I see you're quoting the classic liberal media angst that is being widely published by a class of Americans still in disbelief that anyone so far from their ideology could become POTUS. Just to be clear - I dislike Trump - but the arrogance of the left-leaning media and academia is worse.
Let's stay away from this please. There is no "angst" here. Trump is behaving in a way that virtually no other President has in recent memory. That's why many people are upset. His ideology is not the main concern (though it is indeed a concern as well), his temperament is.
Undoubtedly - yet nobody accuses him (Bush) of being mentally unsound. Trump is yet to complete a month in office and the papers would have us believe he should be hospitalized already.
You missed the point. Whether or not he is intelligent, his emotional health is a separate issue.
The NY Times story (like many others) is full of half-truths. Trump has run several businesses and used the bankruptcy law several times. That law (Chp 11) exists for a reason and has been used by several big companies to get debt relief - GM, Marvel, Texaco, Chrysler, UAL - have all used the bankruptcy law to good effect.
This para of the story, in particular, is interesting
"But even as his companies did poorly, Mr. Trump did well. He put up little of his own money, shifted personal debts to the casinos and collected millions of dollars in salary, bonuses and other payments. The burden of his failures fell on investors and others who had bet on his business acumen."
I agree thats morally wrong but business is a cruel world. Borrowers and banks are always trying to outwit the other and certainly if someone could hoodwink banks, investors and regulators and still flourish he's far from being mentally unsound.
It's not about morality (per se), or legality. The point is that Trump is a terrible a
businessman. Enriching one's self should not be confused with business acumen. This is what you wrote:
...this mentally unsound person ran a successful business for decades
He ran many
unsuccessful businesses for decades.
Maybe he's a crook or a tax evader - doesn't make him mentally unsound. He certainly wouldn't be the first dishonest president.
The point was not that he might be a crook or even dishonest, but that his tax returns likely show just how much of a
business failure he really is.
Are you kidding? The party has not fielded such a diverse and qualified field in any primary in the the last few decades, if at all. Many of the nominees had well articulated policies, well researched statistics and proven success at political leadership and public administration.
The field could have definitely been better. Kasich and Cruz were the only two truly viable challengers.
But, I wasn't commenting on the field. What I was saying was that his dominating win in the Republican Primary showed the true colors of many Republicans and illustrated the state of the present-day Republican Party.
What else do you call someone who served as his Sec State, campaigned as a continuation of his policies and, of course had his unstinted support from the primaries right upto election day. Heck Obama even let her use AF1 and his presidential podium for campaigning - somewhat a breach of ethics.
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/07/05/unprecedented-air-force-one-use-for-a-non-incumbent.html
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/286552-clinton-campaigns-behind-presidential-seal
If you look to the immediate past Bush never campaigned for Romney is such a manner - beyond endorsing him. And Bill Clinton never campaigned for Gore.
Many Presidential nominees did not want their political predecessors to campaign for them. In any case, the only point I was making was there is nothing impressive about beating an unpopular nominee.
If he had beaten Bernie Sanders or Obama instead, for example, that would have been much more impressive. Not someone with a net favorability rating of -15 (Hillary Clinton).
Nothing to do with his mental health but since you bring it up as a means of delegitimizing his election - know this that that's precisely what the electoral college was designed to do - prevent candidates who were enormously popular in popular states from ignoring smaller sparsely-populated ones. For that matter Trump lost in California and NY combined by 4.5 million votes - your numbers only prove the fears of the founding fathers of the dangers of a direct first-past-the-post election where a candidate was super-popular in just a few states. As it happened Trump won 35 states out of 50.
I said that to illustrate yet again how
unimpressive his performance in November was. He is only the fifth President in US history to lose the popular vote.
As for the Electoral College, it was actually established primarily to keep the people from voting directly for President (the electors would vote instead). Keep in mind that this was a time when the state legislatures elected senators and that only property-owning White males could vote. Things have since changed. The advantage for smaller states wasn't the main reason at all.
And no, it does not protect smaller states at all. It only gives an out-sized influence to "swing states". For example, if Hillary had won Texas (a large state), she would have won the Electoral College. In fact, a nominee can potentially win just 11 states (out of 50 + D.C.), and still win the electoral college. The Electoral College forces the candidates to focus on
swing states (especially the big ones), not small states.
His victory in the electoral college wasn't impressive, either:
And he wouldn't have won at all if he lost these states:
Michigan: 0.3% victory
Wisconsin: 0.7% victory
Pennsylvania: 0.7% victory
Not exactly what I'd call an "impressive" victory.
Also, we're all entitled to our opinions:
