(01-12-2018 09:09 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  To be clear - there’s a big difference between saying someone is unfit (a criticism) and someone should be removed from office because of their unfitness (an action), just as there is between saying, here are the issues created by removing someone from Office because they aren’t “unfit” even if how they act does make you question it (a valid critique), and please define unfit for me (a deflection technique).

So the following is doublespeak?

Quote:There isn’t, and shouldn’t be, a defined test, outside of immediate eligibility requirements, to either be elected to or maintain the presidency. A process such as that would be ripe for misuse and abuse. I think an annual physical that includes mental cognition would be ideal, and requiring that the overall health of POTUS (conducted by multiple docs) be released to the public or House/Senate. That way, should a true neurologically disorder be found in any future President, action could be taken.

I read that as you saying, "There shouldn't be a defined test... but there should be a defined test."

(01-12-2018 09:07 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(01-12-2018 09:04 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-12-2018 08:39 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(01-12-2018 08:30 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-12-2018 08:10 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwlStill Wrote:  I think Don Lemon sums it up pretty well here:

http://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2018/...es-sot.cnn

No reasonable person can deny Trump is a racist any more. The fact that people are still trying is sad and pathetic. Even worse is that some seem to be OK with it.

I'm pretty much done discussing Trump. I'd like to see Republicans put country before party and call for him to resign. I won't like President Pence's or President Ryan's policies much, if any, better than Trumps, but I won't worry they are going to start a war on twitter or further destroy our institutions or our standing in the world.

Or as Mitt Romney put it "I don't want to see a president of the United States saying things which change the character of the generations of Americans that are following. Presidents have an impact on the nature of our nation, and trickle-down racism, trickle-down bigotry, trickle-down misogyny, all these things are extraordinarily dangerous to the heart and character of America."

I'm out.

Somehow people will still carry water for him instead of calling a spade a spade and realizing that winning the electoral college doesn’t necessarily mean you are fit for handling the position (fitness isn’t eligibility). On this board I’ve already seen deflections by trying to define shithole or somehow tying this to a non-existant outrage that Clinton lost, instead of actually acknowledging that Trump just summarily waved off millions of potential high-quality citizens because of their country of origin and not their merit/quality. I thought he wanted extreme vetting, which means where you come from doesn’t matter, no matte how much of a shithole it is.

I'm not carrying water for anyone, nor am I defending Trump.

The question before you is valid and as yet unanswered: what is this "fitness" test, and who is charged with administering it if not the voters?

Voters don’t judge fitness, definitely not so once elected. There isn’t, and shouldn’t be, a defined test, outside of immediate eligibility requirements, to either be elected to or maintain the presidency. A process such as that would be ripe for misuse and abuse. I think an annual physical that includes mental cognition would be ideal, and requiring that the overall health of POTUS (conducted by multiple docs) be released to the public or House/Senate. That way, should a true neurologically disorder be found in any future President, action could be taken.

But when your response to questioning someone’s fitness for POTUS because of comments such as these is to parse what fitness means and how would a fitness test be administered, how is that not carrying water? Explain to me how these comments indicate Trump is fit, not eligible or elected, to be POTUS.

My comments don't indicate that Trump is fit. I never said any such thing. I'm not arguing that Trump is fit. Please don't put words in my mouth.

I didn’t put any words in your mouth - I responded to your test question and then asked you explain to me how these comments indicate Trump is fit. Should I have asked if you think these comments indicate he is or isn’t and then to explain your rationale? You could haven simply responded that you don’t find Trump fit but you worry about the implications of such a theoretical test, or something else.

I’m sorry if you felt I implied something eith that question - I only meant to explicitly state that your questioning, without more context, was carrying water for Trump.

(01-12-2018 09:13 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-12-2018 09:07 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(01-12-2018 09:04 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-12-2018 08:39 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(01-12-2018 08:30 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Somehow people will still carry water for him instead of calling a spade a spade and realizing that winning the electoral college doesn’t necessarily mean you are fit for handling the position (fitness isn’t eligibility). On this board I’ve already seen deflections by trying to define shithole or somehow tying this to a non-existant outrage that Clinton lost, instead of actually acknowledging that Trump just summarily waved off millions of potential high-quality citizens because of their country of origin and not their merit/quality. I thought he wanted extreme vetting, which means where you come from doesn’t matter, no matte how much of a shithole it is.

I'm not carrying water for anyone, nor am I defending Trump.

The question before you is valid and as yet unanswered: what is this "fitness" test, and who is charged with administering it if not the voters?

Voters don’t judge fitness, definitely not so once elected. There isn’t, and shouldn’t be, a defined test, outside of immediate eligibility requirements, to either be elected to or maintain the presidency. A process such as that would be ripe for misuse and abuse. I think an annual physical that includes mental cognition would be ideal, and requiring that the overall health of POTUS (conducted by multiple docs) be released to the public or House/Senate. That way, should a true neurologically disorder be found in any future President, action could be taken.

But when your response to questioning someone’s fitness for POTUS because of comments such as these is to parse what fitness means and how would a fitness test be administered, how is that not carrying water? Explain to me how these comments indicate Trump is fit, not eligible or elected, to be POTUS.

My comments don't indicate that Trump is fit. I never said any such thing. I'm not arguing that Trump is fit. Please don't put words in my mouth.

I didn’t put any words in your mouth - I responded to your test question and then asked you explain to me how these comments indicate Trump is fit. Should I have asked if you think these comments indicate he is or isn’t and then to explain your rationale? You could haven simply responded that you don’t find Trump fit but you worry about the implications of such a theoretical test, or something else.

I’m sorry if you felt I implied something eith that question - I only meant to explicitly state that your questioning, without more context, was carrying water for Trump.

I don't care if he's fit. The republic can and has survived unfit presidents. The republic will not survive an extraconstitutional fitness test.

A policy of fitness as a condition of holding the office makes the man more important than the office.

(01-12-2018 09:18 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(01-12-2018 09:13 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-12-2018 09:07 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(01-12-2018 09:04 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-12-2018 08:39 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  I'm not carrying water for anyone, nor am I defending Trump.

The question before you is valid and as yet unanswered: what is this "fitness" test, and who is charged with administering it if not the voters?

Voters don’t judge fitness, definitely not so once elected. There isn’t, and shouldn’t be, a defined test, outside of immediate eligibility requirements, to either be elected to or maintain the presidency. A process such as that would be ripe for misuse and abuse. I think an annual physical that includes mental cognition would be ideal, and requiring that the overall health of POTUS (conducted by multiple docs) be released to the public or House/Senate. That way, should a true neurologically disorder be found in any future President, action could be taken.

But when your response to questioning someone’s fitness for POTUS because of comments such as these is to parse what fitness means and how would a fitness test be administered, how is that not carrying water? Explain to me how these comments indicate Trump is fit, not eligible or elected, to be POTUS.

My comments don't indicate that Trump is fit. I never said any such thing. I'm not arguing that Trump is fit. Please don't put words in my mouth.

I didn’t put any words in your mouth - I responded to your test question and then asked you explain to me how these comments indicate Trump is fit. Should I have asked if you think these comments indicate he is or isn’t and then to explain your rationale? You could haven simply responded that you don’t find Trump fit but you worry about the implications of such a theoretical test, or something else.

I’m sorry if you felt I implied something eith that question - I only meant to explicitly state that your questioning, without more context, was carrying water for Trump.

I don't care if he's fit. The republic can and has survived unfit presidents. The republic will not survive an extraconstitutional fitness test.

A policy of fitness as a condition of holding the office makes the man more important than the office.

The only fitness test is Section 4 of the 25th Amendment. The chances of it ever being administered in a case like this are about as high as pigs flying.

That being said, the damage that has been and will be done by this man while sitting in the highest office in our country is catastrophic. It can do nothing but damage the office that he occupies at this time. My hope is that it is reversible, but I have my doubts.

Might do some good if the office is damaged. I'm not comfortable with the office being held in reverence and awe. He's president, not pharaoh.

Any institution that hopes to endure more than a few generations must adopt the attitude that the institution and its high offices endure in spite of those holding high office, not because of them. In this country we've come dangerously close to believing that our survival depends on electing only good presidents.

(01-12-2018 09:33 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  Might do some good if the office is damaged. I'm not comfortable with the office being held in reverence and awe. He's president, not pharaoh.

There should be a basic level of respect for the office because of the position it holds not only in this country, but also in the world (well, it used to hold). This man's behavior undermines any chance for that.

(01-12-2018 09:42 AM)d1owls4life Wrote:  

(01-12-2018 09:33 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  Might do some good if the office is damaged. I'm not comfortable with the office being held in reverence and awe. He's president, not pharaoh.

There should be a basic level of respect for the office because of the position it holds not only in this country, but also in the world (well, it used to hold). This man's behavior undermines any chance for that.

The military have a saying, "Salute the rank, not the man."

If respect for the office depends on respect for the man holding it, then said office is doomed anyway.

(01-12-2018 09:18 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(01-12-2018 09:13 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-12-2018 09:07 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(01-12-2018 09:04 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-12-2018 08:39 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  I'm not carrying water for anyone, nor am I defending Trump.

The question before you is valid and as yet unanswered: what is this "fitness" test, and who is charged with administering it if not the voters?

Voters don’t judge fitness, definitely not so once elected. There isn’t, and shouldn’t be, a defined test, outside of immediate eligibility requirements, to either be elected to or maintain the presidency. A process such as that would be ripe for misuse and abuse. I think an annual physical that includes mental cognition would be ideal, and requiring that the overall health of POTUS (conducted by multiple docs) be released to the public or House/Senate. That way, should a true neurologically disorder be found in any future President, action could be taken.

But when your response to questioning someone’s fitness for POTUS because of comments such as these is to parse what fitness means and how would a fitness test be administered, how is that not carrying water? Explain to me how these comments indicate Trump is fit, not eligible or elected, to be POTUS.

My comments don't indicate that Trump is fit. I never said any such thing. I'm not arguing that Trump is fit. Please don't put words in my mouth.

I didn’t put any words in your mouth - I responded to your test question and then asked you explain to me how these comments indicate Trump is fit. Should I have asked if you think these comments indicate he is or isn’t and then to explain your rationale? You could haven simply responded that you don’t find Trump fit but you worry about the implications of such a theoretical test, or something else.

I’m sorry if you felt I implied something eith that question - I only meant to explicitly state that your questioning, without more context, was carrying water for Trump.

I don't care if he's fit. The republic can and has survived unfit presidents. The republic will not survive an extraconstitutional fitness test.

A policy of fitness as a condition of holding the office makes the man more important than the office.

So do you or don’t you think he is fit? It is the same type of question (qualitative) as him being a good one bad president.

I don’t think he should be removed based on “fitness,” but I think having a frank discussion about his fitness is good - we have other branches to help manage an unfit president.

(01-12-2018 09:57 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-12-2018 09:18 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(01-12-2018 09:13 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-12-2018 09:07 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(01-12-2018 09:04 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Voters don’t judge fitness, definitely not so once elected. There isn’t, and shouldn’t be, a defined test, outside of immediate eligibility requirements, to either be elected to or maintain the presidency. A process such as that would be ripe for misuse and abuse. I think an annual physical that includes mental cognition would be ideal, and requiring that the overall health of POTUS (conducted by multiple docs) be released to the public or House/Senate. That way, should a true neurologically disorder be found in any future President, action could be taken.

But when your response to questioning someone’s fitness for POTUS because of comments such as these is to parse what fitness means and how would a fitness test be administered, how is that not carrying water? Explain to me how these comments indicate Trump is fit, not eligible or elected, to be POTUS.

My comments don't indicate that Trump is fit. I never said any such thing. I'm not arguing that Trump is fit. Please don't put words in my mouth.

I didn’t put any words in your mouth - I responded to your test question and then asked you explain to me how these comments indicate Trump is fit. Should I have asked if you think these comments indicate he is or isn’t and then to explain your rationale? You could haven simply responded that you don’t find Trump fit but you worry about the implications of such a theoretical test, or something else.

I’m sorry if you felt I implied something eith that question - I only meant to explicitly state that your questioning, without more context, was carrying water for Trump.

I don't care if he's fit. The republic can and has survived unfit presidents. The republic will not survive an extraconstitutional fitness test.

A policy of fitness as a condition of holding the office makes the man more important than the office.

So do you or don’t you think he is fit? It is the same type of question (qualitative) as him being a good one bad president.

I don’t think he should be removed based on “fitness,” but I think having a frank discussion about his fitness is good - we have other branches to help manage an unfit president.

Again, I don't care if he's fit. That's your concern, so that's why you should be the one to provide the definition. As for "good" or "bad" - I think he has a big mouth and needlessly antagonizes people, but on the other hand I like the fact that he hasn't really done much. He's also been the least warlike president we've had since Carter, and that's a very positive thing, although I do wish he'd follow through on promises to reduce military involvement in the Middle East.

When people rail against having to define their terms, it indicates that they are on shaky ground.

Much easier to point the finger and say "he's unfit/crazy/illegitimate/a witch/whatever gets the job done than to prove he is is ______, since the first step in that is defining the terms.

Somebody asked me if I thought Hillary would have been unfit had she been elected. I thought she was dishonest and overprivileged and duplicitous. does that make he unfit? She botched her chance at SOS - remember the reset? Does that make her unfit? I don't know.
Trump is certainly something new in the way of american Potuses - does that make him unfit?

Without a definition of fit/unfit. how do we determine that? I am sure that if the Prez develops MS, we can all determine that makes him unfit, at some point. Tweeting? Not so much.

Now to the usage of the word "shithole". I think there are certainly countries that could be described as shitholes. For me, they are the most poverty stricken, disease ridden, and politically unstable places on earth. Not someplace I want to visit. Not someplace I want to retire to. If any of you are saying that Somalia and Ireland are equal in your sight as a vacation destination, I call BS.

So if you share in general that some places are shitholes, why would you support unfettered immigration from there? I don't think Trump added the phrase, "even if they are Nobel prize winners".

Lastly, yes, there has been a whirlwind of opposition against Trump because he won, against an odds-on favorite and the heir apparent. Have all of you forgotten the demonstrations with the burning dumpsters. How about the people trying to get presidential electors to change their vote? Why is there something called the "resistance"? (Hillary is member). All the calls for impeachment? The Russia investigation(used to be the collusion investigation)? Yes, from Day one there have been those trying to oust the duly elected POTUS on any grounds imaginable and by any means possible.. Before the election, it didn't matter to Biff and Mindy since Hillary was going to win. Now the race is over.

so now one avenue of the Resistance is to hammer on the idea he is unfit, hoping to eventually trigger the 25th amendment.

Well, before that happens, they will have to define "unfit", then prove he matches the definition. A howling mob is not enough these days.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrzMhU_4m-g

I said I was done earlier and meant it, but I want to clarify a couple things.

If you are still at this point denying that Trump is a racist, or trying to rationalize why that's OK, I just don't want to waste my time debating with you about it.

The man has lied three times already today. He said he cancelled his trip to London in protest of the embassy moving, and blamed that on Obama. First, it was Bush, second, given that the decision was made over 8 years ago, it's pretty clear that isn't the reason he cancelled. These two lies are important primarily important in the context of him denying the "shithole" remarks. Why should we believe him when he's already tweeted yet another easily verifiable lie *this morning*? And now Durbin is on the record calling out Trump's lie.

If the Republican party is a racist, white nationalist party, they ought to have the guts to admit it. If it is not and wants to show it is not, it needs to call on Trump to resign and disavow him. I don't want a constitutional crisis. I want Republicans to own up to what they have done and fix it.

I'm not holding my breath.

And with that, I am out of the Quad for the forseeable future.

Will see you all down in the Rice Owls Sportsball sections.

(01-12-2018 10:01 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(01-12-2018 09:57 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-12-2018 09:18 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(01-12-2018 09:13 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-12-2018 09:07 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  My comments don't indicate that Trump is fit. I never said any such thing. I'm not arguing that Trump is fit. Please don't put words in my mouth.

I didn’t put any words in your mouth - I responded to your test question and then asked you explain to me how these comments indicate Trump is fit. Should I have asked if you think these comments indicate he is or isn’t and then to explain your rationale? You could haven simply responded that you don’t find Trump fit but you worry about the implications of such a theoretical test, or something else.

I’m sorry if you felt I implied something eith that question - I only meant to explicitly state that your questioning, without more context, was carrying water for Trump.

I don't care if he's fit. The republic can and has survived unfit presidents. The republic will not survive an extraconstitutional fitness test.

A policy of fitness as a condition of holding the office makes the man more important than the office.

So do you or don’t you think he is fit? It is the same type of question (qualitative) as him being a good one bad president.

I don’t think he should be removed based on “fitness,” but I think having a frank discussion about his fitness is good - we have other branches to help manage an unfit president.

Again, I don't care if he's fit. That's your concern, so that's why you should be the one to provide the definition. As for "good" or "bad" - I think he has a big mouth and needlessly antagonizes people, but on the other hand I like the fact that he hasn't really done much. He's also been the least warlike president we've had since Carter, and that's a very positive thing, although I do wish he'd follow through on promises to reduce military involvement in the Middle East.

• Alienating most of our allies.
• Holding people who need DACA hostage over a wall that won't fix our problems.
• Making the US the only country not in the Paris Climate Accord.
• Withdrawing certain federal protections for transgender students in public schools.
• Crackdown on Marijuana just issued by Sessions.
• Tax reform that will undoubtedly benefit the rich more than those who need help.
• Allowing funding for CHIP to expire
• Ending subsidies for ACA
  

I wouldn't say that is not really doing much.

(01-12-2018 10:44 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwlStill Wrote:  I said I was done earlier and meant it, but I want to clarify a couple things.

If you are still at this point denying that Trump is a racist, or trying to rationalize why that's OK, I just don't want to waste my time debating with you about it.

The man has lied three times already today. He said he cancelled his trip to London in protest of the embassy moving, and blamed that on Obama. First, it was Bush, second, given that the decision was made over 8 years ago, it's pretty clear that isn't the reason he cancelled. These two lies are important primarily important in the context of him denying the "shithole" remarks. Why should we believe him when he's already tweeted yet another easily verifiable lie *this morning*? And now Durbin is on the record calling out Trump's lie.

If the Republican party is a racist, white nationalist party, they ought to have the guts to admit it. If it is not and wants to show it is not, it needs to call on Trump to resign and disavow him. I don't want a constitutional crisis. I want Republicans to own up to what they have done and fix it.

I'm not holding my breath.

And with that, I am out of the Quad for the forseeable future.

Will see you all down in the Rice Owls Sportsball sections.

Okey-doke. since you are gone, no need to comment on your comments.

(01-12-2018 10:49 AM)d1owls4life Wrote:  

(01-12-2018 10:01 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(01-12-2018 09:57 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-12-2018 09:18 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(01-12-2018 09:13 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I didn’t put any words in your mouth - I responded to your test question and then asked you explain to me how these comments indicate Trump is fit. Should I have asked if you think these comments indicate he is or isn’t and then to explain your rationale? You could haven simply responded that you don’t find Trump fit but you worry about the implications of such a theoretical test, or something else.

I’m sorry if you felt I implied something eith that question - I only meant to explicitly state that your questioning, without more context, was carrying water for Trump.

I don't care if he's fit. The republic can and has survived unfit presidents. The republic will not survive an extraconstitutional fitness test.

A policy of fitness as a condition of holding the office makes the man more important than the office.

So do you or don’t you think he is fit? It is the same type of question (qualitative) as him being a good one bad president.

I don’t think he should be removed based on “fitness,” but I think having a frank discussion about his fitness is good - we have other branches to help manage an unfit president.

Again, I don't care if he's fit. That's your concern, so that's why you should be the one to provide the definition. As for "good" or "bad" - I think he has a big mouth and needlessly antagonizes people, but on the other hand I like the fact that he hasn't really done much. He's also been the least warlike president we've had since Carter, and that's a very positive thing, although I do wish he'd follow through on promises to reduce military involvement in the Middle East.

• Alienating most of our allies.
• Holding people who need DACA hostage over a wall that won't fix our problems.
• Making the US the only country not in the Paris Climate Accord.
• Withdrawing certain federal protections for transgender students in public schools.
• Crackdown on Marijuana just issued by Sessions.
• Tax reform that will undoubtedly benefit the rich more than those who need help.
• Allowing funding for CHIP to expire
• Ending subsidies for ACA
  

I wouldn't say that is not really doing much.

some of your points are better than others. I will just concentrate on one - tax reform.


yep, tax reform will benefit the rich(er) more - since they pay the majority of taxes. Hard to give a tax break to people who do not pay Federal Income Taxes.

But I think the idea that the extra money will just sit on their dressers gathering dust is overblown. if there is one thing rich people want, it is to get richer. If there is one thing corporations want, it is to grow. So the money will be put to work.

So I see the tax reforms as a stimulus for the economy. I do not see that as a bad thing.

(01-12-2018 10:49 AM)d1owls4life Wrote:  

(01-12-2018 10:01 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(01-12-2018 09:57 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-12-2018 09:18 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(01-12-2018 09:13 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I didn’t put any words in your mouth - I responded to your test question and then asked you explain to me how these comments indicate Trump is fit. Should I have asked if you think these comments indicate he is or isn’t and then to explain your rationale? You could haven simply responded that you don’t find Trump fit but you worry about the implications of such a theoretical test, or something else.

I’m sorry if you felt I implied something eith that question - I only meant to explicitly state that your questioning, without more context, was carrying water for Trump.

I don't care if he's fit. The republic can and has survived unfit presidents. The republic will not survive an extraconstitutional fitness test.

A policy of fitness as a condition of holding the office makes the man more important than the office.

So do you or don’t you think he is fit? It is the same type of question (qualitative) as him being a good one bad president.

I don’t think he should be removed based on “fitness,” but I think having a frank discussion about his fitness is good - we have other branches to help manage an unfit president.

Again, I don't care if he's fit. That's your concern, so that's why you should be the one to provide the definition. As for "good" or "bad" - I think he has a big mouth and needlessly antagonizes people, but on the other hand I like the fact that he hasn't really done much. He's also been the least warlike president we've had since Carter, and that's a very positive thing, although I do wish he'd follow through on promises to reduce military involvement in the Middle East.

• Alienating most of our allies.
• Holding people who need DACA hostage over a wall that won't fix our problems.
• Making the US the only country not in the Paris Climate Accord.
• Withdrawing certain federal protections for transgender students in public schools.
• Crackdown on Marijuana just issued by Sessions.
• Tax reform that will undoubtedly benefit the rich more than those who need help.
• Allowing funding for CHIP to expire
• Ending subsidies for ACA
  

I wouldn't say that is not really doing much.

Reversing/not renewing the executive overreach of previous administrations (and thereby putting the responsibility for this legislation back on gutless congress), enforcing existing federal law which said Congress is too gutless to change, being an ass, and signing tax legislation passed by Congress - no, that isn't doing much.

I wholeheartedly approve of him refusing to arrogate legislative powers to himself on the grounds that Congress won't do its job.

Arguing that he's a bad executive for interpreting and enforcing existing legislation as written is just Orwellian.

(01-12-2018 10:01 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(01-12-2018 09:57 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-12-2018 09:18 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(01-12-2018 09:13 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-12-2018 09:07 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  My comments don't indicate that Trump is fit. I never said any such thing. I'm not arguing that Trump is fit. Please don't put words in my mouth.

I didn’t put any words in your mouth - I responded to your test question and then asked you explain to me how these comments indicate Trump is fit. Should I have asked if you think these comments indicate he is or isn’t and then to explain your rationale? You could haven simply responded that you don’t find Trump fit but you worry about the implications of such a theoretical test, or something else.

I’m sorry if you felt I implied something eith that question - I only meant to explicitly state that your questioning, without more context, was carrying water for Trump.

I don't care if he's fit. The republic can and has survived unfit presidents. The republic will not survive an extraconstitutional fitness test.

A policy of fitness as a condition of holding the office makes the man more important than the office.

So do you or don’t you think he is fit? It is the same type of question (qualitative) as him being a good one bad president.

I don’t think he should be removed based on “fitness,” but I think having a frank discussion about his fitness is good - we have other branches to help manage an unfit president.

Again, I don't care if he's fit. That's your concern, so that's why you should be the one to provide the definition. As for "good" or "bad" - I think he has a big mouth and needlessly antagonizes people, but on the other hand I like the fact that he hasn't really done much. He's also been the least warlike president we've had since Carter, and that's a very positive thing, although I do wish he'd follow through on promises to reduce military involvement in the Middle East.

You haven’t been asking for me to refined fitness, you’ve been asking to define a test to judge fitness. Ive responded to the latter.

Since you’re now asking for the former: have mental cognition fit for the job (speak abover a 3rd grade level, be able to communicate effectively, be able to read, digest, and respond to briefing material), have a temperament that allows for one to receive criticism, speak carefully and intentionally, understand how government works and functions, don’t be racist, don’t mock people with disabilities, be abovr the fray and have class when interacting with others. And literally be healthy enough to carry out the duties with full cognition.

Like I said, too difficult and too many issues with a fitness test, so eligibility will have to do. I mean, technically the voters could literally elect a brain dead person, right? I think that being the case is better than the slippery slopes of having fitness tests. But that doesn’t mean I can’t Dayne trump isn’t fit to be president.

(01-12-2018 10:58 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(01-12-2018 10:49 AM)d1owls4life Wrote:  

(01-12-2018 10:01 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(01-12-2018 09:57 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-12-2018 09:18 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  I don't care if he's fit. The republic can and has survived unfit presidents. The republic will not survive an extraconstitutional fitness test.

A policy of fitness as a condition of holding the office makes the man more important than the office.

So do you or don’t you think he is fit? It is the same type of question (qualitative) as him being a good one bad president.

I don’t think he should be removed based on “fitness,” but I think having a frank discussion about his fitness is good - we have other branches to help manage an unfit president.

Again, I don't care if he's fit. That's your concern, so that's why you should be the one to provide the definition. As for "good" or "bad" - I think he has a big mouth and needlessly antagonizes people, but on the other hand I like the fact that he hasn't really done much. He's also been the least warlike president we've had since Carter, and that's a very positive thing, although I do wish he'd follow through on promises to reduce military involvement in the Middle East.

• Alienating most of our allies.
• Holding people who need DACA hostage over a wall that won't fix our problems.
• Making the US the only country not in the Paris Climate Accord.
• Withdrawing certain federal protections for transgender students in public schools.
• Crackdown on Marijuana just issued by Sessions.
• Tax reform that will undoubtedly benefit the rich more than those who need help.
• Allowing funding for CHIP to expire
• Ending subsidies for ACA
  

I wouldn't say that is not really doing much.

Reversing/not renewing the executive overreach of previous administrations (and thereby putting the responsibility for this legislation back on gutless congress), enforcing existing federal law which said Congress is too gutless to change, being an ass, and signing tax legislation passed by Congress - no, that isn't doing much.

I wholeheartedly approve of him refusing to arrogate legislative powers to himself on the grounds that Congress won't do its job.

Arguing that he's a bad executive for interpreting and enforcing existing legislation as written is just Orwellian.

Has Trump actually said he is intentionally trying to reverse the swing of power to the executive? He constantly complains that he doesn’t have enough. I think this is just a project - all he is doing reversing Obama’s executives orders, as he hasn’t shied from using them himself.

(01-12-2018 12:18 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-12-2018 10:58 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(01-12-2018 10:49 AM)d1owls4life Wrote:  

(01-12-2018 10:01 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(01-12-2018 09:57 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  So do you or don’t you think he is fit? It is the same type of question (qualitative) as him being a good one bad president.

I don’t think he should be removed based on “fitness,” but I think having a frank discussion about his fitness is good - we have other branches to help manage an unfit president.

Again, I don't care if he's fit. That's your concern, so that's why you should be the one to provide the definition. As for "good" or "bad" - I think he has a big mouth and needlessly antagonizes people, but on the other hand I like the fact that he hasn't really done much. He's also been the least warlike president we've had since Carter, and that's a very positive thing, although I do wish he'd follow through on promises to reduce military involvement in the Middle East.

• Alienating most of our allies.
• Holding people who need DACA hostage over a wall that won't fix our problems.
• Making the US the only country not in the Paris Climate Accord.
• Withdrawing certain federal protections for transgender students in public schools.
• Crackdown on Marijuana just issued by Sessions.
• Tax reform that will undoubtedly benefit the rich more than those who need help.
• Allowing funding for CHIP to expire
• Ending subsidies for ACA
  

I wouldn't say that is not really doing much.

Reversing/not renewing the executive overreach of previous administrations (and thereby putting the responsibility for this legislation back on gutless congress), enforcing existing federal law which said Congress is too gutless to change, being an ass, and signing tax legislation passed by Congress - no, that isn't doing much.

I wholeheartedly approve of him refusing to arrogate legislative powers to himself on the grounds that Congress won't do its job.

Arguing that he's a bad executive for interpreting and enforcing existing legislation as written is just Orwellian.

Has Trump actually said he is intentionally trying to reverse the swing of power to the executive? He constantly complains that he doesn’t have enough. I think this is just a project - all he is doing reversing Obama’s executives orders, as he hasn’t shied from using them himself.

I was commenting on your (ETA: not yours, actually) bullet items. Do you have more examples?

As for what Trump has said - well, he says all kinds of crazy things. I tend to base conclusions on actions, not words.

(01-12-2018 09:12 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(01-12-2018 09:09 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  To be clear - there’s a big difference between saying someone is unfit (a criticism) and someone should be removed from office because of their unfitness (an action), just as there is between saying, here are the issues created by removing someone from Office because they aren’t “unfit” even if how they act does make you question it (a valid critique), and please define unfit for me (a deflection technique).

So the following is doublespeak?

Quote:There isn’t, and shouldn’t be, a defined test, outside of immediate eligibility requirements, to either be elected to or maintain the presidency. A process such as that would be ripe for misuse and abuse. I think an annual physical that includes mental cognition would be ideal, and requiring that the overall health of POTUS (conducted by multiple docs) be released to the public or House/Senate. That way, should a true neurologically disorder be found in any future President, action could be taken.

I read that as you saying, "There shouldn't be a defined test... but there should be a defined test."

You’re reading that wrong - I do think having a medical test would be ideal, but as I stated, can’t really be done because of potential abuse, as I stated.

I mean, ideally everyone would be given $1,000,000, but I know that can’t, and shouldn’t, happen.

(01-12-2018 12:20 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(01-12-2018 12:18 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-12-2018 10:58 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(01-12-2018 10:49 AM)d1owls4life Wrote:  

(01-12-2018 10:01 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  Again, I don't care if he's fit. That's your concern, so that's why you should be the one to provide the definition. As for "good" or "bad" - I think he has a big mouth and needlessly antagonizes people, but on the other hand I like the fact that he hasn't really done much. He's also been the least warlike president we've had since Carter, and that's a very positive thing, although I do wish he'd follow through on promises to reduce military involvement in the Middle East.

• Alienating most of our allies.
• Holding people who need DACA hostage over a wall that won't fix our problems.
• Making the US the only country not in the Paris Climate Accord.
• Withdrawing certain federal protections for transgender students in public schools.
• Crackdown on Marijuana just issued by Sessions.
• Tax reform that will undoubtedly benefit the rich more than those who need help.
• Allowing funding for CHIP to expire
• Ending subsidies for ACA
  

I wouldn't say that is not really doing much.

Reversing/not renewing the executive overreach of previous administrations (and thereby putting the responsibility for this legislation back on gutless congress), enforcing existing federal law which said Congress is too gutless to change, being an ass, and signing tax legislation passed by Congress - no, that isn't doing much.

I wholeheartedly approve of him refusing to arrogate legislative powers to himself on the grounds that Congress won't do its job.

Arguing that he's a bad executive for interpreting and enforcing existing legislation as written is just Orwellian.

Has Trump actually said he is intentionally trying to reverse the swing of power to the executive? He constantly complains that he doesn’t have enough. I think this is just a project - all he is doing reversing Obama’s executives orders, as he hasn’t shied from using them himself.

I was commenting on your (ETA: not yours, actually) bullet items. Do you have more examples?

As for what Trump has said - well, he says all kinds of crazy things. I tend to base conclusions on actions, not words.

I know what you were commenting on. I was rebuking the idea that Trump is intentionally trying to push power back to the legislature and is intentionally enforcing existing legislation (e.g. marijuana regs) because he disagreed with the process of how they were being implemented. Trump hasn’t shown any signs of wanting to reduce the accumulation of power in the executive branch - in fact, he has almost certainly expressing the opposite wishes.