5 ms·

If a Trump presidency resulted in any changes to the rights of any of the groups you mention, we'd also have congress to blame. The president does not have the

If a Trump presidency resulted in any changes to the rights of any of the groups you mention, we'd also have congress to blame. The president does not have the power to make laws. We've seen an ostensibly moderate president (Obama) uphold and extend the Bush Doctrine on foreign policy, killing, mutilating, and devastating all sorts of innocent people throughout the middle east. The lesson we'd learn from a Trump presidence is that we need to be more picky about the sort of people we vote into office. The first step in this is not holding our nose and voting for the major party candidate who offends us slightly less. This election, we get to choose between a democrat who is actually a moderate conservative (and could easily run the same platform as a republican) and a populist Republican, who has borrowed Democratic Party rhetoric on rust belt issues and combined it with some elements of paleo-conservatism. They are both hybrids that defy the party conventions.

kbenson 10y ago
What worries me most about a Trump presidency is not local (US) policy, as you rightly point out that he needs legislative support that he doesn't have to make changes (although he can retard progress through veto power, depending on your definition of progress and his inclination), but the absolute murder he will do to the US reputation and standing in the international community (already a complex topic, and I imagine fairly mixed in most circles).
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  > What worries me most about a Trump presidency is not local (US) policy, as you rightly point out that he needs legislative support that he doesn't have If a sufficient electoral base exists to elect Trump, a sufficient electoral base exists to get him sufficient legislative support (sooner than new people are elected, perhaps, simply by raising the prospect of electoral danger to present incumbents) to implement his policies.
  - kbenson 10y ago
    That assumes everyone actually knows what his objectives are before electing him, or that those objectives stay the same after election. Given how often his views have changed so far, I'm not sure that's a safe assumption to make. Edit: Also, to be clear, if he does have legislative support because enough people support him to elect representatives with similar agendas, that's not really something for me to be worried about, as that would be no different than any other candidate. If it's the will of the people, so be it (as much as I dislike it).
    - grandalf 10y ago
      I feel slightly better about this with the knowledge that the office of the president of the US is primarily a status-quo-preserving institution. The interest groups that care generally want the status quo preserved. If Trump is not destined to do this, then I think there is little danger he'll be elected. Note, the same applies to HRC.
- mk1202 10y ago
  What worries me about a Clinton presidency is that she's a threat to world peace. Remember how "Bush lied to invade Iraq"? I see the same thing happening here with the Clinton camp blaming the Russians for the DNC e-mail leak. President Hillary is preparing the American people for a possible WW3 with Russia. She's clearly showing her intentions.
  - kbenson 10y ago
    I don't think that's very plausible at all. You really think a career politician who knows that both countries routinely probe and hack each other is going to go to war over this? Anything she says will be to affect Russia's international standing and embarrass them for getting caught, and possibly to maneuver for a better deal somewhere else. That the US would go to war over the hacking of a non-governmental institution is ridiculous, and whoever is spouting stuff like that should immediately lose quite a bit of credibility with whoever is listening. Only congress can officially start a war, and if the president started getting aggressive with a country such as powerful as Russa over something so small, well, there would be some interesting ramifications to presidential power. Remember, congress has the ability to amend the constitution.
    - mk1202 10y ago
      It's only a start. She's preparing the people to be more hostile toward Russia with conspiracy theories such as this. It's not about the hacking; it's the more severe accusation of influencing the election and American politics. The FBI is already starting an investigation. She also wants a no-fly zone over Syria in direct confrontation with Russia, escalating the tensions. I can only see more hostility in the future.
slg 10y ago
>If a Trump presidency resulted in any changes to the rights of any of the groups you mention, we'd also have congress to blame. The president does not have the power to make laws. I think you are being naive if that is your logic. Why care about the president at all if they can't pass laws? The truth is that they do have a large amount of influence on the laws of this country. There is a reason people call it Obamacare and not Pelosicare. You are also not factoring in executive orders which can be used to do a lot of damage. I imagine Trump's immigration ban will attempt to be issued with an executive order for example.
- grandalf 10y ago
  > they do have a large amount of influence Put another way, they are allowed to act unchecked by Congress much of the time. Why is this? I think the president and congress play a coordination game through which corrupt legislation is passed. Take Obamacare. Its passage was a massive success to rent-seeking firms and interest groups. All the interest groups and most of the members of congress who were instrumental in getting it passed were happy to have it called "Obamacare" and not "PhizerCare" or "AbbotCare" or "HalliburtonCare". Correspondingly, both parties benefit from the notion that Obamacare is somehow leftist or constitutes a big defeat for "greedy firms" and "selfish doctors". In reality, the program simply modernizes many of the existing flows of rents from the public to firms, and reflects some of the changes in magnitude of influence of some industry subgroups. This is one reason why the GOP didn't come up with a serious market-based counter-proposal: The spoils of Obamacare were just too appealing to pass up, at least for enough of the GOP's constituents to get the bill passed. The loud crowing about wanting to repeal it is no more meaningful than anything else politicians say to seem principled or to seem consistent. From the beginning, Obama was far more pragmatic than HRC about pleasing healthcare industry incumbents, which is one reason for his surprising performance in the 2008 Democratic primary. I strongly agree that executive orders and extralegal actions (which Bush honed and Obama perfected) are quite worrisome... But the core issue is that congress largely agrees with the actions that are undertaken. As a case in point, there was a lot of outrage from Democrats about GWB's extralegal shenanigans during the Iraq war, but then once Obama took office we got the chance to observe that in fact he (and his party) strongly support drone warfare, happily exploit the idea of enemy combatants not having rights, enjoy every clause of the Patriot Act, and utilize every extrajudicial rendition option just as GWB did. We have one party, and it goes through a little ceremony every few years to see which corporatist warmonger gets the chance to be our figurehead.

kbenson 10y ago

What worries me most about a Trump presidency is not local (US) policy, as you rightly point out that he needs legislative support that he doesn't have to make changes (although he can retard progress through veto power, depending on your definition of progress and his inclination), but the absolute murder he will do to the US reputation and standing in the international community (already a complex topic, and I imagine fairly mixed in most circles).

dragonwriter 10y ago
> What worries me most about a Trump presidency is not local (US) policy, as you rightly point out that he needs legislative support that he doesn't have If a sufficient electoral base exists to elect Trump, a sufficient electoral base exists to get him sufficient legislative support (sooner than new people are elected, perhaps, simply by raising the prospect of electoral danger to present incumbents) to implement his policies.
- kbenson 10y ago
  That assumes everyone actually knows what his objectives are before electing him, or that those objectives stay the same after election. Given how often his views have changed so far, I'm not sure that's a safe assumption to make. Edit: Also, to be clear, if he does have legislative support because enough people support him to elect representatives with similar agendas, that's not really something for me to be worried about, as that would be no different than any other candidate. If it's the will of the people, so be it (as much as I dislike it).
  - grandalf 10y ago
    I feel slightly better about this with the knowledge that the office of the president of the US is primarily a status-quo-preserving institution. The interest groups that care generally want the status quo preserved. If Trump is not destined to do this, then I think there is little danger he'll be elected. Note, the same applies to HRC.
mk1202 10y ago
What worries me about a Clinton presidency is that she's a threat to world peace. Remember how "Bush lied to invade Iraq"? I see the same thing happening here with the Clinton camp blaming the Russians for the DNC e-mail leak. President Hillary is preparing the American people for a possible WW3 with Russia. She's clearly showing her intentions.
- kbenson 10y ago
  I don't think that's very plausible at all. You really think a career politician who knows that both countries routinely probe and hack each other is going to go to war over this? Anything she says will be to affect Russia's international standing and embarrass them for getting caught, and possibly to maneuver for a better deal somewhere else. That the US would go to war over the hacking of a non-governmental institution is ridiculous, and whoever is spouting stuff like that should immediately lose quite a bit of credibility with whoever is listening. Only congress can officially start a war, and if the president started getting aggressive with a country such as powerful as Russa over something so small, well, there would be some interesting ramifications to presidential power. Remember, congress has the ability to amend the constitution.
  - mk1202 10y ago
    It's only a start. She's preparing the people to be more hostile toward Russia with conspiracy theories such as this. It's not about the hacking; it's the more severe accusation of influencing the election and American politics. The FBI is already starting an investigation. She also wants a no-fly zone over Syria in direct confrontation with Russia, escalating the tensions. I can only see more hostility in the future.

slg 10y ago

>If a Trump presidency resulted in any changes to the rights of any of the groups you mention, we'd also have congress to blame. The president does not have the power to make laws. I think you are being naive if that is your logic. Why care about the president at all if they can't pass laws? The truth is that they do have a large amount of influence on the laws of this country. There is a reason people call it Obamacare and not Pelosicare. You are also not factoring in executive orders which can be used to do a lot of damage. I imagine Trump's immigration ban will attempt to be issued with an executive order for example.

grandalf 10y ago
> they do have a large amount of influence Put another way, they are allowed to act unchecked by Congress much of the time. Why is this? I think the president and congress play a coordination game through which corrupt legislation is passed. Take Obamacare. Its passage was a massive success to rent-seeking firms and interest groups. All the interest groups and most of the members of congress who were instrumental in getting it passed were happy to have it called "Obamacare" and not "PhizerCare" or "AbbotCare" or "HalliburtonCare". Correspondingly, both parties benefit from the notion that Obamacare is somehow leftist or constitutes a big defeat for "greedy firms" and "selfish doctors". In reality, the program simply modernizes many of the existing flows of rents from the public to firms, and reflects some of the changes in magnitude of influence of some industry subgroups. This is one reason why the GOP didn't come up with a serious market-based counter-proposal: The spoils of Obamacare were just too appealing to pass up, at least for enough of the GOP's constituents to get the bill passed. The loud crowing about wanting to repeal it is no more meaningful than anything else politicians say to seem principled or to seem consistent. From the beginning, Obama was far more pragmatic than HRC about pleasing healthcare industry incumbents, which is one reason for his surprising performance in the 2008 Democratic primary. I strongly agree that executive orders and extralegal actions (which Bush honed and Obama perfected) are quite worrisome... But the core issue is that congress largely agrees with the actions that are undertaken. As a case in point, there was a lot of outrage from Democrats about GWB's extralegal shenanigans during the Iraq war, but then once Obama took office we got the chance to observe that in fact he (and his party) strongly support drone warfare, happily exploit the idea of enemy combatants not having rights, enjoy every clause of the Patriot Act, and utilize every extrajudicial rendition option just as GWB did. We have one party, and it goes through a little ceremony every few years to see which corporatist warmonger gets the chance to be our figurehead.