Question for Trump supporters

[wareyin]

Maybe your party should run liberal enough candidates to earn their votes.

Make the same errors that the Republicans have been making by thinking they lost because their candidate wasn't extreme right enough? Why would that help?

 

[Beelzebuddy]

Make the same errors that the Republicans have been making by thinking they lost because their candidate wasn't extreme right enough? Why would that help?

It would help balance the tendency of the media to present the craziest people they can find on two sides of an issue and imply that the most reasonable stance is about halfway between them. Prior to the inmates taking over the asylum, the GOP had seen great success in shifting the Overton Window simply by giving media attention to Tea Party loons.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

Well, I had read it, and I did know that. I also know that such words are as meaningless as the words "high crimes and misdemeanors" in the part of the Constitution governing impeachment. Impeachment is a political act, and is therefore subjective. So is invocation of Section 4 of the 25th Amendment. All that matters in the end is what the guys with guns, i.e. the Secret Service, in the most immediate case, will do. I believe they will follow the vote by the Cabinet and the Vice President. Even if such an action were reviewed by the Supreme Court (which would take days or weeks as you've indicated), the Supreme Court would probably defer to the judgment of the Cabinet. Being willing to use nuclear weapons indiscriminately is a rather strong indication of being so mentally unbalanced as to be "unable to discharge the power and duties ..." of the Presidency.

So... a coup. You're talking about a coup. You'd depend on an armed insurrection to rise up and depose him, should he overstep his bounds. And this is the candidate you support.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

So... a coup. You're talking about a coup. You'd depend on an armed insurrection to rise up and depose him, should he overstep his bounds. And this is the candidate you support.

If I felt it would guarantee a Petreus/Powell coup I could find it within myself to vote for trump.

 

[sunmaster14]

So... a coup. You're talking about a coup. You'd depend on an armed insurrection to rise up and depose him, should he overstep his bounds. And this is the candidate you support.

That's not a coup. I'm talking about following the rules. I only pointed out the fact (which should be obvious, but sometimes isn't) that the enforcement of rules ultimately depends on how the guys with guns interpret them.

A coup is where the guys with guns say "meh, screw the rules."

 

[NoahFence]

That's not a coup. I'm talking about following the rules. I only pointed out the fact (which should be obvious, but sometimes isn't) that the enforcement of rules ultimately depends on how the guys with guns interpret them.

A coup is where the guys with guns say "meh, screw the rules."

Alternatively you could not vote for the moron.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

That's not a coup. I'm talking about following the rules. I only pointed out the fact (which should be obvious, but sometimes isn't) that the enforcement of rules ultimately depends on how the guys with guns interpret them.

A coup is where the guys with guns say "meh, screw the rules."

The rules, as laid out in the Constitution and as described in their historical usage by WD Clinger, say that the President can fire people until he gets someone who'll do what he wants. The guys with guns disregarding that and deposing him right then is in fact saying "screw the rules." Unless you think the Constitution is more like guidelines.

Irregardless, you do recognize that we're having an actual discussion about what hairs to split would constitute a coup? Like, a freakin' coup? That that's where we're at in the discourse - we're potentially voting for a man whose own bodyguards will need to keep sharp objects and nuke buttons away from him?

 

[sunmaster14]

The rules, as laid out in the Constitution and as described in their historical usage by WD Clinger, say that the President can fire people until he gets someone who'll do what he wants. The guys with guns disregarding that and deposing him right then is in fact saying "screw the rules." Unless you think the Constitution is more like guidelines.

I cited the rule in the Constitution that allows a majority of the Cabinet to replace the President with the Vice-President. Just because you don't like that rule, or think it should only be used in cases where the President is still alive but unconscious, doesn't mean that it isn't a rule that I and the Cabinet and the guys with guns will follow and interpret differently than you do.

Irregardless, you do recognize that we're having an actual discussion about what hairs to split would constitute a coup? Like, a freakin' coup? That that's where we're at in the discourse - we're potentially voting for a man whose own bodyguards will need to keep sharp objects and nuke buttons away from him?

Uggh. Anyway, we're having this discussion because there are obviously a bunch of Chicken Littles around here who think Trump represents some sort of existential danger to humanity. Some might believe so because they're irrational. Some might claim to believe so for partisan purposes. Either way, I believe such concerns are unfounded. And it's not just because of our institutional protections, but because I see no evidence that Trump is crazy or even irrational. He has a kind of Tourette's syndrome, when it comes to speaking, and he can be somewhat ruthless in business, but he hasn't had anybody killed as far as I know. To tell you the truth, I'm less sure about Hillary and Bill in that respect.

 

[DavidJames]

I cited the rule in the Constitution that allows a majority of the Cabinet to replace the President with the Vice-President. Just because you don't like that rule, or think it should only be used in cases where the President is still alive but unconscious, doesn't mean that it isn't a rule that I and the Cabinet and the guys with guns will follow and interpret differently than you do.



Uggh. Anyway, we're having this discussion because there are obviously a bunch of Chicken Littles around here who think Trump represents some sort of existential danger to humanity. Some might believe so because they're irrational. Some might claim to believe so for partisan purposes.

Others might simple look at what he says.

Either way, I believe such concerns are unfounded. And it's not just because of our institutional protections, but because I see no evidence that Trump is crazy or even irrational. He has a kind of Tourette's syndrome, when it comes to speaking, and he can be somewhat ruthless in business...

Hmmm, what special skills does it take "know", what Trump says isn't what he means?

but he hasn't had anybody killed as far as I know. To tell you the truth, I'm less sure about Hillary and Bill in that respect.

Well I never saw that coming

 

[The Great Zaganza]

The Commander in Chief needs no-one's permission to use the Biscuit and Football. Both should always be within his reach.

I, too, image that the top generals carrying around the football would get together and decide to store the manuscripts of their autobiographies in the football-bag instead of the codes. But Beelzebuddy is right: that would be a kind of palace-coup.

 

[NoahFence]

Uggh. Anyway, we're having this discussion because there are obviously a bunch of Chicken Littles around here who think Trump represents some sort of existential danger to humanity.

Hang on a second there, Junior.

His STATED POLICIES show a desire to do great harm to a great number of people. He IS an existential danger to humanity. He doesn't even try to hide it.

Either own this **** or don't. Stop pussyfooting around. If Trump is your man, so are his policies. Don't be a coward.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

I object to his proposal to build a wall across the border with Mexico. It was his first policy statement and he hasn't backed off of it.

Defenders, defend away. Stand atop Trump's Mighty Wall and shoot your pointy arrows of factual defense for such a powerful tool of foreign policy.

While i disagree with the giant wall idea i agree with addressing the illegal immigration problem and enforcing our laws. That being said... people need to stop fear mongering as if Trump will actually get the wall built. Both sides of congress hate him to the core. Given obamas trouble despite having a super majority at one point, i believe its safe to say that even if Trump literally pushed for it... it wouldnt happen

 

[The Great Zaganza]

While i disagree with the giant wall idea i agree with addressing the illegal immigration problem and enforcing our laws. That being said... people need to stop fear mongering as if Trump will actually get the wall built. Both sides of congress hate him to the core. Given obamas trouble despite having a super majority at one point, i believe its safe to say that even if Trump literally pushed for it... it wouldnt happen

What, exactly, is the point of candidate's speeches if we are to ignore them? Why vote for anybody if we think their ideas will never work?

Basically all of Trump's proposals are either unconstitutional or would never get a majority in both Houses.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

What, exactly, is the point of candidate's speeches if we are to ignore them? Why vote for anybody if we think their ideas will never work?

Basically all of Trump's proposals are either unconstitutional or would never get a majority in both Houses.

Don't ignore their speeches. But be realistic in what policy proposals they make and what you expect that they will actually accomplish. He may well be much stricter with immigration as he proposes. But building a wall? You're talking about a man that is a master media manipulator for free publicity. While i'm hesitant to underestimate what he might pursue i think it unrealistic you'll see a wall get erected... unless you expect him to get sufficient blessing from congress which... judging by Obama's experience appears unlikely.

If he attempts to circumvent congress using executive action thats one issue almost guarenteed to reach the SCOTUS so far as i can tell.

Regardless of which if the policy turns you off... you can choose not to vote for him. But i rather act on both policy proposals and precedent wherever possible

 

[wareyin]

Don't ignore their speeches. But be realistic in what policy proposals they make and what you expect that they will actually accomplish. He may well be much stricter with immigration as he proposes. But building a wall? You're talking about a man that is a master media manipulator for free publicity. While i'm hesitant to underestimate what he might pursue i think it unrealistic you'll see a wall get erected... unless you expect him to get sufficient blessing from congress which... judging by Obama's experience appears unlikely.

If he attempts to circumvent congress using executive action thats one issue almost guarenteed to reach the SCOTUS so far as i can tell.

Regardless of which if the policy turns you off... you can choose not to vote for him. But i rather act on both policy proposals and precedent wherever possible

Yet another advice which boils down to "don't believe what Trump says." I don't find that to be a compelling reason to vote for the man, and would be surprised if you did find it so.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

I cited the rule in the Constitution that allows a majority of the Cabinet to replace the President with the Vice-President. Just because you don't like that rule, or think it should only be used in cases where the President is still alive but unconscious, doesn't mean that it isn't a rule that I and the Cabinet and the guys with guns will follow and interpret differently than you do.

How you and the Cabinet would interpret the rule doesn't matter because it's the guys with guns, not the requisite majority of the Cabinet, that would be telling the President that he is no longer President. A majority of the Cabinet might agree with them later, when they've had time to meet, but right there at that moment it is the guys with guns calling the shots and that makes it a coup.

I see no evidence that Trump is crazy or even irrational.

What would constitute evidence for you? You enjoy playing semantics, so I feel I need to ask. Would anything short of an official diagnosis count?

As for the rest of the paragraph - he reportedly keeps asking why he can't use nukes. When directly asked for clarification, he refused to say that he wouldn't use nukes... on Europe. You yourself have said, in this thread, that you wouldn't be surprised if he tried to nuke Mexico. If he's playing a game of brinksmanship, it's brinksman Solitaire. He is the very definition of a loose cannon. Add to that his temperament, kleenex-thin skin, and demonstrated willingness to fire people until he gets who he wants - he's on his third campaign manager in as many months. It is not a show. It is not an act. It is who he is. I don't think it's irrational, unfounded or necessarily partisan to find some cause for concern in that.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Yet another advice which boils down to "don't believe what Trump says

No just advice stating that campaign promises and reality are two different things. Or did we already forget how some of Obama's big promises turn out? People voted for Obama based on promises that never got implemented. Others fear mongered as if he was going to end America.

No... im just pointing out what a load of crap every election cycle is for dramatizing instead of basing their judgements on the facts and on past experience of how events played out in practice. That there has nothing to do with believing their positions on issues are genuine or not

 

[Mader Levap]

I see Sunmaster14's already bad "Vote for Trump, he totally will not nuke us into oblivion!" argument further degenerated (yes, it can get worse) into "Vote for Trump, we can coup him if he tries something!".

It is most pathetic and ridiculous defense/support of Trump that I ever seen. Seriously.

 

[sunmaster14]

<snip>

What would constitute evidence for you? You enjoy playing semantics, so I feel I need to ask. Would anything short of an official diagnosis count?

Well, I would probably need some inside information, or some evidence that he can't control himself. Actually, I think he is showing decent level of discipline and control right now. Yes, he speaks nonsense from time to time, as do all politicians, but he is less articulate than most (not quite down to the level of Sarah Palin, but almost). And yes he sometimes says provocative things, more so than any national politician has said in a long time. That part, however, is I believe part of his publicity strategy as well as a way to move the Overton window to where he can capture a sizable fraction of the vote from his opposition. So, in part I can see a method to his madness, and for the madness that seems to have no method, I can see it as harmless verbiage. Like I said before, he has no history of violence, or even a bad temper that I have heard. Not anything like Hillary's or Bill's volcanic tempers by the way. And by the time the election rolls around, I think you'll find that Trump has been investigated more than any other candidate in history. The runner-up will have been George W. Bush, and the 2nd and 3rd runner-ups will have been Mitt Romney and John McCain.

As for the rest of the paragraph - he reportedly keeps asking why he can't use nukes. When directly asked for clarification, he refused to say that he wouldn't use nukes... on Europe. You yourself have said, in this thread, that you wouldn't be surprised if he tried to nuke Mexico.

I didn't say that. I gave it as an example. I would be stunned beyond belief if he tried to nuke Mexico, and I think the probability of that is far less than the probability of us getting being nuked by Iran (by proxy most likely) thanks to the current resident of the White House.

If he's playing a game of brinksmanship, it's brinksman Solitaire. He is the very definition of a loose cannon. Add to that his temperament, kleenex-thin skin, and demonstrated willingness to fire people until he gets who he wants - he's on his third campaign manager in as many months. It is not a show. It is not an act. It is who he is. I don't think it's irrational, unfounded or necessarily partisan to find some cause for concern in that.

Fine, it's a cause for concern for you. Where would you rank it on the list of reasons you favor Hillary over Trump? Be honest.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

Can you possibly go for one entire post without trying to change the subject to Hillary? I don't like her or support her either, so any partisanship you're seeing is entirely due to your own blinders.

The subject is Trump's policies, and tangentially whether he is of sound enough mind to sustain and pursue those policies, and when or if he falls off the deep end, how deep in it will we find ourselves, exactly, and if all that should render him unfit for office.

If you want my opinion regarding Hillary, here you go: she will not nuke Mexico. Not "gonna keep it on the table," not "I would be stunned beyond belief," not "well they probably won't go through with the order." She will not nuke Mexico. Do you know how I know? Because despite her faults, she is sane and rational. You do not need to ask a sane and rational person if they might potentially nuke a random country. They won't. It is not a subject that should need discussing, the way we apparently need to discuss it with Trump.