Thread: President of the US of A

As many have noted before me, Hillary is actually more Republican than Trump (look up her record, ignore what she says). In any event, the Republicans roundly rejected the one guy who could beat her according to the polls (Kasich).

Of the two presumptive nominees, I just want to hang my head and cry-is this really the best we can do? But barring possible indictment, she will most likely trounce The Donald in the general, and he will cause widespread down-ballot damage, as many Republicans appear to be abandoning ship in favor of Clinton.

In any event, as bad as Hillary is, an unlikely Trump presidency would be an unmitigated disaster for us both domestically and abroad, and might even spell the end of the Republican party as we know it; it has already split seemingly irrevocably between the base and the establishment. At least one splinter party seems likely at this point.

Of course on the other side, the seething revolution Bernie Sanders has tapped into among millenials and other disaffected groups is causing a similar, but slower split among Democrats between the Clinton "third way" politics of triangulation and liberal progressives, so a reckoning is brewing there too.

And finally, most of the pundits' predictions for this unprecedented election season have almost all been dead wrong. Still, I am predicting absolute chaos in Cleveland this summer at the Republican convention. If there are not actual fistfights and violence on the floor inside (which seems likely even though a contested nomination is no longer a threat, and I think the establishment won't dare try any backroom deals (probably)), there will almost certainly be protests and violence outside. You may recall that when this happened in Chicago in '68, Nixon was able to capitalize on the fears of the "Silent Majority" and win the election, and finish the process LBJ's civil rights legislation had started of flipping the South to the Republicans. So there is a chance he could win, and then God help us.

People are kidding themselves if they think the president of the USA is running any of the show.
We have an inexperienced community organizer that has coasted through 8 yrs, while someone else pushed an agenda, and those someone's are both parties in Congress.

Example. "We have to pass it to read it." None read it before it was passed, and I really didn't see a big push to stop it. Just a lot of lip service.

Originally Posted by Scareface

People are kidding themselves if they think the president of the USA is running any of the show. ...

This is interesting food for thought. I do not ascribe to strange conspiratorial man-behind-the-curtain sorts of things when I believe you are right. The probable success of our Republic/Democracy is the bureaucracy. It stabilizes the wide swings in philosophy of the elected officials who can say anything until they get elected, then find out that it's very difficult to move against the inertia of stability the bureaucracy represents. It's a mundane explanation and not nearly as sexy as anything remotely conspiratorial.

Interesting. When Lincoln was president it was the law that concerned him as to whether or not he could or should do this or that. He seemed to highly respect the law and operated fairly within its parameters. Now it's all about bureaucracy. Well, Lincoln is dead, and apparently so is his party.

Originally Posted by honedright

Interesting. When Lincoln was president it was the law that concerned him as to whether or not he could or should do this or that. He seemed to highly respect the law and operated fairly within its parameters. Now it's all about bureaucracy. Well, Lincoln is dead, and apparently so is his party.

Yup . . . it's only about winning and maintaining your hold on power these days. Has been for YEARS. Politician is seen as a career path now, when before it was something of a "calling". You stood for election, got done what you set out to do (at whatever level), and then went back to your life and career. No more.

Originally Posted by Orville

Yup . . . it's only about winning and maintaining your hold on power these days. Has been for YEARS. Politician is seen as a career path now, when before it was something of a "calling". You stood for election, got done what you set out to do (at whatever level), and then went back to your life and career. No more.

Politician has been a career path for a loooong time. Many of the old Romans and Greeks remained in politics their whole lives. Thomas Jefferson entered politics at about age 26 and remained involved most of his life, same with many others from that time, so nothing new there.

Originally Posted by honedright

Now it's all about bureaucracy.

It doesn't matter if you want to call it the bureaucracy, 'ingenious system of checks and balances', or something else. I think the main point is that the government system of this country is pretty robust.

In the age of internet and easy access to media platforms the volume and quality of political discourse seems to have regressed, but we're at the end of the second Obama term, and the country hasn't collapsed despite the constant predictions that it was just about to happen.

Regardless of whether Clinton or Trump will become a president, things will probably keep going more or less the same without any drastic changes. Two examples - the wars in Afganistan and Iraq, or Obamacare - yes they have some effects, but neither has altered dramatically the life of the median American.

Originally Posted by gugi

It doesn't matter if you want to call it the bureaucracy, 'ingenious system of checks and balances', or something else. I think the main point is that the government system of this country is pretty robust.

In the age of internet and easy access to media platforms the volume and quality of political discourse seems to have regressed, but we're at the end of the second Obama term, and the country hasn't collapsed despite the constant predictions that it was just about to happen.

Regardless of whether Clinton or Trump will become a president, things will probably keep going more or less the same without any drastic changes. Two examples - the wars in Afganistan and Iraq, or Obamacare - yes they have some effects, but neither has altered dramatically the life of the median American.

The "ingenious system of checks and balances" is not reflective of a bureaucracy in the case of the US, but refers, I believe, to the system carefully designed to balance the powers of the three branches of government. Very different. I believe bureaucracy in this instance is referring to the glut of administrative offices run by non-elected bureaucrats contrary to the intent of the founders of the country who knew that such systems always lead to diminished liberty and eventually tyranny, and these administrative offices spew edicts as though having the force of law when in fact they can not as only Congress has the power to legislate and that power can not be delegated elsewhere, at least according to law, but then that was my point about Lincoln. And who said the country has collapsed?

Originally Posted by honedright

The "ingenious system of checks and balances" is not reflective of a bureaucracy in the case of the US, but refers, I believe, to the system carefully designed to balance the powers of the three branches of government. Very different.

Or not all that different when you take into account that a 'system carefully designed to balance the powers' is only a dead concept until it is implemented through a robust bureaucracy.

Originally Posted by honedright

Well, Lincoln is dead, and apparently so is his party.

I suppose it depends on what we call 'the party'. It seems to me that it is the exact same party as last week, or last year, the only difference is that Donald Trump is in charge of it now and the small factions that used to wield most influence have to take a second seat.
I think it's the same party, just a different side of it.