Donald Trump

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

You can catch an idiot.

It seems one of those "do it for science!" things. I wouldn't trust check and balances too much to deal with someone with a cult of personality and sycophants that eat his bullshit.

Clinton will still have to do at least something resembling a functional government to survive to the next election, Trump doesn't.

You have turd sandwich and giant douche, but those voting for giant douche are eating member berries.

@ Guggenheim:

"

Schmodderhengst wrote:

Trump speaks for himself and I don´t think he has changed any of his positions. He´s a salesman.

Look, I would prefer to see Sanders instead of Clinton, but also I would like to see a different republican nominee except for Trump or Cruz, both of them dangerous.

I guess a lot of people on this planet are afraid of what´s going to happen with a President Trump.

btw since you´re quoting Powell, he called Trump a "[...]national disgrace and an international pariah."

Powell's commentary that he perceived Trump as clueless was probably the one that will hit the hardest, but I agree with you that he didn't have anything nice to say about Trump at all.

As an outsider, Trump would need to have a lot more sway and friends in power to be truly dangerous. Ineffectual would probably be his legacy keyword if he can't learn to get along with people who disagree with him.

Hillary has that inside track, and if her intentions aren't good, she would be far more dangerous as she would have more opportunity for implementation. Having said that, I do think she is far less impulsive, and definitely wouldn't be attacking anyone out of spite or at the spur of the moment.

Had Hillary been remotely honest with the public, this would be a slam dunk for her. Had Trump acted remotely like a non-spoiled angry bully, brat, this could have been an easy win for him.

I don't think many people want to vote for either of them. Vomit flavored soup or vomit flavored milk shake?

NTY.

"

NeroNoah wrote:

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

You can catch an idiot.

It seems one of those "do it for science!" things. I wouldn't trust check and balances too much to deal with someone with a cult of personality and sycophants that eat his bullshit

The checks and balances of the various branches of U.S. government have proven to be the best insurance against anyone trying to do too much damage. While they slow progress down to a crawl, no single person or faction is going to jump into control.

If a new president came into office with a supporting strong majority in both the Senate and House and Circuit Court and Supreme Court justices, then a lot of harm could be done.

The current President is a good illustration of that. He came into office with a very strong cult of personality, and wide popular support. He immediately made a push for a large change, and not only used up all of his political capital of his first term to get it done, but ended up draining any real opportunities for success in his second term.

If the judiciary reigned in his excessive executive orders, he'd have accomplished almost nothing other than Obamacare.

That was supposed to be Hillary's baby, so not sure what her big push will be for if elected.

Maybe the ACCA? the Affordable Cat and Canine Act, with health benefits and tax deductions for pets similar to those for children?

@Dalai: that reminds me that, contrary to popular belief, Congressional elections are more important.

Obama race baiting hard. He thinks he owns blacks.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/09/18/obama-says-its-personal-insult-if-black-voters-dont-back-clinton.html

"

DalaiLama wrote:

If a new president came into office with a supporting strong majority in both the Senate and House and Circuit Court and Supreme Court justices, then a lot of harm could be done.

Well, that's Trump in the next two years if he wins, elects the next member of the Supreme Court, probably gets a majority, and the Republican politicians care more about appeasing the moronic part of their base rather than doing the right thing. And Trump is the avatar of the really really really reaaaaaaaaaaally stupid part of the republican psyche.

Checks and balances are not a substitute for taking responsible decisions, just a mitigating factor.

"

DalaiLama wrote:

The current President is a good illustration of that. He came into office with a very strong cult of personality, and wide popular support. He immediately made a push for a large change, and not only used up all of his political capital of his first term to get it done, but ended up draining any real opportunities for success in his second term.

Obama doesn't/didn't have a cult of personality comparable to Trump. Trump could make people believe 2+2=5 because he is a bussiness man that puts America First (of course he is full of shit). He was really popular many years ago of course.

Also, I would give him a break because for all the bad things and mediocre things he did, he faced obtructionists without any redeeming value or desire to make a functioning government. Then again, I value more having some progress than strict adherence to the rule of law.

"

Xavderion wrote:

Obama race baiting hard. He thinks he owns blacks.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/09/18/obama-says-its-personal-insult-if-black-voters-dont-back-clinton.html

Birtherism is personal for him. Let's say that allowing Trump into the White House is the ultimate insult to him and his legacy. Start thinking a little, this is way too moronic. And no, Clinton doesn't bear any responsability for birtherism, don't even try to start to talk about that if you have any self respect and google skills.

There is a certain disingenuity in Obama making the "insult" about failing to support Clinton when it's really about supporting Trump. But yeah, you're probably right. Personal. Makes sense; birtherism was clearly on his mind given the context of the event.

Well, US elections are a zero sum game or so I understand thanks to reddit, so both statements are equivalent.

"

NeroNoah wrote:

Well, US elections are a zero sum game or so I understand thanks to reddit, so both statements are equivalent.

The single most important reform to implement in US politics would be nationalization of instant-runoff voting. This two-party shit is shit.