I'll admit that I'm wary of Trump because of his "I'm just going to get it done" comments. Even if applied to the things/issues I want, it's not the right way and I've spent the last 7 years being bothered by that. I like that he isn't under the thumb of a a party establishment, but I also can't get past his seeming willingness to act outside the constructed process.
The demise of the two party system isn't a bad thing if it occurs because of the constructive chaos that individual empowerment of social media brings.
The demise of the two party system would be good if the third party draws from both of the other two rather than just splitting the Republican party and thereby weakening opposition and making the Democrats unbeatable for the foreseeable future.
Trump is running as a Republican and a conservative and he is neither. That is why he is causing a rift in the Republican party. Did Clinton put him up to it? :)
If you weren't being hypothetical: As Trump had been a Clinton donor in the past, that's not a crazy assertion. At first I wondered the same thing but as he has had success, I don't think it would matter to him. And NO, I don't see Trump as construction chaos or a force of creative destruction.
Its less of a crazy assertion when you consider what he wrote in his book. This guy was a pretty strong liberal as well as Clintonite. Suddenly he want to be POTUS? Im not buying it.
I have been reading Scott Adams blog on Trum and I must say it's VERY entertaining. I invite you to take a look and follow along with his Master Persuder Theory. Http://blog.dilbert.com (yes THAT Scott Adams).
Trump will be a quasi-conservative version of Obama. He'll wield the Executive Order for what he thinks needs to be done if Congress stonewalls him. And Congress will probably stonewall Trump if Trump is elected because, like the article stated, the R's and D's don't know what to with him or the power he wields because it doesn't come from the RNC/DNC.
Part of me giggles when Trump flummoxes the media and the political elite. I won't vote for him in the primaries; I'm leaning towards Cruz and not just because I live in Texas now. But if he's the Republican nominee I'll pull the lever and sit back with my popcorn and watch Washington insider's heads blow.
Quasi-conservative at best. I agree with you on the appeal of Cruz. The republican establishment hates him, the media hates him, the progressives hate him and for me, that is a glorious endorsement. When the institutions I think the least of are united against a man, it makes me very interested in him.
I like Carly Fiorina because she is an outsider and she is offering actions not promises of action. Cruz was impressive in the last debate but I'm just kind of tired of candidates coming from the political machine. For example, how did Ryan turn into Bohner?
I stand with Rand, as the slogan goes. I'm not opposed to Cruz, I think he would be a solid President. I just like Rand's policies and track record better. I hear a lot of people saying this person or that person are outsiders, yet I don't see that as a credit, or really meaningful at all.
I like Rand as well. Some of the things I think he is wrong on wouldn't get passed but where I agree with him, he is solid. I'd take Fiorina then Rubio then Paul and finally Cruz. Just not Trump.
The outsider status would hopefully break the political power of the few. Rather than having a bunch of buddies in the party and the bureaucracy, these folks hope to come in and play by a new set of rules.
Go watch Yes, Minister and Yes, Prime Minister on YouTube. Then you'll understand what it means to be an outsider and how ultimately the concept is doomed to failure. :)
I am in Texas and what I like about Cruz is he kept all his campaign promises and drives the establishment nuts. One thing I am thankful for about Trump. He took Bush out of the top position and pushed him back in the pack.
If Trump is elected the first thing Congress will pass is a bill to outlaw Executive orders. It will be vetoed but will have the required majority to override the veto.
That's an interesting take. I can see that. I can also see another push for the Line Item Veto power to the President. Personally I think Executive Orders need to be abolished as the past several occupants have used them to bypass Congress either rightly or wrongly.
Leave Executive Orders in place, but sue the president every time s/he misuses them. Congress hasn't had the backbone to do that yet. But there is a correct use for Executive Orders.
I think, bottom line, whether you're conservative or liberal or somewhere in between, any of the candidates on the Republican side would be a significant change from what we have in the White House today.
Now...if we can just get some of those idiots in Congress to retire/resign/disappear off the face of the earth then I think this country has a fighting chance!
I'll be honest: when I first saw the number of comments on this post, I was expecting to see some flames. Not a one! This community is amazing in this respect.
One area Trump would be perhaps the most effective in is foreign policy. He's not beholden to other interests as many of the other Rep. candidates (and the Dems) are and he's also a figure of strength. Putin's adventure's in Ukraine are partly due to Obama's weakness and perception of being a poor leader.
I tend to agree. Nothing scares our enemies (and allies) more is a President who confidently follows his plan of attack. And Trump seems to be a guy who would wield a big stick with no compulsion towards an enemies (or allies) feelings if he felt said action was to the benefit of the US and Trump.
I think you are right but... I think he would also attack anyone domestically that he disagrees with or that tries to stop him. I think he isn't tied to any political perspective but is only beholden to Donald Trump winning.
In not trusting him to act within the confines of the constitution, this concerns me. He'd possibly be great when dealing with outside threats but I worry he would act extra-constitutionally like the current president has so many times, bullying anyone that disagrees with him.
I know you mentioned that you wouldn't vote for him in the primaries and I agree with you completely in your above posts, but you brought out the element of his personality that is most concerning to me. Power and use of political force is a double edged sword.
Pin it! 
22 comments
Login to comment →
Chet_Manly 8 years, 10 months ago
I'll admit that I'm wary of Trump because of his "I'm just going to get it done" comments. Even if applied to the things/issues I want, it's not the right way and I've spent the last 7 years being bothered by that. I like that he isn't under the thumb of a a party establishment, but I also can't get past his seeming willingness to act outside the constructed process.
The demise of the two party system isn't a bad thing if it occurs because of the constructive chaos that individual empowerment of social media brings.
Reply
ahnyerkeester 8 years, 10 months ago
The demise of the two party system would be good if the third party draws from both of the other two rather than just splitting the Republican party and thereby weakening opposition and making the Democrats unbeatable for the foreseeable future.
Trump is running as a Republican and a conservative and he is neither. That is why he is causing a rift in the Republican party. Did Clinton put him up to it? :)
Reply
Chet_Manly 8 years, 10 months ago
If you weren't being hypothetical:
As Trump had been a Clinton donor in the past, that's not a crazy assertion. At first I wondered the same thing but as he has had success, I don't think it would matter to him.
And NO, I don't see Trump as construction chaos or a force of creative destruction.
Reply
skilletboy 8 years, 10 months ago
Its less of a crazy assertion when you consider what he wrote in his book. This guy was a pretty strong liberal as well as Clintonite. Suddenly he want to be POTUS? Im not buying it.
Reply
AskMrVideo 8 years, 10 months ago
I have been reading Scott Adams blog on Trum and I must say it's VERY entertaining. I invite you to take a look and follow along with his Master Persuder Theory. Http://blog.dilbert.com (yes THAT Scott Adams).
Reply
elancaster65 8 years, 10 months ago
Trump will be a quasi-conservative version of Obama. He'll wield the Executive Order for what he thinks needs to be done if Congress stonewalls him. And Congress will probably stonewall Trump if Trump is elected because, like the article stated, the R's and D's don't know what to with him or the power he wields because it doesn't come from the RNC/DNC.
Part of me giggles when Trump flummoxes the media and the political elite. I won't vote for him in the primaries; I'm leaning towards Cruz and not just because I live in Texas now. But if he's the Republican nominee I'll pull the lever and sit back with my popcorn and watch Washington insider's heads blow.
Reply
Chet_Manly 8 years, 10 months ago
Quasi-conservative at best.
I agree with you on the appeal of Cruz. The republican establishment hates him, the media hates him, the progressives hate him and for me, that is a glorious endorsement. When the institutions I think the least of are united against a man, it makes me very interested in him.
Reply
ahnyerkeester 8 years, 10 months ago
I like Carly Fiorina because she is an outsider and she is offering actions not promises of action. Cruz was impressive in the last debate but I'm just kind of tired of candidates coming from the political machine. For example, how did Ryan turn into Bohner?
Reply
Titanheart 8 years, 10 months ago
I stand with Rand, as the slogan goes. I'm not opposed to Cruz, I think he would be a solid President. I just like Rand's policies and track record better. I hear a lot of people saying this person or that person are outsiders, yet I don't see that as a credit, or really meaningful at all.
Reply
ahnyerkeester 8 years, 10 months ago
I like Rand as well. Some of the things I think he is wrong on wouldn't get passed but where I agree with him, he is solid. I'd take Fiorina then Rubio then Paul and finally Cruz. Just not Trump.
The outsider status would hopefully break the political power of the few. Rather than having a bunch of buddies in the party and the bureaucracy, these folks hope to come in and play by a new set of rules.
Go watch Yes, Minister and Yes, Prime Minister on YouTube. Then you'll understand what it means to be an outsider and how ultimately the concept is doomed to failure. :)
Reply
MacTexas 8 years, 10 months ago
I am in Texas and what I like about Cruz is he kept all his campaign promises and drives the establishment nuts. One thing I am thankful for about Trump. He took Bush out of the top position and pushed him back in the pack.
Reply
MacTexas 8 years, 10 months ago
If Trump is elected the first thing Congress will pass is a bill to outlaw Executive orders. It will be vetoed but will have the required majority to override the veto.
Reply
elancaster65 8 years, 10 months ago
That's an interesting take. I can see that. I can also see another push for the Line Item Veto power to the President. Personally I think Executive Orders need to be abolished as the past several occupants have used them to bypass Congress either rightly or wrongly.
Reply
ahnyerkeester 8 years, 10 months ago
Leave Executive Orders in place, but sue the president every time s/he misuses them. Congress hasn't had the backbone to do that yet. But there is a correct use for Executive Orders.
Reply
elancaster65 8 years, 10 months ago
I think, bottom line, whether you're conservative or liberal or somewhere in between, any of the candidates on the Republican side would be a significant change from what we have in the White House today.
Now...if we can just get some of those idiots in Congress to retire/resign/disappear off the face of the earth then I think this country has a fighting chance!
Reply
Chet_Manly 8 years, 10 months ago
It is nice to have the discussion here; a gentleman's discourse. Thanks for bringing it up
Reply
ahnyerkeester 8 years, 10 months ago
We have a great community of gentlemen here. No ugly bitterness. Good group of guys.
Reply
glen 8 years, 10 months ago
I'll be honest: when I first saw the number of comments on this post, I was expecting to see some flames. Not a one! This community is amazing in this respect.
But then again, I'm biased ;)
Reply
sam_acw 8 years, 10 months ago
One area Trump would be perhaps the most effective in is foreign policy. He's not beholden to other interests as many of the other Rep. candidates (and the Dems) are and he's also a figure of strength. Putin's adventure's in Ukraine are partly due to Obama's weakness and perception of being a poor leader.
Reply
elancaster65 8 years, 10 months ago
I tend to agree. Nothing scares our enemies (and allies) more is a President who confidently follows his plan of attack. And Trump seems to be a guy who would wield a big stick with no compulsion towards an enemies (or allies) feelings if he felt said action was to the benefit of the US and Trump.
Reply
Chet_Manly 8 years, 10 months ago
I think you are right but... I think he would also attack anyone domestically that he disagrees with or that tries to stop him. I think he isn't tied to any political perspective but is only beholden to Donald Trump winning.
In not trusting him to act within the confines of the constitution, this concerns me. He'd possibly be great when dealing with outside threats but I worry he would act extra-constitutionally like the current president has so many times, bullying anyone that disagrees with him.
I know you mentioned that you wouldn't vote for him in the primaries and I agree with you completely in your above posts, but you brought out the element of his personality that is most concerning to me. Power and use of political force is a double edged sword.
Reply
elancaster65 8 years, 10 months ago
We live in interesting times gentlemen. Interesting times indeed.
Reply