Trump

[TulsaMoon]

Why this one? It is tremendously tamer than the last two elections when extremist views were front and center. I get more extremism out of Facebook than here.

Maybe it's just me then? I feel like there is much more bashing of candidates than ever before. From media to social sites to casual conversations it just seems much more divided. 28 pages bashing Trump here (including myself in that) compared to 5 pages bashing Clinton (including myself). I remember the Never Bush, but I don't recall a never Obama or Romney. The camps are solid for both never Clinton and never Trump.

[heironymouspasparagus]

One thing is for certain, this election has brought out the worst in many organizations and media outlets. This forum IMO is a prime example of it all.

We are a tiny little cross-section of exactly what is going on in the country.  And in reality, has been for most of the last 50+ years.   We are so evenly split that it is tiny little movements and trends that determine which direction we are going.  That's not necessarily a bad thing, but can sure make for some stomach churning!


Nationally, some of the things that bring a good amount of stability to the whole mess are;

The electoral college.  True Democracy for us would be catastrophic!  A Democratic Republic is exceptional.  (Can you imagine how bad a Parliamentary process would be for us??  This type election as often as every year or two??  Ouch!)

Balance in Congress - especially Senate.  On party with majority AND veto proof would again be catastrophic.

Balance in Supreme Court - 5:4 and 4:5, going back and forth on many topics, is very good place to be for us generally.


Now if we could just get some sanity/balance/reason back here in Okrahoma...life could be good!!

[TulsaMoon]

Thank you!

I wish the R had gotten either McCain or Romney again.  And the D had gotten Bernie.  I really don't know which way I woulda gone with that setup....that would be an "embarrassment of riches" from a selection standpoint for me.  As opposed to just an embarrassment....

He really isn't much of a Dem...his wealth tax thing was a scam with lots of propaganda to make people think a certain way - it was a 1 time 14% or so tax, which I think he felt could be followed by cutting taxes again for the rich...probably try to do away with them completely, because in his mind there would no longer be a need for taxes, since that would have "erased" the debt (about $6 trillion then) so every rich guy could keep their money.


His demeanor is vile and disgusting - starting with his first big business partnership with Daddy Trump, he amassed an amazing array of discrimination against blacks and other minorities in the 14,000 or so tenant spaces they ran in New York.  Would not rent to minorities, only white.  And the ongoing trail of cheating and stealing from people he does business with is astounding.  Cannot imagine anyone voluntarily entering into a business agreement with him.  But hey, I expect to get paid when I provide goods/services to another entity....that's just me.

And don't get me wrong - I am not a Hillary fan either.  You know how I stand on some Constitutional issues where she is in disagreement with me!  You are right - we will survive - that's not always bad - but somewhere, sometime, somehow, before I die, I would like to see us THRIVE!!   She won't be able to hurt us much if elected, just because I don't see the mix of Congress changing very much, and that is a good thing!  That should prevent huge swings in either direction.  I hope.

I can even live with some of our Representatives maintaining the status quo.  Senators - well you have heard my rants about Inhofe, I am sure.  We need a David Boren, or Jim Jones, or Page Belcher, type back in for our state!

The scary one is the Supreme Court.  That has the potential to make for some very pernicious events down through the years.  And the fact that Senate is not gonna consider this nomination shows just how short sighted, and just flat out stupid, the Senate is as an entity under McConnell.  There is no strategy or "play book" or rational thought process going on.  They are throwing the dice on the hope that Trump will get elected and they can somehow rein him in.  The fewer the better on SC appointments for Trump AND Clinton!!  And I cringe, but think they will get at least 2 and may 3.  And if very unlucky, 4.

Wolf in sheep clothing... I hate saying that because it gives a bad name to the good wolves out there...

Couldn't agree more though with your post.

[RecycleMichael]

There have been 8 Supreme court appointees in the last four Presidents combined. It averages almost one every four years.

If you are really worried about any President appointing three or four, you are worried more than you should be. It could happen, but then so could zombies.

[heironymouspasparagus]

There have been 8 Supreme court appointees in the last four Presidents combined. It averages almost one every four years.

If you are really worried about any President appointing three or four, you are worried more than you should be. It could happen, but then so could zombies.

I think 2 are what would happen...but one is first term, if not before.  And I think a good shot at 1 more in first term.  3 or 4 would seem to be stretches.

[cannon_fodder]

Ha! Supreme Court Appointments are so 2010! What makes you think the next president will get to appoint anyone to the Court? The Senate will just decide to wait until the next president to make sure the people have their say. Or if they still feel like playing games, then the one after that. Who cares that no one really objects to the candidate.
- - -

TulsaMoon - I agree with you on this election being unique. The discussion really isn't about issues at all, unless you are discussing the latest crazy proposal or reversal of proposal of the Donald. It's entirely about Clinton baggage and Trump's madness. But I think that is for a reason:

Clinton has more baggage than the vast majority of people who have ran for this office. You can claim it is all a political witch hunt or a ton of noise, but she's been around for long enough and her family has been powerful long enough to cause a strong rift in opinion. Some people really hate the Clintons for a particular reason, for others coming up with Clinton "scandals" is a past time. Whether you think there is merit there or not, there's just more there to discuss than most people and those discussion have long led to people loving or hating her.

And Trump is an entirely unique animal in US presidential politics. Simply put - no one that cavalier has ever had a major party ticket. His actual proposals terrify many people, his rhetoric still others, his apparent inability to realize he's lying or contradicting himself concern still others, and yet more are scared that he is a bigger threat if he loses. I'm entirely biased, not for Clinton or Johnson, but against Trump.  But I think the discussion is unique for a reason - this election cycle is unique.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Ha! Supreme Court Appointments are so 2010! What makes you think the next president will get to appoint anyone to the Court? The Senate will just decide to wait until the next president to make sure the people have their say. Or if they still feel like playing games, then the one after that. Who cares that no one really objects to the candidate.
- - -

TulsaMoon - I agree with you on this election being unique. The discussion really isn't about issues at all, unless you are discussing the latest crazy proposal or reversal of proposal of the Donald. It's entirely about Clinton baggage and Trump's madness. But I think that is for a reason:

That wouldn't surprise me...I wonder what the Constitutional issues would be for that situation.  No real time limit on 'advise and consent' that I can tell.  Wonder if the Court would make a ruling on it, it someone filed a suit against the Senate?  This could get very interesting over a long, long time!  It's a very interesting time to be alive!  Does the Court have the authority to require it's positions be filled in a timely fashion?


I think we are heading toward the dirty style of the 1828 election - not even close yet, but I could see it happening.  Adams was a pimp to Russian ruler - sounds kinda like Trump!   Jackson a butcher and genocidal maniac...doesn't really sound like anyone here today.

1828 short overview...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1828



Aftermath:

Rachel Jackson had been having chest pains throughout the campaign, and she became aggravated by the personal attacks on her marriage. She became ill and died on December 22, 1828. Jackson accused the Adams campaign, and Henry Clay even more so, of causing her death, saying, "I can and do forgive all my enemies. But those vile wretches who have slandered her must look to God for mercy."

When the results of the election were announced, a mob entered the White House, damaging the furniture and lights. Adams escaped through the back and large punch bowls were set up to lure the crowd outside. Conservatives were horrified at this event, and held it up as a portent of terrible things to come from the first Democratic president.

Andrew Jackson was sworn in as president on March 4, 1829.

[AquaMan]

That's the parliamentary system

No kidding. I was trying to be a bit cute.

[heironymouspasparagus]

This woman should have been Obama's nominee to Supreme Court. 


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diane_Humetewa

[TulsaMoon]

There have been 8 Supreme court appointees in the last four Presidents combined. It averages almost one every four years.

If you are really worried about any President appointing three or four, you are worried more than you should be. It could happen, but then so could zombies.

I would say that the Supreme court appointees is my number one concern throughout this election. Reading about Diane Humetewa (thanks heiron), I am very impressed and she would have support from both sides I would think. But the absolute fun (or frustrating!) part of this nomination process right now is Joe Biden himself. In having a discussion of whether or not the President should appoint one at this time (election year) with a buddy of mine, he spouted off that Joe blocked the Bush nomination during the 1992 campaign year, while another buddy spouted that he was incorrect. Now the fun part is they are BOTH right and it came from the same speech on June 25, 1992. Ain't this stuff fun.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qPAzVNmOYgM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P1erqNm9nHc

The NRA on the right, the abortion laws on the left are the main fuel for this fight and they are both making this a center piece of the Presidential battle. Lets frighten and bully everyone into thinking America is doomed with either party winning and making a selection to the court. Weer all crazy now..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RPTk5poAa1c

[cannon_fodder]

Trump has called the Clinton Foundation the most corrupt organization there ever was with the sole purpose of "paying to play" and get political favors from the Clintons.

In other news, Trump donated between $100,000 and $250,000 to the Clinton Foundation before deciding he was a Republican and Hillary was evil. But his campaign people say he never got or wanted political favors. Rather the Foundation did good work.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/24/politics/trump-clinton-foundation-donation/index.html

[erfalf]

Trump has called the Clinton Foundation the most corrupt organization there ever was with the sole purpose of "paying to play" and get political favors from the Clintons.

In other news, Trump donated between $100,000 and $250,000 to the Clinton Foundation before deciding he was a Republican and Hillary was evil. But his campaign people say he never got or wanted political favors. Rather the Foundation did good work.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/24/politics/trump-clinton-foundation-donation/index.html

The funny thing is, both camps are inadvertently (or on purpose for all I know) tarring themselves in the process of criticizing their opponent. This is getting too weird.

The Clinton camp isn't doing themselves any favors by trying to get "ahead" of this stuff. If the foundation is good, it should be good regardless of the positions Bill or Hillary hold. By making these statements, they themselves are implying there is some sort of conflict.

http://www.npr.org/2016/08/23/491092322/clinton-foundation-to-shrink-considerably-if-hillary-clinton-is-elected

[heironymouspasparagus]

Just gotta wonder what would show up in Trumps tax returns.  It is public knowledge that one of his cronies has ties to Russia (mafia) and there appears to be some business connection there.  How much has Putin given Trump in "consulting fees"...? 

From Trump's mouth, we know he feels Putin is someone to be admired.  And even publicly said Putin should have his computer guys hack the State Department.   How much more until it becomes treason??


And all the Dixie Chicks did was criticize Bush and get accused of treason....

[Hoss]

Just gotta wonder what would show up in Trumps tax returns.  It is public knowledge that one of his cronies has ties to Russia (mafia) and there appears to be some business connection there.  How much has Putin given Trump in "consulting fees"...? 

From Trump's mouth, we know he feels Putin is someone to be admired.  And even publicly said Putin should have his computer guys hack the State Department.   How much more until it becomes treason??


And all the Dixie Chicks did was criticize Bush and get accused of treason....

His son might have done better to keep his mouth shut about it.  But nope...

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/292495-eric-trump-it-would-be-foolish-for-father-to-release-tax

[swake]

Just gotta wonder what would show up in Trumps tax returns.  It is public knowledge that one of his cronies has ties to Russia (mafia) and there appears to be some business connection there.  How much has Putin given Trump in "consulting fees"...? 

From Trump's mouth, we know he feels Putin is someone to be admired.  And even publicly said Putin should have his computer guys hack the State Department.   How much more until it becomes treason??


And all the Dixie Chicks did was criticize Bush and get accused of treason....

It's been pretty well nailed down that he owes hundreds of millions if not billions to Russia