Donald Trump for president?

[nevets88]

51 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

I highly doubt that.

First, congress wouldn't blink an eye to try to impeach him if he steps outside his bounds as President. So, he is pretty much restricted by his constitutional bounds. He does have executive order, but he will have to tread lightly.

Second, He has to somehow get congress go play nice which hasn't happened since the mid to late 90's. 15+ years of gridlock and a built in culture of never meshing meaningful ideas on big issues.

We could literally have four years of absolutely nothing going on.

What is he going to do, stand up in front of the media and say how stupid congress is. Their approval rating is 12.6%!!! It hasn't been above 30 since 2009! It's still a two party system because the states allow it to be that way with how they get people elected. In the end the system is flawed because it is a two party system. Trump can't break that. Heck he had to jump on the GOP bandwagon to get elected. He knew he couldn't run as an independent. The only way to break that is if the voters actually decide to change it by voting in a third or fourth party.

Tell me what will Trump do that will destroy the establishment? He has no weapons at his disposal.

Yes, the establishment is buried deep into societal infrastructure. No one man can undo even a sliver of it. You'd need to wholesale simultaneously replace a broad swath of government, corporate leaders, lobbyists, etc... who will leave kicking and screaming. Obama won by a large margin in 2008, I think it was 7% and had the financial crisis to deal with which you'd think would have given him a little more bargaining power but he could only pass a stimulus package that was a shadow of his original and both the Senate and House majorities were held by the Democrats. Who knows how the makeup of Congress will look if Trump is elected, the majorities may tilt Democratic.

1 hour ago, Lihu said:

It'll be interesting to see what happens to politics in this age of tweets and instagrams. I think it is already transitioning.

Spoiler

That happened before Obama's first campaign when he hired Chris Hughes from Facebook and other internet whiz kids to work on what sounds like a anachronism now, new media. The use of social media, big data, etc... has been huge for awhile now. I remember following Obama's tweets when he first campaigned ages ago. He was the first POTUS to do a lot of things online, social media wise. His campaign website was so much better than POTUS 43's website. I remember The White House's website to be uninspiring before Obama, almost immediately, after he was inaugurated, it was totally revamped, was easier to navigate, contained so much more useful content, looked so much better.

 

[saevel25]

52 minutes ago, Gunther said:

Political capital, Twitter, Facebook

How does trump gain political capital? It would be him versus the establishment so he has no political capital.

Did I mention that congress had a current 12.6% favorable rating. Twitter and Facebook mean nothing when third party candidates can't even get on a ballot and the political machine is that powerful. What's Trump going to do that would significantly influence Congress in a negative way?

52 minutes ago, Gunther said:

They will work for him or he will use his political capital to get them primaries and ousted.  My guess is he'll be tougher on the GOP than the Dems.  He will shake things up if he gets in, make no mistake.

How does Trump exactly get them ousted? Also, what political capital are you talking about? He's going to walk into some senator's office and say, "You'll do what I say or your fired." He will get his laughed out the office. I don't see him having any political influence over congressional seats.
 

26 minutes ago, nevets88 said:

Who knows how the makeup of Congress will look if Trump is elected, the majorities may tilt Democratic.

 

http://www.270towin.com/2016-house-election/

http://www.270towin.com/2016-senate-election/

House is still firmly in grasp of the GOP, with only a few toss-up seats.

[Lihu]

32 minutes ago, nevets88 said:

I was responding to your off topic link with a disassociated chart showing Trump on top of the airwaves. . .

[Gunther]

21 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

How does trump gain political capital? It would be him versus the establishment so he has no political capital.

Did I mention that congress had a current 12.6% favorable rating. Twitter and Facebook mean nothing when third party candidates can't even get on a ballot and the political machine is that powerful. What's Trump going to do that would significantly influence Congress in a negative way?

How does Trump exactly get them ousted? Also, what political capital are you talking about? He's going to walk into some senator's office and say, "You'll do what I say or your fired." He will get his laughed out the office. I don't see him having any political influence over congressional seats.
 

http://www.270towin.com/2016-house-election/

http://www.270towin.com/2016-senate-election/

House is still firmly in grasp of the GOP, with only a few toss-up seats.

When you win an election, you, by definition, earn political capital.  It refers to popularity of the citizenry.  The greater the margin of victory, the greater the capital.  Bush didn't have much directly following the 2000 election but he gained it quickly with his response to 9/11.  I think he was in the mid-80s approval then.  That is a LOT of political capital.

[Elmer]

1 hour ago, Lihu said:

Yes, agree with you. The issue is really about us paying for a class of people who spend our money in frivolous ways.

 

It'll be interesting to see what happens to politics in this age of tweets and instagrams. I think it is already transitioning.

We have been catering to this system for 240 years. The issue is what is frivolous to you is important to me.
I think social media is good for mobilizing the public and decent at informing them to an extent. However anyone who can type is able to disseminate information regardless of the factual basis! Think of how many "anti-obama" memes are on facebook, twitter and Instagram and what portion of those are correct?
Just the other day I say a story that indicated GWB canceled a trip to Switzerland because they had a war crimes warrant out for his arrest, which is untrue.

1 hour ago, saevel25 said:

I highly doubt that.

First, congress wouldn't blink an eye to try to impeach him if he steps outside his bounds as President. So, he is pretty much restricted by his constitutional bounds. He does have executive order, but he will have to tread lightly.

Second, He has to somehow get congress go play nice which hasn't happened since the mid to late 90's. 15+ years of gridlock and a built in culture of never meshing meaningful ideas on big issues.

We could literally have four years of absolutely nothing going on.

What is he going to do, stand up in front of the media and say how stupid congress is. Their approval rating is 12.6%!!! It hasn't been above 30 since 2009! It's still a two party system because the states allow it to be that way with how they get people elected. In the end the system is flawed because it is a two party system. Trump can't break that. Heck he had to jump on the GOP bandwagon to get elected. He knew he couldn't run as an independent. The only way to break that is if the voters actually decide to change it by voting in a third or fourth party.

Tell me what will Trump do that will destroy the establishment? He has no weapons at his disposal.

I have started watching House of Cards season 4 and it reminds me that you get nothing in politics with out giving something up.
That is the negotiation in politics.
What is trump going to negotiate with when he wants funding for his wall?
What does Trump think he is going to do when he says "they will follow me"
In the real world he can negotiate and use his name as a brand and promise to make people money.
What does he do with politics? he has to give a senator's district some pork just to get his vote? Otherwise what call the senator a "loser" on twitter?
Bottom line-if trump gets elected what power does he have to stop the likes of Cruz, clinton, Rubio and Rand Paul getting re-elected to office?
Trump has nothing, he is not going to end the cycle or implode the system. Not unless he nukes both houses!

[Lihu]

26 minutes ago, Elmer said:

We have been catering to this system for 240 years. The issue is what is frivolous to you is important to me.

I'm talking about this kind of spending. http://freebeacon.com/issues/the-top-100-examples-of-government-waste/

Now for things we might disagree upon:

First of all, I'm not some military or religious fanatic who thinks we shouldn't be spending public funds on stupid "art" projects, I'm a moderate who thinks that if the artist is good and relevant he should be able to find plenty of private funds to pay for his art.

Another thing is we spend way too much money and effort putting minor drug users into jail. Yeah, drug use is wrong, but it's ridiculous to perpetuate a "war on drugs" which just makes half of South America rich making illegal drugs instead of legalizing and taxing it and letting people grow them here.

Most politicians just like the notoriety and power and prefer to take private expensive vacations paid for by us.

Trump at least can pay for his own vacations. . .that is if he ever takes one. He loves to work. He loves to make money and make things more profitable, including this country if he's POTUS.

[nevets88]

 

[Brian96]

16 hours ago, Lihu said:

Most politicians just like the notoriety and power and prefer to take private expensive vacations paid for by us.

Trump at least can pay for his own vacations. . .that is if he ever takes one. He loves to work. He loves to make money and make things more profitable, including this country if he's POTUS.

Ok, I can agree that the gov't wastes a lot of our money. What I don't agree with is your opinion that Trump would be any better at spending. Most of the projects you referenced are directly due to "pork" being added to bills passed by congress. Those things are added as direct result of big money in politics. Trump has (self admitted) been one of those guys pumping money into politics for personal gain. If you agree with him, he hasn't donated money based on principle, but to benefit his businesses. So, that flies in the face of you argument that he would help fix the problem he has helped create. Even if he did care about spending our money more responsibly, he won't have that much power to do so. Congress has the power of the purse. Your congressmen and senators are the ones with more influence over how your money is spent.

Let's say you are right, and Trump will spend his own money on vacations (if he takes any). I seriously doubt that. He has a well documented history of screwing over the little guy if they don't side with him. His MO, goes something like this. Contract a guy to do a lot of work on your building, short him $100,000 on the bill, and threaten to take him to court and tie up the money in a mountain of legal fees before you see any of it. Most just cut their losses because its not worth it.

Now, if he really did want to save us some money, why is he using the secret service to protect him on the campaign trail? Can't he afford to hire his own security detail? Answer, yes he can afford it, but no, he would rather get something for free if he can.

[jamo]

25 minutes ago, Brian96 said:

Now, if he really did want to save us some money, why is he using the secret service to protect him on the campaign trail? Can't he afford to hire his own security detail? Answer, yes he can afford it, but no, he would rather get something for free if he can.

@Lihu I'm not sure how you think Trump is going to "pay for his own vacations." It's not the airfare and hotels that cost money, it's all of the security and planning that goes along with it. None of that would change. Presidential vacations are also a veritable drop in the bucket. If you actually want to cut governmental spending and the deficit, chasing vacation is in itself a waste of time and money.

[Lihu]

40 minutes ago, Brian96 said:

Ok, I can agree that the gov't wastes a lot of our money. What I don't agree with is your opinion that Trump would be any better at spending. Most of the projects you referenced are directly due to "pork" being added to bills passed by congress. Those things are added as direct result of big money in politics. Trump has (self admitted) been one of those guys pumping money into politics for personal gain. If you agree with him, he hasn't donated money based on principle, but to benefit his businesses. So, that flies in the face of you argument that he would help fix the problem he has helped create. Even if he did care about spending our money more responsibly, he won't have that much power to do so. Congress has the power of the purse. Your congressmen and senators are the ones with more influence over how your money is spent.

Let's say you are right, and Trump will spend his own money on vacations (if he takes any). I seriously doubt that. He has a well documented history of screwing over the little guy if they don't side with him. His MO, goes something like this. Contract a guy to do a lot of work on your building, short him $100,000 on the bill, and threaten to take him to court and tie up the money in a mountain of legal fees before you see any of it. Most just cut their losses because its not worth it.

Now, if he really did want to save us some money, why is he using the secret service to protect him on the campaign trail? Can't he afford to hire his own security detail? Answer, yes he can afford it, but no, he would rather get something for free if he can.

Yes, but I'd Trump is elected, we cut out some of the middle men who serve no real purpose.

 

@jamo the cost of any wealthy person going on vacation is very high. I'm sure he pays for private security already, and a less qualified government agent is probably triple what he already pays. He flies a 757 everywhere anyway. He pays for that.

[RandallT]

With Trump, I keep coming back to this: the central issue of this election (and all elections, IMHO) should be whether or not we are happy with the direction the federal government is going in two respects:

1. Is it pursuing the right policies?
2. Is it getting too large and powerful (which has two problems: restricts our freedoms, and gets inefficient)

I get that many would object to Trump on #1. 

But #2 is where the left loses me. And I think it is the more important of the two questions.

We have just gone through what President Obama envisioned as a fundamental transformation. Those are his words. He has greatly expanded federal powers in the executive branch. That was his goal, and I think that remains the goal of those who wish to succeed him. For example, if Sanders is your guy and you are happy with more expansion into socialism, fine. But you are advocating a larger and more powerful federal executive.

So if that is the position, then you are also admitting that someday there will be a person we could elect that could use those federal powers for a bad cause. The people are not infallible, and sure enough, some day some charismatic narcissist will charm the electorate. With these powers aggregated in the federal executive (and established through precedent), very bad things could happen.  Already, I'm hearing what a tyrant Trump could be.

My thought is simply this. If we want to avoid the inevitable damage a narcissist could do as president, why are we radically transforming our government away from the beautiful checks and balances that were there by design? Why are we wanting the federal executive to be powerful and efficient? That is a nightmare scenario to me: a bad guy/gal at the reins, with the full capabilities of an efficient federal bureaucracy behind him/her.

I find it a much better system where local people are empowered, and the federal infrastructure mostly guarantees that no local entities violate the Constitution. Sure there'll be abuse and inefficiency, but there will be competition among states. Overall, our freedom is enhanced, and likely there will be more innovation.  States that head in a bad direction will likely see that their way is failing, and other states that succeed will be a model.

As far as I'm concerned, those on the left worrying about Trump's abuses of power should be "rewarded" with 8 years of relearning the power of the legislative and judicial branches, plus the power that the states have to push back on federal power. That might be a civics lesson that benefits and rejuvenates us as a society.  Bring on the obstructionism at the federal level, and let's get down to the real work at the local level.

Every yelp I hear about Trump being a tyrant just promotes the ideas documented in the Constitution and discussed at length in the "federalist papers." Obviously, I'm oversimplifying as "big fed govt=bad, small fed govt=good", and there are tradeoffs that are forever debatable. But this should remain the central issue of our elections, but it seems to have been forgotten as we get into the gutter by discussing personality traits of candidates. It's sad.

[Brian96]

38 minutes ago, Lihu said:

Yes, but I'd Trump is elected, we cut out some of the middle men who serve no real purpose.

 

@jamo the cost of any wealthy person going on vacation is very high. I'm sure he pays for private security already, and a less qualified government agent is probably triple what he already pays. He flies a 757 everywhere anyway. He pays for that.

What? Middle men, who?

When you say "less qualified government agent", who are you referring to? Secret service? FBI? Please explain, because I know quite a bit about this subject and I think you are talking about things completely over your head.

Most of the private security he might have the chance to hire are most likely retired federal/state law enforcement and are past their prime.

[Braivo]

19 hours ago, Lihu said:

Trump at least can pay for his own vacations. . .that is if he ever takes one. He loves to work. He loves to make money and make things more profitable, including this country if he's POTUS.

The man has a work ethic unlike any other. He will work for the American people if he is elected, just as he has worked tirelessly for his own organization. Would you want a guy in office who screwed over his own company on "principle"? No way. You want a guy who works to the bone for whatever cause he is invested in. 

I have not doubt that by the end of a Trump presidency he will have balanced our budget and put us back on firm financial footing. The folks in DC will not like it because it means the end of cushy 6 figure jobs that accomplish next to nothing. Too bad. Trump has zero tolerance for that kind of waste. If you don't serve a critical function then you will be ousted. 

Sure, he has to deal with a bought and paid for congress, but he has no issue calling them out on it. 

Every single person with a vested interest in the status quo is adamantly opposed to Trump, that should tell you something right there. 

Today, after months of supporting him, I finally get to cast a ballot for Trump. 

[newtogolf]

23 minutes ago, Braivo said:

The man has a work ethic unlike any other. He will work for the American people if he is elected, just as he has worked tirelessly for his own organization. Would you want a guy in office who screwed over his own company on "principle"? No way. You want a guy who works to the bone for whatever cause he is invested in. 

I have not doubt that by the end of a Trump presidency he will have balanced our budget and put us back on firm financial footing. The folks in DC will not like it because it means the end of cushy 6 figure jobs that accomplish next to nothing. Too bad. Trump has zero tolerance for that kind of waste. If you don't serve a critical function then you will be ousted. 

Sure, he has to deal with a bought and paid for congress, but he has no issue calling them out on it. 

Every single person with a vested interest in the status quo is adamantly opposed to Trump, that should tell you something right there. 

Today, after months of supporting him, I finally get to cast a ballot for Trump. 

Trump loves golf, if he becomes POTUS he will spend a lot of time on the golf course, likely more than Obama, who gets criticized regularly for it.  Trump also enjoys expensive vacations and spends a lot of time in NY.  

Let's not set unrealistic expectations that we both know he can't live up to.  

[Braivo]

1 minute ago, newtogolf said:

Trump loves golf, if he becomes POTUS he will spend a lot of time on the golf course, likely more than Obama, who gets criticized regularly for it.  Trump also enjoys expensive vacations and spends a lot of time in NY.  

Let's not set unrealistic expectations that we both know he can't live up to.  

I never said he wouldn't golf or take vacations. His work ethic is legendary, though. 

[Brian96]

I don't agree with the argument about how his great business mind will make him a great president. Would Bloomberg be a good president? He is a good businessman. The country is not a business, there is much more at stake than the financial well being of the American people. He has divided the party like no other candidate ever has, and he would divide the country even more than Obama has. No legislation will get passed. That might be the only good thing to come out of it. I prefer a gov't that doesn't pass any new laws. We have enough already.

This is all going to be a moot discussion anyway. He won't get elected. He has so many skeletons in his closet the Democratic machine will chew him up. They would love to run against him. You haven't seen anything yet in terms of attacks on Trump. Everything will come out and people will flock to Hillary, just for the simple fact that she is a known quantity. Trump is a wildcard.

[Lihu]

1 hour ago, Brian96 said:

What? Middle men, who?

When you say "less qualified government agent", who are you referring to? Secret service? FBI? Please explain, because I know quite a bit about this subject and I think you are talking about things completely over your head.

Most of the private security he might have the chance to hire are most likely retired federal/state law enforcement and are past their prime.

Why the president and his highly paid cabinet of course!

Seriously, though, Trump corporation pays a lot of taxes in the end, and I really think he's sick and tired of paying for idiots in office who can't solve even the simplest of problems and make excuses that they are so "complicated". What they really are is "political".

Trump really appeals to those who like a simpler life where we aren't paying for future terrorists by supporting their causes now then later making enemies of them.

I don't know what his stance is on policing the world, but doing that has been the biggest drag in our current economy. Oil and other strategic resources depend too heavily upon our military presence all over the world. I bet if we just leave all those countries, the price of crude will skyrocket in the short term, but then within 1 to 2 decades the price of oil will be the same as it is now.

Capitalism will prevail if left alone. Why? Because most people are naturally capitalists.

As far as oil dependency goes, Obama made big promises to explore and fund alternative energy, that was pure crap. We're no better no than we were 8 years ago. All the major technical developments were done during the Bush administration.

We no longer really police SE Asia as heavily since China is now starting to do that, and the problems there are no worse than they were when we policed it. It's possibly even better because the people know that China is not this wishy washy country that can't decide what to do. They are decisive, and do what needs to be done. Just like Russia.

Speaking of which, if we leave Russia alone to police their part of the world we would be better of for it. Yes, I love that I am paying $2.59 for premium gas due to our trade war with Russia at the moment, but I would prefer to pay $6 and not worry about potential terrorist activity and more unrest in the middle east. Policing the world is costing us a lot, it already cost us over 5 trillion dollars as of the Iraq war, why spend more on this crap?

Everything we do is because of our political system and the huge lobbies that control it and our military. Politics is all about making it look like you are doing what you were elected to do to get more votes again.

I seriously doubt Trump cares if he has political clout in the future. He's a brand name already. He's got all the power and wealth he wants. I truly think he wants to make America great again.

So, I mean all those middle men. . .

[acerimusdux]

I think people are overestimating Cruz. His delegate count looks decent right now mainly because of the 102 he won from his home state of Texas. Only other primary he won was neighboring Oklahoma. He can do well in caucuses controlled by the conservative establishment, but rank-and-file Republican voters aren't going to vote for him.

We'll see what happens today, though. Hawaii is a caucus state, but Trump should win Idaho, Michigan, and Mississippi. Could be a big day for Trump.