trump

[Kutnupe14]

I'm not a Trump guy, but I agree that it is hard to see how he is more of a possible dictator than the other choices. Plus, he certainly serves a useful purpose if the prospect of him being President can get people to wake up to the value of a limited government that actually works as outlined in the constitution. Unfortunately, I fear too many people will always want a king, so long as he comes from their side, to ever understand it.

Not sure if srs?

 

[rob63]

Not sure if srs?

Yes I am. Him wanting to use his pen and his phone to enact whatever he wants to do is no different than the others just because he wants to do different things. Sorry you can't see that, I guess my last sentence has already been proven correct.

 

[T.Lex]

Yes I am. Him wanting to use his pen and his phone to enact whatever he wants to do is no different than the others just because he wants to do different things. Sorry you can't see that, I guess my last sentence has already been proven correct.

I'm not sure I completely understand your point, but here's why I think Trump would be more dictatorial than Hillary: familiarity. With HRC, the lines would be known, the alliances already established, and the rationales expected. With Trump, there is no way to predict - literally, NO way - what he will do or what he will try. Partly because he doesn't know the limits of the powers of presidency.

The risk is less with the devil we know than the devil we don't.

 

[UglyAmerican]

Now That Super Tuesday Is In The Bag...

 

[Bigtanker]

TrumpDonald.org

 

[rob63]

I'm not sure I completely understand your point, but here's why I think Trump would be more dictatorial than Hillary: familiarity. With HRC, the lines would be known, the alliances already established, and the rationales expected. With Trump, there is no way to predict - literally, NO way - what he will do or what he will try. Partly because he doesn't know the limits of the powers of presidency.

The risk is less with the devil we know than the devil we don't.

That is a reasonable view, but I still don't see him as a greater danger of being a dictator than any of the others. Don't get me wrong, I think electing him would be remarkably irresponsible. I just don't see any evidence that he will somehow become a dictator, rather than the typical President in charge of a government with few limits.

I suspect that everybody is talking past each other to some extent. I guess that when people say he will be a dictator they don't mean it literally, just that he will push the boundaries more than the others. I am merely pointing out that perhaps it would be good if we would put more thought into why there were originally greater boundaries than what we have come to accept as normal.

Another way of saying what I mean is that if you are afraid of Trump becoming President, then it also makes sense to be afraid of what the Presidency has become.

 

[HoughMade]

Maybe this is why people like him....consistency.

[video=youtube;rcUCLwWCihE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rcUCLwWCihE[/video]

 

[Woobie]

Men like Trump and Obama are why our founders wrote the constitution the way they did. If they had known how we would misuse it, I suspect they would have put more protections in place, but they did an amazing job.

That document has, remarkably, survived the last 16 years fairly well. But it has taken a couple of major injuries from the Patriot Act and the Affordable Care Act. I fear those wrongs will never be remedied.

Given the events of yesterday, I think it is safe to say we will be choosing between someone who studied the constitution and has spent her entire life trying to undermine it, and someone who can't be bothered to read it or care how it applies to the office he seeks.

An overwhelming plurality of Americans are supporting one of these candidates or the other, often rabidly, in spite of or in ignorance of the above.

These are troubling times.

 

[miguel]

I'm not a Trump guy, but I agree that it is hard to see how he is more of a possible dictator than the other choices. Plus, he certainly serves a useful purpose if the prospect of him being President can get people to wake up to the value of a limited government that actually works as outlined in the constitution. Unfortunately, I fear too many people will always want a king, so long as he comes from their side, to ever understand it.

Yeah, he was not my first choice, but with what is left, ya gotta settle sometimes.

At least he will say what he's thinking, rather than cucking about all the time.

Moaning about how voting for Trump means one is "giving up" on conservatism or dooming the Republic is like some jackass on the Titanic saying, "If you won't try to remove water from this sinking ship with a Dixie cup, YOU ARE A SURRENDER MONKEY!!!"

I find it mind boggling that the GOP "elite" will surrender like dogs to the Democrats but not the Donald. As an old hillbilly man might say, "At ain't right..."

 

[HoughMade]

Men like Trump and Obama are why our founders wrote the constitution the way they did. If they had known how we would misuse it, I suspect they would have put more protections in place, but they did an amazing job.

That document has, remarkably, survived the last 16 years fairly well. But it has taken a couple of major injuries from the Patriot Act and the Affordable Care Act. I fear those wrongs will never be remedied.

Given the events of yesterday, I think it is safe to say we will be choosing between someone who studied the constitution and has spent her entire life trying to undermine it, and someone who can't be bothered to read it or care how it applies to the office he seeks.

An overwhelming plurality of Americans are supporting one of these candidates or the other, often rabidly, in spite of or in ignorance of the above.

These are troubling times.

That seems about right. Presidential elections often turn into a "lesser of two evils" choice, but I do not recall it being quite so pronounced...at least not in my lifetime. The good news is that gridlock will rule the day and not much will get done regardless of who is in office. However, whatever does get done, I'm not looking forward to it.

 

[T.Lex]

The good news is that gridlock will rule the day and not much will get done regardless of who is in office. However, whatever does get done, I'm not looking forward to it.

I think it is a safe bet that Trump is more likely to cut through gridlock by force of will, with media assistance. The more they would cover his efforts in their alarmist way, the more sensational the rhetoric, the more people will pay attention. At that point, he can demonize his adversaries and bully his way into all sorts of stuff.

HRC would not have that ability.

 

[HoughMade]

I think it is a safe bet that Trump is more likely to cut through gridlock by force of will, with media assistance. The more they would cover his efforts in their alarmist way, the more sensational the rhetoric, the more people will pay attention. At that point, he can demonize his adversaries and bully his way into all sorts of stuff.

HRC would not have that ability.

I can't say that this doesn't make sense.

 

[rob63]

I think it is a safe bet that Trump is more likely to cut through gridlock by force of will, with media assistance. The more they would cover his efforts in their alarmist way, the more sensational the rhetoric, the more people will pay attention. At that point, he can demonize his adversaries and bully his way into all sorts of stuff.

HRC would not have that ability.

It is also possible that the media would successfully oppose whatever he tries to do, while giving the green light to whatever she wants to do. Thus, making her the worse option. It's sad that we have reached the point that we can only argue about which of our options is the biggest threat to our liberty!

 

[T.Lex]

I can't say that this doesn't make sense.

I don't think that there can't be enough people not using double negatives these days. It isn't like it isn't a lost art or something.

 

[T.Lex]

It is also possible that the media would successfully oppose whatever he tries to do, while giving the green light to whatever she wants to do. Thus, making her the worse option. It's sad that we have reached the point that we can only argue about which of our options is the biggest threat to our liberty!

First, I think in this cycle, the biggest threat to our liberty analysis is totally valid. And depressing as hell. (Please, let's avoid mentioning Purgatory in this thread.) (Dammit.)

Second, the media will report every stupid thing Trump would want to do. Let's say he instructs the Department of Justice to investigate libel as wire fraud, since the false reports are sent electronically across state lines. The media would (hopefully) be rightly pissed. But, it isn't like they can do anything about it. Let's say a member of Congress speaks up and says it is unconstitutional. For one thing, it probably wouldn't matter. For another thing, Trump would just ridicule that Congressman and the media would report it. His supporters would believe it.

Hillary IMHO would be less likely to stretch for that bridge too far, and would be more easily shut down by familiar enemies.

 

[nate77]

That seems about right. Presidential elections often turn into a "lesser of two evils" choice, but I do not recall it being quite so pronounced...at least not in my lifetime. The good news is that gridlock will rule the day and not much will get done regardless of who is in office. However, whatever does get done, I'm not looking forward to it.

Gridlock will only work for so long, our debt is at astronomical levels, workforce participation is at record lows, government power and regulation are all encompassing.

Can this county survive 4 more years of gridlock, and continuing down our current path; 8 years, or can we just go on borrowing and printing forever?

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Well, it's over. The Republicans just put the Bush people in charge of stopping Trump. Trump will eat those morons alive.

Anti-Trump super PAC gears up for big fight, hires former Bush aide

 

[danimal]

Maybe this is why people like him....consistency.

[video=youtube;rcUCLwWCihE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rcUCLwWCihE[/video]

Well duh, he tells it like it is, isn't that what they want?

 

[Tombs]

I think it is a safe bet that Trump is more likely to cut through gridlock by force of will, with media assistance. The more they would cover his efforts in their alarmist way, the more sensational the rhetoric, the more people will pay attention. At that point, he can demonize his adversaries and bully his way into all sorts of stuff.

HRC would not have that ability.

No, HRC will just take us into many more wars, continue to murder American citizens, and sell our intelligence to foreign governments. Then she'll push along a couple hyper-liberal hyper-progressive anti-gun nutcases onto the supreme court who will set fire to the constitution for fun.

HRC is maliciously anti-american and has demonstrated it her entire life, if you think she'd do less harm than Trump, you're nuts.

Here's her playbook, keep telling yourself that her goals aren't intentionally malicious:

 

[T.Lex]

No, HRC will just take us into many more wars

Like what?

Against Daesh? Trump's the one talking about doing whatever is necessary to eliminate them.

Against China? Let's dry up their largest single importer (us) and see how they respond.

Against Mexico? You think he wouldn't?

continue to murder American citizens

Not even sure which thing you're referring to here.

and sell our intelligence to foreign governments

"Sell"? What would Trump NOT sell? He'd step over his sick grandmother to sell the dress off her back.

Then she'll push along a couple hyper-liberal hyper-progressive anti-gun nutcases onto the supreme court who will set fire to the constitution for fun.

HRC is maliciously anti-american and has demonstrated it her entire life, if you think she'd do less harm than Trump, you're nuts.

I'm not saying HRC would be good - that's nuts. My main point is that with each effort she made in those directions, she'd be LESS effective than Trump.

As a human being, she is less effective than Trump.

The fact that Trump has historically been effective at getting what he wants is part of the danger.

Here's her playbook, keep telling yourself that her goals aren't intentionally malicious:

Here's his:

Have you read it? He's in it for himself.