The Republican National Convention

[Lurker765]

I've voted for more Republicans than Democrats in my lifetime, but George Will and I are apparently nutso conspiracy-theory liberals now. Oh well.

I've voted for more Republicans than Democrats in my lifetime, but David Brooks and I are apparently nutso conspiracy-theory liberals now. Oh well.

[chancellor]

Chance, you are waiting for something that was not meant in way you processed it, and you know it. Bfly, I think, said "watching the rhetoric of a truly dangerous potential strongman dictator President" which you decided was crazy talk, and in your head meant a MSNBC watcher, as you said, thinks Trump will assume absolute power. It was meant simply as Trump is a loudmouth spewing dangerous ideas without any kind of filter from a position of ignorance, and will hurt the country in all kinds of ways coming from a perspective of being clueless about the constitution as well as being a truly not good person. .

No, actually I don't know it, and where do you get off presuming what I do and don't think? Exactly what do you think I should think from someone who is usually VERY precise with his words when he says "truly potential dangerous strongman dictator President"? That he doesn't mean that he has the potential to be a dictator President? Especially when those in the prominent left-wing press who have bright this very threat up in their broadcasts or writings?

And as for holding rules and regulations in complete contempt and not being a good person....I'll just say Hillary sure isn't a shining example of either.

[Fresno Bob]

I'd rather see a third term of George W Bush than Trump.....

[gcstomp]

Chance, where I "get off", a strangely aggressive turn of phrase, is assuming there is some sort of friendly baseline banter on this message board that I have been on all these years, that we can assume we are operating from a place where we try to see what speaker is saying, rather than pointing out how an interpretation of what is said is impossible. Someone says that guy has balls like mangoes, or thinks he is gods gift to women, it is safe to assume we know what is being said, or we can cling to literal but silly or impossible interpretation and demand to see evidence of these mangoes. But you are right, assumptions are for when we know who we are friendly with. From my perspective, If someone compiles the top 20 extreme quotes from each candidate, and sees the dangerous, ignorant rhetoric of Trump as anything similar to what HRC has said, then we are not operating on enough common ground to even assume we are speaking same language.

[Lucky]

I think Bfly is right. I don't think Trump will be a strongman dictator in the mold of Mussolini or Stalin, but compared to our concept of the American President, he will be the closest. His tendencies toward authoritarianism are no secret to anyone watching this cycle, and in fact have been credited for a great deal of his support.

I will go into this into greater detail at a decent hour, but what I see is Trump chafing at the restraints that our laws and the Constitution place upon him. He won't be happy at all when he cannot simply order things be done. He will try to find ways around Congress and the Courts...not legal ways that have been used by presidents many times in the past...but questionable or blatantly illegal ways. He will appeal to his supporters in the public that the "elites" are stopping him from saving the Country. He will call for the impeachment of SCOTUS justices and Constitutional amendments. Of course, a president can lobby for change in good faith, but Trump will not be acting in good faith. (And claims that we cannot know what is in his mind will not suffice...we can judge his intent from his actions, despite what he says.) He will use his powers as CiC and executive orders to move troops, close abortion clinics, deport immigrants, nationalize private assets to build his wall. He will antagonize our trading partners and violate our treaties, personally undoing the work of many executives before him. There are many things a president, lacking scruples, can do to exercise tremendous power. These things, collectively, are enough to constitute Bfly's nightmare.

[cardboardbox]

I'd rather see a third term of George W Bush than Trump or Clinton.....

fixed

[cardboardbox]

I think Bfly is right. I don't think Trump will be a strongman dictator in the mold of Mussolini or Stalin, but compared to our concept of the American President, he will be the closest. His tendencies toward authoritarianism are no secret to anyone watching this cycle, and in fact have been credited for a great deal of his support.

How can he do this without breaking laws and getting impeached?

[mjl]

Well, the Dems are unlikely to get half the House, so it'd have to be pretty blatant to start the impeachment process. Given what he's said about closing off immigration to Muslims until we can get our immigration laws and policies improved (which I expect he could do by claiming concerns of national security and anti-terrorism, Lord knows Bush and Obama have gotten away with some ridiculous stuff on that basis), I wouldn't be surprised if he could claim that abortion clinics should be closed until the medical and health problems are ironed out, similar to the TRAP laws that got beaten down in the Supreme Court recently but I'm sure there's a a way the President could frame it as a temporary measure and have it take hold at least for a little while. I'm sure he could take offense at some of our trade partners and make unilateral decisions that would violate treaties - it's not like the US has had a problem with ignoring WTO rulings in the past. And eventually trade deals need to be renegotiated, and from everything we've seen I think Trump would put more value on being seen to "win" the deal in the short term than he would on doing the best thing.

[Erik]

I think if being honest, everyone he isn't married to a party has to settle for one of the two party candidates, there's no perfect alignment. Even those who are married to a party sound like they have to do some settling this election, especially republicans. Libertarian sounds fun, but I bet there's plenty I disagree with them on if I start digging.

This election cycle is demoralizing for those of us in the middle.

One of my college buddies, a Wall Street establishment type who has always voted GOP, says he's voting for Johnson this year, but won't actually research his positions in case he finds stuff he doesn't like. He just can't bring himself to vote for either Trump or Hillary.

[Fresno Bob]

fixed

nope, not true

[Bernie Brewer]

He won't be happy at all when he cannot simply order things be done. He will try to find ways around Congress and the Courts...not legal ways that have been used by presidents many times in the past...but questionable or blatantly illegal ways...

So you're saying he'll do things by invoking "Executive Order". Apparently that's OK until the guy you don't like does it, right?

[gcstomp]

Bernie, guess which President has issued fewest executive orders in last 130 years? And why does Obama issue fewer executive orders per year than other Presidents, despite an illegal congress lockdown that vowed on his 1st day of office to oppose anything Obama proposes, no matter how clearly it helps the country? I say lockdown because there has not been anything remotely resembling a good faith effort by congress to get work done, and Obama stubbornly keeps trying to do his job and get compromise, when such a thing is not possible, he has been dealing with those who have made a pact. So congress has done nothing, other than political bent agenda, as in 60 votes to try to overturn ACA, or investigation after investigation of HRC, but on matters of actual governance for the people, it has been a disgusting display, other than 1st 18 months of Obama being in office.

[Lucky]

How can he do this without breaking laws and getting impeached?

It wouldn't be that difficult. It would require a majority of the House to impeach a President Trump, no matter what he did, and I don't think you could find a majority of House members who would do so if he started blasting suspected Muslim citizens into outer space. He'd probably get credit for revitalizing the NASA program. The boosters would have "TRUMP" stenciled the side of them.

[cardboardbox]

It wouldn't be that difficult. It would require a majority of the House to impeach a President Trump, no matter what he did, and I don't think you could find a majority of House members who would do so if he started blasting suspected Muslim citizens into outer space. He'd probably get credit for revitalizing the NASA program. The boosters would have "TRUMP" stenciled the side of them.

I think it wouldnt take much at all for congress to impeach Trump. Repubs are not going to stand up to public opinion against him if he committed an impeachable crime.

Also, I think Trump has much more interest in blasting non citizens into space.

[Bernie Brewer]

Bernie, guess which President has issued fewest executive orders in last 130 years? And why does Obama issue fewer executive orders per year than other Presidents, despite an illegal congress lockdown that vowed on his 1st day of office to oppose anything Obama proposes, no matter how clearly it helps the country? I say lockdown because there has not been anything remotely resembling a good faith effort by congress to get work done, and Obama stubbornly keeps trying to do his job and get compromise, when such a thing is not possible, he has been dealing with those who have made a pact. So congress has done nothing, other than political bent agenda, as in 60 votes to try to overturn ACA, or investigation after investigation of HRC, but on matters of actual governance for the people, it has been a disgusting display, other than 1st 18 months of Obama being in office.

You asked me to guess but then told me the answer. That's no fun!

As for your point, did I name names? I'm nearly certain that I didn't.