Clinton vs Trump: The freak show is just getting started

[markomalley]

From the American Thinker:

What happens when two candidates would rather insult each other than debate issues? The answer is the freak show developing before us. Let's check a couple of today's headlines: 

1)  The Clinton people admit that they can't make their candidate exciting. A story in The Washington Post quotes several supporters confessing what we all know. In other words, the lady is boring, such as really boring.

2)  The media is doing exactly what we predicted. The New York Times started by going back and digging up every conversation or contact with women that Mr. Trump has had over the years.

   

The freak show is off and running and it's not Memorial Day yet.   

It leads many of us to agree with Paul Mirengoff:

Let’s put it this way: the odds of Trump nominating a conservative to the Supreme Court are considerably greater than the odds of Clinton nominating even a centrist.

I have almost six months to weigh these and other considerations and to observe Trump flesh out his positions on key issues, assuming he deigns to do so.

For now, I’m undecided.

So we have 6 months and I will probably vote for Trump because of the Supreme Court. Of course, this is assuming that Mr Trump's promise to appoint a conservative is not a suggestion subject to making a deal once he becomes president. After all, isn't everything a negotiation before making the deal?

What a mess. I have voted for every GOP nominee since President Ford in 1976 (even after working for Governor Reagan in the primaries). I voted for these men with pride because I knew that Ford, Reagan, Bush, Dole, Bush, McCain, and Romney were far superior to what the other side was putting up.

Sorry, but this year is different. This is a "freak show". Maybe God will put a serious person in this campaign that we can vote for and has a chance of becoming # 45.

I would like, one more time before I die, to actually be able to vote for somebody rather than against the opponent. Looks like I'll have to wait for 2020 (probably just to be disappointed again).

[A-Lert]

From the American Thinker:

I would like, one more time before I die, to actually be able to vote for somebody rather than against the opponent. Looks like I'll have to wait for 2020 (probably just to be disappointed again).

My take; Trump has all the money he'll ever need. His kids are set for life financially and appear to be responsible and hard working. The only thing left for a 70 year old billionaire is his legacy. This is the opportunity few ever have to leave a mark on history. I  believe that Trump will do everything in his power to be a positive influence and successful POTUS.

[markomalley]

My take; Trump has all the money he'll ever need. His kids are set for life financially and appear to be responsible and hard working. The only thing left for a 70 year old billionaire is his legacy. This is the opportunity few ever have to leave a mark on history. I  believe that Trump will do everything in his power to be a positive influence and successful POTUS.

That doesn't comfort me very much.

Historians typically view successful Presidents as those who manage to increase the power of the presidency and push through their agenda, regardless of obstacles.

By that measure, Obama will be viewed as a successful President (regardless of the damage he did to the country and the world, he managed to push through the bulk of his agenda...his agenda to destroy the country)

So what is Trump's agenda? As has been demonstrated on other threads, that agenda is pretty fluid as it stands.

[A-Lert]

That doesn't comfort me very much.

I didn't expect it would.

By making the US more business and manufacturing friendly, improving border security, reducing or eliminating governmental departments, strengthening our military, reducing foreign aid and protecting our 2nd Amendment rights, Trump will be seen as successful.

[markomalley]

I didn't expect it would.

By making the US more business and manufacturing friendly, improving border security, reducing or eliminating governmental departments, strengthening our military, reducing foreign aid and protecting our 2nd Amendment rights, Trump will be seen as successful.

Not the goals, but the means he's stated for achieving those goals are what gives me pause.

[A-Lert]

Not the goals, but the means he's stated for achieving those goals are what gives me pause.

The goals can only be achieved through congressional cooperation.

[markomalley]

The goals can only be achieved through congressional cooperation.

Obamacare was achieved through congressional cooperation.

The goal of everybody having health care coverage is laudable. The means of establishing a HUGE government bureaucracy is what is questionable.

DHS was established through congressional cooperation.

The goal of internal national security is laudable and constitutional. The means of establishing an overarching state security apparatus is what is questionable.

Trump's goals sound laudable (for the most part). The means he has advocated are questionable...at best.

[A-Lert]

Obamacare was achieved through congressional cooperation.

Trump can instill a little backbone in congress.

The goal of everybody having health care coverage is laudable. The means of establishing a HUGE government bureaucracy is what is questionable.

Agreed. People smarter than me are going to find a reasonable solution.

DHS was established through congressional cooperation.

Demanded by a frightened electorate. I believe there is sufficient backlash now to greatly reduce DHS.

The goal of internal national security is laudable and constitutional. The means of establishing an overarching state security apparatus is what is questionable.

People have experienced the overreaching apparatus and are tired of it.

Trump's goals sound laudable (for the most part). The means he has advocated are questionable...at best.

I believe with his powers of persuasion and the support of the public, he will have the means.

[markomalley]

@A-Lert

You said, I believe with his powers of persuasion and the support of the public, he will have the means.

But what will he do with it? That's the part I'm not convinced about.

I see a similar problem with large corporate titans and high ranking military officers. They see a problem and want to fix the problem, using the full amount of power that they can bring to bear to solve the problem. The issue with the government right now is that there is too much power available to bring to bear. Power that has been usurped over decades. Until a) when the people and the states have delegated this extra power to the federal government or b) the federal government scales itself back to have the power commensurate with what has been delegated to it by the people and the states, there are always going to be problems.

The means that concern me are the uses of extra-constitutional power, regardless of whether it is by the executive, the legislative, the judicial, or by a combination of all three. The government (as a whole) has become a leviathan. That needs to change.

[Jazzhead]

From the American Thinker:

I would like, one more time before I die, to actually be able to vote for somebody rather than against the opponent. Looks like I'll have to wait for 2020 (probably just to be disappointed again).

This will be the first Presidential election in memory where I won't be able to vote for someone I respect as a Republican and a conservative.

That's because, of course, this year neither a Republican nor a conservative will be running.