Haha...you seem conflicted.
Donald Trump for President Thread
- Thread starter longers
- Start date
- Status
Haha...you seem conflicted.
Ashtonian
Banned on request
so does obama, or whoever he gave the job to deal with it.
Anyone who isn't either knows the outcome or is a fool.
Ashtonian
Banned on request
haha i know, but as long as he isn't in a war time whatsoever then he can't do much damage as they can just block anything he does.
the minute he has to decide what military action to take then it would be concerning
If you're not conflicted, you're not paying attention.
So here's the thing.
ISIS isn't stupid. They probably have assessed the situation similarly to you. Wouldn't it be clever of them to up violence against America in the event of a Trump victory? Wouldn't it behoove them to provoke America into a wartime scenario with Trump at the helm - possibly leading to him doing something so dangerously stupid...well who knows, really.
I just don't think it would ever be wise to tempt fate in that way.
Don't get me wrong, Clinton is a hawk too. She'd go to war over the same sort of stupid provocation. But she'd probably be less likely to do something the fundamentally alters civilization forevermore.
If you don't trust the man with the car, don't give him the keys.
Why do we put term limits on anything? It goes in some way to warding off stagnation imo. Do you really think a senator serving his 50th year is as passionate about the job as when he first got into office? Isn't it feasible, that with all the various high volume lobbying from special interest groups over many years, that you might well have your integrity chipped away without your knowing? You make friends with people over the years, become resistant to change. I'm not saying these people are evil by any means, but I think fresh thinking is a must for democracy, otherwise the system becomes and old boys club.
The one thing I would be concerned about, and have no answer for, is the fact that Trump would have the say in the position of Supreme Court Justice, which is a disturbing prospect indeed
Well, we generally don't is the thing. We put term limits on the presidency because FDR stomped the Republicans 4 straight elections. So to prevent single party domination via a personality cult (this is the most generous interpretation) a Republican controlled congress passed term limits on the Presidency.
It was basically partisan politics in a less generous interpretation.
I agree with the general principle that a 50th year Senator is probably less effective than a 10th year Senator. But should we not leave that up to their constituents to decide? Why should the government prevent the people from electing who they want, regardless of term served? And your case is a general one, not a specific one. Should we force out highly effective statesmen and beloved members of Congress (at least to their voters) because they hit an arbitrary limit?
It sounds like a good idea. But I just don't think it stands up to rigorous inspection.
Still would have to make it through the Senate and could get Borked
We should! It's certainly true that there would be a chance that some very effective people could get turfed out but, bigger picture, I personally don't think it's healthy for a democracy to have people occupying the same position for decades at a stretch
I respect that opinion, but disagree with the wording. It may be healthy for a NATION to rotate people, but it's fundamentally undemocratic, as you're arbitrarily limiting the power of the People.
I also question whether it's healthy for the nation...replacing an 8/10 with a 6/10 is not better just because it's different.
Frankly, the U.S. has probably reached a tipping point where it is too large, too complex, and too divided to be governed effectively by any currently available system of government.
We'd probably be best off splitting up into a confederation ala the E.U. where many political and social matters can be handled by each individual part, but the economy is still largely joined. But that's going WAY far to the right and pushing the old Republican States-Rights manifesto to it's logical limits. And the Articles of Confederation didn't work for us too well either, so that's probably a terrible idea.
As cheese said, I'm conflicted. I legitimately do not know what to do to stabilize the U.S. long term. I truly see your argument of hoping it all blows up and we can start from scratch. But Trump isn't that. Trump is Scipio Aemilianus salting the Earth at Carthage (edit: except Trump isn't wise or human enough to cry over the terrible damage he has wrought).
I used to support the idea but in practice it seems to lead to more unelected lobbyists and advisors directing things as they are the ones with the experience and knowledge rather than the new senator.
As with any job it takes a while to get up to speed on just some of the basics and the areas of study that a single person are expected to cover are quite wide and they are unlikely to have got first hand knowledge of all of them in the private sector.
I am not conflicted about term limits...at least with regard to the POTUS. Two terms is just about right IMO.
Sure that could prevent a great president from running for a third or fourth term, but on the flipside it could mean a poor one gets a third term because the other party can't do better. We elected W twice...
Last edited:
...Think it may be Sapie that's the history buff, now that I think of it.
I basically feel that Trump could do enough damage that we may not be growing anything worthwhile from the ashes anytime soon.
- Status
Welcome
Join Grand Old Team to get involved in the Everton discussion. Signing up is quick, easy, and completely free.
Shop
