defendant like in a trial, as far as I'm aware. Regarding compliance of subpoenas, Trump won't comply regardless of of an impeachment vote. Trump has continuously put himself above the law in various contexts and will continue to do so, imo. Trump has spent his adult life in courts and litigation fighting legal restraints. That's his orientation. The only way I think he complies is if it becomes in his self interest to comply. For example, if 20+ senators come out stating they will convict Trump unless he complies - then it becomes in Trump's self interest to comply. 

[giglio]

@Mason Riggle Trump isn't a foreign national.

[giglio]

@abrakamowse Good thoughts.

[Mason Riggle]

9 hours ago, giglio said:

@Mason Riggle Trump isn't a foreign national.

@giglio Obviously..  Did you read the parts of the law that I highlighted in red??..   I will try presenting it again, this time I will highlight the sections of the law that relate to this in greens... 

(a)Prohibition It shall be unlawful for—  (and then here it gives 2 options.. 1 or 2.. the second one applies)

2) a person (Donald Trump) to solicit (to ask for), accept, or receive a contribution or donation described in subparagraph (A)

here is subparagraph (A) 

a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value (an investigation into a political opponent), or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election;

or (B) of paragraph (1) from a foreign national (Volodymyr Zelensky).

[Bodigger]

19 hours ago, Serotoninluv said:

 

I'm not a constitutional lawyer, yet I read that the House does not need to vote for an impeachment inquiry to begin an impeachment inquiry. I don't think that is in the constitution or was done during any of the three previous impeachment inquiries.

Yes, a vote took place in each of the three previous impeachment inquiries.  Again, making changes for others also changes things for ourselves in the future.  I recall when the Dems changed the requirement vote for judges to a 51 vote majority and the Republicans said it would come back to haunt them.  And, it did...

[Forestluv]

25 minutes ago, Bodigger said:

Yes, a vote took place in each of the three previous impeachment inquiries.  Again, making changes for others also changes things for ourselves in the future.  I recall when the Dems changed the requirement vote for judges to a 51 vote majority and the Republicans said it would come back to haunt them.  And, it did...

I see that a vote for impeachment inquiry vote took place for Nixon and Clinton, yet I'm not aware of any requirement to do so. I would lean toward having the vote because I like transparency and to get people to voice their position publicly and get on record. And I think it's best to have majority support to start an impeachment inquiry. This would help maintain the pursuit of impeachment as a serious undertaking and not something a hundred zealous congresspeople could pursue. 

The dems changed the rule to 51 for executive and federal judges. McConnell changed the rule to 51 for supreme court. Reid's move gave McConnell cover, yet even if Reid didn't nix the supermajority, I think McConnell would have. Yet Reid certainly opened the door and made it easier. And McConnell is certainly taking advantage of it. 

In the big picture, reducing to 51 for approval may allow for the majority to legislate more efficiently, yet it allows allows for more polarization and extreme legislation. In terms of judges, it allows for more polarized judges which can have negative effects.