The Trump Card...

[ATeam]

But, to clear up the apparent semantic confusion over the written word, which so often happens, please answer the following multiple choice question...

Donald J Trump _____ fit to lead as President.

1 - is
2 - is not​

​

I'm not going there because the term "fit to lead" can mean anything anyone wants it to mean and I dislike the imprecise term. Also it is irrelevant to the points I previously made; specifically:

I believe that after Trump serves for a while, Pence will come to be seen the better alternative and the Republicans who have the power to do so will impeach Trump to get Pence. That will happen when Trump's negative chickens come home to roost and the popular support he now enjoys declines to the point that impeachment presents a low political risk for those in a position to initiate the impeachment process.

Regarding those points, it does not matter if Donald Trump is fit to lead or not. He IS the president elect. An opinion, one way or another about his fitness to lead, means nothing. The die is cast. In a few weeks, Donald Trump -- fit, unfit or otherwise -- will be the President of the United States.

I have my eyes on two things: (1) the strength (weakness) of Trumps popular support, and (2) Trump committing an impeachable offense. Developments in both areas must occur before movement toward impeachment begins.

Unless Trump moves quickly to avoid it, #2 will happen the instant he takes his hand off the Bible on Inauguration Day because of his business conflicts.The political will required for House Republicans to charge him with those offenses does not now exist, but justification for the charge will be easy to show when the political will to impeach develops.

It is neither necessary nor helpful for me to get drawn into a debate about Trump's fitness to lead. My purpose is to share my prediction and sit back for a year or so to see how things play out.

My purpose is also to have some discussion fun along the way, but that does not include a discussion about fitness to lead because I view that as pointless.

 

[Turtle]

I'm not going there because the term "fit to lead" can mean anything anyone wants it to mean and I dislike the imprecise term.

No, it really can't mean anything anyone wants it to mean, at least not in the context of leading as president. Fit means the exact opposite of unfit, and we already know what unfit means, thus fit means "of the necessary quality or standard to meet a particular purpose, suitable." Lead is defined as "being in command or in charge, to cause others to follow in the same direction." It's a very simple question without ambiguous semantics, one that is without a right or wrong answer. The only way to get it wrong is to fail to answer it at all.

It is neither necessary nor helpful for me to get drawn into a debate about Trump's fitness to lead.

That ship sailed when I opined that you feel Trump is unfit to lead, and stated my reasons for doing so, and then you objected to the semantics of my phrasing, and accused me of putting words in your mouth, while at the same time doubled down that Trump is unfit to lead as president. There is simply no rationality of thought that one can use to claim, in the context of being a leader as the President of the United States and the free world, that someone's "style of leadership is not a good fit for the seat he's about to take" means anything other than he is "not fit to lead" in that very same capacity, position and context.

I can understand someone not wanting to go out on a limb with the firm commitment of saying someone is "not fit to lead" or "not fit to be President" or any number of other unambiguous positions, but it is confusing when placed along side the equally unambiguous positions of offering up a confident diagnosis of a mental disorder and that of predicting an impeachment.

 

[OntarioVanMan]

Well there are a few that have a conflict from the git go... even if Trump were separate from his businesses what do you think the conversations at the dinner table will be? Daddy giving "advice"?
Pudtiz is in the same conflict boat. Labor portfolio while a CEO? He has already stated anti minimum wage stance... what a surprise...

 

[ATeam]

Well there are a few that have a conflict from the git go... even if Trump were separate from his businesses what do you think the conversations at the dinner table will be? Daddy giving "advice"?
Pudtiz is in the same conflict boat. Labor portfolio while a CEO? He has already stated anti minimum wage stance... what a surprise...

If Trump separated himself from his businesses and left them for his children to run, a conflict would still exist. A true blind trust is the solution but that is not realistic given Trump's desire to keep his businesses and the length of time it would take even to move such a business empire into a blind trust. If all he owned was stocks and bonds, the portfolio could be transferred into a blind trust with a signature. Golf courses, buildings, licensing agreements, outstanding loans, assets affected by current litigation and more in numerous countries are not as easily moved. Even if Trump decided to give away everything and donate the proceeds to the poor, it would take years to work through the legalities and get that done.

Sticking to my main points, the conflicts are significant because they can be said to be an impeachable offense when the political will develops in the U.S. House to make such a charge. There has been and will continue to be a great deal of talk about Trump's conflicts of interest. That is what it is. The conflicts become significant to my point when Republicans in the U.S. House start talking about them as impeachable offenses.

 

[Turtle]

The President, Vice President, members of Congress, and Federal Judges are explicitly exempted from most federal conflict of interest laws. Federal Judges, however, must abide by the Code of Conduct for United States Judges, per the Judicial Conference of the United States, created by Congress specifically to create the policy guidelines of federal courts. And, members of Congress are also covered by parts of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 and amended in 1989, including the honoraria ban (receiving money for speaking engagements and for writing books) which was found to be unconstitutional for Executive Branch employees. Congress is barred from receiving money from outside employment while service in Congress.

But the President and Vice President are not covered under these laws (except for the regular stuff like corruption and bribery and other laws like that), and are really only covered under receiving gifts, emoluments (money), an office or title, of any kind, from any king, prince, or foreign state, without the consent of Congress. With both politics and human nature being what they are, it seems clear enough that private financial interests can subtly sway even the most virtuous of leaders.

It would seem that Congress will have to vote on the same day he's sworn in whether to impeach Trump, or give him consent to keep his foreign financial interests. Those who lean more Left will argue that it's impeachable from the git go. Those on the Right will argue that "king, prince or foreign state" means "foreign governments" and that mere revenue from a property in a foreign country does not apply at all to the Emoluments Clause.

Personally, I think the Trump Hotel in DC is going to be a problem, maybe his biggest, and it's one they need to work out before he's sworn in. Not only will he become both the landlord and the tenant at the same time, but an absolute ban on foreign nationals traveling on that government's dime will have to be put in place for staying at the hotel. Because that will be, absolutely, an emolument "of any kind" from a foreign state "of any kind" regardless of Left or Right.

 

[OntarioVanMan]

that kind of sucks...all these Summits will have to be booked where a Trump hotel is not...it will be a PIA...the critics will be watching every shadow on the wall with every major transaction that Trump not have any skin in the game..from government contracts to the positioning of military bases should Trump have Real estate anywhere close...
Once a Canadian Prime Minister happened to own Canada Steamship Lines....you know the lake frieghters?...anyhow he had to step down from the board of directors and let his son take over the company..."On paper"...since the federal government operates the St Lawrence Seaway...his ships might get to go thru first I guess...

 

[ATeam]

It would seem that Congress will have to vote on the same day he's sworn in whether to impeach Trump, or give him consent to keep his foreign financial interests.

A third alternative exists. Congress can do nothing today (or on Inauguration Day) and do something different in the future.

 

[Turtle]

It would seem that Congress will have to vote on the same day he's sworn in whether to impeach Trump, or give him consent to keep his foreign financial interests.

A third alternative exists. Congress can do nothing today (or on Inauguration Day) and do something different in the future.

The key to dealing with conflicts is transparency about any decision that could have an effect on Trump’s business interests. The almost certainly won't be a thing where it's easier to get forgiveness than permission. An Executive Order that even peripherally benefits his business interests will have to be fully disclosed up front, because I don't think even his supporters will forgive using the office of the presidency as a platform for enrichment.

The challenge, mainly for Congress, will be creating a mechanism for dealing with questions that might arise from Trump’s business interests, rather than relying on the good faith of the parties involved or, as the NYT noted, deflecting the issue with claims that any criticism is only political, especially in foreign countries in which the he has investments.

Over the past 8 years whenever anyone criticized Obama's policies and actions, they were immediately branded a racist, despite the criticisms being totally political. With Trump, the criticisms and charges of corruption will be branded as political, regardless of who voices the criticisms (in no small part because his own party hates him), even when the criticisms are totally legitimate. If Trumps makes a decision that "oh, by the way, just so happens" to benefit his business, even if the business interest played zero part in the decision, a legitimate charge of self-dealing can and probably will be brought.

That's why transparency up front is going to be key, and Congress will have to create some way to deal with it. One way will be to have someone (or several someones) who's primary job is to keep track of any and all potential conflicts, and be the direct conduit to Congress (at least an Oversight Committee or something) to keep everything transparent.

 

[OntarioVanMan]

Now if we could only control Hannity he seems like a little puppy dog gets so excited he is peeing all over the floor..

 

[ATeam]

Because we are talking about the presidency, the conflicts present a far greater risk to America than simple self-dealing, personal enrichment, appearances of impropriety and fuel for criticism from Trump's opponents. As president, Trump is seriously compromised and his business interests abroad present risks to the country that would not exist if he did not have such holdings.

What would the national response be if ISIS sent suicide bombers into three corporate buildings in three different countries in a coordinated attack and those buildings were occupied by Apple, McDonald's, a Wall Street firm or other such company? How might it be different if the buildings had Trump's name on them? How much more attractive of a target do Trump's buildings make because his name is on them? Trump holdings present terrorists with an easy opportunity to attack not just the U.S. but Trump himself.

In the above scenario, would Trump respond differently if his buildings were attacked vs. those of a different American company? Would he be quick to deploy troops and put American soldiers in harms way if his own buildings were attacked? Will it become the U.S. taxpayer's responsibility to provide security for Trump's business holdings worldwide because he is the U.S. president? We have no way of knowing but plenty of cause to wonder.

Trump owes money to banks in other countries but because of the lack of transparency, and because he maintains those holdings, we have no way of knowing what might be truly behind his actions as president. Already, speculation is running that there is more back-scratching going on between Trump and Putin than has been publicly disclosed. I hate speculation because it is just that, speculation. But Trump's holdings provide endless fodder for that activity and it will weaken his presidency.

Trump's business accomplishments are one of the often-cited reasons people voted for him. It is a double-edged sword. His business holdings present a target for terrorists and critics alike and he cannot easily free himself from that. As a negotiator with world leaders, Trump's hand is not strengthened because he has worldwide business holdings. It is weakened because the holdings give countries leverage over Trump they otherwise would not have, (like the Istanbul incident now unfolding, for example, see post #2280 above).

Terrorists and foreign governments that seek to advance their own agendas care little about the finer points of U.S. law when it comes to conflicts of interests. To them, Trump's business holdings present an advantage-giving opportunity. To understand the full importance of these conflicts of interests, do not look at them like you were an attorney for the Democratic party, look at them like you were a strategist for ISIS, Russia, Japan and any other country in which such assets exist.

 

[ATeam]

There’s no question Donald Trump has observable narcissistic traits - extreme self-promotion, arrogance and boastfulness, low empathy, a willingness to take advantage of others for personal gain, and constant attention-seeking. There's little dispute about those traits and you don’t need to be a mental health professional to observe them. Whether these traits actually coalesce into a diagnosable condition and whether they truly interfere with his life functioning is unknowable to anyone who hasn't met the man and personally assessed him, especially for those who are not mental health professionals, such as, say, someone with a doctorate in psychology or psychiatry.

Quite by accident, I stumbled upon this piece today. It presents a diagnosis of Trump from a board-certified psychiatrist who has met the man personally and has had numerous opportunities to make observations. I trust this meets the credentials and know-ability criteria Turtle stated above. The psychiatrist is Fox News contributor and syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer. (Source)

"Trump’s hypersensitivity and unedited, untempered Pavlovian responses are, shall we say, unusual in both ferocity and predictability.

"This is beyond narcissism. I used to think Trump was an 11-year-old, an undeveloped schoolyard bully. I was off by about 10 years. His needs are more primitive, an infantile hunger for approval and praise, a craving that can never be satisfied. He lives in a cocoon of solipsism where the world outside himself has value — indeed exists — only insofar as it sustains and inflates him."

I hope readers are beginning to see why I am confident in my prediction that Trump will be impeached. When you combine (1) a man of the above-described mindset, (2) the vulnerabilities Trump's global business empire exposes him and the country to, (3) the powers of the presidency, (4) a world full of countries that have their own interests to put first, (5) the many negative political seeds Trump previously planted, and (6) constitutional limits on the president that Trump is not predisposed to see or care about; a potentially explosive concoction exists. I believe, it is only a matter of time before a crisis is set off and the impeachment conversation becomes part of this volatile mix.

 

[Ragman]

I hope readers are beginning to see why I am confident in my prediction that Trump will be impeached.

I think most of us following this debate find merrit in both positions.

It has been very refreshing to see both of you discussing this situation without resorting to name calling that seem so prevalent in The Soapbox.

Cudos to both.

 

[ATeam]

It has been very refreshing to see both of you discussing this situation without resorting to name calling that seem so prevalent in The Soapbox.

Cudos to both.

Thank you, Ragman. As much as I have enjoyed it, I must exit this debate for a while. Diane and I run a gym and the New Year's resolution rush begins tomorrow. Time will be precious for the next three months as we will be enrolling and serving a surge of new members. It's all hands on deck for staff now, and I'm part of the staff. I'll give myself permission to post again sometime after March.

Tipping my hat to Turtle as I take my leave. Everyone be safe.

 

[paullud]

It has been very refreshing to see both of you discussing this situation without resorting to name calling that seem so prevalent in The Soapbox.

Cudos to both.

Thank you, Ragman. As much as I have enjoyed it, I must exit this debate for a while. Diane and I run a gym and the New Year's resolution rush begins tomorrow. Time will be precious for the next three months as we will be enrolling and serving a surge of new members. It's all hands on deck for staff now, and I'm part of the staff. I'll check in again sometime after March.

After that it's free money for awhile because people are too scared to cancel their membership and admit failure.

 

[paullud]

"Trump’s hypersensitivity and unedited, untempered Pavlovian responses are, shall we say, unusual in both ferocity and predictability.

I think it's important to remember that he was also playing a character on TV for decades. His campaign and demeanor changed as time went on.

 

[ATeam]

After that it's free money for awhile because people are too scared to cancel their membership and admit failure.

It does not work that way in our gym, paullud. We're good to our people and work with them. There are indeed some gym chains in the industry whose business model is exactly as you describe. For them, it's about the money and they could not care less about the people they enroll. For us it's about developing positive relationships and it matters deeply to Diane and me that people succeed in their health and fitness journeys.

 

[paullud]

It does not work that way in our gym, paullud. We're good to our people and work with them. There are indeed some gym chains in the industry whose business model is exactly as you describe. For them, it's about the money and they could not care less about the people they enroll. For us it's about developing positive relationships and it matters deeply to Diane and me that people succeed in their health and fitness journeys.

That's a great attitude to keep people coming in and hopefully bring in friends and family to build a long term business. I haven't been around in awhile but I hope everything has been going well in your "retirement" and wish you both well going forward.

 

[Ragman]

It has been very refreshing to see both of you discussing this situation without resorting to name calling that seem so prevalent in The Soapbox.

Cudos to both.

I'll give myself permission to post again sometime after March.

Tipping my hat to Turtle as I take my leave. Everyone be safe.

You're welcome to post anytime.....

 

[Turtle]

Quite by accident, I stumbled upon this piece today. It presents a diagnosis of Trump from a board-certified psychiatrist who has met the man personally and has had numerous opportunities to make observations. I trust this meets the credentials and know-ability criteria Turtle stated above. The psychiatrist is Fox News contributor and syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer.

It certainly meets the credentials and know-ability criteria, but it is not a diagnosis of Trump from a board-certified psychiatrist as a result of a medical assessment as much as it is just one of many politically motivated anti-Trump pieces Krauthammer wrote before the November Election. In addition to the quotes you highlighted, don't too quickly dismiss the same board-certified psychiatrist's opinion that he used to think Trump was an 11-year old, but now thinks Trump is 10 years younger than that (mentally, I'm assuming). That doesn't exactly sound like an unimpassioned professional medical opinion resulting from a clinical medical assessment. It sounds more like classic demonizing rhetoric.

Krauthammer, like many conservatives, initially cast Trump as a joke candidate, then as Trump culled his Republican opponents Krauthammer moved to mocking Trump, then joining the chorus for a Republican Convention uprising against him, and when that didn't work he confidently predicted there was no way he could win the presidency. Krauthammer spewed unfiltered hatred of Trump in print and on Fox News, particularly on Bill O'Reilly's show, as well as CNN (they loved him over there) and at MSNBC, for months.

Also note in the same article that Krauthammer embraces the same narrative of the anti-Trumpers by reinforcing that Trump attacked, attacked, mind, you, attacked a Gold Star Family. But how did he attack this family? Trump simply asked why the wife didn't speak at the Convention, and stated that he would have liked to have heard from her. Vicious bastard. How dare he ask such an offensive question!

You get my point.

It's really easy to find confirmational bias on the Internet. I can point you to plenty of articles penned by psychologists and psychiatrists, or with interviews from them, where they cite Trump as being narcissistic and unfit to lead (or as Krauthammer put it, "unfit to command the nation"), as well as I can point to plenty of articles by the people possessing the same credentials that say the exact opposite, all of whom on both sides have their own political bias in the mix.

It's human nature to point to things in order to be able to say, "See! This person [or all these people] agree with me! Therefore I must be right! So neener neener!" But if that were true, then based on Fox News' ratings, they are the gold standard for impartial, unbiased, fair and balanced truth. <snort> As Giordano Bruno once said in a speech in a debate at the College of Cambray (1588), "Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people." For that reason I am mindful of the times when I go looking for my own confirmational bias, and I caution others to do the same.

 

[Turtle]

I hope readers are beginning to see why I am confident in my prediction that Trump will be impeached.

I think most of us following this debate find merrit in both positions.

It has been very refreshing to see both of you discussing this situation without resorting to name calling that seem so prevalent in The Soapbox.

Cudos to both.

Thanks. Once you start name-calling and throwing insults, i.e., making it about the poster rather than the post, informative, productive conversation ends. The issues themselves, and the disparate opinions about them, are far more interesting.