Trump MAGAThread IV: Twixt Scylla & Some Bad Hombres

[Great Nepal]

Its rather terrifying to see his mind at work.
> Gives out bad information.
> Someone calls him out?
> Oh no I gotcha, I meant something that directly contradicts what I said first.
> Someone calls him out again.
> Yeah someone gave me the information so clearly 'their' fault. Not my fault.

Like seriously, this man is leader of the sole global superpower who has absolutely no sense of accountability, lies as if it is second nature and almost half the people of US actually support him and his actions so why should any politician not do exactly that.

George Carlin was referenced for this funnily enough, just found it

Hmm interesting, he's quite right though - if people keep rewarding Trump's behavior as they are doing and seem intent on continuing to do; even if we get rid of Trump either through impeachment or 4/8 years, he'll have shifted the political discourse more than a step closer to idiocracy because we'll likely have politicians who continue the tactics that gets them votes - and quite honestly they can't really be blamed for that.

[Corrian]

So since it is for some reason needed: Can we like, next time we have a way to, pass some laws NOT allowing a guy with no political experience run for President? And maybe have all Presidents take a mental evaluation? And be forced to show their tax returns at that? That would be great.

[Internationalist Bastard]

So since it is for some reason needed: Can we like, next time we have a way to, pass some laws NOT allowing a guy with no political experience run for President? And maybe have all Presidents take a mental evaluation? And be forced to show their tax returns at that? That would be great.

Unfortunatly that would collapse all guise of our democracy being one

[Proctopeo]

So since it is for some reason needed: Can we like, next time we have a way to, pass some laws NOT allowing a guy with no political experience run for President? And maybe have all Presidents take a mental evaluation? And be forced to show their tax returns at that? That would be great.

That might require an amendment.

And also be not very freedom-y.

[Eol Sha]

So since it is for some reason needed: Can we like, next time we have a way to, pass some laws NOT allowing a guy with no political experience run for President? And maybe have all Presidents take a mental evaluation? And be forced to show their tax returns at that? That would be great.

I disagree with two out of three of these suggestions.

[Ashmoria]

So since it is for some reason needed: Can we like, next time we have a way to, pass some laws NOT allowing a guy with no political experience run for President? And maybe have all Presidents take a mental evaluation? And be forced to show their tax returns at that? That would be great.

of course we can.

I'm SURE paul ryan and mitch McConnell will get right on that.

[Lady Scylla]

George Carlin was referenced for this funnily enough, just found it

Hmm interesting, he's quite right though - if people keep rewarding Trump's behavior as they are doing and seem intent on continuing to do; even if we get rid of Trump either through impeachment or 4/8 years, he'll have shifted the political discourse more than a step closer to idiocracy because we'll likely have politicians who continue the tactics that gets them votes - and quite honestly they can't really be blamed for that.

So either the public gets some common sense, or Trump does something horrendous that harms even his support base to the point that such doesn't become viable for use for future politicians.

[Great Nepal]

So since it is for some reason needed: Can we like, next time we have a way to, pass some laws NOT allowing a guy with no political experience run for President? And maybe have all Presidents take a mental evaluation? And be forced to show their tax returns at that? That would be great.

Perhaps better (easier anyways) to remove the primaries, instead moving them inhouse, parties generally trend to weed out the most unstable candidates, granted that also comes with removing some good ones and doesn't necessarily guarantee a good leader, merely a experienced one but still an improvement. As much as people rile against professional politicians, eliminating them is akin to replacing professional doctor for a businessman who never went to medical school but is bigly sure he can do the best surgery.
Alternatively just implement a proportional system with slight preference for larger parties (left over votes to the winner etc), when candidates have to compromise the worse offenders and platforms trend to get weeded out, even at cost of perhaps some good platforms.

Hmm interesting, he's quite right though - if people keep rewarding Trump's behavior as they are doing and seem intent on continuing to do; even if we get rid of Trump either through impeachment or 4/8 years, he'll have shifted the political discourse more than a step closer to idiocracy because we'll likely have politicians who continue the tactics that gets them votes - and quite honestly they can't really be blamed for that.

So either the public gets some common sense, or Trump does something horrendous that harms even his support base to the point that such doesn't become viable for use for future politicians.

Essentially; given the first few weeks, I'm banking on the latter.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

Also, I really want to know what the gun folk here think about the fact it is now apparently easier for people with mental problems to get guns, as if that is a good idea.

We have another thread for that which explains that this is a mischaracterization of the rule.

Yes, it is. Because that would be reasonable. Having a mental illness is no reason to dissalow someone from owning a gun, and I mean that sincerely. A depressed person with the right help doesn't even show the tell-tale signs of depression.

However, the Obama regulation dissalowed people who have not enough mental fortitude to depost their own social security check from buying guns. So, people who are not rational and clear-headed enough to manage their own finaces, because of a certain mental disability. That kind of disallowance is totally reasonable.

[Corrian]

So since it is for some reason needed: Can we like, next time we have a way to, pass some laws NOT allowing a guy with no political experience run for President? And maybe have all Presidents take a mental evaluation? And be forced to show their tax returns at that? That would be great.

That might require an amendment.

And also be not very freedom-y.

I'm actually of the mind that too much freedom can be a bad thing, so I don't really care. I kind of prefer to know what mental state my president is. Or what bullshit he's hiding in his taxes. Or that my president has some experience when running for President.

[Proctopeo]

That might require an amendment.

And also be not very freedom-y.

I'm actually of the mind that too much freedom can be a bad thing, so I don't really care. I kind of prefer to know what mental state my president is. Or what bullshit he's hiding in his taxes. Or that my president has some experience when running for President.

We have different opinions on how much freedom is too much, then. I think the current requirements are good enough - perhaps something related to mental state, but not yet.

[Cymrea]

I'm actually of the mind that too much freedom can be a bad thing, so I don't really care. I kind of prefer to know what mental state my president is. Or what bullshit he's hiding in his taxes. Or that my president has some experience when running for President.

We have different opinions on how much freedom is too much, then. I think the current requirements are good enough - perhaps something related to mental state, but not yet.

I think a good look at his tax documents would be in the public's best interest. If we demand that a president be born in America - ostensibly to reduce conflicting loyalties - then being certain that a president's personal finances do not leave them, and by extension the country, vulnerable to foreign manipulation.

[Cymrea]

Also, I really want to know what the gun folk here think about the fact it is now apparently easier for people with mental problems to get guns, as if that is a good idea.

We have another thread for that which explains that this is a mischaracterization of the rule.

Something agreed upon by gun folk, certainly. I doubt the consensus is universal.

[Migdal Bavel]

That might require an amendment.

And also be not very freedom-y.

I'm actually of the mind that too much freedom can be a bad thing, so I don't really care. I kind of prefer to know what mental state my president is. Or what bullshit he's hiding in his taxes. Or that my president has some experience when running for President.

That is... pretty odd, as positions go.
I mean, sure, people think freedom should be balanced with other things (these people are wrong), but the idea that freedom might be bad in and of itself seems strange to me.
On the other hand, I would argue that in certain cases an apparent reduction in freedom isn't. The president has the power to take away people's freedoms. If they are doing so for no particular reason, and freedom is good, the loss of freedom for the president is balanced by the gain in freedom for those they might target. Which is why democracy is overrated and we need a system of Platonic philosopher kings .

[Great Franconia and Verana]

So much for Trump being a President for all Americans

[Gauthier]

So either the public gets some common sense, or Trump does something horrendous that harms even his support base to the point that such doesn't become viable for use for future politicians.

Essentially; given the first few weeks, I'm banking on the latter.

At this point the only thing that can turn Trump's cultists away from him is if a video comes out showing him in a mènage á trois with Hillary Clinton and Michelle Obama.

[Gauthier]

So much for Trump being a President for all Americans

Anyone who votes Democrat is an illegal Mexican. *nod*

[Great Franconia and Verana]

Essentially; given the first few weeks, I'm banking on the latter.

At this point the only thing that can turn Trump's cultists away from him is if a video comes out showing him in a mènage á trois with Hillary Clinton and Michelle Obama.

If it was a BDSM thing it might actually make them like Trump more; a real man takes charge in the bedroom!

[Gauthier]

At this point the only thing that can turn Trump's cultists away from him is if a video comes out showing him in a mènage á trois with Hillary Clinton and Michelle Obama.

If it was a BDSM thing it might actually make them like Trump more; a real man takes charge in the bedroom!

But most likely it'll be Trump as the BD and M.

[Corrian]

I'm actually of the mind that too much freedom can be a bad thing, so I don't really care. I kind of prefer to know what mental state my president is. Or what bullshit he's hiding in his taxes. Or that my president has some experience when running for President.

That is... pretty odd, as positions go.
I mean, sure, people think freedom should be balanced with other things (these people are wrong), but the idea that freedom might be bad in and of itself seems strange to me.
On the other hand, I would argue that in certain cases an apparent reduction in freedom isn't. The president has the power to take away people's freedoms. If they are doing so for no particular reason, and freedom is good, the loss of freedom for the president is balanced by the gain in freedom for those they might target. Which is why democracy is overrated and we need a system of Platonic philosopher kings .

I never said freedom was bad in itself. I just don't care if a President has to go through some mental checks and conflict of interest checks before even being allowed to run/be president in the first place.

And that's not to say all mental problems should bar you from being president. Just, you know...when you're Trump maybe, who clearly seems to have an issue.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

SCOTT PRUITT?

FOR GOD'S SAKE

[Corrian]

SCOTT PRUITT?

FOR GOD'S SAKE

They rushed his approval through after emails about him were going to be released soon...

[36 Camera Perspective]

SCOTT PRUITT?

FOR GOD'S SAKE

You knew this was going to happen.

[Cymrea]

Trump's press conference yesterday:

[Lady Scylla]

At this point the only thing that can turn Trump's cultists away from him is if a video comes out showing him in a mènage á trois with Hillary Clinton and Michelle Obama.

If it was a BDSM thing it might actually make them like Trump more; a real man takes charge in the bedroom!