(11-29-2017 05:34 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-23-2017 08:07 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(11-23-2017 02:32 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-23-2017 02:23 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(11-23-2017 02:05 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  That’s not an unreasonable way to look at it. However I would argue that his tweets about Kim Jong Un have the chance to affect you. And how he treats others via tweets can influence how people act in general, which can affect you.
And another thing, I’m not surprised that Trump acts this way, but I fail to see how not bring surprised at something should keep someone from criticizing poor behavior. You can choose to not care about his behavior and how he acts on the international stage, but in all facets of life we expect those around us to act appropriately, so don’t be surprised when others want their President to do the same.

I would say that, to this point, his actions toward KJU have produced more positive than negative results. I would call that an improvement.

I guess I just don't get as worked up about his tweets as some do. I remember not getting as worked up about Dukakis's goofy tank ride as some did. Or Carter's bout with the rabbit. Or Obama's golf and vacations. They're people, not perfect. Worry about substantive stuff.

If it weren't a pattern of behavior and a one off goof (or even several goofs) I would agree. But for Trump, that's not what we're talking about.

We're talking about his repeated actions that indicate he is a petulant narcissist, who is quick to react and doesn't understand the consequences of his actions. The potential for negative outcomes to come from someone like that holding the codes to the nukes makes me very, very nervous. And at the moment, there are members of Congress of both sides of the aisle that feel the same way.

And what tangible good has come directly from Trump's actions (calling KJU names on Twitter and threatening military action on Twitter)? They have continued to test nuclear weapons and proactively test long range missiles. The UN did ratchet up sanctions, but that doesn't appear to be connected to Trump's provocative language. If anything, it is likely Trump and Xi Jinping's relationship that has helped with NK the most. I think his tweets are likely undermining his efforts.

Well, as someone who has actually had access to the nuclear launch codes, I’m not bothered. And those members of congress are playing sound bytes for votes instead of expressing real fears.

This is kind of in vein as my comment about why Trump's tweets do matter.

In the past few days, there have been reports that Trump has told people that the voice on the Access Hollywood tapes is not his and that it was faked and that he has been continuing to question the legitimacy of Obama's birth certificate.

I saw an op-ed from Jennifer Rubin that wonders if these two newest revelations (well, she mainly just focuses on the Access Hollywood bit), doesn't indicate that he is mentally unfit to be POTUS and that the 25th Amendment should be invoked. From here words:

Quote: Now, it may be that Trump knows full well he is lying. He may take delight in horrifying aides and lawmakers, like a child relishing the shock on adults’ faces when he uses foul language. If so, that makes him a moral abomination unworthy of his office, but not bonkers. If, however, he actually believes that former president Barack Obama wasn’t born in America, that Obama wiretapped him, that he (not Hillary Clinton) won the popular vote and the women’s vote and that it’s not his voice on the “Access Hollywood” tape, then he’s something far more problematic than a liar. In such circumstances, he would be mentally and emotionally incapable of performing his duties (which require one to grasp and process reality) and it would be long past time for him to go.

At some point, how far should we let things go until real questions are asked about whether or not Trump has a firm grasp on reality or morality? Both of which I imagine are a necessity for a POTUS to have.

I would say this is one situation in which you don't want to be preemptive, else you are just setting up the US for a coup.

Firm grasp on reality? How do you determine that? If he is seeing little green men hiding under the couch, or if he believes North Korea will respond to sanctions? Are tax reductions firmly rooted in reality? Personally, i don't think Hillary had a great grasp on reality, having lived essentially totally removed from most of the experiences that shape us. Similar to Kim Jong Il's grasp on reality - quite different from the millions of lesser beings in their fiefdoms. Is that the definition of reality we would use?

Firm grasp on morality? Whose morals shall we use as the measuring stick? The people who see abortion as murder, or the people who see abortion as a human right? The people who think young women should be modest and hide themselves from the eyes of men, or those who think otherwise? The people who think plural marriage is fine, or the people who think it should only for two, the people who think t should only be tween one man and one woman, and/or the people who tyhink it should be for life? I thought liberals were against legislating morals?

the 25th was meant to cover periods when the President was unconscious, or close to it - surgery, coma, severe illness - like when Reagan was in surgery.

.
was it moral ofmTruman to kill hundreds of thousand of civilians and children with the bomb? was it realistic of Johnson to ramp up the war in Viet Nam? i would hate for judgements of realism and moral superiority to be left up to the President's opponents, regardless of party.

What are the Constitutional requirements for morality, anyway?