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

[SillyAmerican]

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...

[SillyAmerican]

Things could be FAR worse than they are right now, and I strongly believe that electing someone who has no experience or qualifications is just the way to make things worse than they currently are. I would feel the same way even if I believed that America was in as horrible of a position as people at the RNC seem to think.

If a hospital had doctors that weren't doing as good a job as they could, would the solution be to start hiring people with no medical experience or training instead? (real outsiders)

^100% agree. I've made the doctor analogy myself. People only want "elitist" doctors, nobody wants an "anti-establishment" surgeon to cut them open. Politicians are in such a public role that them being overtly intellectual intimidates people sometimes (whereas it doesn't with doctors) and so they go for a candidate that spouts platitudes and doesn't appeal to the intellect at all because it makes them feel good about themselves.

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. So the main question that people will be answering in the next several weeks is this: which candidate do you think will pursue the policies that will result in the United States being made safer, stronger, and more secure (economically, socially, and militarily), Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump? Hillary Clinton has shown what she's about. So it will be up to the electorate to decide whether we want to go with an establishment candidate who wants to continue with the status quo, someone who feels she's above the petty concerns of national security and being honest with the American people, or if we would prefer to try taking a new approach and give a non-politician "outsider" a crack at solving some of the nation's problems. It ain't brain surgery or rocket science, but it is management and judgement.

[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...

[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.

[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.

Artful sidestep, but I referring to your claim that the Supreme Court has ruled, "12 times," in opposition to Obama's use of executive action.

The issue remains legally contentious and there's little to point to a consensus from the Supreme Court, as conservative legal pundits have claimed.

Ah, sorry, any sidestep was unintentional. My claim regarding the "12 times" is taken directly from this article by Elizabeth Slattery, a legal fellow at the Heritage Foundation’s Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The full article is definitely worth a read...

[SillyAmerican]

Trump is uniquely scary, but anyone who has never been made to feel "truly afraid" by our politics is either extremely ignorant or obscenely privileged.

Or extremely/obscenely privileged and ignorant. (Be afraid, be very afraid...).