good article. but i think the notion of Trump being dangerous is overblown. as warren buffet said, america is going to do fine with either Trump or with Hilary. on a separate note, as i researched on the author's background, i can't help but think i'd rather be Trump than him.
I agree to an extent. The rhetoric in our politics is so hyperbolic that every president is the "worst ever," the "most dangerous in a generation," etc. We have short memories and a shorter attention span. For all of the fear-mongering that's been spread about President Obama, his eight years in office really show the limitations on the power of the presidency. If the office were a true unilateral dictatorship, the we would've had single-payer healthcare for years instead of Obamacare, Guantanamo would've been shut down already, etc. Instead, the checks and balances placed on the executive branch prevent the officeholder from enacting unchecked unilateral change. Even critics of President Obama, when they step back, have to admit this outside of a rhetorical vacuum. A President Trump would also be unable to enact anything he has campaigned on because Congress would not work with him. That said, the danger of Trump is what he represents. I don't think anybody who isn't voting for him believes that he believes anything he's said so far. It's very clear that he's a carnival-barking sentient sweet potato who will say and do anything to further his own hubris. What Trump represents is the seething majority of Republican voters who don't care about governing a country of 319 million people. They want a scorched earth government for certain kinds of people, by certain kinds of people. Basically, they're no longer interested in keeping the country going unless they reap its immediate rewards. They would rather elect a bigoted orangutan in a suit than see a Congress that seeks compromise on difficult issues. So long as these voters are treated by the media like equal voices at the table, they will continue to support and elect representatives who have no actual intention of governing the US. This is an emotional response that I know to be wrong intellectually, but if the Republican party nominates Donald Trump as its candidate, they have functionally ceded their seat at the table and the majority of their voters should not be listened to anymore. The Republican party needs to stop pandering to the people who are voting for this man because they have no intention of doing anything other than watching the world burn. Our founders feared the "rabble" and, right now, the rabble is pushing this country into uncharted waters.
Raphael Cruz Sr. hanging out with Lee Harvey Oswald in the 60's <iframe width="420" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/D1F_G5ku7KM" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
This is one of the strangest obsessions I've seen on these boards. You've mentioned Sanders in connection with Oswald several times. But there is no link or similarity there at all. They didn't share the same politics. They didn't share the same ideology or believe in the same methods for change. They weren't similar at all except in some strange part of your imagination that you keep trying to bring up here.
Over 70% of the entire country hates Trump including somewhere around half of the Republican party. Unfortunately enough of the "Honey Boo-Boo" crowd came through for him so that means Hillary wins the presidential election in a cake walk.
With all respect due, are you 14 years old? I'm being generous. Your posts read like you have to be 12, but I didn't want to insult your "intelligence."
Stick a fork in the Republican primary process, though it'll be judicious watching GOPers either commit seppuku or kowtow to a narcissist w****. Hopefully that process damages Trump even further in places like Florida. Couldn't have asked for much better from the Dem side, from a probabilistic point of view. Time to crank out the Senate polls.
Maybe, but he sounds like a typical Trump cultist. Those kinds of people seem like they are 12 years old no matter how old they actually are. LOL, if I thought you actually supported Trump instead of just being a troll I'd enjoy laughing at you when your boy loses the most one sided presidential election in modern history. Congratulations on your victory in the Fall.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Statement from <a href="https://twitter.com/NeverTrumpPAC">@NeverTrumpPAC</a> <a href="https://t.co/NoFGIgeIqh">pic.twitter.com/NoFGIgeIqh</a></p>— Rory Cooper (@rorycooper) <a href="https://twitter.com/rorycooper/status/727637349564321796">May 3, 2016</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
How do you square being a "bleeding liberal" and supporting a candidate who has said the things Donald Trump has said?
Well first of all, he's probably lying, there's a ton of people who fake support for Trump because they know a Trump nomination is the greatest thing ever for the Democratic party. Secondly, Trump actually is a liberal and is the kind of candidate that uneducated, simple minded people would probably get behind so that's another possibility.
Hillary is a born and bred politican that couldn't care one bit about helping people. Helping Americans. Do I agree with Trump when it comes to immigrants? No, but I also don't agree with Hillary and her Wall Street interests either. Pro and cons and Trump > Hillary. This country needs a reset and the end of the establishment candidate. I supported Bernie but Blacks and establishment hungry "liberals" made sure he wouldn't win so I'm going to the next closest thing, Trump.
Trump doesn't stand to do anything as president other than nominate conservative SC justices. Congress will likely shut him out worse than they did Obama. Clinton is the only sensible choice when you put her against Trump.
