Could Trump be the best President for our country?

[Fishking]

So here's the dilemma...The office of the President has grown too strong and has consolidated powers that are outside of what should be acceptable. The Congress is too partisan and too concerned with maintaining their power to reign in the Presidency as long as public opinion/support of the President is decent and they can keep getting reelected to office. Whether you like Obama or not, when he said, "If Congress won't act, I will." that's a demonstration of a clear breach of separation of powers. No matter what Congress is doing, they are the legislature and the President is supposed to faithfully uphold the laws of the land, not behaving as if he can write laws himself.

Enter Trump. Aside from a certain group of supporters, he is disliked by a significant portion of the country. He's disliked by not just the obvious opponents (because let's face it, Gandhi could be running as an R and the Ds would demonize him and vice versa) but also by a good bit of the GOP. I believe Trump to be so unpopular among both the public and politicians, and he's volatile enough to do really stupid things, that it would not be political suicide to reach across the aisle to get things done. I believe there would be enough to field bi-partisan efforts to operate in a veto-proof manner.

The end result is that Congress could end up reclaiming much of the power they've abdicated to the executive over the years and the Presidency would operate in a neutered fashion, by today's standard. With enough bi-partisan efforts to smack Trump down, it could crack the gridlock that exists in Congress today. They could realize that they actually can work together and keep their jobs at the same time. It could lay the foundation for doing things differently. A popular or acceptable President would only keep things moving in the same direction we're on now, which is not sustainable. Does anyone think we can keep going how we are going? Does anyone think that any other candidate has a shot a getting the parties to work together?

 

[azgreg]

Trump couldn't be best man at an all girl school.

 

[MrT]

So basically, you're arguing that Trump would be so terrible at this job that the resulting backlash would help improve the country?

I'd just as soon not step into the **** out of the hope that the **** will somehow give me magical powers.

 

[Fishking]

Trump couldn't be best man at an all girl school.

I think you missed the point. He could be the best option because he is the worst.

 

[Fishking]

So basically, you're arguing that Trump would be so terrible at this job that the resulting backlash would help improve the country?

I'd just as soon not step into the **** out of the hope that the **** will somehow give me magical powers.

Yes, do you see the current trends being sustainable?

 

[OrphanSlug]

So here's the dilemma...The office of the President has grown too strong and has consolidated powers that are outside of what should be acceptable. The Congress is too partisan and too concerned with maintaining their power to reign in the Presidency as long as public opinion/support of the President is decent and they can keep getting reelected to office. Whether you like Obama or not, when he said, "If Congress won't act, I will." that's a demonstration of a clear breach of separation of powers. No matter what Congress is doing, they are the legislature and the President is supposed to faithfully uphold the laws of the land, not behaving as if he can write laws himself.

Enter Trump. Aside from a certain group of supporters, he is disliked by a significant portion of the country. He's disliked by not just the obvious opponents (because let's face it, Gandhi could be running as an R and the Ds would demonize him and vice versa) but also by a good bit of the GOP. I believe Trump to be so unpopular among both the public and politicians, and he's volatile enough to do really stupid things, that it would not be political suicide to reach across the aisle to get things done. I believe there would be enough to field bi-partisan efforts to operate in a veto-proof manner.

The end result is that Congress could end up reclaiming much of the power they've abdicated to the executive over the years and the Presidency would operate in a neutered fashion, by today's standard. With enough bi-partisan efforts to smack Trump down, it could crack the gridlock that exists in Congress today. They could realize that they actually can work together and keep their jobs at the same time. It could lay the foundation for doing things differently. A popular or acceptable President would only keep things moving in the same direction we're on now, which is not sustainable. Does anyone think we can keep going how we are going? Does anyone think that any other candidate has a shot a getting the parties to work together?

Not quite.

You are basically arguing for a gridlock between Republicans in Congress and Trump, being so painful that Democrats in Congress start working with Republicans in that effort.

What is more likely is a terrible 4 years where Congress and the White House are so ideologically divided that no one gets their way, and at the same time our economy starts to suffer because of that gridlock.

 

[azgreg]

I think you missed the point. He could be the best option because he is the worst.

No, I got the point. I just used the opportunity to be snarky. Sorry to mess up your thread.

 

[Fishking]

Not quite.

You are basically arguing for a gridlock between Republicans in Congress and Trump, being so painful that Democrats in Congress start working with Republicans in that effort.

What is more likely is a terrible 4 years where Congress and the White House are so ideologically divided that no one gets their way, and at the same time our economy starts to suffer because of that gridlock.

So how it is right now? I mean, we already have gridlock and we are suffering from it, and it's only getting worse. Does any other candidate have a chance at changing that?

 

[OrphanSlug]

So how it is right now? I mean, we already have gridlock and we are suffering from it, and it's only getting worse. Does any other candidate have a chance at changing that?

My issue with your comment is the idea that shifting the gridlock from Congressional Republicans against Obama to Congressional Republicans against Trump will allow for Democrats to get in on that game. Democrats would be likely try to use an internal party fight between Republicans to their advantage. Which means the 115th Congress for Trump's first 2 years potentially flipping hands (mainly the House) so the 116th Congress ends up split. Back to the same thing, no one gets very much.

Now what could change this discussion on gridlock between two parties (or even a fight inside of one party) is another party coming along and forcing compromise. What cannot be discounted is the role of Establishment politics between Democrats and Republicans making it difficult for them to work together these days no matter what the conditions.

 

[Jack Fabulous]

This is starting to remind me of when Jesse Ventura ran for Governor of Minnesota. Right up until election night most people agreed that, while he did run a decent campaign, he really had no chance of winning.

Then we all woke up the next morning and... HOLY ****!! He was Governor.

I don't see why the same thing couldn't happen with Trump. Hillary is a very UN-inspirational candidate and the electorate is in a bad mood.


God help us...

 

[Visbek]

Whether you like Obama or not, when he said, "If Congress won't act, I will." that's a demonstration of a clear breach of separation of powers.

Not when he does, in fact, do the maximum he can under existing laws. Go on.....

I believe Trump to be so unpopular among both the public and politicians, and he's volatile enough to do really stupid things, that it would not be political suicide to reach across the aisle to get things done. I believe there would be enough to field bi-partisan efforts to operate in a veto-proof manner.

Seems highly unlikely.

In fact, your general premise doesn't seem very persuasive. The answer to a president whose comments are belligerent is to... put someone in the office who is downright authoritarian, and is getting his supporters to give him a Nazi salute at his rallies? A polarizing figure is going to reduce political polarization?

Does anyone think that any other candidate has a shot a getting the parties to work together?

Ultimately, the President can't do much about that.

The partisanship is coming from many quarters: Congress, right-wing media, Tea Party activists. Democrats are not innocent, but they are nowhere near as far gone as the right. Heck, Republicans wanted to shut down Obama's agenda before he got into office.

The only real fix is in the hands of the public. If citizens want their elected representatives to oppose the President or the "other team," then partisanship will continue.

Or, it might just not get better. Our nation has been heavily polarized for much of our history; most of the 19th century was split on the issue of slavery, and the aftermath of the Civil War. The post-war lull in partisanship was probably more of an exception than the rule.

 

[Mr Person]

"Could Trump be the best President for our country?"


If every other natural born citizen suddenly died, yes, I suppose he would have to be.

 

[cpwill]

Not when he does, in fact, do the maximum he can under existing laws.

Actually - according to POTUS - he is doing things that he knows he isn't supposed to. He told the White House Press Dinner folks that his basic take on that "rhymed with bucket".

 

[Fishking]

My issue with your comment is the idea that shifting the gridlock from Congressional Republicans against Obama to Congressional Republicans against Trump will allow for Democrats to get in on that game. Democrats would be likely try to use an internal party fight between Republicans to their advantage. Which means the 115th Congress for Trump's first 2 years potentially flipping hands (mainly the House) so the 116th Congress ends up split. Back to the same thing, no one gets very much.

Perhaps, but then Trump might trying and do something stupid enough that they would find common ground regardless. All it would really take is a % to cross over to break up the logjam. Also, a Cruz presidency very well might have the same split Congress result for the 116th. The only difference is Cruz isn't radical enough to build any kind of coalition to oppose.

Now what could change this discussion on gridlock between two parties (or even a fight inside of one party) is another party coming along and forcing compromise. What cannot be discounted is the role of Establishment politics between Democrats and Republicans making it difficult for them to work together these days no matter what the conditions.

Well, I think a Trump could play into this as well. This could help break up some parties, which would greatly assist any alternative parties gain voters. If we look at the Democrat primaries, you see some splintering there as well between Sanders and Hillary. If a large segment of voters get screwed out of their votes because of non-representative superdelegates going against their constituents, that may cause some breaking.

 

[Helix]

Could Trump be the best President for our country?

no.

/thread

 

[Fishking]

Not when he does, in fact, do the maximum he can under existing laws. Go on.....

Which includes not enforcing the law.

Seems highly unlikely.

In fact, your general premise doesn't seem very persuasive. The answer to a president whose comments are belligerent is to... put someone in the office who is downright authoritarian, and is getting his supporters to give him a Nazi salute at his rallies? A polarizing figure is going to reduce political polarization?

Ultimately, the President can't do much about that.

The partisanship is coming from many quarters: Congress, right-wing media, Tea Party activists. Democrats are not innocent, but they are nowhere near as far gone as the right. Heck, Republicans wanted to shut down Obama's agenda before he got into office.

The only real fix is in the hands of the public. If citizens want their elected representatives to oppose the President or the "other team," then partisanship will continue.

Or, it might just not get better. Our nation has been heavily polarized for much of our history; most of the 19th century was split on the issue of slavery, and the aftermath of the Civil War. The post-war lull in partisanship was probably more of an exception than the rule.[/QUOTE]

Yes, it would take an extreme to push people to the point where they would come out of their comfortable partisan bubbles, this includes the electorate. Do you think it's going to happen if we just keep doing more of the same? I think that's being a little too optimistic. At the very least, it could push the Congress to limit the power of the presidency to a more manageable level. The Hitler comparison is a moot point because our system of government doesn't allow for that kind of power grab.

 

[Fishking]

no.

/thread

"Could Trump be the best President for our country?"

If every other natural born citizen suddenly died, yes, I suppose he would have to be.

Why did either of you bother to post this? "Nuh-uh" isn't conducive to mature discourse. The point is, Trump is bad enough that certain positive side-effects could happen because of him. The main one would be Congress learning to work together to smack him down. It wouldn't take much to get veto-proof numbers and also to run an impeachment.

 

[Helix]

Why did either of you bother to post this? "Nuh-uh" isn't conducive to mature discourse.

pretty much covers it, though, and saves DP some unnecessarily wasted bandwidth.

The point is, Trump is bad enough that certain positive side-effects could happen because of him. The main one would be Congress learning to work together to smack him down. It wouldn't take much to get veto-proof numbers and also to run an impeachment.

doesn't matter. that guy cannot be given control of the most powerful military that the world has ever known.

 

[Fishking]

pretty much covers it, though, and saves DP some unnecessarily wasted bandwidth.

Sorry that an intellectual exercise is a little much for some.

doesn't matter. that guy cannot be given control of the most powerful military that the world has ever known.

Well, that's the point. The President shouldn't be able to unilaterally use that force without congressional approval. Even today, we are operating in Syria off of an authorization use of force to respond to 9/11. We've been using that to do whatever we've wanted in the region. In reality, using the military should take a declaration of war, and only Congress can do that. Non-war wars have been one of our biggest foreign policy blunders for decades.

 

[Helix]

Sorry that an intellectual exercise is a little much for some.

ah. i'm cut to the quick by your thinly veiled insult. however, the answer to the OP is still the same.

Well, that's the point. The President shouldn't be able to unilaterally use that force without congressional approval. Even today, we are operating in Syria off of an authorization use of force to respond to 9/11. We've been using that to do whatever we've wanted in the region. In reality, using the military should take a declaration of war, and only Congress can do that. Non-war wars have been one of our biggest foreign policy blunders for decades.

should, should. in reality, the president has a large measure of control over the military, and congressional oversight has been eroded significantly due to the WOT and undeclared wars. so basically, electing him is handing him control of the US military. to continue in the spirit of my initial brevity :

**** ****ing that.

 

[Skeptic Bob]

I certainly think the Executive branch has accumulated too much power over the years. Might Congress try to take some of that back with a wild card like Trump in office? Maybe. Hopefully. But I honestly don't know.

 

[Fishking]

ah. i'm cut to the quick by your thinly veiled insult. however, the answer to the OP is still the same.

I gave you more respect than your posting was due, honestly.

should, should. in reality, the president has a large measure of control over the military, and congressional oversight has been eroded significantly due to the WOT and undeclared wars. so basically, electing him is handing him control of the US military. to continue in the spirit of my initial brevity :

**** ****ing that.

Yes, it has eroded. What would it take to reverse the effect, or are you fine/resigned to this never happening and it continuing to get worse?

 

[Fishking]

I certainly think the Executive branch has accumulated too much power over the years. Might Congress try to take some of that back with a wild card like Trump in office? Maybe. Hopefully. But I honestly don't know.

That's what I'm hoping for. Is it not somewhat alarming that we are getting to the point where we could be one election away from some very horrible national and global catastrophes from occurring? Out government was designed to limit the powers of each branch to balance things out but it's been titling to far in one direction. Even if Trump doesn't win now, then there will be a Trump of a different brand later. It's really only a matter of time. I'd rather see if we could reset things a little bit and right the ship.

 

[Orly?]

Trump would be the best president because I think he would hire his staff based on there credentials rather than who supported whos personal agendas and who is whos buddies.

I think Trump has a lot of experience putting the right employees in the right places for them to succeed and trusting them to do good jobs.

 

[Helix]

I gave you more respect than your posting was due, honestly.

lol. well, thanks a mil.

Yes, it has eroded. What would it take to reverse the effect, or are you fine/resigned to this never happening and it continuing to get worse?

i'm not willing to treat the disease with a bullet, if that's your pet strategy. Trump is not psychologically fit to lead the military for even one term.