Could Trump be the best President for our country?

[Fishking]

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.

Fair enough. That only means we'll still go down the toilet but we'll just circle the drain a few more times.

 

[CrabCake]

The office of the President has grown too strong and has consolidated powers that are outside of what should be acceptable.

I don't think a strong argument can be made that the presidency has too much power. If the presidency were strong, Obama would have succeeded in enacting strong gun control regulations and comprehensive immigration reform in addition to closing down the GITMO detention facility. In presidencies past, many of those issues would actually have been addressed through reaching across the aisle, cutting deals, and legislating.

Instead, despite Obama's attempts, the gun control situation remains unchanged, his immigration actions are tied up in court, and GITMO is still housing inmates.

I just don't see any evidence that the presidency has become too strong. In fact, I see quite the opposite; the presidency of Obama has been incredibly weak as he has seen virtually every part of his agenda blocked by congress. If anything, we have entered an era where the presidency has lost its power and finds itself relegated to using weak executive actions with no teeth now that it can no longer wield the power it once held.

 

[Cyrylek]

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.

And what "experience" is that? OK, his tacky reality show was a success. Other than that? His actual business enterprises were one disaster after another. And what is he bragging most about? - his superior "deal-making" prowess. That is, in the context of the Trump real estate business, the ability to glue together city politicians, union bosses and gullible investors - while squashing an occasional old lady with her silly little house via eminent domain abuse. "Buddies and personal agendas" all around.

And what "credentials" would Trump consider valid? Trump knows everything! Immigration bad, free trade bad, targeting non-combatants good, ignoring the Constitution to please xenophobic morons good, etc. He will surround himself, most probably, with toadies and cynical opportunists, if only because it would be quite impossible to find a competent and decent person, left or right, who would share his eclectic but invariably authoritarian attitudes.

By the way, in general, I find this oft-repeated line, "Government should be run more like a business" rather puzzling. Business and government are very different in nature. A good business expands as much as it can, constrained only by competition and laws of the land that protect people from coercion and fraud. A good government is constitutionally limited to enumerated functions, as it has monopoly on the use of force and it turns into a monster when to goes far enough beyond enforcing those laws. For Trump - and perhaps for many much better businessmen - the difference is irrelevant: You set a goal, you focus and work hard, you get results, by any means available. But we should know better, in a second decade of the 21st century.

 

[Fishking]

I don't think a strong argument can be made that the presidency has too much power. If the presidency were strong, Obama would have succeeded in enacting strong gun control regulations and comprehensive immigration reform in addition to closing down the GITMO detention facility. In presidencies past, many of those issues would actually have been addressed through reaching across the aisle, cutting deals, and legislating.

Instead, despite Obama's attempts, the gun control situation remains unchanged, his immigration actions are tied up in court, and GITMO is still housing inmates.

I just don't see any evidence that the presidency has become too strong. In fact, I see quite the opposite; the presidency of Obama has been incredibly weak as he has seen virtually every part of his agenda blocked by congress. If anything, we have entered an era where the presidency has lost its power and finds itself relegated to using weak executive actions with no teeth now that it can no longer wield the power it once held.

I think toppling governments is pretty powerful for starters.

 

[Cyrylek]

I don't think a strong argument can be made that the presidency has too much power. If the presidency were strong, Obama would have succeeded in enacting strong gun control regulations .

Yes, the checks and balances are still holding. But at the cost of what is perceived by many as the "dysfunctional Congress": The executive overreach is (partially) balanced by the parliamentary obstructionism (thank God!), but the whole system is under a lot of pressure. Enter Trump: A loose cannon with instincts even more authoritarian than Obama, plus well positioned to disrupt and neutralize both libertarian/conservative and liberal (there is still some, think Ron Wyden) lines of resistance. The man must be stopped, period.

 

[iguanaman]

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.

Trump is here because of the collapse of the GOP. He is just exposing it. This should have been expected when the party tried to shove another Bush down their throats. Nobody wants another Bush, after GW totally raped and wrecked this country. The ideology of the GOP has caught up with them and nobody wants anything to do with it.

 

[Linc]

Could Trump be the LAST President for our Country ?

 

[CrabCake]

Yes, the checks and balances are still holding. But at the cost of what is perceived by many as the "dysfunctional Congress": The executive overreach is (partially) balanced by the parliamentary obstructionism (thank God!)

They aren't balancing each other, they are causing each other. Obstructionism is what leads to the president looking for alternatives that do an end run around congress.

In the past, congress would have worked with the president instead. Gun control probably could not have been done because that's a Republican sacred cow, but the gang of eight proved that immigration reform could have been possible. Closing GITMO should also have been an easy matter; it's not a very explosive issue, most people couldn't care less whether those prisoners are in a prison in Cuba or in a prison in Leavenworth.

It's the obstruction which led to the executive actions.

But that's kind of the point. The presidency is LESS powerful now because of the way things are done (obstructionism). The presidency used to be able to pass legislation and push the agenda. It can no longer do that. Now it has to settle for executive actions that are practically ceremonial in nature. The power of the presidency has decreased by several orders of magnitude. Thus, I find this idea that the presidency has grown too strong rather baffling. Presidents used to set the agenda for congress, frame the discussion in the country, and successfully pass major legislation throughout their presidency. Now they do nothing but pass largely symbolic executive orders instead. How is this more powerful than in the past?

 

[Abbazorkzog]

I think Trump is a narcissistic egomaniac who desires power. Even his most ardent supporter, the infamous Alex Jones, admits this. But he has exposed the Bush-Clinton syndicate.
As big of an achievement as this is, he is still too much of a wildcard to be President.
We need someone like Bernie Sanders who unites people instead of dividing them, and he'll do just as much to tackle the Clintons and the Bush family as Trump will, with less margin for catastrophe and the end of the world.

 

[Cyrylek]

We need someone like Bernie Sanders who unites people instead of dividing them.

Who exactly is he "uniting"? The young, ignorant and excitable led by an ossified relic of a morally and intellectually corrupt ideology? - not exactly an inspiring picture of national unity.

I understand his appeal, on the purely emotional level, if the alternative is the Robot-Lizard Lady, or Trump. At least you have a human being.

But of course he is a populist divider, just like Trump.

His villains are "corporations at large" rather than "corporations that hire illegals and trade with the Chinese" - in other words, the same "blame "them" and "trust me (endowed with the crushing power of the State, please) to fix it". "It" being the undifferentiated mass of problems, real and imaginary, neither candidate is remotely qualified to understand, let alone fix.

As Mr. Mencken said, "The central belief of every moron is that he is the victim of a mysterious conspiracy against his common rights and true deserts".

Trump and Sanders are natural leaders of those morons - slightly different flavors, marketed to different demographic groups.

 

[Abbazorkzog]

Who exactly is he "uniting"? The young, ignorant and excitable led by an ossified relic of a morally and intellectually corrupt ideology? - not exactly an inspiring picture of national unity.

I understand his appeal, on the purely emotional level, if the alternative is the Robot-Lizard Lady, or Trump. At least you have a human being.

But of course he is a populist divider, just like Trump.

His villains are "corporations at large" rather than "corporations that hire illegals and trade with the Chinese" - in other words, the same "blame "them" and "trust me (endowed with the crushing power of the State, please) to fix it". "It" being the undifferentiated mass of problems, real and imaginary, neither candidate is remotely qualified to understand, let alone fix.

As Mr. Mencken said, "The central belief of every moron is that he is the victim of a mysterious conspiracy against his common rights and true deserts".

Trump and Sanders are natural leaders of those morons - slightly different flavors, marketed to different demographic groups.

So I guess you would rather have Clinton who rolls around on the carpet and chews on it, assaults her husband and enables his sexual predation and violence towards women via covering it up and threatening them lest they ruin their mafia-like economic stranglehold on the most powerful military force ever known to humanity.
I'd take Trump or Sanders over the Clinton Lizards any day. Sometimes you need to get pissed off and demand action against such raw and unmitigated naked evil that not only is what it is but is also capable and charismatic in its efforts to threaten our planet.

 

[Cyrylek]

They aren't balancing each other, they are causing each other. Obstructionism is what leads to the president looking for alternatives that do an end run around congress.

Coming from the opposite corners, more or less, we should probably avoid the circular argument. I would concede that I prefer bipartisan obstructionism. When the great Democratic Senator, Patrick Daniel Moynihan, had provided the decisive blow to HillaryCare on the Senate floor, it was clear that we were having a discussion about merits of the given legislation. When the whole Democratic body is supporting an even more complex and poorly presented proposal - the ACA - and then the whole Republican body is opposing it - something is wrong.

Still, Mr. Trump, with his genuine and sinister appeal to the worst on both sides, is likely to generate exactly the wrong kind of bipartisanship, in my humble opinion. A third term of Obama (i.e Hillary effectively blocked by a robust Republican majority) is a better option.

 

[Cyrylek]

So I guess you would rather have Clinton.

I sincerely wish the Clintons would disappear in a puff of greasy yellow smoke. They are horrible. But we have to think about who is more dangerous - tough times. Hillary will be really, really bad for the country. But Sanders and Trump, in addition to being just as bad for the country, will completely debase the Left and the Right, respectively. It may sound like revolutionary creative destruction, but it will be corruption and nothing else. A week ago, I have voted for Rubio, as a lesser evil, even though his knee-jerk militarism and certain other attributes make me very uneasy. It would be normally very hard to argue for Hillary as an evil lesser than any other. But there's nothing normal about this election...

 

[reinoe]

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.

Where exactly are these stark ideological differences?

 

[Abbazorkzog]

I sincerely wish the Clintons would disappear in a puff of greasy yellow smoke. They are horrible. But we have to think about who is more dangerous - tough times. Hillary will be really, really bad for the country. But Sanders and Trump, in addition to being just as bad for the country, will completely debase the Left and the Right, respectively. It may sound like revolutionary creative destruction, but it will be corruption and nothing else. A week ago, I have voted for Rubio, as a lesser evil, even though his knee-jerk militarism and certain other attributes make me very uneasy. It would be normally very hard to argue for Hillary as an evil lesser than any other. But there's nothing normal about this election...

It would be very bad for this country if Trump became President, but Trump's campaign manager - and this is a BIIIIG if - if he could wrangle Trump - could, through Trump, be a very big event of change in the political process. It would wrench the control the Clinton's have over our society, it would expand for people in the future a chance to make real change in our Presidency. I support Trump indirectly via the fact that Roger Stone is involved. He has exposed the Bush's and the Clinton's on InfoWars (I'm not a fan of Alex either, but I try to look at all aspects of this election and subsequent elections). Getting his message out there could help Bernie Sanders prevent Trump from becoming President due to his mere financial associations with the Clinton Foundation. Everybody wins since Bernie would never expose the Clintons but rather quietly sweep them aside into the annals of history.