Ignorant Fecal Sack DJT

[Nomomo]

Unearthed post shows Trump called for the suspension of the US Constitution:

https://x.com/DavidCornDC/status/1830781352423150079

Imagine if a Democrat had said that.

- Doc

You don't have to imagine it:

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/31/book ... risis.html

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... r-AA1pMqgK

https://pjmedia.com/matt-margolis/2024/ ... s-n4932165

Is Dr Exiled a fricking moron? Curious minds want to know

[Nomomo]

Looks like Dick Cheney just wiped his ass, and dumped Trump. What a crazy election year.

- Doc

I seriously doubt he dumped Trump.

Dr. Shades, have you heard of Google? You should perhaps try it out before embarrassing yourself with such totally uninformed ignorant stupid remarks. https://www.google.com/search?q=Dick+Ch ... s-wiz-serp

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

Remember when Dump projected and told an interviewer Harris was of mediocre intelligence and needed to use notes?

Here he is using notes and being incoherent in his latest disastrous presser:

https://www.reddit.com/r/therewasanattempt/s/lNPy9M2ESc

[dantana]

The dilemma in my life just now is; I want Trump to go full dementia/senile to the point that not even his herd can deny. You know, so that he doesn't win the election, make all the charge against him go away, destroy what democracy we do still have and get us all killed.

But then, when he loses the election, I believe he will eventually go to jail and I want him to be fully cognizant of what's happening to him when that cell door clanks behind him.

[Gunnar]

I fear that what is happening with a lot of Trump supporters who still support Trump is that the more obvious his stupidity, corruption and mendacity becomes, the more stupid one has to admit to having been for having supported him in the first place. I think for a lot of his remaining supporters they have decided they would rather risk continuing being perceived as foolish and stupid than admit to having been stupid enough to ever have fallen for his scams. I'm sure many have seen how stupid many of his supporters have shown themselves to be when interviewed by media reporters. Typically, they insist on supporting Trump because they like all of his policies, yet when asked what his policies are, they can't name or articulate a single one of them. Here is a prime example of what I'm talking about: MAGA caller says he likes Trump policies, but can't name 1 policy live on the air

The caller being interviewed could not come up with or articulate a single substantive Trump policy, despite claiming that he supported him because he liked his policies. He derisively dismissed all the compelling evidence (or at least the importance of) all the wrongdoings Trump has been found guilty of in legitimate courts of law by juries of his peers. He then made accusations of Biden and his administration of which even the caller had to admit he could present no substantive evidence, and dismissed out of hand the reality and the importance of the Biden administration's accomplishments, like the Chip Initiative, the job creations, the infrastructure bills, etc.

The guy obviously believes everything that comes out of Trump's mouth, no matter how abundant the proof of his pathological dishonesty.

Why do so many self-professed Christians who claim to believe in Christ's teachings of love and tolerance of one's fellow beings give any credence at all to so vile and obviously immoral a creature as Trump, who has openly admitted that his main modus operandi or method of persuasion is to just keep repeating whatever he wants to get his audience to believe until they finally accept it without question, regardless of what is indicated by the evidence or the lack of it. He literally does not care whether anything he says is actually true or not, only that he wants his followers to believe him.

[Physics Guy]

If you had the power to do so, what part or parts of the Constitution would you change?

I'd just make it easier for Americans to change, in whatever ways they wanted. The original framers of the US constitution were smart people, all right, but they were trying something new. They couldn't be expected to get it perfect the first time, and they certainly couldn't foresee all the changes that happened in the next couple of centuries.

I think a parliamentary kind of system, which has one dominant legislative chamber and makes the leader of the majority party in the legislature form the executive, is probably a better design than the three-branch American system. It's roughly equivalent to giving the House of Representatives the ability to override the Senate and having the House Speaker automatically be President.

That's one powerful office, all right. But power like that tempers itself, in a way. A party or coalition that wins an election can actually implement its platform immediately, and then everybody sees how well it actually works. If it bombs, everyone can see whose fault it was. The American system of checks and balances not only stops things from getting done, but also thereby relieves everyone of responsibility. I think that a lot of the fierce polarisation of American politics stems from the irresponsibility of impotence. The system doesn't let anyone actually do anything but scream at each other. Everyone can believe that their own plan would be perfect, and the other plan would be catastrophic, because neither plan will ever actually happen.

There's a lot of American history and sentiment, though, about having two chambers and a separate presidency. So I wouldn't expect Americans to abandon those. And of course it's not true that American governments literally never do anything. Important changes do sometimes become law. The American system isn't completely unworkable. Perhaps it could be made to work well. I think that Americans should be able to adjust it more easily.

[huckelberry]

Physics guy, I had a quick reaction to your proposal this morning but waited to say anything. I do not think it unthinkable to adjust the constitution.

This evening I still find myself thinking concentrating power into one center would enable rapid change which in our divided country would be a recipe for chaotic reversals, change without experience and assessment.

I think it is better to work out compromises and spend time trying to make them work.

By the way, have you given any thought to just who would be in power now under your proposed arrangement? (a train wreck to my mind.)

[Chap]

Physics guy, I had a quick reaction to your proposal this morning but waited to say anything. I do not think it unthinkable to adjust the constitution.

This evening I still find myself thinking concentrating power into one center would enable rapid change which in our divided country would be a recipe for chaotic reversals, change without experience and assessment.

I think it is better to work out compromises and spend time trying to make them work.

By the way have you given any thought to just who would be in power now under your proposed arrangement? (a train wreck to my mind.)

-Some decades ago, during a time of blockage in the US political system, I asked an American friend what (in the light of the frequency of such problems) he thought were the advantages of the highly 'checked and balanced' constitutional structure that led to such problems. He thought for a while, and answered, in essence, that it forced politicians to negotiate compromises with their opponents.

But that only works if both parties are willing, from time to time, to put the interests of the people they govern over their own partisan interests. And at the moment it seems clear that one of the major parties is consistently refusing to do that. I am not sure that the drafters of the constitution ever had that possibility in mind. But since it appears to be the new normal on Capitol Hill, maybe it is time to consider what other arrangements might be possible?

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

[Doctor CamNC4Me]