Loose, here is the civil conversation you desire (re: Trump and Clinton)

by **Turtleneck** Fri Nov 04, 2016 11:52 pm

"Watching Donald Trump’s rise, I now understand. Leave aside whether a direct comparison of Trump to Hitler is accurate. That is not my point. My point rather is about how a demagogic opportunist can exploit a divided country." - Danielle Allen, Director of the Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics and Professor of Political Theory, Harvard University Department of Government and Graduate School of Education

"A plague has descended on the party in the form of the most successful demagogue-charlatan in the history of U.S. politics." Robert Kagan, Brookings Institution

“Trump’s remedy is 1930s to the core: nationalism, crude bombast, mytho-history and sloganeering.” - Victor Davis Hanson, Hoover Institution.

“There are very few serious constitutional thinkers who believe public figures should be able to use libel as indiscriminately as Trump seems to think they should. He poses a serious threat to the press and the First Amendment.” - Ilya Somin, Professor of Law, George Mason University

“You would like a president with some idea about constitutional limits on presidential powers, on congressional powers, on federal powers, and I doubt he has any awareness of such limits.” - Randy Barnett, Carmack Waterhouse Professor of Legal Theory, Georgetown University Law Center

"It is not acceptable to ask a moral, dignified man to cast his vote to help elect an immoral man who is absent decency or dignity. If the consequence of standing against Trump and for principles is indeed the election of Hillary Clinton, so be it. At least it is a moral, ethical choice." - Glenn Beck...yes, that Glenn Beck who endorsed Ted Cruz during the primaries.

"The suffering which these and other similarly extremist policies and attitudes will impose on marginalized and already oppressed populations has a high probability of being significantly greater than that which will result from a Clinton presidency." - Noam Chomsky, Professor Emeritus, Department of Linguistics and Philosophy at Massachusetts Institute of Technology

While I see Clinton as being corrupt and opaque, her politics do not represent an inherent threat to the Republic. Trump's politics do represent an inherent threat to the Republic. The Constitution was designed to thwart Trump's brand of politics. The design of our institutions - the decentralization of authority - protect from a concentration of power in any one branch. By design, no branch can claim to have jurisdiction over the essential powers of government: making, enforcing, and interpreting laws. The Bill of Rights and subsequent amendments represent further protections of individual liberty from government interference. Trump's brand of politics are an affront to the constitutional principles of this country. At the very least, Trump does not understand constitutional limitations on executive power. At the very most, Trump wants the power to make, enforce, and interpret laws. I tend to believe the latter. Trump wants to be an autocrat. Do I really need to run through the examples? I think we are all familiar.

This is not to say Clinton would be ideal. She will continue the traditions of the modern president laid down before here. She will grow executive power. She will issue signing statements and executive orders, and look for ways to act outside of Congress. But Clinton is also aware of Constitutional limits on executive power and will behave in such a way that is much closer to the status quo. This is not the case with Trump. Clinton wants to govern us. Trumps wants to rule us. There is a difference. I prefer neither, but will settle for being governed before I come close to accept being ruled.

Through all of this, I have yet to mention his fascist tendencies. This is a corollary to the first paragraph, as fascism is naturally at odds to both the Constitution and ideological principles of our founding. Any decent observer of politics and history sees the danger in Trump's politics. At the start of this post were quotes from public intellectuals and educated observers. Some of which are very conservative and not part of the liberal wing of higher education often complained about in the media. They see the inherent danger and manifestation of fascism in Trump's politics. No, this might not be our "Weimar moment." But there are some uncomfortable similarities. Not unlike Weimar, the American people are hurting - nowhere close to Weimar but we are an entitled bunch - and here comes a hyper-nationalist with a contempt for democratic politics and appreciation for violence.* While Trump is not Hitler, some of the core tenets of fascism are present in Trump's politics. That is unacceptable to me and should be unacceptable to every American.

This is not about Republicans and Democrats. I am not a registered member of either party and could not vote in my state's primary because of my unaffiliated status. The problem is, I do not wish to make the next four years a battle between the Constitution and a wannabe autocrat. If the Constitution does not prevail in that battle, what are we left with? Trump is a far greater threat to our civil liberties and civil rights than Clinton. I refuse to sit on the sidelines in this fight. And it is a fight. Maybe this is the conservative in me, but I believe there are some traditions - specifically Constitutional traditions - worth protecting. To be honest with you, and I never thought this would happen, I am following Glenn Beck's lead on this (he is voting for Castle): even if it means voting for Clinton to protect this country from Trump's politics, I will do it. Clinton will keep open the space that we as citizens can use to oppose government. Trump desires to eliminate that space. I will accept the consequences of a Clinton presidency if it means keeping a repugnant, abhorrent, and anti-humanity brand of politics out of the executive branch. This country survived Nixon and Watergate. We survived Reagan and Iran-Contra. We survived Bill Clinton and his extra-marital affairs. We will survive Clinton if we want to. Clinton's politics only represent a threat to the Republic if we make them into a threat. I am not sure we survive Trump

*Remember, Trump was the one talking about punching peaceful protesters and carrying them out on stretchers before there was violence at his rallies.

by **WhiteBoyHatcher** Sat Nov 05, 2016 12:05 am

I can't even type intelligently about this without getting long winded. And my perspective is very narrow. I'll just say, good post TN. I don't think I come from the same place as you but I agree with your conclusion wholeheartedly.

by Guest Sat Nov 05, 2016 1:30 am

Loose, here is the civil conversation you desire (re: Trump and Clinton) 1966794946

Loose, here is the civil conversation you desire (re: Trump and Clinton) 502811600

You seriously need to get a grip if you believe even 10% of that hyperbole.

Fucking Hills sets up a rogue server to handle national secrets so she can avoid FOIA laws. The server is hacked by at least 5 foreign entities, she still thinks she did nothing wrong. Talk to me some more about who flouts our rule of law???
Her and her hubby and their pals have gotten stinking rich selling access to government power.

And on and on and on for 35+ fucking years. And she's your knight in shining armor to save the republic. LMAO

But stupid ass Trump who's too lazy to study for a debate is Hitler, Stalin & Mao wrapped into one evil man. That's absurd. He's a dumb fuck He's a slimeball. But he's not Hitler or even close

And as far as violence goes. I said it last week and I repeat myself. Isn't it strange how the violence at Trump rallies has ceased since O'Keefe's tape outed the Democrat operatives behind it???? Amazing coincidence.

by **DWags** Sat Nov 05, 2016 1:39 am

LooseGoose wrote:

You seriously need to get a grip if you believe even 10% of that hyperbole.

Fucking Hills sets up a rogue server to handle national secrets so she can avoid FOIA laws. The server is hacked by at least 5 foreign entities, she still thinks she did nothing wrong. Talk to me some more about who flouts our rule of law???
Her and her hubby and their pals have gotten stinking rich selling access to government power.

And on and on and on for 35+ fucking years. And she's your knight in shining armor to save the republic. LMAO

But stupid ass Trump who's too lazy to study for a debate is Hitler, Stalin & Mao wrapped into one evil man. That's absurd. He's a dumb fuck He's a slimeball. But he's not Hitler or even close

And as far as violence goes. I said it last week and I repeat myself. Isn't it strange how the violence at Trump rallies has ceased since O'Keefe's tape outed the Democrat operatives behind it???? Amazing coincidence.

Was she the first SOS to have a private server?

by **Turtleneck** Sat Nov 05, 2016 1:55 am

You wanted a civil discussion, but your first sentence demonstrates you are incapable having such a conversation. Most of the rest of you post misunderstands or misrepsents what I posted. I did not come close to saying she is a "knight and shining armor." Nor did I compare Trump to Hitler. So once again, as you usually do, you begin your argument from a dishonest position.

I am sorry for offering up some original thought. The next time you have an original thought it will be your first. The fact that you do not see Trump as dangerous tells me all I need to know about you. I am not sure Clinton's corruption should translate into an embrace of authoritarianism, but I suppose your more comfortable with that brand of politics.

So much for the civil discussion you wanted. I'm out.

by Guest Sat Nov 05, 2016 9:06 am

DWags wrote:
LooseGoose wrote:

You seriously need to get a grip if you believe even 10% of that hyperbole.

Fucking Hills sets up a rogue server to handle national secrets so she can avoid FOIA laws. The server is hacked by at least 5 foreign entities, she still thinks she did nothing wrong. Talk to me some more about who flouts our rule of law???
Her and her hubby and their pals have gotten stinking rich selling access to government power.

And on and on and on for 35+ fucking years. And she's your knight in shining armor to save the republic. LMAO

But stupid ass Trump who's too lazy to study for a debate is Hitler, Stalin & Mao wrapped into one evil man. That's absurd. He's a dumb fuck He's a slimeball. But he's not Hitler or even close

And as far as violence goes. I said it last week and I repeat myself. Isn't it strange how the violence at Trump rallies has ceased since O'Keefe's tape outed the Democrat operatives behind it???? Amazing coincidence.

Was she the first SOS to have a private server?

Yes.

The whole Colin Powell thing is a swerve. He had a private email address like at yahoo or something. He didn't set a server up in his home to avoid FOIA. If you think I'm wrong I'll dig you up a few links to read.

Again back to that Detroit Speech, around 57 minutes in she's talking about electing someone that will obey the rule of law and I guess that's important to TN too. So you're going to pick HER? Good lord.

by Guest Sat Nov 05, 2016 9:13 am

Turtleneck wrote:You wanted a civil discussion, but your first sentence demonstrates you are incapable having such a conversation. Most of the rest of you post misunderstands or misrepsents what I posted. I did not come close to saying she is a "knight and shining armor." Nor did I compare Trump to Hitler. So once again, as you usually do, you begin your argument from a dishonest position.

I am sorry for offering up some original thought. The next time you have an original thought it will be your first. The fact that you do not see Trump as dangerous tells me all I need to know about you. I am not sure Clinton's corruption should translate into an embrace of authoritarianism, but I suppose your more comfortable with that brand of politics.

So much for the civil discussion you wanted. I'm out.

lol, ok darling.

Come on. What I was replying to with it's multiple "weimar" references is comparing Trump to seizing power like Hitler.

No, this might not be our "Weimar moment." But there are some uncomfortable similarities. Not unlike Weimar, the American people are hurting - nowhere close to Weimar but we are an entitled bunch - and here comes a hyper-nationalist with a contempt for democratic politics and appreciation for violence.* While Trump is not Hitler, some of the core tenets of fascism are present in Trump's politics. That is unacceptable to me and should be unacceptable to every American.

Seriously. If the man is elected he's going to have 1/2 the nation plus 1/2 of his own party arrayed against him. Most of the officer corps of the Armed Forces don't like him. He's not seizing power any time soon. AND much as they scare Hills and others his gun toting, camo wearing followers are the LEAST likely Americans to support a dictator? So where is he going to get his brown shirts to seize power? That's just not happening.

by Guest Sat Nov 05, 2016 9:15 am

And BTW - wringing your hands that "we may not survive" a 4 year Presidency of one of the major party candidates isn't really conducive to a "civil" discussion. That's more along the lines of - hey let me tell you what a power hungry jackass that other guy is while trying to convince you we should settle for the crook.

by **NigelUno** Sat Nov 05, 2016 9:21 am

Trump is a major party candidate in name only.

by Guest Sat Nov 05, 2016 10:35 am

NigelUno wrote:Trump is a major party candidate in name only.

It's an amazing coincidence that every R candidate is Hitler until they lose, then they're ok guys.

Dole, Bush, McCain, Romney were all terrible fellers. Now there really is a terrible candidate and the Chicken Littles don't understand why they have no credibility.

by **NigelUno** Sat Nov 05, 2016 11:08 am

LooseGoose wrote:
NigelUno wrote:Trump is a major party candidate in name only.

It's an amazing coincidence that every R candidate is Hitler until they lose, then they're ok guys.

Dole, Bush, McCain, Romney were all terrible fellers. Now there really is a terrible candidate and the Chicken Littles don't understand why they have no credibility.

Seems like you're resorting to some hyperbole.

by **Turtleneck** Sat Nov 05, 2016 11:22 am

Loose is misrepresenting my points. My expectations for Loose might have been too high for this thread. He refuses to find substantive faults in Trump's politics. He believes 100% of the criticism of Clinton, and 0% of the criticism of Trump. That's a problem. Overall he has very little sense of politics and history. I have no interest in conversing with him.

by Guest Sat Nov 05, 2016 11:26 am

NigelUno wrote:
LooseGoose wrote:

It's an amazing coincidence that every R candidate is Hitler until they lose, then they're ok guys.

Dole, Bush, McCain, Romney were all terrible fellers. Now there really is a terrible candidate and the Chicken Littles don't understand why they have no credibility.

Seems like you're resorting to some hyperbole.

It isn't hyperbole if I can provide with quotes from every campaign.

by Guest Sat Nov 05, 2016 11:27 am

Turtleneck wrote:Loose is misrepresenting my points. My expectations for Loose might have been too high for this thread. He refuses to find substantive faults in Trump's politics. He believes 100% of the criticism of Clinton, and 0% of the criticism of Trump. That's a problem. Overall he has very little sense of politics and history. I have no interest in conversing with him.

Nah, I guess "power hungry jackass" and "slimeball" aren't substantive faults in your world.

I've forgotten more politics and history than you know.

by **Other Teams Pursuing That** Sat Nov 05, 2016 11:33 am

I'm voting for Clinton. Thank you TN.

by **Turtleneck** Sat Nov 05, 2016 11:47 am

LooseGoose wrote:
Turtleneck wrote:Loose is misrepresenting my points. My expectations for Loose might have been too high for this thread. He refuses to find substantive faults in Trump's politics. He believes 100% of the criticism of Clinton, and 0% of the criticism of Trump. That's a problem. Overall he has very little sense of politics and history. I have no interest in conversing with him.

Nah, I guess "power hungry jackass" and "slimeball" aren't substantive faults in your world.

I've forgotten more politics and history than you know.

Oh Loose, what you don't know...

by **NigelUno** Sat Nov 05, 2016 1:11 pm

LooseGoose wrote:
NigelUno wrote:

Seems like you're resorting to some hyperbole.

It isn't hyperbole if I can provide with quotes from every campaign.

Someone called McCain "Hitler"?

Do you keep track of all the bad words said about Dem candidates as well?

by Guest Sat Nov 05, 2016 2:00 pm

NigelUno wrote:
LooseGoose wrote:

It isn't hyperbole if I can provide with quotes from every campaign.

Someone called McCain "Hitler"?

Do you keep track of all the bad words said about Dem candidates as well?

Yes. Yes.

by **xsanguine** Sat Nov 05, 2016 2:01 pm

Watched inglorious basterds last night. Hitler was in it. Thats all i got.

by Guest Sat Nov 05, 2016 2:05 pm

NigelUno wrote:Someone called McCain "Hitler"?

MCCAIN VS STALIN VS HITLER

Friday Feb 15, 2008 · 4:08 PM EST 25 Comments (25 New)

What are the differences between McCain, Stalin, and Hitler? Well, there are none when comparing these three men except for the fact that history has already been written about Hitler and Stalin.

by Guest Sat Nov 05, 2016 2:17 pm

And now Bill Maher is sorry he called McCain and Romney those names.

Wah, wah, wah they'll do the same thing the next time no matter the nominee.

by **Turtleneck** Sun Nov 06, 2016 12:05 am

As far as me claiming Clinton was a savior of some sort, here is what I said...

Turtleneck wrote:I see Clinton as being corrupt and opaque

Turtleneck wrote: This is not to say Clinton would be ideal. She will continue the traditions of the modern president laid down before here. She will grow executive power. She will issue signing statements and executive orders, and look for ways to act outside of Congress.

Turtleneck wrote:Clinton wants to govern us. Trumps wants to rule us. There is a difference. I prefer neither, but will settle for being governed before I come close to accept being ruled.

As for comparing Trump to Hitler, here is what I said...

Turtleneck wrote:While Trump is not Hitler, some of the core tenets of fascism are present in Trump's politics.

So either Loose is fundamentally dishonest or does not know how to read. I did not claim Clinton was a "knight in shining armor," and I did not compare Trump to Hitler.

In reality, Loose is helping me make my point. Comparing McCain or Romney to Hitler? Absolutely absurd. I used to cringe every time Democrats called Bush a fascist.

In the U.S., most people do not understand fascism. The term is often used, but rarely used correctly. The more the term gets used incorrectly the more it gets watered down. Between the term being watered down and the U.S. never having to deal with a fascist movement, most Americans do not know the real thing when they see it. So, while McCain, Romney, and Bush are all within the (ideological) status quo, Trump is not. However, saying Trump is well outside the status quo leads some Republicans to take the position that "Democrats say that about every Republican" and immediately dismiss the claim without any reflection. Normally the absence of reflection would be fine - because the claim is insincere or inaccurate - but now you have instance where elements of fascism are at play and people are burying their heads in the sand.

This is not to say Trump is Hitler. This is not to say Trump is going to murder millions of people. Give me a break. This is to say Trump's reactionary populism has fascist tendencies. He is a hyper-nationalist with anti-democratic tendencies and an affinity for violence (for the sake of violence). It's not hard to see where his brand of politics occasionally blurs the line with fascism. Saying his politics has fascist streaks is not saying he is a fascist, and saying his brand of politics cannot co-exist within our constitutional democracy is not a stretch of the imagination. None of this is complex.

What I do find interesting is that when Trump failed to disavow the KKK, Loose implied this was as expected because his father was a member of the KKK.

LooseGoose wrote:His Dad was in the KKK, he can't disavow his heritage.

Now, according to Loose, that kind of talk is hyperbole and a media plot to sabotage Trump.
https://spartanswill.forumotion.com/t10424p440-ot-don-t-know-if-trump-s-run-is-coming-to-an-end-but-it-s-been-great-so-far#252301

Amazing how Loose would have agreed about Trump's politics in February, but now...well now it is a different story.

by **NigelUno** Sun Nov 06, 2016 8:34 am

LooseGoose wrote:
NigelUno wrote:Someone called McCain "Hitler"?

MCCAIN VS STALIN VS HITLER

Friday Feb 15, 2008 · 4:08 PM EST 25 Comments (25 New)

What are the differences between McCain, Stalin, and Hitler? Well, there are none when comparing these three men except for the fact that history has already been written about Hitler and Stalin.

Good work scouring the internet for that one. I mean if "Unaffiliated" said it...

Again.... Loose, here is the civil conversation you desire (re: Trump and Clinton) 502811600

by Guest Sun Nov 06, 2016 9:59 am

NigelUno wrote:
LooseGoose wrote:

MCCAIN VS STALIN VS HITLER

Good work scouring the internet for that one. I mean if "Unaffiliated" said it...

Again....

You asked the question, I answered and now you wanted it from someone you knew? What other stipulations do you plan to add afterward?

by Guest Sun Nov 06, 2016 10:00 am

Turtleneck wrote:I see Clinton as being corrupt and opaque......

Amazing how Loose would have agreed about Trump's politics in February, but now...well now it is a different story.

Amazing is how your statements are still operative and mine aren't. But then again you want this person in charge of our national security.

Loose, here is the civil conversation you desire (re: Trump and Clinton) CwkAWYDUQAAMwfF

Loose, here is the civil conversation you desire (re: Trump and Clinton) CwkAWYDUQAAMwfF

by **Turtleneck** Sun Nov 06, 2016 10:13 am

LooseGoose wrote:
Turtleneck wrote:I see Clinton as being corrupt and opaque......

Amazing how Loose would have agreed about Trump's politics in February, but now...well now it is a different story.

Amazing is how your statements are still operative and mine aren't. But then again you want this person in charge of our national security.

Your ignorance knows no bounds. Your incompetence is limitless. Congratulations.

by **NigelUno** Sun Nov 06, 2016 10:22 am

LooseGoose wrote:
NigelUno wrote:

Good work scouring the internet for that one. I mean if "Unaffiliated" said it...

Again....

You asked the question, I answered and now you wanted it from someone you knew? What other stipulations do you plan to add afterward?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/11/02/farrakhan-compares-hillary-clinton-to-hitler-in-sermon.html

by Guest Sun Nov 06, 2016 10:45 am

Turtleneck wrote:
LooseGoose wrote:

Amazing is how your statements are still operative and mine aren't. But then again you want this person in charge of our national security.

Your ignorance knows no bounds. Your incompetence is limitless. Congratulations.

I love you too.

by **DWags** Sun Nov 06, 2016 12:03 pm

This country is fucked. Doesn't matter who wins. She wins, we get an obstructionist congress and nothing gets done. People will hate each other.

He wins, we get a fractured Republican Party and democrats who didn't go vote will be in such a pissed off mood there will be no cooperation. Dollar to a donut he takes revenge on political opponents too.

The press has slowly deteriorated into cheer leaders. Intelligent people on both sides are coming up with ways to convince themselves their information is right. It's actually quite scary and I'm if the firm belief that for some reason many voters 20-30% are cheering for chaos.

Yesterday a friend of my wife told us "I heard they used over a million dollars of Clinton foundation money to try to keep the 15 year old girl quiet that Weiner was sexting"

She has an undergrad from msu and a masters from Michigan. Wife and I just nodded. I went back out and chopped some wood.

This shit is fucked up.

by **Turtleneck** Sun Nov 06, 2016 12:55 pm

DWags wrote:This country is fucked. Doesn't matter who wins. She wins, we get an obstructionist congress and nothing gets done. People will hate each other.

He wins, we get a fractured Republican Party and democrats who didn't go vote will be in such a pissed off mood there will be no cooperation. Dollar to a donut he takes revenge on political opponents too.

The press has slowly deteriorated into cheer leaders. Intelligent people on both sides are coming up with ways to convince themselves their information is right. It's actually quite scary and I'm if the firm belief that for some reason many voters 20-30% are cheering for chaos.

Yesterday a friend of my wife told us "I heard they used over a million dollars of Clinton foundation money to try to keep the 15 year old girl quiet that Weiner was sexting"

She has an undergrad from msu and a masters from Michigan. Wife and I just nodded. I went back out and chopped some wood.

This shit is fucked up.

But this is our choice, right? We will choose to be obstructionist and hate one another, right? Do her (moderately liberal to liberal) politics represent an inherent threat to our institutions? At the same time, keep in mind some obstructionism is good. The president is not a lawmaker and should not be able to unilaterally govern the country. When obstructionism amounts to the kind of gridlock that produces dialogue and compromise between the parties, it is good. However, like you, I doubt it will be productive gridlock but instead complete paralysis inspired by obstructionism.

With Trump it is not that I think he will usher in some new fascist regime. Yes, he has those tendencies, which adds to the inherent danger he represents to the system. Yet in practice he would rather be Putin or a populist strongman like Hugo Chavez. In any event his brand of politics is an inherent threat to our Constitution. Some people in this thread refer to rule of law, but they only understand rule of law in respect to citizens obeying the law. The rule of law is just as much about government honoring self-imposed limitations on its power. Trump would prefer to dismantle those self-imposed limitations. Especially the ones that relate to the executive.

I am not convinced, in battle between Trump and the Constitution, that the Constitution wins. I am not convinced that Congress could hold its ground. No, when I say that we might not survive Trump, I do not mean the country actually does not survive. I mean American democracy is forever altered in a more authoritarian direction. If Trump wins, he will claim a mandate and use that mandate to challenge Congress. His supporters will back him and he will claim to have popular sentiment on his side. Whether they know it or not, his supporters have already thrown the Constitution under the bus by embracing a man who says "I alone can fix it." So, if they no longer respect the limited government created by the Constitution, and are fine with an executive that does not respect limited government, what happens next....?

by **Watch Out Pylon!** Sun Nov 06, 2016 12:57 pm

This stupid shit is almost over. Thank Jeebus. Loose, here is the civil conversation you desire (re: Trump and Clinton) 2275418548

by **Turtleneck** Sun Nov 06, 2016 1:00 pm

Watch Out Pylon! wrote:This stupid shit is almost over. Thank Jeebus.

It's unfortunate that understanding, and paying close attention to, the system responsible for making the laws that govern us is reduced to "stupid shit."

by Guest Sun Nov 06, 2016 1:04 pm

Turtleneck wrote:Whether they know it or not, his supporters have already thrown the Constitution under the bus by embracing a man who says "I alone can fix it." So, if they no longer respect the limited government created by the Constitution, and are fine with an executive that does not respect limited government, what happens next....?

lol

Every Presidential candidate says "MY" plan will fix it. They neglect to mention they need Congress to change much outside of trying Executive orders that may or may not hold up in court. They also know that no President really affects the economy much.

Funny how little concern you have for a woman that breaks the law on purpose will be swearing to uphold the law. I guess that part of the Constitution isn't a biggie for you.

by **Turtleneck** Sun Nov 06, 2016 1:37 pm

LooseGoose wrote:

lol

Every Presidential candidate says "MY" plan will fix it.

You're right, but two points. First, While all candidates are wrong to make such claims it is now the nature of presidential campaigns. Second, in your example, there is a clear difference between "my plan will fix it," and "I alone can fix it" (which is a direct quote from Trump's convention speech). It is not a nuanced difference. It is evident. The former simply refers to a plan. It does not refer to process or power. The latter is far more nefarious and makes a clear reference to process and power. The language naturally implies nobody else in government can (be trusted to) fix our problems, and that the person believes they should have discretion over the process. Again, it's not a nuanced difference. It is evident.

LooseGoose wrote:They neglect to mention they need Congress to change much outside of trying Executive orders that may or may not hold up in court. They also know that no President really affects the economy much.

I already mentioned both executive order and signing statements above when I said Clinton was going to be no friend to idea executive power. You ignored those comments in your misrepresentation of my points.

As for the economy, I agree. Except you are missing one key point. Trump is a protectionist. This means he wants significant state intervention into matters of the market, and he wants to be in position to exclusively make those decisions about intervention. So, while you are right if we are referring to status quo candidates, Trump is nowhere close to the status quo. Do you actually think renegotiating trade agreements, possible leaving the WTO, imposing tariffs on imports, and taxing American companies that produce good abroad will not have a direct and nearly immediate impact on the economy? His protectionist policies combined with desire for executive power actually puts him in position to single-handedly impact the economy unlike previous presidents.

LooseGoose wrote:Funny how little concern you have for a woman that breaks the law on purpose will be swearing to uphold the law. I guess that part of the Constitution isn't a biggie for you.

Did you have the same concern for Reagan? Iran-Contra violated multiple federal laws. I guess other things that know no bounds with you is hypocrisy. I am more worried about rule of law in the other direction: government not honoring limitations on its own power. The funny thing is, Trump is no less corrupt in the private sector so I am not sure why you expect him to be a choir boy in the White House. If Trump was in politics, he would be less corrupt.

by Guest Sun Nov 06, 2016 2:14 pm

Turtleneck wrote:Did you have the same concern for Reagan? Iran-Contra violated multiple federal laws.

TN Honey? A couple of things:

1) Reagan ran for President in 1976-1980-1984. Iran-Contra didn't start until 1985, so I don't see how this example applies. No one voted for RR AFTER IC.

2) But just in case you want to compare Apples/Oranges - RR was not directly involved in IC - he didn't commit the crime, his underlings did. Hills has directly committed multiple crimes. Huge difference.

I'm sorry you chose such a shitty example but I love you anyway.

by **Turtleneck** Sun Nov 06, 2016 2:34 pm

Washington D.C., November 25, 2011 – President Ronald Reagan was briefed in advance about every weapons shipment in the Iran arms-for-hostages deals in 1985-86, and Vice President George H. W. Bush chaired a committee that recommended the mining of the harbors of Nicaragua in 1983, according to previously secret Independent Counsel assessments of "criminal liability" on the part of the two former leaders posted today by the National Security Archive.

On Reagan, Mixter reported that the President was "briefed in advance" on each of the illicit sales of missiles to Iran. The criminality of the arms sales to Iran "involves a number of close legal calls," Mixter wrote. He found that it would be difficult to prosecute Reagan for violating the Arms Export Control Act (AECA) which mandates advising Congress about arms transfers through a third country-the U.S. missiles were transferred to Iran from Israel during the first phase of the operation in 1985-because Attorney General Meese had told the president the 1947 National Security Act could be invoked to supersede the AECA.

As the Iran operations went forward, some of Reagan's own top officials certainly believed that the violation of the AECA as well as the failure to notify Congress of these covert operations were illegal-and prosecutable. In a dramatic meeting on December 7, 1985, Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger told the President that "washing [the] transaction thru Israel wouldn't make it legal." When Reagan responded that "he could answer charges of illegality but he couldn't answer charge that 'big strong President Reagan passed up a chance to free hostages," Weinberger suggested they might all end up in jail. "Visiting hours are on Thursdays," Weinberger stated. As the scandal unfolded a year later, Reagan and his top aides gathered in the White House Situation Room the day before the November 25 press conference to work out a way to protect the president from impeachment proceedings.

http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB365/

by Guest Sun Nov 06, 2016 3:04 pm

And your point there ^^^ is?? It's just as I said. IC all occurred AFTER RR's last run for office. So no one voted for him afterward.

by **Turtleneck** Mon Nov 07, 2016 7:56 am

I think the larger point is your double-standard. The election is just something you have conjured up as an out.

You are fine with a Rep administration having violated federal law. But you use violating federal law to disqualify a current Dem candidate. While Reagan was not up for re-election, I do not see you arguing that, had we known then what we know now, Reagan should have been impeached.

What this comes down to is your selective application of when it is ok to break federal law and when it is not. Apparently that determination is based on party.

by **Robert J Sakimano** Mon Nov 07, 2016 8:37 am

Other Teams Pursuing That wrote:I'm voting for Clinton. Thank you TN.

that makes you a great American.

by **Robert J Sakimano** Mon Nov 07, 2016 8:38 am

DWags wrote:This country is fucked. Doesn't matter who wins. She wins, we get an obstructionist congress and nothing gets done. People will hate each other.

He wins, we get a fractured Republican Party and democrats who didn't go vote will be in such a pissed off mood there will be no cooperation. Dollar to a donut he takes revenge on political opponents too.

The press has slowly deteriorated into cheer leaders. Intelligent people on both sides are coming up with ways to convince themselves their information is right. It's actually quite scary and I'm if the firm belief that for some reason many voters 20-30% are cheering for chaos.

Yesterday a friend of my wife told us "I heard they used over a million dollars of Clinton foundation money to try to keep the 15 year old girl quiet that Weiner was sexting"

She has an undergrad from msu and a masters from Michigan. Wife and I just nodded. I went back out and chopped some wood.

This shit is fucked up.

I've been saying it for years - Americans are basically stupid.

by Sponsored content