Trump or Hillary

Post Reply New Topic

It is useless to compare the raw number of executive orders. An executive order establishing national parks has WAY more impact than an executive order honoring Neil Armstrong.

It is useful to compare the how sweeping executive's orders have been and the degree to which they stretch (or violate) the constitution. If you had a chart for that I might take note.

FDR's policies made the depression far more prolonged in the US than it was elsewhere. His policies favored BIG business at the expense of small business through arbitrary regulation. Just one small example:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schechter ... ted_States

Nixon proposed National Health Care, modeled on all the other industrial countries.

A Democrat Congress refused.

Now Democrats pass Obamacare which privatizes public healthcare. Costs and fines are going up, the deductible says you pay the first $8,000, the revolt starts when no one get a tax return this year, it goes to Obamacare as a fine.

This is Insurance Welfare, fraud, and theft on a national scale.

Canada is not looking at changing to Obamacare.

I think Trump should get Canada to setup a North American Health Plan. They spend half of what we do and have universal coverage, no deductible. They also regulate the price of drugs.

Sure, not all executive orders are the same, but it has to be remembered, a President relies on such when a congress is openly and vindictively oppositional to him personally.
As for FDR causing the depression to last longer than it should have - only according to conservatives. His programs in fact put millions of Americans to work, and saved millions of farms (or made sure farmers and ranchers were compensated if they lost their property) and small businesses. Sure, there were definitely countries that had emerged from the depression before America, such as Nazi Germany.

The same way an overweight person sometimes saves her diet from itself by eating a half gallon of ice cream in a sitting.



It wasn't from lack of trying. Maybe you've heard of his attempt to take over the Supreme Court? Imagine the furore if Reagan or GWB had done that.



These guys aren't Mises, or Sowell, or whoever you imagine to be "conservatives." They're profs at UCLA, not a bastion of conservatism, and they cite facts and figures:

http://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/FDR-s ... ssion-5409




I don't know why you still imagine 'The other guy did it too' to be an argument. It isn't.



So if the President notices that Congress is dominated by the other party, he can just ignore the Constitution, declare their opposition to be "personal," and rule as a dictator? Man, it's going to be fun watching you completely reverse yourself when a Republican is in the White House.

It would be petty to object when the President wants to honor an astronaut or declare a National Broccoli Day. But when it comes to matters of more substance, an Executive Order is supposed to be the President's instructions to the Executive Branch describing how he wants a particular law to be enforced. The Constitution grants him no power to give instructions to the other branches, no power to give orders to private citizens, no power to make law no matter how hard he cries on national TV.

Once again you are proving my point. You don't object to Trump's proposals on Constitutional grounds; you're all in favor of the man in the White House wielding unlimited power. You just don't want Trump to be that man.

No, I don't want anyone wielding unlimited power, Trump, Obama, or otherwise. The fact is, Presidents have the right to use executive action, and I don't fault any of them for that. Lincoln was called a dictator for using his Presidential power to save the union, and to end slavery. To fault him for that by saying he exceeded the constitution is to make the constitution a rigid, written-in-stone document, similar to how fundamentalists see the Bible, as opposed to the living, fluid document it is. The fact is, doing the right thing is more important in the end than saying said right thing couldn't have been done because of constitutional literalism. Fundamentalism, secular or religious, was always flawed, is always flawed, and will always be flawed.
Sure, Roosevelt's scheme to pack the Supreme Court was poorly thought out, as he hoped he could ensure the passage of all his New Deal programs. And even if the ACLU had attacked Roosevelt, it's still primarily conservatives who rip on him primarily for ideological reasons.
And by the way, if there was ever a reason for a President to cry on TV, the mass murder of children would be it.

Yeah I saw that.
"Boo hoo hoo for those little first graders at Sandy Hook whose lives were ended with bullets. I am just so mad about this.....boo hoo hoo".
Hell, I couldn't even stand to watch it any longer.
He whipped up that little batch of crocodile tears in hopes of garnering support (sympathy) for his next assault on the 2nd Amendment.

He'll fail but still, pulling stunts like this on TV should be below the dignity of anyone holding public office, let alone the President of the United States. He apparently has no respect for himself but he should at least have some respect for the office.

Every time I even try to get used to that shitstain on this nation's history he goes and something like that.

I wonder how many tears Obama has shed for all the children he's killed in drone strikes

1. Executive powers have thier limits. Otherwise why not just make this a monarchy or a dictatorship.
2. The constitution as written is just fine as it is. Remember, a republican administration with the backing of a republican majority congress and a conservative leaning majority in the supreme court could easily make gay marriage strictly a state level decision. It cuts both ways.


Poorly thought out hell. He knew exactly what he was doing and why and that would be setting up, in effect, a dictatorship.


Oh, give me a break.

I am somewhat surprised Trump is leading this poll, Hillary really is despised and has very very few genuine supporters. She'd be the worst DNC nominee is history, nominating somebody that is literally under FBI investigation with a laundry list of scandals reaching back 40 years. Trump will go to war with the Clinton's and won't let them slither away from their crimes, maybe Bubba will face justice one day too like his buddy Bill Cosby. Slut shamming is not a legitimate defense against accusations of sexual assault and that is how they defended themselves back in the 90s but now she says all women deserve to be believe when make these accusations and it's not like it is an isolated incident with Bill. Like Cosby, where there is smoke there is fire.

I have not seen any support for Hillary. No one says, her program is what America needs. As far as I can tell she is running as a woman.

True the last one got in due to affirmative action, but Hillary was already living there for eight years, and did nothing womanly.

Bernie wants to give away stuff, and raise taxes to 90% to pay for it. We did have 90% tax rates, but we also had WWII.

We have an excess of Degreed unemployed, and Bernie wants to produce a lot more.

We used to have cheap education and jobs, but that NAFTA thing sold our economy to minorities.

Neither Bernie or Hillary will mention the Ten Trillion in debt run up in the last seven years. They seem fine with the idea.

They do say everything Trump says is wrong, but they have no counteroffer.

You've just showed your hand as a genuine right wing partisan, by making the ideological claim of all the other John Birchers and tea baggers, that FDR was plotting to become a dictator. This was a man who stood against the forces of fascism, and who worked to relieve the suffering of millions of Americans during capitalism's greatest failure - and that, and not your right wing paranoid fantasy, is the historic Roosevelt.

I'd hold my nose and vote for the lesser of two evils. GOP will NEVER get my vote simply because they don't believe working class people should have affordable health care, they see us as disposable.

I think most people who say they'd rather write in Bernie or someone else if Hillary gets the nomination, when it comes to face reality, will cast their vote for her. Seriously, are they going to be complicit in allowing that egomaniac with the dead orangutan on his head to sit in the White House?

dems can be bloody-minded at times, just look at ted kennedy and how he was overjoyed when Reagan defeated carter.

fwiw Trump seems to actually defend the socialized medicine in Canada and the UK

I grant that he is an intelligent man and that he can't have done what he has done were this not the case. if he did not hitch his wagon to the GOP, i might think more highly of him. in the remote event the GOP doesn't broker him out of the picture, they will force him to toe the party line of "no health care for the working class.."