posted on Oct, 4 2016 @ 09:06 AM
Thanks to everyone for sharing your thoughts.
I think there's something that needs to be emphasized beyond which one "wins." Congress has just as much power as the Prez, they are meant to find
common ground and legislate as best they can to keep everyone reasonably safe, secure, and looked after.
Whichever one is chosen as "Pres" is more of a figure-head than an 'actor' in making laws. If Congress doesn't want to, they won't do what is asked
by the Pres. Executive orders are temporary fixes ("bandaids" or "emergency stopgaps" when dealing with domestic unrest) - if they don't work out,
they can be repealed. POTUS use of them is historically pretty common, and the next opposition candidate can say "I'll tear that one up on day one."
So, that's one of the things that the new Prez can do.
When it comes to what Congress puts forth, the Prez can only "veto" their decision/suggestion; which can be overridden anyway by them. Then we have
the SCOTUS. The referees.
Now...only the POTUS can declare war, and only with the consent of Congress - except that the POTUS also has the nuclear codes. I don't know how that
works, really - does anyone else have the codes? POTUS as Commander in Chief is the scariest part of the thing.
I don't doubt that Trump is hot-headed enough to use them if he gets pushed too far. I know Clinton is hawkish also, and that many are nonplussed
with Obama's more reticent use of force.
Beyond war, the domestic situation is still mostly in the hands of Congress. Lawsuits take forever, and often are "post-crisis" diagnostics and
prescriptive suggestions. But they have to be "asked" to review stuff. If no one "takes it to" the Supreme Court, they pretty much stay silent.
They also don't get media attention or do the talk-show circuits.
So yes, the SCOTUS line-up is important.
But here's the thing. If NOBODY in Congress likes the prez, they have demonstrated they are not above pure obstructionism. They have also
demonstrated that they are not loyalists when it comes to party lines.
Trump is not favored by any of them. Cruz's 'endorsement' was nothing but a way to keep his hat thrown in the ring.
I still don't trust that Trump would actually "take office" if he wins. In fact, I am more inclined to think he will decline and Pence will become the
President, which would be more like Cruz having won.
There will still be people homeless, starving, without medical care or adequate education after Nov 8. I think we need to do something about that. I
worry about the global unrest and the reckless 'leaders' around the world. I think Trump would only make things even worse because his diplomacy is,
well --- isn't. There isn't a diplomatic cell in his body.
So electing him would add even MORE tension to the world theatre, and seeing as he's such an impulsive "attacker" and thinks he can just walk back
every insulting thing he's ever said if he gets called on it, how can we trust that he wouldn't call up 100,000 troops and send them to their certain
deaths "just because he can," and then try to say - wait, bring them all back home, I was just kidding.
That is what scares me. He isn't right in the head. He isn't respected by other world leaders. He's a wildcard. Some of you think that's what we
need, I get that.
He is not going to call off his contracts in China or Bangladesh on day one. He is not going to live up to all the things he's insisting he would do,
like ending world trade. He can't. He just can't.
If we are going to repatriate the hidden money from all over the globe, we have to do so with the cooperation of other world leaders and
parliaments/governing bodies. Pissing people off is not the way.
I think if Trump wins, we will be sort of on a par with North Korea. And that would be a dismal situation indeed.