Trump runs for POTUS / Trumped Up! Part V

[NoahFence]

We obviously have different views of damage. I think Obama's the long-term damage done by Obama is very bad. The main damage Bush did was facilitating the election of Obama by handling the marketing of the Iraq War badly.

So thousands of American lives, 9/11, and the deaths of countless innocent civilians in the middle east is not as bad as say, Obamacare?

 

[seayakin]

I hope Trump wins cause the only way that America is going to reform is worthless and broke political system, more worthy of a failed African state than the a super power, is through a massive disaster.

How will electing Trump fix this? Or more important, what is exactly broken and what will it fix?

I don't say this in a pejorative sense but I have heard other advocates of Trump say this. (I hear people say this. ) I agree there are many things of concern in our election system but vague statements about it being broken don't necessarily identify the issues.

 

[JoeB]

GOD, I am sick of this term.

It's a very convenient was to not actually have to engage an argument you don't like.

 

[Crossbow]

I hope Trump wins cause the only way that America is going to reform is worthless and broke political system, more worthy of a failed African state than the a super power, is through a massive disaster.

Oddly enough, this is the most positive endorsement that I have ever seen for Trump.

 

[Babbylonian]

I hope Trump wins cause the only way that America is going to reform is worthless and broke political system, more worthy of a failed African state than the a super power, is through a massive disaster.

More nonsense from the peanut gallery.

I hate to break it to you but absolutely nothing fundamental would change if Trump gets elected except that we'd have a lousy president for 4 years. It's happened before and it'll surely happen again. Even if he was a true disaster he'd simply be impeached.

The idea that the US political system will fall because of a lousy president is worthy only of children 8 years and under. It's the *********** Candy Land of political analysis.

 

[Ladewig]

GOD, I am sick of this term. Here's the things - some people have actual values, and consider some of those values so central that they experience genuine moral outrage when they see those values objected to or violated. This bit of newspeak is intended to do one thing and one thing only - to dismiss manifestations of moral concern as some quest for social approval. To dismiss concern for the welfare of disadvantaged groups as cynical piggybacking. To dismiss decency and integrity as a self-serving charade, even when standing up for others is disadvantaging.

This casual usage of 'virtue signalling' by many conservatives and anti-PC crusaders reminds me of a sociopath trying to explain empathy.

What a great debate question.
"Mr. Trump. Many voters think empathy is a desireable trait in a candidate. Please describe empathy in your own words."

I'll offer 10:1 odds that his answer includes a reference to building great buildings.

 

[Bob001]

More nonsense from the peanut gallery.

I hate to break it to you but absolutely nothing fundamental would change if Trump gets elected except that we'd have a lousy president for 4 years. It's happened before and it'll surely happen again. Even if he was a true disaster he'd simply be impeached.

The idea that the US political system will fall because of a lousy president is worthy only of children 8 years and under. It's the *********** Candy Land of political analysis.

The difference is that all past presidents have arrived in the office after lengthy careers in public service during which they demonstrated their commitment to basic legal and Constitutional principles. Trump has demonstrated precisely the opposite, not limited to threatening the First Amendment, telling us that he will order "his" generals to torture prisoners, and even asking why we have nuclear weapons if we can't use them. Trump is a radical extremist who stands outside the liberal-conservative spectrum, and there is no real chance a Republican Congress would impeach him, at least not before he imposed catastrophic damage.

 

[Babbylonian]

The difference is that all past presidents have arrived in the office after lengthy careers in public service during which they demonstrated their commitment to basic legal and Constitutional principles. Trump has demonstrated precisely the opposite, not limited to threatening the First Amendment, telling us that he will order "his" generals to torture prisoners, and even asking why we have nuclear weapons if we can't use them. Trump is a radical extremist who stands outside the liberal-conservative spectrum, and there is no real chance a Republican Congress would impeach him, at least not before he imposed catastrophic damage.

Except that he can actually do little of this. While it's a crappy excuse to elect him (as has been attempted by so many Trump-supporting morons), this idea that the Republic will fall because of Trump's election is, again, childish nonsense.

Also, a Republican Congress would absolutely impeach him. ****, they'd be looking for the first excuse to get his relatively sane vice president into the big chair. You do get that the Republican elite hates Trump only slightly less than they hate Ted Cruz, right?

 

[acbytesla]

Running the government is not like operating a sophisticated piece of machinery. It's like operating an infinitely complex system that no one person, or even group of people, could possibly understand. It is better to have a know-nothing in there than somebody who thinks he knows what he's doing and has the political support to do almost anything he wants.

While you are right that the government isn't a complex piece of machinery, it is complex and the pilot of the government can in fact do more damage than a 4 year old can do in a 747. There are limits to what a president can do especially when it comes to accomplishing goals and Obama is an example of that.

We obviously have different views of damage. I think Obama's the long-term damage done by Obama is very bad. The main damage Bush did was facilitating the election of Obama by handling the marketing of the Iraq War badly.

You're right, we do have different views of damage and I see Obama as a so so President and George W as an unmitigated disaster both on domestic issues and on foreign policy issues. A million families lost their homes due the mortgage meltdown. Those were real people. The US had no business invading Iraq and we'll be paying for that blunder probably for decades.

Your statement is beyond ignorant and stupid. Actually, no, it's just ignorant and stupid. The budget surpluses are what caused the recession which Bush inherited. It is impossible to eliminate the National Debt, nor would you ever want to in a fiat currency system. The National Debt is equal to the net financial savings of the private sector. Do you really want to wipe out all the savings of the private sector? What would that do to aggregate demand? It couldn't happen anyway because as we entered a recession due to budget surpluses siphoning away financial wealth from the private sector, economic activity would fall, and tax revenue would dry up. These are the natural automatic stabilizers which prevent morons like Robert Rubin from destroying our economy. Anyhoo, the Bush tax cuts saved us from a more severe recession, especially after 9/11 happened, and the wars were mostly fought with zero opportunity cost because the economy was operating well below capacity, so the real productive capacity devoted to the war was essentially free.

I disagree about who's ignorant and stupid. It's also typical, since Republicans only seem to care about one thing and that is the rich paying as little in taxes as possible. They could care less about the middle class or the poor. It's always the same old Trickle Down Con Game. "No, believe us, if only you would eliminate taxes on the rich remove all regulations that allow us to screw you even harder things will be better for all you peons. "

Give me FDR, LBJ, EISENHOWER, hell, I'll take Nixon instead of this Voodoo Economics manure that the GOP has been foisting on the public since 1980. It's a disaster for the middle class and a boon for the super wealthy.

 

[Bob001]

Except that he can actually do little of this. While it's a crappy excuse to elect him (as has been attempted by so many Trump-supporting morons), this idea that the Republic will fall because of Trump's election is, again, childish nonsense.

Also, a Republican Congress would absolutely impeach him. ****, they'd be looking for the first excuse to get his relatively sane vice president into the big chair. You do get that the Republican elite hates Trump only slightly less than they hate Ted Cruz, right?

There may be limits to what Trump can get away with in the U.S., although if he chooses to ignore Supreme Court rulings there's not much to stop him, but the President's conduct over foreign affairs is ultimately in his hands alone, and preventing him from launching a nuclear war on a whim would require an actual military coup. The American system is not designed to contain a Trump.

And it's a terrible mistake to imagine that if the Republic doesn't collapse, the President doesn't matter. The Nixon administration had long-lasting effects on our confidence in government, Ronald Reagan's tax cuts still reverberate through the economy, and it's inconceivable that a President Al Gore would have gone to war in Iraq. Trump literally thinks of the Presidency as some kind of corporate boss slot and expects to rule that way, at great cost to all of us.

 

[Belz...]

Except that he can actually do little of this. While it's a crappy excuse to elect him (as has been attempted by so many Trump-supporting morons), this idea that the Republic will fall because of Trump's election is, again, childish nonsense.

Also, a Republican Congress would absolutely impeach him. ****, they'd be looking for the first excuse to get his relatively sane vice president into the big chair. You do get that the Republican elite hates Trump only slightly less than they hate Ted Cruz, right?

Were Trump to win the presidency, it would certainly be an interesting few months or years.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

World War Eleven? How long was I asleep?

 

[Babbylonian]

There may be limits to what Trump can get away with in the U.S., although if he chooses to ignore Supreme Court rulings there's not much to stop him, but the President's conduct over foreign affairs is ultimately in his hands alone, and preventing him from launching a nuclear war on a whim would require an actual military coup. The American system is not designed to contain a Trump.

If you actually believe he would do this, why haven't you killed him, or at least tried to kill him? I'm quite serious here. If I actually believed it was possible the Republican nominee (ETA: or the Democratic nominee - I'm against genocidal maniacs no matter their party affiliation) for the presidency was at all likely to launch a nuclear war "on a whim," I would have to do something about it.

In 1980, I distinctly remember being told by friends in school that "Reagan is going to start a nuclear war." It was almost certainly nonsense they heard from their parents and, obviously, it wasn't true.

While I believe the reports of Trump asking lots of questions about nuclear weapons indicate a concerning lack of understanding, I also don't think he's looking to turn any countries into the proverbial glass. If I did, again, I would feel morally obligated to intervene.

ETA2: How the hell have I found myself in the position of defending Trump? He would be a terrible president but these doomsday scenarios people are presenting are Trump-style crazy.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

...
This casual usage of 'virtue signalling' by many conservatives and anti-PC crusaders reminds me of a sociopath trying to explain empathy.

Is that a tu quoque to the dog whistle? This is the first I've heard of it.

 

[Belz...]

The American system is not designed to contain a Trump.

Well, it was designed to at first.

 

[Stacko]

Were Trump to win the presidency, it would certainly be an interesting few months or years.

You have to give him this, when he turns the government into a vehicle for advancing his business interests, nobody can say he broke any promises. He's been open about it. No financial disclosure, no tax returns, no promise to divest assets and a tax plan designed to aid real estate owners with massive debt loads. You can't say he wasn't clear about it.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

More nonsense from the peanut gallery.

I hate to break it to you but absolutely nothing fundamental would change if Trump gets elected except that we'd have a lousy president for 4 years. ....

And a SCOTUS screwed up for a couple decades.

 

[NoahFence]

You have to give him this, when he turns the government into a vehicle for advancing his business interests, nobody can say he broke any promises. He's been open about it. No financial disclosure, no tax returns, no promise to divest assets and a tax plan designed to aid real estate owners with massive debt loads. You can't say he wasn't clear about it.

Unfortunately the people who will be responsible for a Trump presidency are too frickin dumb to know what any of that means.

 

[Belz...]

I hate to break it to you but absolutely nothing fundamental would change if Trump gets elected except that we'd have a lousy president for 4 years.

Well, at least in theory he could bully enough people into making those fundamental changes. The idea's remote, but not impossible.

 

[Babbylonian]

Well, at least in theory he could bully enough people into making those fundamental changes. The idea's remote, but not impossible.

The system is designed to keep any President in check and at the end of the day he just doesn't have the political capital to make his wild presidential dreams come true. Most US Presidents come into the office having generated and solidified at least the support of the people running their political party. Trump doesn't have a bit of that. The far more likely scenario is that Trump becomes the tool of the Republicans in Congress because a) he can do little without their support and b) he doesn't have real policy ideas/positions and instead just spouts whatever he thinks people want to hear at a given moment.