What is your single biggest worry/fear of Trump?

[B-Fly]

I think the types of Democrats who could appeal to mainstream Republicans are governors with relatively low profiles still outside of their home states, e.g., Hickenlooper or Bullock. Biden also has the potential to appeal to blue collar rust belt voters who begrudgingly chose Trump over Clinton, but Sanders might be able to do that, too, with a strong economic message.

[Long John]

I would support Sanders or Biden if I got a better understanding of their goals as President. However, I think the majority of Americans will view them as being too old for the job. Sanders is 77. Biden turns 76 shortly. That's 79 or 78 before they would take office. I think that makes it difficult for them to gain acceptance. I have to think a younger moderate candidate will emerge.

As for the thread topic, many of my biggest fears with Trump have already been realized. He has little self-censorship. And while that may make for great television, it is not a good quality in a POTUS. To come out and say anything flippant when a massacre has occurred is the latest in a long line of quick quips that are just inappropriate. A clear sign of this is the amount of White House staff turnover during his first term. When the sailors are abandoning ship on their own, even in rough seas, the captain is to blame.

ETA: I agree that Bloomberg will not survive the primaries.

[Bernie Brewer]

McCain was born in Panama.

both eligible

Um, McCain is no longer eligible (although some would argue that Reagan served for several years after being dead!) Wait, too soon?

[onejayhawk]

I think the types of Democrats who could appeal to mainstream Republicans are governors with relatively low profiles still outside of their home states, e.g., Hickenlooper or Bullock. Biden also has the potential to appeal to blue collar rust belt voters who begrudgingly chose Trump over Clinton, but Sanders might be able to do that, too, with a strong economic message.

I know a fair amount about Hickenlooper. He strikes me as another Martin O'Malley--competent but too boring to win.

Wouldn't Bullock have to be a Democrat in most of the states? In any event, not nearly liberal enough to be nominated.

J

[cardboardbox]

ETA: I agree that Bloomberg will not survive the primaries.

he's the only democrat I know of that I'll give a chance and listen to.

[nots]

he's the only democrat I know of that I'll give a chance and listen to.

Little too much nanny state for this Libertarian, but I do like his economic message. Thought he was great as Mayor of NYC.
Would certainly have voted for him in 2016 though.
I think Long John’s comments above about their ages is on point as well. During the Kavanaugh hearings, I was struck by how dottering and feeble servaral of the Senators were ( Grassley, Feinstein, Leahy, Hatch and Kennedy immediately come to mind, probably forgetting a few others). At some point, mental faculties start to go—-I think we can do better than 70 and 80 something leadership. Maybe I am advocating for term limits? Anyway, I do have concerns about several of these folks and their ages.

[DMT]

Little too much nanny state for this Libertarian, but I do like his economic message. Thought he was great as Mayor of NYC.
Would certainly have voted for him in 2016 though.
I think Long John’s comments above about their ages is on point as well. During the Kavanaugh hearings, I was struck by how dottering and feeble servaral of the Senators were ( Grassley, Feinstein, Leahy, Hatch and Kennedy immediately come to mind, probably forgetting a few others). At some point, mental faculties start to go—-I think we can do better than 70 and 80 something leadership. Maybe I am advocating for term limits? Anyway, I do have concerns about several of these folks and their ages.

Completely agree. Holy shit!

[cardboardbox]

Little too much nanny state for this Libertarian,

absolutely. But still imo the best candidate on that side. That I know of... maybe there's a moderate dem hiding somewhere that I havent heard about yet.

[nots]

Completely agree. Holy shit!

Was bound to happen sooner or later.
Actually, I know you and I were on the same page about that hospital being bombed and some of the other military adventurism during the Bush and Obama years.

[Gregg]

What has been great about the US is that even after very hotly contested and even disputed elections, the outgoing president has supported the smooth transition of power to the newly elected president/administration. I worry that Trump would refuse to accept the "truth" of a negative election result, and/or might cite some presumed security crisis that would make transition of power too "dangerous", and might refuse to cooperate in a transition of power.

One of my righty friends was absolutely convinced that this was the game plan for Obama to stay in office. I may be naive but could that have happened under any circumstance? I thought he was being foolish and told him so. Not because I thought that Obama was too moral for it to happen but that our government systems would prevent that.

Now hearing it from the leftest point of view, I am wondering if theoretically he was not correct?

[B-Fly]

One of my righty friends was absolutely convinced that this was the game plan for Obama to stay in office. I may be naive but could that have happened under any circumstance? I thought he was being foolish and told him so. Not because I thought that Obama was too moral for it to happen but that our government systems would prevent that.

Now hearing it from the leftest point of view, I am wondering if theoretically he was not correct?

I am pretty much a mainstream Democrat, not a "leftist" (and certainly not the "leftest" ), but I think there are big differences here. Remember that Trump, even in victory, told everyone that he didn't trust the popular vote and that he believes if it weren't for illegal immigrant votes and other voter fraud, he would have handily won the popular vote. He's now spent much of his presidency working hard to undermine popular trust of/confidence in the media, the "deep state", the Soros/Blumenthal/globalist powers-that-be, the crooked, lying Democrats, etc. All of that lays the groundwork for him potentially contesting an electoral loss in 2020 and gaining material support from the American people (and perhaps more dangerously, the right-leaning US military establishment). So even though many Democrats felt "cheated" out of the presidency in 2000, the Clintons and ultimately Gore as well supported a smooth and peaceful transition of power to GWB. Even though Hillary Clinton and many Democrats believed (and still believe) that Russia interfered in the 2016 election on Trump's behalf, no one outside of Jill Stein (with little to no institutional support), sought to challenge the peaceful transition of power from Obama to Trump. I think Trump is different, and the groundwork he's laying, and the GOP leadership's general unwillingness to push back enough against (plus in many cases their enablement and active support of) his laying of that groundwork, makes the risk much higher should Trump lose a relatively close 2020 election contest.

[Gregg]

I am pretty much a mainstream Democrat, not a "leftist" (and certainly not the "leftest" ), but I think there are big differences here. Remember that Trump, even in victory, told everyone that he didn't trust the popular vote and that he believes if it weren't for illegal immigrant votes and other voter fraud, he would have handily won the popular vote. He's now spent much of his presidency working hard to undermine popular trust of/confidence in the media, the "deep state", the Soros/Blumenthal/globalist powers-that-be, the crooked, lying Democrats, etc. All of that lays the groundwork for him potentially contesting an electoral loss in 2020 and gaining material support from the American people (and perhaps more dangerously, the right-leaning US military establishment). So even though many Democrats felt "cheated" out of the presidency in 2000, the Clintons and ultimately Gore as well supported a smooth and peaceful transition of power to GWB. Even though Hillary Clinton and many Democrats believed (and still believe) that Russia interfered in the 2016 election on Trump's behalf, no one outside of Jill Stein (with little to no institutional support), sought to challenge the peaceful transition of power from Obama to Trump. I think Trump is different, and the groundwork he's laying, and the GOP leadership's general unwillingness to push back enough against (plus in many cases their enablement and active support of) his laying of that groundwork, makes the risk much higher should Trump lose a relatively close 2020 election contest.

You certainly are not the leftiest of leftists, but you are more left than right, even more left than center. I am more righty than left and more righty than center but certainly not as right as the rightiest. This was written tongue and cheek with tones of seriousness.

I do not like or have a passion for politics. I need confidants on both sides to help educate me. I pretty much have to filter out screamers and name callers, the win at all costers. You are one of the easier Democrats to talk to. While I do not agree with you on plenty of things. I do appreciate your intelligence and style in explaining things. It has resulted in some shifting in the way I think about some things.

In addition I also use some of these things to challenge my very intelligent righty buddy.

[Sour Masher]

While I do not agree with you on plenty of things. I do appreciate your intelligence and style in explaining things. It has resulted in some shifting in the way I think about some things.

In addition I also use some of these things to challenge my very intelligent righty buddy.

I have to say, this is a great attitude to have, Gregg. I think you started the thread about why folks choose to post on hot topics, and your response here validates why a lot of people do. The fact that you have been swayed on some things is a testament to your open-mindedness. We'd all be better off by adopting that mind frame.

While we are the topic, I too have learned some things from some righty posters here, and even when I don't fully agree with them, I have used some of the evidence to play devil's advocate with my wife and a friend or two, who tend to be left of me on some issues, and may not have heard these perspectives before. I think this is how ideas spread outside of bubbles--folks like you picking them up here, dropping them off there, and it is a good thing. I feel it is my responsibility to share the opposing viewpoint at times with someone who may not have heard it, because they are in a media or intellectual bubble. Even in cases where that viewpoint doesn't sway me, I think it is important for someone else to hear it, if they have not, in case it sways them.

[B-Fly]

I have to say, this is a great attitude to have, Gregg. I think you started the thread about why folks choose to post on hot topics, and your response here validates why a lot of people do. The fact that you have been swayed on some things is a testament to your open-mindedness. We'd all be better off by adopting that mind frame.

While we are the topic, I too have learned some things from some righty posters here, and even when I don't fully agree with them, I have used some of the evidence to play devil's advocate with my wife and a friend or two, who tend to be left of me on some issues, and may not have heard these perspectives before. I think this is how ideas spread outside of bubbles--folks like you picking them up here, dropping them off there, and it is a good thing. I feel it is my responsibility to share the opposing viewpoint at times with someone who may not have heard it, because they are in a media or intellectual bubble. Even in cases where that viewpoint doesn't sway me, I think it is important for someone else to hear it, if they have not, in case it sways them.

Absolutely. While I was not a litigator for very long, one of the things I took with me from law school and my brief career as a litigator is that a lot can be learned and developed through adversarial debate/exchanges, particularly where the "zealous advocate" on each side is required to receive and respond to the best arguments of the other, rather than to a "straw man" version of the opposing viewpoint that they've largely constructed themselves or with other zealous advocates on their own side.

[Bene Futuis]

Just one? It's hard to say anything other than recklessly escalating an international dick-measuring contest into a nuclear/biological/chemical war. But I'll instead say that my single biggest fear would be that he ultimately undermines/refuses/precludes the peaceful transition of power at whatever point his presidency would/should conclude.

And the winner is --- B-Fly, who rightly feared that the orange halfwit would refuse the peaceful transition of power. Would have had bonus points for including "instigates a seditious insurrection against the elected government of the U.S.".