+- Cincinnati Bengals Message Board / Forums - Home of Jungle Noise (http://thebengalsboard.com)
+-- Forum: Off Topic Forums (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-Off-Topic-Forums)
+--- Forum: Politics & Religion 2.0 (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-Politics-Religion-2-0)
+---- Forum: P & R Archive (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-P-R-Archive)
+---- Thread: Uniter via lunacy? (/Thread-Uniter-via-lunacy)
Uniter via lunacy? - xxlt - 01-26-2017
OK, so some think Trump is evil, some think he is crazy, and some think he is the second coming of who ever the Greatest White Hope ever was (Bob?).
But I think we can agree on this: the people really happy he is President are declining in numbers rapidly. This leaves us with those who think he is evil and those who think he is merely crazy. I think the Congress is willing to let evil go unchecked as long as their stock portfolios are looking up, and at this point they are. But I am not sure they are willing to let crazy go unchecked.
Much has been made about the health of prior candidates and presidents and whether they were fit for office - but the focus was usually physical health - is he too old? if he has disease x does that disqualify him? But what about mental health?
Is it possible Congress would consider evidence that El Presidente is batshit crazy as grounds for removal from office? Evidence like his behavior and the testimony of mental health experts and/or his refusal to submit to clinical interview by mental health expert(s)? Could/would a bipartisan effort to unite against having a lunatic in the White House happen?
What say ye?
RE: Uniter via lunacy? - Griever - 01-26-2017
(01-26-2017, 03:25 PM)xxlt Wrote: OK, so some think Trump is evil, some think he is crazy, and some think he is the second coming of who ever the Greatest White Hope ever was (Bob?).
But I think we can agree on this: the people really happy he is President are declining in numbers rapidly. This leaves us with those who think he is evil and those who think he is merely crazy. I think the Congress is willing to let evil go unchecked as long as their stock portfolios are looking up, and at this point they are. But I am not sure they are willing to let crazy go unchecked.
Much has been made about the health of prior candidates and presidents and whether they were fit for office - but the focus was usually physical health - is he too old? if he has disease x does that disqualify him? But what about mental health?
Is it possible Congress would consider evidence that El Presidente is batshit crazy as grounds for removal from office? Evidence like his behavior and the testimony of mental health experts and/or his refusal to submit to clinical interview by mental health expert(s)? Could/would a bipartisan effort to unite against having a lunatic in the White House happen?
What say ye?
do we really want pence running the show?
RE: Uniter via lunacy? - CKwi88 - 01-26-2017
(01-26-2017, 03:39 PM)Griever Wrote: do we really want pence running the show?
Unfortunately, some would be fine with that. Which is even scarier.
RE: Uniter via lunacy? - BengalHawk62 - 01-26-2017
Trump sure is crazy.
Ha! Beat ya again! your getting slow in your old age.
RE: Uniter via lunacy? - xxlt - 01-26-2017
(01-26-2017, 03:39 PM)Griever Wrote: do we really want pence running the show?
Spot on. Which plays to the evil theory: Trump's genius was to pick someone the hardcore right could not reject but who deep down everyone knows is not presidential. Thus, Trump feels like he has cart blanche to loot America like he would one of his businesses before filing bankruptcy.
RE: Uniter via lunacy? - Belsnickel - 01-26-2017
The problem with your theory is that the impeachment proceedings would start with the House Judiciary Committee. Speaking as a constituent of the chair of said committee, I can say with absolute certainty that the lying, spineless weasel that is Rep. Goodlatte would not let it happen based on current situations.
Now, a lot could change, but Goodlatte being a lying, spineless weasel never will.
In hindsight, I may have just typed this so I could call Goodlatte a lying, spineless weasel some more today.
RE: Uniter via lunacy? - xxlt - 01-26-2017
(01-26-2017, 09:22 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: The problem with your theory is that the impeachment proceedings would start with the House Judiciary Committee. Speaking as a constituent of the chair of said committee, I can say with absolute certainty that the lying, spineless weasel that is Rep. Goodlatte would not let it happen based on current situations.
Now, a lot could change, but Goodlatte being a lying, spineless weasel never will.
In hindsight, I may have just typed this so I could call Goodlatte a lying, spineless weasel some more today.
Wow, he is a particularly remarkable POS. Making it even sadder, he represents the good people of Staunton. Such a nice community - I expect better from them. I guess that is the power of Gerry Mander...
RE: Uniter via lunacy? - Belsnickel - 01-26-2017
(01-26-2017, 09:30 PM)xxlt Wrote: Wow, he is a particularly remarkable POS. Making it even sadder, he represents the good people of Staunton. Such a nice community - I expect better from them. I guess that is the power of Gerry Mander...
Well, Staunton has to suck it up, they voted for him. The only localities that did not vote for him in 2016 were Lexington (which is shocking for a number of reasons), Roanoke, and Harrisonburg.
http://historical.elections.virginia.gov/elections/view/80879/
I can literally stand on my balcony and see his district office, and not like off in the distance. I may or may not pay it a visit every once in a while. The staffers know me pretty well.
On a brighter note, there is a significant push for anti-gerrymandering bills in our current legislative session, including a constitutional amendment. I've been a part of that lobbying effort and we're working hard at it.
RE: Uniter via lunacy? - jason - 01-26-2017
(01-26-2017, 03:39 PM)Griever Wrote: do we really want pence running the show?What if the show is about rubber self defense dummies? Pence bears a striking resemblance to those things... You know... The guy with a crew cut, menacing face, and no limbs.
RE: Uniter via lunacy? - Rotobeast - 01-26-2017
(01-26-2017, 08:31 PM)xxlt Wrote: Spot on. Which plays to the evil theory: Trump's genius was to pick someone the hardcore right could not reject but who deep down everyone knows is not presidential. Thus, Trump feels like he has cart blanche to loot America like he would one of his businesses before filing bankruptcy.
I like to call it the Biden-effect.
It kept Obama breathing !
RE: Uniter via lunacy? - Millhouse - 01-26-2017
(01-26-2017, 11:21 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: I like to call it the Biden-effect.
It kept Obama breathing !
Funny thing is I would have voted for Biden over every candidate there was from 3rd parties to the primary candidates. And I bet if he ran against Trump, he probably would have won since he would have been a far better candidate than Hillary was with much less baggage for the right to hammer on.
RE: Uniter via lunacy? - xxlt - 01-27-2017
(01-26-2017, 11:54 PM)hMillhouse Wrote: Funny thing is I would have voted for Biden over every candidate there was from 3rd parties to the primary candidates. And I bet if he ran against Trump, he probably would have won since he would have been a far better candidate than Hillary was with much less baggage for the right to hammer on.
I think Biden or Sanders could have one. Both have the same sort of populist appeal, Biden simply because he is a decent human being and people get that. Yes, he was tainted by being friends with a black dude, but he is an old white dude so racists would have seen it as setting things straight: du prezdint posed to be ol' an white. To more rational people, he's like Poppy Bush or Jimmy Carter - you may not like their policy position but no denying they are fundamentally decent people and you can't fake that. And, Sanders connected with voters on the same visceral level as Trump - he gets the middle class anger - but instead of blowing his own horn and scapegoating immigrants Sanders offered real economic solutions. I'd like to think (and a lot of polling data supports this) that Americans would have chosen real solutions over hollow (and ugly) slogans.