Trump's nomination is the first time US politics has left me truly afraid

[Gustaf]

You're all a bunch of loons. You're no better than the idiots on the far right who called Obama a Muslim socialist.

You mean idiots on the far right like Donald Trump, leader of the Birther movement and who recently suggested Obama is in cahoots with ISIS?

[Gustaf]

I don't always agree with Mr. Klein (a very smart and informed liberal), e.g., his odes of joy about Obamacare, but I do as to this piece - each and every word. Pity that it was not complete. Hey Ezra, why did you skip over that Trump has little or no respect for the rule of law, and his bellicosity might get us into wars, in particular a trade war, but even more worrisome, wars where blood is spilled (except with respect to his favorite dictators of course)?

Oh, he skipped those two cause they don't apply to Trump. In fact, it is far more likely Hillary will start new wars because of her bellicosity. And it's not even disputed that she has little or no respect for the rule of law.

That's what I don't get. I mean, I understand you don't like Trump. But why do you accuse him of the two things which are actually Hillary trademark?

"Not even disputed that she doesn't respect the rule of law."

Maybe so in your echo chamber, but certainly I take issue with that statement.

So just out of curiosity, which of Director Comey's statements do you take exception to?

I'm afraid because Trump has absolutely no qualifications to be president. He has no idea what he's doing.

As opposed to what we've had for the last 20 years? Frankly, if the people with all the wonderful "qualifications" were doing a halfway decent job, maybe Trump wouldn't have been able to capture the nomination. If voters are ticked off enough to go with a non-politician, there's probably a reason, don't you think? If you need to be afraid of something, why not be afraid that we continue down the wrong path? That's the bigger concern, at least from my perspective...

You seem to take exception to his statement that she did nothing criminal.

As to the job of the president they need to push things through Congress so being able to work with people and understanding the system matters. Trump can't even make his own convention work together. How will he manage Congress?

And as regards policies Trump has no idea about any policies.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

I don't always agree with Mr. Klein (a very smart and informed liberal), e.g., his odes of joy about Obamacare, but I do as to this piece - each and every word. Pity that it was not complete. Hey Ezra, why did you skip over that Trump has little or no respect for the rule of law, and his bellicosity might get us into wars, in particular a trade war, but even more worrisome, wars where blood is spilled (except with respect to his favorite dictators of course)?

Oh, he skipped those two cause they don't apply to Trump. In fact, it is far more likely Hillary will start new wars because of her bellicosity. And it's not even disputed that she has little or no respect for the rule of law.

That's what I don't get. I mean, I understand you don't like Trump. But why do you accuse him of the two things which are actually Hillary trademark?

Lol

[Simfan34]

I'm afraid because Trump has absolutely no qualifications to be president. He has no idea what he's doing.

This is my view.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

The doctor analogy is completely inappropriate. The main job of the chief executive of the country is to act as an executive. The President doesn't create laws, and the President doesn't interpret laws. The President will sign or veto legislation sent to him, will put together a cabinet that will handle the nitty gritty of governance, will appoint federal judges, and will provide direction via the bully pulpit. That's it.

The President also has broad executive authority to act autonomously, is commander-in-chief of the military, and conducts foreign relations (along with the Secretary of State, who in the "unitary theory" of the Executive, serves at the pleasure of the President).

And if Trump, who shows little regard or even understanding of our system of government and Constitution, oversteps his legal authority, who is going to stop him?  Do you think, what, Congress or the DoJ or the Supreme Court is going to send federal marshals to seize him in some kind of coup?  No.  His actions will have to be legally challenged by a damaged party and go through the entire judicial system - a process that could take months - or he would need to be impeached and convicted - a process which could take months - all while Trump continues to hold the reins of power.

There is a difference between authority and power.  There are a lot of things the President doesn't have the legal authority to do, but has the power to do nonetheless.

[Ljube]

I don't always agree with Mr. Klein (a very smart and informed liberal), e.g., his odes of joy about Obamacare, but I do as to this piece - each and every word. Pity that it was not complete. Hey Ezra, why did you skip over that Trump has little or no respect for the rule of law, and his bellicosity might get us into wars, in particular a trade war, but even more worrisome, wars where blood is spilled (except with respect to his favorite dictators of course)?

Oh, he skipped those two cause they don't apply to Trump. In fact, it is far more likely Hillary will start new wars because of her bellicosity. And it's not even disputed that she has little or no respect for the rule of law.

That's what I don't get. I mean, I understand you don't like Trump. But why do you accuse him of the two things which are actually Hillary trademark?

No, fool.

http://www.vox.com/2016/2/18/11057968/donald-trump-iraq-war-2002

Badger, you are quoting a hit piece against Trump. It is clear what he meant to say. We should have finished the job in 1991.

This is a new low even coming from you. What makes you become such an insufferable Dem hack every time there is a presidential election? Is there not a single Pub candidate to your liking?

[Beet]

How is it a hit piece when his words are on tape? Yes, he thought Saddam should have been taken out in '91, but he appears to endorse doing so in '02 given the situation at the time. It wasn't a ringing endorsement, but it was an explicit yes.

[MK]

Hillary Rodham Clinton  and the flag burning/cop killing party taking the white house 4 more years has me truly afraid.  I feel it could resemble something like the moive the purge.

So much so I've started buying more mags and ammo.

[IceSpear]

Hillary Rodham Clinton  and the flag burning/cop killing party taking the white house 4 more years has me truly afraid.  I feel it could resemble something like the moive the purge.

So much so I've started buying more mags and ammo.

Living in constant paranoia isn't healthy, you know.

[Fuzzy Says: "Abolish NPR!"]

I'm afraid because Trump has absolutely no qualifications to be president. He has no idea what he's doing.

And Barack Obama was Oh, So Qualified?  He was a parochial State Senator until he was elected to the Senate, and was 2 1/2 years into the job until he decided to run for President.

Donald Trump has experience as the chief executive of a major multi-national business enterprise.  He's got more executive experience than any Presidential candidate in my lifetime, other than Eisenhower. 

[muon2]

Interestingly, I left the convention less fearful of a Trump presidency than I did going in. There were two major factors in that. First was Paul Ryan's speech, which laid out a far more traditional Pub approach to governance, and left me feeling that Congress would be calling the policy shots, not the White House. The second was the acceptance speech, where Trump clearly started paying attention to his campaign staff. He avoided any name calling and very closely followed the script given to him. He even went so far as to quell the "Lock her up" chant, which was certainly instilled by Manafort, et al. That doesn't suggest to me that he isn't going to launch on opponents as he thinks fits the tenor of a speech, but it does suggest that his staff now actually has influence in Trump's decisions.

[Ljube]

Interestingly, I left the convention less fearful of a Trump presidency than I did going in. There were two major factors in that. First was Paul Ryan's speech, which laid out a far more traditional Pub approach to governance, and left me feeling that Congress would be calling the policy shots, not the White House. The second was the acceptance speech, where Trump clearly started paying attention to his campaign staff. He avoided any name calling and very closely followed the script given to him. He even went so far as to quell the "Lock her up" chant, which was certainly instilled by Manafort, et al. That doesn't suggest to me that he isn't going to launch on opponents as he thinks fits the tenor of a speech, but it does suggest that his staff now actually has influence in Trump's decisions.

These are comforting thoughts. However, there is something even more important that should motivate Pubs to vote Trump.

Pubs have not been able to pass a single piece of Pub friendly legislation due to obstruction by the Dems in the Senate and in the White House. The only way for Pubs to actually legislate is for them to put a Pub president in the White House. And Trump is the best such president, because he is only interested in the direction the country is heading in and not policy details, which will be left to Ryan and McConnell.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The great irony is that if Trump succeeds, the GOP will be far more moderate afterwards then it was before Trump.

However, it will also be far less neoconservative, neo-liberal and globalist and if you fit in any of those categories, chances are you going to be just as disenchanted as if the party had kept going further and further right in the movement conservative tradition.

[Xing]

I'm afraid because Trump has absolutely no qualifications to be president. He has no idea what he's doing.

And Barack Obama was Oh, So Qualified?  He was a parochial State Senator until he was elected to the Senate, and was 2 1/2 years into the job until he decided to run for President.

Donald Trump has experience as the chief executive of a major multi-national business enterprise.  He's got more executive experience than any Presidential candidate in my lifetime, other than Eisenhower. 

Obama wasn't as experienced as he could be, but at least he had some experience.

The whole "Trump was an executive" is false equivalency at its best. His "executive" experience has no relevancy to the presidency.

[Sbane]

The great irony is that if Trump succeeds, the GOP will be far more moderate afterwards then it was before Trump.

Not really sure moderate is the right word.....

But yes, you are correct the Republicans won't be more conservative.

[SillyAmerican]

The doctor analogy is completely inappropriate. The main job of the chief executive of the country is to act as an executive. The President doesn't create laws, and the President doesn't interpret laws. The President will sign or veto legislation sent to him, will put together a cabinet that will handle the nitty gritty of governance, will appoint federal judges, and will provide direction via the bully pulpit. That's it.

The President also has broad executive authority to act autonomously, is commander-in-chief of the military, and conducts foreign relations (along with the Secretary of State, who in the "unitary theory" of the Executive, serves at the pleasure of the President).

And if Trump, who shows little regard or even understanding of our system of government and Constitution, oversteps his legal authority, who is going to stop him?  Do you think, what, Congress or the DoJ or the Supreme Court is going to send federal marshals to seize him in some kind of coup?  No.  His actions will have to be legally challenged by a damaged party and go through the entire judicial system - a process that could take months - or he would need to be impeached and convicted - a process which could take months - all while Trump continues to hold the reins of power.

There is a difference between authority and power.  There are a lot of things the President doesn't have the legal authority to do, but has the power to do nonetheless.

President Obama has been acting with too much autonomy, taking advantage of way too many executive actions. This is not in line with the Constitution, and to my thinking, represents an overstepping of his legal authority. And the Supreme Court has ruled 12 times that President Obama has gone out-of-bounds with regard to his executive actions.

So yes, his actions had to be legally challenged and go through the entire judicial system - a process that took several months, and all while Obama continued to hold the reins of power. That's the way the system has been designed to work. Once elected, if either Trump or Clinton oversteps their authority, someone must bring a court case or begin impeachment proceedings. That's exactly how things are supposed to work, and it doesn't matter who is in office. Your comments indicate that you believe Trump would act inappropriately, but again, Obama has been ruled against a dozen times by the high court. So you tell me: who is it that doesn't understand his role within our system of government? 'Cuz from where I'm sitting, the name causing the most grief is not Donald Trump, it's Barack Obama. And guess what? He continues to hold the reins of power...

[Devout Centrist]

The doctor analogy is completely inappropriate. The main job of the chief executive of the country is to act as an executive. The President doesn't create laws, and the President doesn't interpret laws. The President will sign or veto legislation sent to him, will put together a cabinet that will handle the nitty gritty of governance, will appoint federal judges, and will provide direction via the bully pulpit. That's it.

The President also has broad executive authority to act autonomously, is commander-in-chief of the military, and conducts foreign relations (along with the Secretary of State, who in the "unitary theory" of the Executive, serves at the pleasure of the President).

And if Trump, who shows little regard or even understanding of our system of government and Constitution, oversteps his legal authority, who is going to stop him?  Do you think, what, Congress or the DoJ or the Supreme Court is going to send federal marshals to seize him in some kind of coup?  No.  His actions will have to be legally challenged by a damaged party and go through the entire judicial system - a process that could take months - or he would need to be impeached and convicted - a process which could take months - all while Trump continues to hold the reins of power.

There is a difference between authority and power.  There are a lot of things the President doesn't have the legal authority to do, but has the power to do nonetheless.

President Obama has been acting with too much autonomy, taking advantage of way too many executive actions. This is not in line with the Constitution, and to my thinking, represents an overstepping of his legal authority. And the Supreme Court has ruled 12 times that President Obama has gone out-of-bounds with regard to his executive actions.

So yes, his actions had to be legally challenged and go through the entire judicial system - a process that took several months, and all while Obama continued to hold the reins of power. That's the way the system has been designed to work. Once elected, if either Trump or Clinton oversteps their authority, someone must bring a court case or begin impeachment proceedings. That's exactly how things are supposed to work, and it doesn't matter who is in office. Your comments indicate that you believe Trump would act inappropriately, but again, Obama has been ruled against a dozen times by the high court. So you tell me: who is it that doesn't understand his role within our system of government? 'Cuz from where I'm sitting, the name causing the most grief is not Donald Trump, it's Barack Obama. And guess what? He continues to hold the reins of power...

http://www.factcheck.org/2014/07/obama-and-executive-overreach/

Quite a strong claim in the absence of any concrete evidence, don't you think?

[Cassius]

I'm afraid because Trump has absolutely no qualifications to be president. He has no idea what he's doing.

And Barack Obama was Oh, So Qualified?  He was a parochial State Senator until he was elected to the Senate, and was 2 1/2 years into the job until he decided to run for President.

Donald Trump has experience as the chief executive of a major multi-national business enterprise.  He's got more executive experience than any Presidential candidate in my lifetime, other than Eisenhower. 

Obama wasn't as experienced as he could be, but at least he had some experience.

The whole "Trump was an executive" is false equivalency at its best. His "executive" experience has no relevancy to the presidency.

Well to be honest, neither did Obama's moderate amount of experience, given that he served in a non-executive capacity as a junior Senator.

Anyway, as for the whole 'qualifications' thing, it's a good job then that the constitution specifies no actual qualifications for the Presidency other than citizenship and age requirements.

[Dutch Conservative]

I guess this is how things felt like in 1922 Italy.

Such nonsense. As a European and a historian I can tell you this: Trump is no fascist. Being in favour of law and order doesnt make you a fascist. The electorate will understand that.

I even honestly think Trump has more respect for Congress than Hillary or Obama.

[pbrower2a]

I don't always agree with Mr. Klein (a very smart and informed liberal), e.g., his odes of joy about Obamacare, but I do as to this piece - each and every word. Pity that it was not complete. Hey Ezra, why did you skip over that Trump has little or no respect for the rule of law, and his bellicosity might get us into wars, in particular a trade war, but even more worrisome, wars where blood is spilled (except with respect to his favorite dictators of course)?

I have my idea of what it takes to be President. Having a long and distinguished career in public office isn't enough. Look at James Buchanan, who was likely far past prime. Theodore Roosevelt and John F. Kennedy are two of the youngest Presidents ever, and they are decidedly above average.


I look at experience appropriate for the age, typically success in winning high office.; intellectual preparation (most Presidents are attorneys by training, and not college professors, and not such smart people as research scientists, engineers, physicians, architects, dentists, or accountants; character; integrity; caution; solid judgment; apt temperament; and general decency.  A President who lacks any of those will have trouble as President; luck alone will not make one an effective President.  Just think of Richard Nixon, who had faults of basic decency.

Ignore whether one agrees with him on his agenda, and Barack Obama looks very Presidential. None of those characteristics describes Donald Trump well.   

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Possible.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama.

Bill Clinton is going to seem to have had one of the less-eventful two-term Presidencies. George W. Bush will be seen as awful, telescoping the disastrous Presidencies of Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover into two full terms. Barack Obama? He is going to look very good in contrast to Hillary Clinton, let alone Donald Trump.

...If we were going to have a Republican as President between 2001 and 2009, then why could we have not had Richard Lugar, George Voinovich, or John Warner instead of you-know-who?

[SillyAmerican]

The doctor analogy is completely inappropriate. The main job of the chief executive of the country is to act as an executive. The President doesn't create laws, and the President doesn't interpret laws. The President will sign or veto legislation sent to him, will put together a cabinet that will handle the nitty gritty of governance, will appoint federal judges, and will provide direction via the bully pulpit. That's it.

The President also has broad executive authority to act autonomously, is commander-in-chief of the military, and conducts foreign relations (along with the Secretary of State, who in the "unitary theory" of the Executive, serves at the pleasure of the President).

And if Trump, who shows little regard or even understanding of our system of government and Constitution, oversteps his legal authority, who is going to stop him?  Do you think, what, Congress or the DoJ or the Supreme Court is going to send federal marshals to seize him in some kind of coup?  No.  His actions will have to be legally challenged by a damaged party and go through the entire judicial system - a process that could take months - or he would need to be impeached and convicted - a process which could take months - all while Trump continues to hold the reins of power.

There is a difference between authority and power.  There are a lot of things the President doesn't have the legal authority to do, but has the power to do nonetheless.

President Obama has been acting with too much autonomy, taking advantage of way too many executive actions. This is not in line with the Constitution, and to my thinking, represents an overstepping of his legal authority. And the Supreme Court has ruled 12 times that President Obama has gone out-of-bounds with regard to his executive actions.

So yes, his actions had to be legally challenged and go through the entire judicial system - a process that took several months, and all while Obama continued to hold the reins of power. That's the way the system has been designed to work. Once elected, if either Trump or Clinton oversteps their authority, someone must bring a court case or begin impeachment proceedings. That's exactly how things are supposed to work, and it doesn't matter who is in office. Your comments indicate that you believe Trump would act inappropriately, but again, Obama has been ruled against a dozen times by the high court. So you tell me: who is it that doesn't understand his role within our system of government? 'Cuz from where I'm sitting, the name causing the most grief is not Donald Trump, it's Barack Obama. And guess what? He continues to hold the reins of power...

http://www.factcheck.org/2014/07/obama-and-executive-overreach/

Quite a strong claim in the absence of any concrete evidence, don't you think?

Absence of concrete evidence? I don't think so. Then again, I don't think the President can avoid dealing with Congress, which is the whole point...

http://www.factcheck.org/2012/09/obamas-executive-orders/

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

I'm afraid because Trump has absolutely no qualifications to be president. He has no idea what he's doing.

And Barack Obama was Oh, So Qualified?  He was a parochial State Senator until he was elected to the Senate, and was 2 1/2 years into the job until he decided to run for President.

Donald Trump has experience as the chief executive of a repeatedly bankrupt major multi-national business enterprise. 

FIFY. (And I thought you considered Obama a disaster?) If TrumpMiller want's to claim he's a successful businessman, and not just a persuasive leech skimming money from suckers and equally unscrupulous investors, let's see those tax filings.

Until and unless we do, every one of us posting here at Atlas has just as much credibility as TrumpMiller does.

[Fuzzy Says: "Abolish NPR!"]

The great irony is that if Trump succeeds, the GOP will be far more moderate afterwards then it was before Trump.

However, it will also be far less neoconservative, neo-liberal and globalist and if you fit in any of those categories, chances are you going to be just as disenchanted as if the party had kept going further and further right in the movement conservative tradition.

The underlined part is the BEST part of the rise of Trump, IMO.

Trump's rise was a kick to both the neocons and the unreasoning hard right, while advancing an "America First" posture that, oddly enough, possesses a greater potential to unite AMERICANS (including black and Hispanic Americans) by focusing on our common interests as Americans. 

Globalists push the race card in this election because the kind of group identity politics of blacks and Latinos pushes those groups, and liberals in general, toward a Globalist posture.  The posture Trump proposes pushes folks toward a revival of what once was called the "social contract" (reward for work and effort) which Globalists have no respect for.

[SWE]

I'm afraid because Trump has absolutely no qualifications to be president.

What a random thing to be concerned about. You may as well complain about the color of his eyes.

[Fuzzy Says: "Abolish NPR!"]

I'm afraid because Trump has absolutely no qualifications to be president. He has no idea what he's doing.

And Barack Obama was Oh, So Qualified?  He was a parochial State Senator until he was elected to the Senate, and was 2 1/2 years into the job until he decided to run for President.

Donald Trump has experience as the chief executive of a repeatedly bankrupt major multi-national business enterprise. 

FIFY. (And I thought you considered Obama a disaster?) If TrumpMiller want's to claim he's a successful businessman, and not just a persuasive leech skimming money from suckers and equally unscrupulous investors, let's see those tax filings.

Until and unless we do, every one of us posting here at Atlas has just as much credibility as TrumpMiller does.

If you won't quote me accurately, or use a cross out, then you're nothing but Miller Lite.