Is Trump showing worrying signs of mental disorder?

annodomini !

'It's going to be a beautiful thing'

Our democratic system has changed and evolved since the time of George III even though we have an unwritten constitution.

The constitution of the USA seems to be stuck in a time warp, set in stone with the Head of State having executive powers, unlike our own symbolic Head of State who rarely expresses an opinion on politics.

Thanks MaizieD

It is beginning to feel more like a reality tv show
Who will be fired next?

I don't know about the 'heart attack'. I still feel that he will be impeached over tax like Al Capone (was it Al Capone?). You can't argue with a paper trial - well Trump would of course, but it would stop most conspiracy theories. Just imagine if he had a natural heart attack! Conspiracy theories would run rife

Mair if it suits their purpose, yes.

anno strewth!! You couldn't make it up could you?

Today is Grounghog Day in the US.... this presidency is starting to look like the movie.

The same-old-$hit-on-a-shingle day after day from him.

Bleagh!

a serious

Gawdamighty * annodomini *! That speech is not as serious analysis of the history and role of black Americans; it is a rant about himself!! Heaven help us.

Rigby46 said:

He will have a 'heart attack' surely?

Nope GGMK2 deffo heart attack. Mental illness or impeachment would be too damaging to the US reputation - but whatever, it would then be President Pence and on some issues he makes Trump look like a softie.

So you believe he will be murdered by the US ruling elite.

I agree, rose, it is extraordinary. The fact is Trump is a "celeb", ie someone who has appeared a lot on TV and in the gossip columns of certain newspapers. I find it surprising that so many people are not just impressed, but even obsessed by this cast of "celebs" as I have very little interest in any of them.

Most of us belong to a generation where we might be interested in people who had achieved something, rather than just becoming famous for being famous. Unfortunately the modern interest in "celebs" sells newspapers and magazines and this interest can be exploited by editors and proprietors to promote their agenda.

Trump has not even been a particularly successful business person. Many of his companies have gone bust and I have been told that he would be worth more money if he had just put the money he got from his father in the bank!

It does seem strange that a person with no background at all in politics can become the Leader of any country ( let alone the most powerful one in the world) I can't think any in the last 60 years or more(US) even Reagan had been Governor of a State.

I agree with you Nelliemoser. We have a system which seems to bumble along and is quite difficult to justify to people outside the UK. It's not perfect by any means.

If I had a magic wand and was setting up a system from scratch (as the Germans did after WW2), I wouldn't have the House of Lords, BUT it did delay the government from imposing welfare cuts and has been responsible for other important amendments.

I wouldn't have a monarchy, but I'd rather have the Queen and her family (even the odd ones) than Trump and his family and friends.

Parliament was never going to vote against triggering Article 50, but I still think it was important that Parliament had its say. Parliament is and must remain sovereign for constitutional reasons. Hopefully, the Supreme Court ruling has shot a warning over the government's bows that it is not acceptable to decide everything behind closed doors. Otherwise, they're making a mockery of the concept of democracy.

Yikes Anno that's incoherent to the nth degree.

And, interesting from a personality or psychological point of view, littered with the words 'I' and 'me'

If you are any doubt about his mental capacity, read this transcript of his rambling and incoherent address at a breakfast to celebrate Black History Week.

All I can say is that thank heavens for our parliamentary system as in the issue about Brexit. The supreme court insisted that parliament should debate this issue and not just leave it up to the prime minister to issue a decree. That it did not go the way many people wanted is not the point here.

Our house of Lords has it's failings but in many ways, that also acts as a buffer against some potential leader acting like Trump.
However we do not have direct elections of presidents/ prime ministers who have not had any political experience and has a blatantly obvious personality disorder.

Thanks Maizie. Interesting post.

I don't know if this is any help; it's from the Huffington post's explanation of EOs

While many criticize executive orders as a way to circumvent Congress and the separation of powers process, there is no question that these orders are a major part of federal executive power that is unlikely to disappear in the future. However, as should be clear, presidents are not kings and do not have any inherent power to issue orders. Their authority must come from the Constitution or law, subject to limits. Nor are presidents like Captain Pikard able simply to say “Make it so” and it will happen. Once presidents do issue executive orders they carry the binding force of law and they are hard to repeal or undue. This will make it difficult for Trump to undo except a very few of Obama’s recent executive orders. Conversely, moving forward , any of Trump’s orders will have to follow a specific process to have the force of law, and there are many things he simply cannot order.
Finally, when one looks at the executive orders Trump has already issued, they really are so vague and general that they really do not do anything. His first on Obamacare did not really order anyone to do anything, and the executive order on the Mexican wall too was vacuous and could not really command anything, especially when it required an appropriation of money that Trump did not have. In many cases these “executive orders” seem more like press releases or public relations than real legally-binding executive orders.

There's a lot more in the article, if anyone feels they can make any sense out of it. I'm still not clear what checks exist on them.

www.huffingtonpost.com/david-schultz/presidential-executive-or_b_14544996.html

Yes, they are Executive Orders but I still thought there would have to be a 'check' on them.
Apparently not Ankers:
The president's power to issue executive orders comes from Congress and the U.S. Constitution.
Executive orders do not require congressional approval. Thus, the president can use them to set policy while avoiding public debate and opposition. Presidents have used executive orders to direct a range of activities, including establishing migratory bird refuges; putting Japanese-Americans in internment camps during World War II; discharging civilian government employees who had been disloyal, following World War II; enlarging national forests; prohibiting racial discrimination in housing; pardoning Vietnam War draft evaders; giving federal workers the right to bargain collectively; keeping the federal workplace drug free; and sending U.S. troops to Bosnia.

legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Executive+Order

Sorry! Wrong thread, although my last post would actually be more appropriate here than one about Article 50.

Yorkshiregel Those incidents could have been catalysts to further action (some were), which is why we have diplomats and Foreign Offices to try and calm things down.

The point is that catalysts happen in a context of distrust and hatred. Incidents between two powers with friendly relations are usually treated as minor incidents, people apologise and life moves on.

At the moment, it seems that we have some major forces at work (Putin, IS, 'anti-elite', nationalism, etc) heading for collision courses. Sorry, but I really don't trust the 'people' to sort things out. If you studied the Reign of Terror after the Revolution at school or even witnessed a playground brawl before intervention, you'll know what I mean.

I looked up Executive orders before posting about them a couple of times on gransnet[though I more or less only looked a wiki, and a couple of other sites]

As far as I can work out[and I might be hugely wrong] he can do those executive orders, as all other Presidents have done before him.

Do Executive orders get around the checks and balances? Yes???

I have been surprised that people have not talked about them on here as far as I have seen, and still seem to think there isnt much of a problem with them because "checks and balances" will sort things out.
But I think, and I will say again that I could be very wrong, that that is not the case???

Thanks Elegran

I'm also interested in those Jalima. I'm pretty vague about how the American Constitution works, but I understood there were checks and balances too.

I've been following the attempt by the Democrats to block Neil Gorsuch for the vacant position on the Supreme Court. I don't know whether they're going to be able to hang on.

I hope there isn't a second American Civil War, because it seems more than anything that this has revealed the fault lines in a very unequal country. I don't think it is just about poverty, but social/religious values too.

I'm not American MaizieD and have only been there once but, looking at the campaigning from a British point of view, I'm not sure that I could have voted for either Trump or Clinton.

Trump is just as everyone expected him to be - running it like a business and throwing out one order after another. Perhaps people thought he could get America out of the stagnation that is apparent in many areas away from Washington.
Clinton was out of touch with the people some posters have mentioned above, the disaffected, disillusioned, forgotten and she shot herself in the foot by disparaging them. A friend from Australia described her as evil and terrifying.

The really terrible thought about all this is - are they the best America can produce?