Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
The Boot, the President, and 9/11
A thought experiment:
What if the President (not Donald Trump, just anybody) appeared in public with a boot on his head.
Just one day, there’s a press conference in the White House Rose Garden, and for some reason, the President shows up wearing a boot on his head. It would cause talk, to be sure. (Side note, the only person who would probably think that’s perfectly normal is @jamesofengland.)
But America is a pretty chill place, so people let it slide. And then he starts wearing that boot on his head in cabinet meetings. Then every day. (I imagine he might remove it when he boards Marine One, but then again, maybe not.) And soon the boot-on-the-head is a normal thing for him. There’s even word that he sits by himself, in the residence, with the boot on his head.
That’s still a problem, right?
Generally speaking, a normal, stable, sane adult does not wear a boot on their head in public, except on special occasions. If you had a friend, or a coworker, or saw a guy on the street with a boot on his head, you would have serious questions about that person’s mental stability.
That’s kind of worse when it’s the President, right? In theory, the President makes important decisions. He has the authority to launch nuclear strikes. If a guy’s wearing a boot on his head, maybe that’s not the best job for him to have.
But it’s okay because he has staff and people around him who keep his craziness under control. Sure, he can’t really make good decisions, and he yells and screams and stuff behind closed doors, and his public statements are rambling and erratic, and … yeah, the boot, but the staff has things under control.
There are whispers among staff inside the White House about invoking the 25th Amendment, and possibly removing him from office, because it’s probably not a great idea to have a President who wears a boot on his head. But not wanting to provoke a constitutional crisis, they instead for a “two-track” presidency. The staff, through their diligent efforts, are able to mitigate the fact that the President wears a boot on his head. They steal papers off his desk. They hide things from him. They ignore his decisions. Because if they don’t do these things, the guy with the boot on his head will probably make a mess.
But then one of those staffers writes an anonymous op-ed in the New York Times explaining all the stuff they’re doing to mitigate the fact that the President wears a boot on his head and so now everybody knows about it. We all already knew about the boot. There have been press stories, and expose books, and secret recordings, and all those times where the President has gone out in public with the boot on his head.
The President denies it all, of course, and rages at the unknown staffer, but things continue.
I need to pause here and point something out: It’s a problem if the President wears a boot on his head, right?
Now, some people here may shrug it off and say “Well, there’s 4% GDP growth, the boot thing must be working.”
Yeah, but the President wears a boot on his head. You know something isn’t right there.
“Yes, but unemployment is low.”
Yeah, but the President wears a boot on his head.
“I care about his policies, not the boot on his head.”
Yeah, but the President wears a boot on his head.
“Yes, but he was lawfully elected.”
Yeah, but the President wears a boot on his head.
“Can you point to a plausible immediate danger from allowing this man with the boot on his head to continue serving as President?”
And I have to throw up my hands, because, no, I can’t. The staff is mitigating a lot of the damage the guy with the boot on his head might do. But here’s the thing, having a President with a boot on his head might work just fine.
You know, unless there’s a crisis.
When there’s another 9/11, the guy with the boot on his head ain’t the guy you want in charge. The President of the United States needs to be able to handle a major crisis if it happens. That’s his job. And he cannot discharge the duties of his office if he walks around with a boot on his head.
It doesn’t matter that 20 percent of people pretend the boot doesn’t exist. It doesn’t matter if there’s 4% GDP growth. It doesn’t matter if black unemployment is at it’s lowest level since whenever. The boot is still a problem because it shows the guy isn’t stable. When and if the bean dip hits the fan, you want a guy who doesn’t use a boot for a freakin’ hat.
And that’s the thing, you might be able to limp along while things are smooth with the boot guy as President, but if there’s a major crisis, things are going to go south very quickly. If he wears a boot on his head, he clearly isn’t up to the job.
Now, 9/11’s are pretty rare. Maybe there won’t be a major crisis. Maybe there will just be hurricane responses for him to bungle. But that doesn’t mean the boot isn’t still a problem. So if there’s a means to remove a President who wears a boot on his head from office, we should take it, because a guy like that is really unfit to be President.
Published in General
Yes, that’s part of our Constitutional process. Most here who raise objections to Fred’s ideas do so because of the suggestion to invoke other Constitutional processes, not based on facts, but by building perceptions resulting from mass disappointment with the outcome of the last election. It is noteworthy that significant efforts, many likely involving illegalities, to derail this Presidency have been afoot since well before the inauguration and continue.
Henry for President in 2024? At least Press Secretary?
He has tried to test his unique brand of politics in all three parties, Reps, Dems, and now Libertarians. I not sure if they have a means to “boot” him out.
The personality seen and described is not different from Trump’s persona throughout his very public life. Yet he has remained a CEO and media figure. Yet he has never been committed to an asylum or even shaken from positions of leadership, however uncomfortable many have been with his personality.
We are not gambling on an unknown here.
Not having been committed seems like a very low bar for president
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MUUC-SjwQp0
On Ricochet much is said
About all of the posts that are read.
Conversation is cool
(By Queensbury rule)
Then along came a guy called Fred……
I am actually confused. Fred seems to think it is obviously a disqualifier to be oddly different. I don’t see why. I know libertarians who are actually already against the next war, even though they have no actual ability to predict the future, or what real provocations might occur.
So what if Trump has a boot on his head? Or if he sees the world differently than anyone else.
I see the world differently from everyone else, and I am perfectly qualified to be President.
Why a boot? Why not a bucket? Let us not employ half measures while wielding the sword of metaphor.
Does Trump have a boot hidden under his comb over?
He had the boot on his head *before* the election. This was all priced in. You don’t get to come in after the fact and kick him out because you don’t like the boot.
The rest is for elections to decide. And the bar for lawful removal of presidents is justifiably higher than the bar for electing them.
Boorish rudeness is not insanity. I thought you had something along the lines of making his horse a senator.
Boot on the head would be pretty mild compared to the apparel choices of many Dem supporters, easily seen at demonstrations anywhere.
In order to give the question the proper consideration it deserves, we would need to know some additional details:
No. But thinking that was something he could do while at a podium and running for president is pretty close.
The boot might be better than his current hair.
I’m already against the next Fred Cole Main Feed post.
Yes. As ridiculous as Trump’s statements have often been, they are no more ridiculous nor more tyrannical than common statements by prominent Democrats. How is Trump worse than Pelosi or Sheila Jackson Lee?
There are good reasons to dislike Trump and be wary of him. But accusing him of insanity is groundless hysteria.
To those of you who would rather complain about my post than actually engage the substance, I ask the following: Do you want Ricochet to be a safe space?
Just looking for a new idea.
And for you to post your trolling posts to the member feed and not the main feed.
Why would you want Fred to mess up where most of us spend our time?
Then “insanity” is an infinitely flexible concept that means nothing and also we should def. do the 25th Amendment thing. Let’s try this:
Mocks reporter with unseemly delight, hires Mattis
Gently mocks reporter for his Southern accent, hires John Kerry as SecDef
Which teams do you want for the next 9/11?
Every time you post, it’s pretty clear you wear a boot on your head.
There’s no more substance to engage in. This dead horse has been beaten pretty thoroughly, not to mention the initial absurdity of it when it was brought up pre-inauguration. Why is it that others disagree politely in other threads but not this one? Might it be something other than us “needing a safe space” as you suggested-knowing-your-phrasing-would-push-buttons?
I do not want a safe space. All ideas are welcome.
That having been said, I am continuing to re-read your post in a search for substance.
So far all I am seeing is your non professional, reasonably biased, assumption that the current President is crazy.
I am going to drop out for a while, but I will check back latter for substance.
Or making Fred a contributor.