General Politics Discussion [ARCHIVED] • Page 458

I'm amazed that people still care about a bust like Tebow.

 

In no way does this address everything that you've raised here - I'm struggling with the idea that I'm supposed to trust that the institutions that have failed us will protect us from Trump.

 

Never count out a religious hero.

 

#WheresTrump
#TrumpsHiding
#Howmanydayssinceapressconference

 

#Florida @SaintLeoPolls:
Clinton 49% (+5)
Trump 44%
Johnson 6%
Stein 2%

New Saint Leo Survey Shows Presidential Race between Clinton and Trump Narrowing in Florida and Across U.S.

That's two good polls from FL today.

 

Haha. Forgot about that.

 

Ew, no

 

Tim Tebow is my newest favorite Met.

 

North Carolina is bad at being a state.

 

I'd really like to meet one of those 4% of democrats that said Putin, and just pick their brain a bit

 

Anyone ever listen to the 'Keeping it 1600' podcast? Features Jon Favreau, who was Obama's speech writer back in the good ol days. I think they share a lot of familiar viewpoints to those in this thread.

 

Lol

Sean Hannity and Donald Trump set to host a 'town hall meeting on African-American concerns'

 

They're not going to protect us. That isn't their intent. Institutions, by and large, are concerned with the reproduction of their power along quite specific coordinates, hence their rejection of Trump and the likelihood that they'd present him with information, real or otherwise, that would deter any radical transformations of American foreign policy.

 

If you want to get mad today: COMMENTARY: Feeding ‘the animals’ makes them dependent

 

The episode yesterday where Hillary's old speech writer and Jon talked about the 2008 campaign and the views from both sides during all that was really interesting.

 

I'd argue it does not take any institutional elements to radically transform American foreign policy. Trump can do it without any need of external forces. Trade being one of most obvious routes (simple words and signaling from the office another, executive orders being the third, and SCOTUS being the fourth and more domestic - but not always):

But international trade policy is one area where a President Trump could unilaterally deliver on the changes that he has promised.

Mr. Trump has said that as president he would “rip up” international trade deals such as the North American Free Trade Agreement, withdraw from the World Trade Organization and sharply raise the tariffs charged on goods imported from China and Mexico. As president he could pretty much do it. And there’s very little Congress can do to stop him, even if the result is a costly trade war.

This may seem surprising given that the Constitution explicitly gives Congress the power to “regulate Commerce with foreign Nations.” But over the years Congress has delegated much of that power to the president. Trade politics reflect an important asymmetry: New trade agreements require congressional approval, but undoing existing commitments does not. And so vast areas of international economic policy can be changed with just a president’s say-so.

The result is that the usual checks and balances don’t apply. (For anyone wondering, yes, the same rules would apply to Hillary Clinton if she were elected.)

And lastly: he is the commander in chief. He can order a nuclear strike. Is it likely? No idea. But zero institutional structures can prevent it ... and that alone (and his signaling the possibility itself) will immediately transform decades of foreign policy.

 

same for all the other really important things that aren't foreign policy?

 

Todays episode has a great segment around the 20 min. mark regarding Trumps request that Hillary gets rid of her security detail...

 

I think institutional and structural pressures vary quite a bit, so other areas are more subject to change than others. I'd say that there, too, he'd face significant resistance to his policies even within his own party.

 

One of my favorites.

 

Edit: actually that was yesterday's too...

 

Fair enough. I think you're probably right or at least right enough on a bunch of fronts, just not nearly enough for me, personally.

 

My guess is at least a quarter of those are racist holdovers from pre-Southern Strategy from the republicans, just never felt like switching their party identification