Before anyone flips out over the question, it is certainly not off topic, and here's why:

Even though my grandfather, Ezra Taft Benson. was clearly mentally incapacitated and therefore incapable of administering the affairs of the Mormon Church, top Church leaders decided to throw away the LDS Mormon Church's official playbook for the sake of pursuing their own power-driven interests.

This is not exactly what one would call "The Rule of Law."

Let's take a compare-and-contrast look. then, at how--when it comes to transfer of power triggered by presidential incapacitation--the unmoored Mormon Church has disregarded its own explicit rules set forth by those charged with describing and implementing them, vs. how the United States (in its founding, relatively time-steady document, the Constitution) sets forth a procedure for transfer of power due to presidential incapacitation that is transparent and expected to be followed. Why compare the two? The answer's easy.

The Mormon Church claims that it respects and follows the U.S. Constitution which, the Mormon Church declares (through both its present-pay leaders and its officially-canonized scripture), was crafted by America's Founding Father, who, the Mormon Church further testifies, were "divinely inspired" in that effort.

This, therefore, leads to an interesting and telling exploration of the Mormon Church's "do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do" doctrine since, if, as the Mormon Church asserts, the U.S. Constitution (which includes its internal processes for amending that same Constitution) is "God-inspired," then one would expect the Mormon Church to follow the Constitution's "God-guiding" example when it comes to transference of power from mentally debilitated leaders to leaders who are constitutionally determined to be sufficiently cranially functional to take over the reins from the designated teetering ones.

The Constitution of the United States provides--via its 25th Amendment--a structured process whereby a disabled and dysfunctional president can be involuntarily removed from office and replaced by someone deemed to be more competent and capable. Yet, in the case of its own president, Ezra Taft Benson, the Mormon Church notoriously, flagrantly, deceptively, secretively and purposely failed to follow its own rules when it came to its flexy-fast version of presidential succession. It did so by shamelessly violating its own corporate Gumby-God "laws." In real-life Mormon theology and practice, God does not have a body in the shape of a man; he has one in the shape of a pretzel.

Here we go.


A. The Mormon Church, Its Signature Machines and Its Back-Hallway Secret Power Grabs.

We start off with a post dated 3 April 2016, by RfM contributor "StandingMan," who asked:

"Is the [Mormon] Church a corporation? How slimy is it?"

Historian D. Michael Quinn answered that question factually and succinctly. He rightly identified the Mormon Church as a corporation. Indeed, the following information from Quinn (and other reputable sources) has verified that the Mormon Church is, in fact, a government-certified corporation--one whose mentally-mindless leader was clandestinely dethroned by an autopen machine by plotting autocrats who knew how to use it.

I had the opportunity to personally point out to Mike that the LDS Corporation egregiously failed to fallow its own procedural rules of operation when it came to transferring power to run the Mormon Church from my mentally (and physically) disabled grandfather, Ezra Taft Benson, to his two then-First Presidency counselors, Gordon B. Hinckley and Thomas S. Monson. As a result of our conversation, Quinn noted included in his published research that Hinckley (with the cooperation of Monson who eventually became Mormon Church president after Hinckley's death) secretly conspired to angle himself into the position of de facto LDS Church president--and did so in clear violation of official Mormon Church/LDS Corporation governance protocol.

Quinn records:

"By May 1989 . . . counselors [Hinckley and Monson] felt it necessary to execute legal documents giving them Ezra Taft Benson's 'POWER OF ATTORNEY [which] shall not be affected by his 'disability' or 'incompetence.'

"However, Benson was already affected by that 'disability.'

"Despite a notarized statement by the First Presidency's secretary, President Benson did not sign those documents himself. A signature machine produced Benson's identical signatures on these LEGAL DOCUMENTS,

"Without public acknowledgement, this machine-signed document formally ended an official provision for dissolving the First Presidency that had been in print for 90 years. Since 1899 the book 'Articles of Faith,' 'Written By Appointment; and Published By the Church,' had specified that the 'First Presidency is disorganized through the death or disability of the President.'

"However, this 1989 document specified that the counselors would not dissolve the First Presidency or surrender their powers despite the fact of the Church president's 'disability' or 'incompetence.'

"The current apostles have supported this policy, even though the officially published 'Articles of Faith' continues to specify that when there is 'disability of the President, the directing authority in [Church] government reverts at once to the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles."

(D. Michael Quinn, "The Mormon Hierarchy: Extensions of Power" [Salt Lake City, Utah: Signature Books], pp. 58-59,; fn. 243-245, p. 432, emphasis added)


More on how "it all came to pass" for this purported "modern-ay-revealed" proper protocol:

"In the years before his death, President Benson suffered from poor health, suffering from blood clots in the brain, strokes, and heart attacks. During this time, Benson almost never appeared in public, and First Counselor Gordon B. Hinckley took on many of Benson's official duties, as he had done as Second Counselor in Kimball's last years.

"Joining Hinckley in this task was Thomas S. Monson, and the two of them received legal power of attorney to act in Benson's behalf in LDS CORPORATE AFFAIRS. Important ecclesiastical and family documents continued to be signed in Benson's name, with the aid of a signature machine.

"There was some controversy as to whether Benson's actual mental health during this time was accurately portrayed by the Church. According to Church spokesman Don LeFevere, Hinckley and Monson reviewed major Church decisions with Benson in his home, where he was attended by a staff of nurses.

"However, according to Benson's grandson Steve Benson, who later became a vocal, anti-Mormon critic of the Church that he quit, the elder Benson by about 1993 was living in a sweatsuit, fed by others and incapable of recognizing others or speaking coherently.

"Steve Benson stated that in a private meeting with apostle Dallin H. Oaks, Oaks explained to the younger Benson that the apostles rotated in pairs each week to visit the elder Benson at the apartment socially, but that Benson was INCAPABLE OF CONDUCTING OFFICIAL BUSINESS. . . .

"The fact that President Benson's counselors did not have a great deal of confidence in his ability to function became evident when documents filed with the state of Utah were examined by the 'Salt Lake Tribune':

"'DOCUMENTS ON FILE WITH THE STATE OF UTAH ARE STRONG EVIDENCE THAT THE PARENT CORPORATION OF THE MORMON CHURCH NO LONGER IS BEING DIRECTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, EZRA TAFT BENSON.

"'IT IS THE FIRST TIME SINCE THE CORPORATION WAS FOUNDED 70 YEARS AGO THAT ANYONE OTHER THAN THE CHURCH PRESIDENT HAS OBTAINED TOTAL AUTHORITY OVER UTAH'S MOST POWERFUL CORPORATION.

"'THE DOCUMENTS, AT THE UTAH DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE [emphasis added] were signed with a machine that duplicates the signature of 94 year-old President Benson. They were filed six months before President Benson . . . made his last public speech.

"'Church leaders said this week THE FILINGS and the use of a signature machine were routine, and done with President Benson's approval.... TODAY, THE CORPORATION OWNS ALL CHURCH ASSETS--INCLUDING A MULTI-BILLION DOLLAR PORTFOLIO OF FINANCIAL AND PROPERTY HOLDINGA . . .
.
"'ENTITLED "CERTIFICATES OF AUTHORITY" and dated May 23, 1989, the documents say Presidents Hinckley and Monson can keep those COMPLETE POWERS--even if President Benson becomes disabled or is determined by a court to be incompetent. . . . the Church made no announcement of the change. It has continued to portray President Benson as the ultimate power behind Church affairs. . . .

"'Fran Fish, NOTARY PUBLIC ADMINISTRATOR FOR THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, notary public administrator for the state Department of Commerce, said signatures written by machine ARE LEGAK, . . .

"'Still, Ms. Fish . . . said use of a signature machine on state corporate filings 'is certainly out of the norm.'. . . Steve Benson . . . has said that his aging grandfather no longer possesses the mental faculties to handle Church affairs.

"'"The Church has misrepresented the condition of President Benson and stated flatly that his role as prophet has in no way been impeded," Steve Benson said this week. "My grandfather has become a storefront mannequin while the business of the store is conducted behind closed doors."

"'He said a signature machine has replaced his grandfather's hand on all personal and family correspondence.”Evidently," Steve Benson said, "the signature machine had not been programmed to sign, 'Grandpa.'"'"

("Salt Lake Tribune," 15 August 1993, emphasis added. To view the actual signature machine-created signature of Ezra Taft Benson on the incorporation documents mentioned above, see "Hinckley Monson and Ezra Taft Benson's Signature Machine," by "cricket" [Steven Clark], 30 December 2006; see also, Jerald and Sandra Tanner, "Mormon Inquisition?: LDS Leaders Move to Repress Rebellion," under "Non-Functional Prophets," in "Salt Lake City Messenger," No. 85, November 1993)


"[Steve] Benson's views seemingly were verified by an article in the 'Salt Lake Tribune,' Salt Lake City. A reporter at the paper sifted some eye-popping information FROM UTAH'S CORPORATION RECORDS. THE PUBLISHED REPORT SAID THE CORPORATION THAT MANAGES THE CHURCH EFFECTED IN 1989 A TRANSFER OF POWER FROM EZRA TAFT BENSON TO HIS TWO COUNSELORS, GORDON B. HINCKLEY AND THOMAS S. MONSON [emphasis added]. That was done the same year that his grandfather last was seen in public, Benson said.

"'This is what's so ironic,' he said.’The Church leaders and members are saying, 'Steve, where's your faith? Don't you have faith God could raise Ezra Taft Benson to speak and lead the church?' But in secret, the leaders of the Church had amended the faith that God would do that. . . . They put their faith not in God but in the lawyers who transacted the papers and who actually assured the transfer of power to them.'"

(Walt Jayroe, "Drawing the Line on Religion," in "Editor and Publisher," 1994, emphasis added)


"[Mormon] Church leaders acknowledge[d] that during the past four years GORDON B. HINCKLEY AND THOMAS S. MONSON HAVE HELD ABSOLUTE CONTROL, LEGALLY, OF THE CORPORATION OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS. Though a signature machine was used to append Benson's signature to documents transferring control from Benson to Hinckley and Monson, THE TWO CERTIFICATES OF AUTHORITY FILED IN MAY 1989 WERE DECLARED LEGAL

(in 'Salt Lake Tribune,' 15 August 1993, p. C 1; see also, Timothy Oliver, Rick Branch and James Walker, "Historical Events, Notable Doctrines: Mormonism Overview," in "Watchman Expositor," vol. 13, #4, 1996, emphasis added)

*********


B. Now, let's turn to how the U.S. Constitution handles the question of "Presidential Vacancy, Disability and Inability"

"[The 25th] Amendment Text . . .

"'Section 1. In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President.


"'Section 2. Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress.


"'Section 3. Whenever the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that he is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, and until he transmits to them a written declaration to the contrary, such powers and duties shall be discharged by the Vice President as Acting President.


"'Section 4. Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.

''Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session within twenty-one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office.'"
http://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment25.html#sthash.93ktXyGq.dpuf


So. let's get down to the nuts (no pun intended) and bolts of what the 25th Amendment means and how it is to be implemented.

In his article, "The 25th Amendment Explained: How a President Can be Declared Unfit to Serve, author Andrew Prokopandrew writes:

"The president of the United States has essentially unconstrained authority to use nuclear weapons however he sees fit.

"So, what would happen if the president, in the judgment of those closest to him, were to … not be in his right mind?

"In such a scenario, there is, in fact, something that could quickly and legally be done to avert global catastrophe. The answer lies in Section 4 of the 25th Amendment to the Constitution.

"The amendment states that if, for whatever reason, the vice president and a majority of sitting Cabinet secretaries decide that the president is 'unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office,' they can simply put that down in writing and send it to two people--the speaker of the House and the Senate’s president pro tem.

"Then, the vice president would immediately become 'Acting President'” and take over all the president’s powers.

"Let that sink in--one vice president and any eight Cabinet officers can, theoretically, decide to knock the president out of power at any time.

"If the president wants to dispute this move, he can, but then it would be up to Congress to settle the matter with a vote. A two-thirds majority in both houses would be necessary to keep the vice president in charge. If that threshold isn’t reached, the president would regain his powers.

"Section 4 of the 25th Amendment has never been invoked in reality, though it’s a staple of thriller fiction. But there’s been a sudden surge of interest in it in recent months, as reports of Donald Trump’s bizarre behavior behind closed doors have been piling up, and there is increasingly unsubtle speculation in Washington about the health of the president’s mind.

"Whatever the current circumstances, an enormous amount rests on any president of the United States’ physical and mental health. The 25th Amendment exists as a failsafe that can be used if any president truly does appear to be unwell--as long as the people involved have the courage to actually go through with it, and the competence to carry it out without causing an even greater disaster.


"1) Why Was the 25th Amendment Adopted?

". . . The Framers of the Constitution were far-sighted about many things, but presidential succession was not among them. The text was vague on several matters, including on whether the vice president fully becomes president if the sitting president dies or resigns (in practice, the answer was interpreted as 'yes'), and on how to fill a vice presidential vacancy in the middle of a term (in practice, the answer was interpreted as “you can’t”).

"Most interestingly for our purposes, the Constitution’s original text states that a president could be removed from office for 'inability' but gives zero specifics about how this would actually be determined or carried out. So, when President James Garfield was bedridden after being shot and President Woodrow Wilson was debilitated by a stroke, they simply lingered on in the presidency without doing very much for months, because no one knew what else could be done while they were still drawing breath.

"These scenarios may not have been so bad in the United States of the 1790s, but by the mid-20th century, the country had become a global superpower and modern communication tools created omnipresent demands for presidential decisions and actions.

"The chaos and instability that followed John F. Kennedy’s assassination finally spurred Congress to move toward solving these problems. For once, it moved quickly, passing what became the 25th Amendment to the Constitution in 1965 and winning its ratification in the states by 1967.

"The new amendment cleared up that, yes, if a president died or resigned or was convicted of impeachment crimes, the vice president would fully become president. It provided, finally, for a simple way to fill a vacant vice presidency--the president nominates someone, and both Houses of Congress take a vote. It allowed for a president laid low by surgery or injury to voluntarily transfer his powers to the vice president and then easily get them back with a written declaration that he was healthy again.

"And then there’s Section 4--which is about how the vice president and a majority of the Cabinet can deprive the president of his powers without his consent.


"2) Wait, the VP and Cabinet Can Depose the President?

"Sort of. There are three major parts to Section 4 of the 25th Amendment. The first part establishes how a president can be quickly stripped of his powers due to inability:

"'Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro temper of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.'

"A few notes here:

"First, the power to sideline the president for inability is given to the vice president and a 'majority' of 'the principal officers of the executive departments.' (President Reagan’s Justice Department interpreted this to mean the main Cabinet departments, which today number 15.) Theoretically, Congress can also create and empower some 'other body' that could make this declaration, but so far it has not done so.

"So, all the VP and eight Cabinet secretaries have to do is put in writing that the president is 'unable' and send that message to the Speaker of the House (currently Paul Ryan) and the Senate’s president pro them (currently Orrin Hatch). Then the vice president 'immediately' takes on the president’s''powers and duties.'

"Importantly, though, the veep only becomes 'Acting President.'Sp, the elected president hasn’t lost his office yet, just his powers--and not necessarily permanently, as we’ll see in a moment.

"Finally, there is zero elaboration on what it would mean for the president to be 'unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office.' There is no specification even that it refers solely to health. In theory, it could entail not just physical inability but a judgment call on mental health or even, conceivably, poor character or simple disagreement. It’s really up to the VP and Cabinet to interpret it.


"3) But What If the President Wants to Stay in Charge?

"Section 4 continues:

"'Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro temper of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro temper of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office.'

"This is a mouthful, but the gist is that the president can tell the Speaker of the House and Senate president pro tem that he is in fact not unable, and that he wants his powers back. You can imagine this happening if the president regains consciousness from some injury or ailment--or if he simply disagrees that he’s unfit for office.

"If he does this, he’ll get his powers back in four days--unless the vice president and at least eight Cabinet officials say, in writing, that he is still unable. Then the vice president will remain in charge for the time being, and Congress will have to step in to settle this dispute. The rest of Section 4 is about this contingency:

"'Thereupon, Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within 21 days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty-one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office.'

"So, Congress will vote on whether the president is, in fact, 'unable.' If two-thirds of both the House and Senate vote that he is, then the vice president will remain in charge as acting president.

"If they fall short of that margin in either House, or simply fail to act within 21 days, the president will regain his powers.


"4) In What Situations Might This Actually be Used?

"Section 4’s text is broad and could apply to a spectrum of different circumstances.

"The least controversial scenario would be if a president should become indisputably physically debilitated either from an injury or ailment, so much so that he couldn’t communicate but remained alive. Then it’s a no-brainer to use Section 4 to put the vice president in charge unless and until the president recovers.

"But one can also imagine situations in which the president’s physical or mental health is the subject of some dispute--including from the president himself. As a 1988 Miller Center report put it:

"'In retrospect, [Section 4] probably could have applied to the final periods of Woodrow Wilson's or Franklin D. Roosevelt's presidencies. This provision involves a sick president who either refuses or is unable to confront his disability. Put another way, this section basically applies to a president who is disabled but unwilling to step aside. He or she may be stubborn, or be in the hands of a powerful staff or of a strong-willed spouse, the latter being Wilson's case.'

"Indeed, the topic came up among top administration officials during President Reagan’s second term. In early 1987, White House aide Jim Cannon became intensely disturbed by reports from staffers about how the president had been acting. As he later told Jane Mayer and Doyle McManus:

“'They told stories about how inattentive and inept the President was. He was lazy; he wasn't interested in the job. They said he wouldn't read the papers they gave him, even short papers and documents. They said he wouldn't come over to work. All he wanted to do was to watch movies and television at the residence.'

"So, Cannon wrote a memo in which he urged White House Chief of Staff Howard Baker to 'consider the possibility that section four of the 25th Amendment might be applied.' But it didn’t end up happening--Baker soon decided that Reagan was still in possession of his faculties, and the president remained in office for his full final two years. (Reagan suffered from Alzheimer’s in his later years, and some argue he demonstrated early symptoms while he was in office).

"Finally, the text of the amendment is so vaguely written that it could conceivably be invoked for any reason--even one unrelated to health--so long as enough Cabinet secretaries and the VP are in agreement and two-thirds of both the House and Senate later back them up. For this reason, Section 4 is a favorite of thriller writers concocting scenarios in which malefactors use some bogus pretext to depose the president.

"Indeed, the senators who drafted the amendment openly acknowledged that if this power were to be utilized by 'rogues,' it could result in 'usurpation' of the presidency, as then-Sen. Birch Bayh wrote in a Judiciary Committee report on the proposal.

"However, they hoped that since the Cabinet and vice president--'the persons closest to the president, both politically and physically'--are empowered to start this process, that would cut down on any incentives for coup-like mischief. Cabinet secretaries are appointed by the president, after all, so presumably they wouldn’t remove him from power without a really, really good reason. . . .


5) This Sorta Feels Like a Coup. Is It a Coup?

"I mean, it’s not technically a coup, because it’s indisputably legal and constitutional.

"Still, there’s zero precedent for this actually happening in U.S. history, and the vast majority of Americans are likely unaware that it’s even possible. Even savvy political actors or entrenched institutional ones likely aren’t all that familiar with how the amendment is meant to work.

"So, if a sitting president were to be removed from power by his VP and Cabinet despite his objections, it would sure feel like a coup to a whole lot of people, regardless of the technical legality. And key actors close to the president could well respond like they’re facing a coup. For instance, what would the Secret Service do in this situation? The military?

"If the vice president and Cabinet secretaries truly concluded that the president could not remain in office, they would need to document everything that led them to that conclusion and assemble an airtight public case. They would also need to be prepared for the sitting president to resist--either in the court of public opinion or otherwise.

"Basically, things could get out of hand really fast. But if the VP and Cabinet feel the situation is dire enough, it could be a risk worth taking.


"6) So, Let’s Talk about the Elephant in the Room.

"President Donald Trump has reportedly been ranting to foreign leaders about the size of his inauguration crowds his Electoral College victory, and other topics. He’s repeatedly insisted, with no evidence whatsoever, that massive voter fraud prevented him from winning the popular vote.

"Perhaps the president is a basically rational person who just has a very strange and idiosyncratic personal style. Perhaps he’s just perfectly comfortable repeatedly lying about easily verifiable facts, or profoundly uninterested in examining evidence that conflicts with his assumptions.

"But many people are beginning to wonder whether that’s all that’s going on. 'I think there is a subtext here that is unlike anything that I have seen in 50 years of being a reporter,' journalist Carl Bernstein said on CNN in late January. 'And that is that I am hearing from Republicans, and other reporters are as well--that there is open discussion by members of the president of the United States’ own party about his emotional maturity, stability.' He added: 'We are in uncharted territory here.'

"Diagnosing the president’s mental health from afar is a bad idea, as political partisans can see what they want to see, and the American Psychiatric Association has long cautioned even professional psychiatrists against evaluating anyone they haven’t personally examined.

"Yet, that’s precisely why the 25th Amendment gives the power to the vice president and the Cabinet secretaries here. Their judgments won’t be skewed by political bias against the president’s party. They work with the president up close and see him in private. So, if they see deeply troubling things, they are the ones who have the ability--and, arguably, the responsibility--to act. Much could hinge on whether they do so."

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/2/9/14488980/25th-amendment-trump-pence

**********


CONCLUSION: So, When It Comes to Passing the Torch from the Mentally Incapacitated to the Still Brain Activated, Who Do You Trust?

The choices:

a) The lying Mormon Church's system of rigged power transfers that involves shameless breaking of its own supposedly "divinely-guided" ground rules; or

b) What the same Mormon Church declares to be the ground rules of the "divinely-inspired" U.S. Constitution.

Maybe when, and if, Donald Trump is eventually baptized for the dead into the Mormon Church, he can give us his perspective. Assuming he does it honestly.

In the meantime, consider this:

Only last month, "Salon" magazine's Heather Digby Parton wrote the following in her article, "Don’t Look Now: It’s President Pence! Donald Trump Can be Deposed, Even Without Impeachment" (subtitled: "Given Trump's Erratic Behavior in his First Few Days, Washington is Starting to Murmur about the 25th Amendment"):

"Donald Trump is in over his head. This comes as no surprise to the millions of people who could see that he was unprepared and unfit for the job of president of the United States and voted against him. He’s basically a celebrity heir to a fortune who was so entitled that he believed his privileged existence proved he was competent to run the most powerful nation on Earth. That’s the attitude of an aristocrat who ascended to the throne without having any idea what it actually takes to rule. History’s full of such men. It doesn’t often work out well. . . .

"Trump managed to convince enough voters in just the right places that his 'business success,' born mostly of hype and relentless public relations over many years, qualified him for the Oval Office. Since the Protestant work ethic and the philosophy of virtuous capitalism still permeate American culture, it’s not uncommon for people to equate financial success with superior intelligence and character. Many individuals among the public undoubtedly assumed that Trump’s persona at the rallies was somewhat of a salesman’s act, that he was playing the role of demagogue to rile up the crowd. They assumed that behind closed doors he was a smart and able businessman, making tough decisions on the fly, handling many issues at once.

"Those voters did not see what millions of others felt instinctively and that explains the shocked reaction and immediate resistance to his election: Trump’s incessant bragging, his lack of empathy or remorse, his pathological lying and even his bizarre appearance have been signs of an unstable personality. It was obvious to many of us that something was not right.

"The presidential transition was a dumpster fire with endless resignations, rumors and public humiliations. Trump’s refusal to deal responsibly with the intelligence community’s investigations of Russian interference in the campaign was worrisome. Picking a fight with the intelligence community over this was downright alarming. Still, one couldn’t help but think that the weight of the job might inspire Trump’s staff and the people close to him to instill some discipline into the system and keep the new president focused once he took the wheel. That hasn’t happened. The first days of the new administration have been a disaster.

"[Over the last month], it’s been one surreal event after another, starting with Trump’s visit to the CIA headquarters where he stood in front of the Memorial Wall--marked with 117 stars honoring agents who have died in the line of duty--and acted like he was at a rally in a high school gym in Indiana.

"He didn’t seem to have a clue that he was being inappropriate. He compounded the bad impression by sending out his press secretary Sean Spicer to insist that the crowd for his inauguration was bigger than any in history. . . .

"When the president was reported to have told congressional leaders . . . that he still believed 3 million to 5 million illegal votes had been cast in the election, causing him to lose the popular vote to Hillary Clinton, it became clear that Trump’s erratic behavior was not stopping. Leaks have been pouring out from inside the nascent administration, giving a picture of an insecure, irrational man who is obsessed with his image and little else.

". . . 'The New York Times' has reported that [Trump's White House] staff is concerned about his 'simmering resentment' at what he thinks is unfair press coverage. 'Politico' has reported that aides are trying to minimize his incessant TV viewing, and according to a report by 'Axios,' Trump is running his administration almost entirely in reaction to what he sees in the media. He sounds as if he is unable to handle the stress and is using avoidance mechanisms.

"So. what happens if President Trump cannot pull himself together and continues to psychologically unravel? There is a remedy other than impeachment. Even conservatives like David Frum have been talking about it for a while:

"'25th Amendment to the Constitution. Article 4. We’re all going to be talking a lot more about it in the months ahead.'

"The 25th Amendment was added to the Constitution after the assassination of John F. Kennedy and provides for the replacement of the vice president if the office becomes vacant. (So it led indirectly to the presidency of Gerald Ford, the only American president who was never elected to any executive office.) But Section 4 is about something else entirely:

"'Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro temper of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President'.

"A temporary transfer of power has happened a handful of times since the Kennedy assassination, once when Ronald Reagan had cancer surgery and twice when George W. Bush underwent colonoscopies. Most people have thought of the 25th Amendment as a way to deal with a president who has had a heart attack or a stroke and has become incapacitated, as Woodrow Wilson did, with his wife effectively assuming the duties of the presidency for the remainder of his term.

"But the language of the amendment clearly encompasses other scenarios besides physical incapacitation. This topic was a subject of discussion toward the end of the Reagan administration, when it became obvious that the president was suffering a loss of cognitive ability. It wasn’t invoked then but as we now know, Reagan was indeed suffering from the early stages of Alzheimer’s disease. Had it become more acute or obvious while he was in office, Congress might well have had to take action as laid out in the amendment.

"It’s obvious that Trump has a narcissistic personality which, in itself, is not disqualifying. He’s not the first president to have one; nor will he be the last. But his issues seem to run deeper than that. Some observers have suggested that he shows the characteristics of classic psychopathy. And there are plenty of people who see his behavior as blatantly self-destructive.

"Of course, it’s an extreme long shot that members of Trump’s Cabinet or the Republican leadership in Congress would ever take such a drastic step. (Although it’s not at all hard to imagine that in their hearts many of them would prefer President Mike Pence). This would only happen if Trump really started to behave in a unhinged fashion. After all the bizarre behavior he has exhibited over the past 18 months, one cannot help but wonder: What could possibly count as going too far? It’s almost too terrifying to imagine."

http://www.salon.com/2017/01/25/dont-look-now-its-president-pence-donald-trump-can-be-deposed-even-without-impeachment/



Edited 12 time(s). Last edit at 02/18/2017 05:07AM by steve benson.

Steve,

Thank you very much for this extremely informative, insightful and thought provoking post.

Although I was only an investigator of Mormonism for a few months (posted my story and experiences a few months ago), I am definitely familiar with your grandfather's name, however had very little knowledge regarding his history within the church.

IMHO, there are certainly some parallels between these two different leadership scenarios, and I have been searching and searching for the information which you provided in this post and its attached links. This is extremely well written and an excellent read, as is everything in both of the linked articles... once again, thank you for all the time, information and history- it is most appreciated. :-)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/18/2017 04:03AM by cynful.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/18/2017 04:21PM by steve benson.

Trump has made an enemy of so many people on the planet, except maybe other racist white supremists like himself.

He's not even a normal racist. A normal racist would be happy that Germany has taken in 1 million refugees. But he criticized Germany for doing that, showing that he despises the mostly Muslim refugees.

At least the cult let Blacks be members.

. . . over non-whites. He has said so explicitly and on the record.

His calamitous claim is that white European "smart" people are backed up across the Channel and can't get into America at the rate we supposedly need them because we won't let them easily immigrate here, even though, he says, U.S. universities are literally begging for them and even though, he says, they represent the desired racial stock to run America's corporations.

Like his chief White House advisor, Steve Bannon, Trump is an "ethno-nationalist"--i.e., a White supremacist--whose arm you have to nearly break in order to get him to even tepidly criticize the KKK.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 02/18/2017 06:19PM by steve benson.

Was trump ever officially diagnosed with anything? And if so what illness? If you stated it already I just skimmed through it all I got a reading illness called far-sighted.

Thank you Steve. Your presentation was over the top enlightening, useful and thought provoking (as usual). Love how you connect all the dots and cross all the T's.

This post gave me pause in that I am coming to the conclusion that maybe all of the current 15 fossils are suffering from a degree of mental illness as well. Their delusions are so obvious to the rest of world and yet they don't seem to notice how completely out of step they are.

"I wouldn't recommend sex, drugs or insanity for everyone, but they've always worked for me."
~ Hunter S. Thompson


"The way it is now, the asylums can hold the sane people but if we tried to shut up the insane we would run out of building materials."
~ Mark Twain


"To disagree with three-fourths of the British public on all points is one of the first elements of sanity."
~ Oscar Wilde


"The statistics on sanity are that one out of every 4 Americans are suffering from some form of mental illness. Think of your three best friends. If they're okay, then it's you."
~ Rita Mae Brown


"The only difference between me and a madman is that I'm not mad."
~ Salvador Dali


"Honesty is the best policy, but insanity is a better defense."
~ Steve Landesberg


"I may be crazy but it keeps me from going insane."
~ Waylon Jennings


"I am interested in madness. I believe it is the biggest thing in the human race, and the most constant. How do you take away from a man his madness without also taking away his identity?"
~ William Saroyan



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/18/2017 04:35AM by steve benson.

Haha ok but was he ever diagnosed by a professional like a psychiatrist or a psychologist? Not opinions of people thinking he is nuts

Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/18/2017 05:11AM by steve benson.

Thanks cynful, so its not official but from a distance it's seems he has a mental illness of some kind

What purpose did they have for keeping ETB in his position in his condition? What was the advantage of doing that? who did it profit? Ha get it? Jk. But seriously why fool the people instead of having someone else take his place.

That's central to Mo'ims's prophetganda message.

You lose that, and you lose tithing.

Follow the money. Tie the profit-prophet together to get the desired "ka-ching!" results.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/18/2017 06:51AM by steve benson.

Huh very interesting I never knew that so if you don't mind me asking was ETB used like a puppet when he was the prophet or did he play along knowingly? Who was really running the cult if not him and the 14? Or am I off base here you made it sound like the 15 are not actually calling the shots.

Well whenever you start that thread let me know because that's a topic I am interested in.

...is this part:

"'Section 4. Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President."

Where have the VP or any other principal officer stated that the president is unable to fulfill his duties? If Pence or any other official had said that, you'd think it would have made the news.

You also quoted: "It’s obvious that Trump has a narcissistic personality which, in itself, is not disqualifying."

Ironically, just two nights ago, a psychologist appeared on Don Lemon's show on CNN and stated that Trump did NOT have NPD.

Perhaps we should use different criteria to judge whether a president is mentally unfit and should be removed from office. For instance, if a president introduces a massive new health care plan, and promises that it will reduce the average family's premiums by $2500 a year, but it instead INcreases premiums by an average of $4000 a year, that president should be removed from office. Also, if that president promises that under his health care plan, everyone can keep their current insurance plan and doctors, but instead, millions of Americans are forced out of their plans and lose their doctors, then that president should be removed from office.

Also, any president who doubles the national debt in eight years should be declared mentally unfit, and should be removed from office.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/18/2017 08:15AM by randyj.

. . . the 25th Amendment's purposes and ramifications, by and large, as expressed and explained by the authors quoted, with the sources for their observations referenced for further reading. Suffice to say that Section 4 of the amendment, as made evident in the OP, is, by its very nature and wording, open to all kinds of interpretations, as the various opinions noted in the OP make abundantly clear.



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 02/18/2017 08:39AM by steve benson.

about the debt, George W Bush did just that.

https://www.thebalance.com/us-debt-by-president-by-dollar-and-percent-3306296

Obama was not the most profligate recent president. That title goes to Ronald Reagan, followed by George W. Bush. Obama came third, and his first $800 billion was actually a package that George W. Bush formulated and was pushing through Congress when Obama came to office.

The bottom line is that, believe it or not, cutting taxes massively and expanding spending massively causes the budget deficit to grow larger. There was a time when the GOP accepted that logic; it was one of the factors that differentiated the party from the Dems. That, however, is no longer the case.

The modern president who made the greatest progress in reducing the deficit? Bill Clinton.

Our much vaunted constitution's attempt to preclude tyrannical chief executive misuse of power is found seriously in want to this day.

Alas there are no effective circuit breakers to prevent another such as Mad Milhous who upon taking office began wantonly and clandestinely bombing Indochina to smithereens for years before congress finally woke up and smelled the napalm.

I'm not sure I'd equate the USG to TSCC. On second thought, I think I would. Or maybe TSCC is USG wannabes. It's interesting that both are run by puppets. But then, aren't the 15 more like the old Soviet politburo? LDS faithful sustain them no matter what. Tommy Monson could shoot someone in the middle of 5th avenue and still be sustained as prophet, seer and revelator. And decider.

All of this has made me hungry for Cheetos.

Well, Steve is not alone in seeing the similarities.

How many times has this reference been used on this board?

https://img.washingtonpost.com/news/comic-riffs/wp-content/uploads/sites/15/2017/02/TIME-trump-cover-final.jpg

:) It's of the quality we see from you. Your thoughts, ability to recognize patterns, put them into forms that make your thinking available to those of unable to produce such work, is greatly appreciated. Again, I don't have your ability to say (or draw) this string of thoughts as lucidly as you. But, I know high quality when I see it.

Thanks so much, Steve, for all you do.

What can I say? I like to draw. If you like it, you do it. And if you do it long enough, you can usually make it work.

That's why I'm lousy at math. I hate doing it. I especially didn't like those story problems in high school algebra (where I barely scored a C-minus and thought I'd won a gold medal):

"Mary is four years older than Jane. Two years ago, Jane was twice as old as Mary. What is the color of Jane's eyes?"

I'd rather stick with:

"What do you mean, you don't get it? Do I have to draw you a picture?"

Mentioned he thinks Trump has a serious case of narcissism and/or a sociopath by the his actions and words. After reading The Psychopath Test, I wonder how many people in power and/or have authority are on some spectrum of of psychopathy, sociopathy, and NPD in all walks from religion to politics to law enforcement to CEOS.
I think you have to be somewhat narcissistic to to hold power and keep it, but malignant narcissism is truly unnerving to say the least. A lot of people have spoken out how they're reminded of their abusers when he speaks and when other abusive people with authority have spoken to me, it's eerily similar.

I read the article and saw nothing more than various opinions that he could be psychopathic, or not. People are grasping at straws. He really is the 45th president for at least four years. Maybe the quicker people get used to the idea and accept it the better off everybody's mental health will be.

As for "people grasping at straws," that's what supporters of Nixon said, too.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/18/2017 12:08PM by steve benson.

Nixon resigned though, he was not removed through the 25th amendment. We need to see how it plays out. I don't see Pence or Republicans being on board though.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/18/2017 01:11PM by Whiskeytango.

. . . to remove leaders from power, including tools to employ against those who don't voluntarily wish to vacate the throne.

These instruments have been placed in the Constitution for valid reasons and can be dusted off and used when necessary.

Nixon's supporters never thought it would happen to their guy. And Trump supporters feel the same way. The Nixonites, then, were (as the Trumpites are now) whistling past the political graveyard. Nobody ever thinks it's going to happen to them. That's because they are often not very good students of history in terms of knowing about:

(a) the use of power to remove autocratic despots; and

(b) the mood swings of the people as determined by the climate and circumstances at the time.

To put a twist on an old phrase, those who don't know history are doomed to ignore it.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/18/2017 02:19PM by steve benson.

Thank you until he is evaluated one on one by a professional and gets a concrete diagnosis people are grasping right now, narcissism is not categorized a mental illness otherwise my father would be in the psych ward right now so its got to be a real mental illness like schizophrenia or bi-polar to convince me that he has too much to handle or to be removed. And maybe the country needs someone who isn't "normal" at the helm, its so defensive of the transgenders right now why not the mentally ill, some of the mentally ill are geniuses and very hard workers they get a bad stigma some of them are just products of their upbringing. I think people in power are just trying to get what they want and thats trump out of the way probably and they are really the ones with the issues.

I'd love Trump to be removed as much as the next guy, but the writer of the DSM definition of NPD and the former president of the APA has said this is bogus.

Also, since most CEOs have NPD, a mere disability or mental illness alone would not be enough to be declared "unfit." 25-40% of the population has a mental illness and about 10% of the population has a "severe" one (PTSD, etc). They are not made to be wards of the state. I'm certain we've had other presidents with mental illnesses.

. . . that narcissism, per se, is not an impeachable offense, given that it is quite natural for many egocentric leaders to be narcissistic.

That is different, significantly, from being mentally and dangerously unstable.

Moreover, the 25th Amendment allows for the federal legislature to determine the grounds on which a president can and should be involuntarily ousted from power. That is because such removal is a political process, governed by the rules specifically crafted by the politicians during these unique removals. There is nothing inherently wrong with that formula, given that the electorate is the final judge of how these politicians behave by either retaining them or voting them out of office.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/18/2017 02:30PM by steve benson.

"um," they'd still have to prove that and I don't think that's a realistic proposal given that his staff is even worse than he is and given that most of Congress is on his side. Are they all dangerously unstable too?

Most of the discussion has been surrounding an NPD diagnosis. It's extremely difficult to prove instability.

Congress would have to prove removable offenses to its own satisfaction--as well as try to make a good case to its constituencies.

If the inside-the-Beltway crowd simply can't stomach bizarre, unhinged disruptive and ignorant clowns like Trump, they'll most likely try to evict him from the promises, either through impeachment or the 25th, and then hope the voters go along.

It's only been a month, and he's damn near imploded the White House. Give Trump enough time to hang himself, and i'm inclined to believe the voters will go along with the idea of an expedited exit. And it won't be done by secret use of a signature machine.



Edited 6 time(s). Last edit at 02/18/2017 05:29PM by steve benson.

I get how the system works. Thanks.

You're just a lot more optimistic than I am about the people who have the power to get rid of him. I'd bet my life savings they won't do it. Not much integrity in there and not much pushback against the cabinet picks.

I had long discussions with Orrin Hatch. Got to know him well.

These guys are wolves in wolves' clothing. Repubs are just like the Dems. Hatch told me the Dems "would sell their mothers down the river for a vote." Yeah, and so would the Reoubs.

Hatch was not one to talk. He also told me in private that Supreme Court Justice nominee and sexual harasser Clarence Thomas had a problem with pornography when he was a student at Yale, and that the Repubs were well aware of it. Nevertheless, he sais to me, "That was a long time ago." Decry foul play, engage in play.

Oh, and Hatch swore like a sailor--in private--then play the role of devout believer at General Conference time as he glad-handed the GAs and other in The front row seats of the well-connected. I know. I saw it up close and personal.

The Repubs and the Dems both will cut Trump's throat if they need to, believe me. Duty is "trumped" by dances with wolves.

Also, they're definitely not going to. He's their puppet. Not their leader.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/18/2017 05:33PM by steve benson.

100% disagree. His cabinet picks and advisers are in control. And far more hateful.

It's almost like our OP tried to find sources that exclusively represent his position and ignored actual mental health professionals who explicitly condemn this sort of politics. Our OP seems perfectly happy to demean those who are actually mentally ill in his pursuit of a political end. Some would call this sort of behavior despicable and bigotry used to a political end.

"When people call Trump "crazy," they're probably not consciously trying to stigmatize people with mental health issues —they may just be expressing and trying to make sense of their own fear. But does that make calling Trump "crazy" harmless, and any criticism of those words simply PC language policing?"

https://www.bustle.com/p/is-it-harmful-to-call-trump-crazy-mental-health-professionals-weigh-in-39017

When is it okay to demean people with mental illnesses? Why, when it suits your political ends!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/08/08/stop-calling-trump-crazy/?utm_term=.f71a08989718

Calling Trump crazy is a slur on the mentally ill:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3731465/Don-t-call-Trump-crazy-says-Patrick-Kennedy-s-slur-mental-health-issues.html

Hat's off to our OP for broaching territory that has only been seen before with every single Republican president for the last half century or so. Yes, opponents have attempted to alert the ignorant masses that every Republican president is dangerously off their rockers. "HE'S INSANE!!" they cry in the selfless attempt to save us from the dangers ahead.

Sadly, the claims have never been found to hold sufficient merit to warrant actual actions. But this does not prevent our brave cartoonists from beating their drums and bleating their warnings. And for this we should be truly grateful. But this time it's different. Our OP has called upon sources that exhibit an unusual level of unbiased appraisal that require us to stop and take notice.

True, actual mental health professionals condemn this sort of gutter politics, and none of the sources rise to the level of a retired exotic dancer-sex worker-blogger as with some of our OP's previous claims, but we shouldn't expect him to always muster such strong sources.

For example, using Salon.com as a primary source we can also assume that our OP embraces other claims they've made. Take that article they published a while back:

"I'm a pedophile, but not a monster."

It was an important look at why we should accept the pedophiles in our midst instead of so quickly rejecting them and their entirely normal sexual proclivities. For some reason, Salon has since removed this heart-warming tale of a man and his entirely normal urges from their site. You can still find traces of it, though. It was listed under the heading, "Virtuous Pedophiles." Maybe our OP can start a new topic soon about this and why we need to go a bit easier on Mormon pedophiles. They were born that way, weren't they? Our OP would never question the sanity of a pedophile, would he?

https://web.archive.org/web/20160116085256/http://www.salon.com/topic/virtuous_pedophiles

Another of Salon's stellar stretches into towering intellectual journalism includes "How did my fellow Irish-Americans get so disgusting?" (Hint: they embraced conservatism) http://www.salon.com/2014/03/15/how_did_irish_americans_get_so_disgusting/

And concerning Vox.com, well that's a source that has also demonstrated a commitment to unbiased and fair reporting regardless of the cost.

Remember when Vox told us Republicans liked Ben Carson so much because they hate black people? http://www.vox.com/2015/9/6/9262795/ben-carson-polls

Or how about that time Vox breathlessly informed us that the Pope is not entirely on board with the LGBT community? http://www.vox.com/2015/9/23/9374887/pope-francis-lgbt-rights


So remember kids, it's never okay to demean a group who suffer from a debilitating illness unless it suits some higher purpose like formulating an attack on a President you don't like. Then you're excused from your overt bigotry, and free to fire away!

ultimately goes to his magical, non-existent messiah in an attempt to win the day through a burst of arm-to-the-square testimony-bearing designed to transform this forum into his very own tent revival savior service. Hallelujah!

In his own words:

" . . . I do embrace turning the other cheek, but when you promote a discredited anti-intellectual farce to support your atheist ideology, you're more in the 'brood of vipers' camp. Jesus had no patience or mercy for that crowd. Jesus always stands ready with a welcome embrace, but you won't see it or benefit from it until you turn in his direction."

Oooooooooh. So scary! (at least to the kiddies)

Can't wait for him to try to pull that juvey jesus trick again.

Chuckle.



Edited 6 time(s). Last edit at 02/18/2017 02:58PM by steve benson.

You never cease to amuse. And you seldom can help yourself from defeating your own arguments.

Exactly when can we expect you to post that topic defending Mormon pedophiles?

If you're going to try to convince me through your own self-defeating arguments that true happiness comes only through being "saved" by a rotting resurrected corpse, I really don't feel inclined to believe you on anything else.

You never cease to amuzzzzzz...



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 02/18/2017 03:21PM by steve benson.

"Infantile Jesus freak"?

I don't align with his politics or religion any more than you do, but I'll align against this sort of infantile ad hominem dogshit all day long.

... in screaming caps, no less:

http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,1940344,1940514#msg-1940514

And that was after, in the name of jeeeeeezus, he labeled me a "viper."

If you're going to be an enemy of what you call "ad hominem [expletive deleted]," try not to be so childishly selective.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 02/18/2017 03:44PM by steve benson.

He asked some hyperbolic, intentionally absurd rhetorical questions related to the subject that were clearly intended to point out some perceived, from his point of view, hypocrisy in your position.

--"Exactly when can we expect you to post that topic defending Mormon pedophiles?"

--". . . [Y]ou're more in the 'brood of vipers' camp."

Reading Comp. Enroll in it.

What part of "intentionally absurd rhetorical questions" did you not comprehend?

Maybe you have some enrolling to do on your end, too. Perhaps a primer on literary devices?

... yourself, given that you can't seem to wrap your head around direct quotes from the horse's mouth.

You and Tall Tales, Short Fuse can sit in the back of the class with your expletives and screaming caps. You're perfectly suited for bringing up the rear.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 02/18/2017 04:59PM by steve benson.

your willingness to be purposefully obtuse.

In your original response to TMSH I perceived you to act a bully, and I called you out for that.

Anyway, I've learned from reading this board over time that your ego supply depends on you having the last word, so take it if you wish. I won't be insulted if you don't.

As usual, our OP is masterful at running away from his sources once he is confronted with their full record.

Is Salon.com a trusted source for guaging the character of an individual? You seem to believe so, even though numerous members of the mental health community have urged critics to stop riding on the backs of the truly mentally ill in their quest to undermine the POTUS. I just point out that you choose a source that also seeks to mainstream pedophilia. A thoughtful commentator might give pause teaming with such a source. But that is a question asked and answered, isn't it?

Gutter politics plays well in the single-panel world of cartoons. In the real world, it shows a shallow bigotry and disregard for those with actual mental illnesses.

I hate doing battle with a self-disarmed man.

How's that invisible, from cadaver-to-Christus invention doing for you? He sure's not helping you here.

Hallesnoozejah



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/18/2017 05:08PM by steve benson.

Its been interesting to watch this thread. I find it interesting every time the OP's position is challenged nothing in the retort is of substance. Usually some sort of logical fallacy is employed. I love open dialog, hard to do it when the OPs mind functions like a TBM just with a different set of "true" data. BTW, I find Trump to be a complete blow hard and am no fan. My opinion on this isn't politically motivated - the whole establishment is rotten IMO.

I expect to receive a narrow minded quip embodied in a logical fallacy as a response. We'll see.

Once again, thank you for this most excellent and informative post. Certainly, I would like to see the 25th amendment enacted in Trump's case but I honestly find it hard to believe that the Republican leaders in Congress, let alone any of his cabinet members, would pursue this drastic measure.

The Electoral College was wary of overturning the results of the election. That would have prevented this mess.


Unlike ETB and Woodrow Wilson a modern President can't stay out of the public eye for too long. Trump's unstable and erratic behaviour will become more and more obvious and even his supporters will take notice.


According to several legal experts Trump's questionable finances and contacts with Putin and Russia are already grounds for impeachment. Two presidents (Johnson and Clinton) have been impeached but not convicted and removed from office. Trump's mental condition may make him the first.

Trump will fall when the evangelicals and white nationalists who supported him finally realise they've been played.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/18/2017 03:28PM by anybody.

Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/18/2017 03:28PM by steve benson.

Steve, while I concede that the Orange Guy is histrionic to the point of seeming unhinged, do you honestly think Pence would prove any better? The VP won't drop a nuke on Iran, but he is a proponent of Intelligent Design, and arguably a YEC. [<- religious reference for admin]

My concern is that if Orange is out of the picture, Pence might pick, say, Ted Cruz as his own VP. A Pence-Cruz regime would be hell on science, and the church-state line might be in danger of obliteration.

Be careful what you wish for.

If Pence wouldn't drop a nuclear bomb on Iran--or forsake NATO or any of a dozen things--he might well be better than Trump. We don't have a lot of options, so relatively good is . . . great.

Regarding Pence and Cruz, yes, they are worrisome. I doubt, however, that Pence could choose his chief rival for leadership of the social conservatives as his VP. Better to leave Cruz in the wilderness--or perhaps to make him secretary of agriculture.

And in any case, a Pence presidency would be weak. Think Gerald Ford. President without benefit of having been elected, compromised by the president he followed, leader of a party that has just been thoroughly discredited. In short, Pence would not be a strong president and hence couldn't do a lot of the things he's advocated in the past.