Hillary or Trump: Which of These is the Lesser of Two Evils?

[Jenny A]

A couple of questions. (Addressed to anyone interested in answering them.)

How bad could Trump really be and how much power does the potus really have?

Isn't the choice between the two a no-brainer and do you really fear that the voting population could make that big of a mistake, assumming you gave a certain answer to my first question?

Is it really fair to compair Hillary to her husband?

---

I think there's a better chance I'll became president than Sanders, at this point. That ship has sailed for some time now.

The POTUS has enormous power. But very little power over the kinds of things Trump most often claims he will do. He could not build a wall without Congress, nor can he impose a tarriff all, by himself, nor could he change the tax code. Nor would he have much control over the economy.

What he can do is exert military power. Theoretically, he needs congress to start a war, but he can into conflicts that are wars in everything but name. He could fire nuclear weapons. He can prioritize federal law enforcement, and he could indeed step up deportations. He could drag his heels on implementing environmental laws.

In fairness Bernie can't make college education free without congress either. Most of the things promised by nominees are not within the powers of the president.

[Excited Penguin]

A couple of questions. (Addressed to anyone interested in answering them.)

How bad could Trump really be and how much power does the potus really have?

Isn't the choice between the two a no-brainer and do you really fear that the voting population could make that big of a mistake, assumming you gave a certain answer to my first question?

Is it really fair to compair Hillary to her husband?

---

I think there's a better chance I'll became president than Sanders, at this point. That ship has sailed for some time now.

The POTUS has enormous power.  But very little power over the kinds of things Trump most often claims he will do.  He could not build a wall without Congress, nor can he impose a tarriff all, by himself, nor could he change the tax code.  Nor would he have much control over the economy.

What he can do is exert military power.  Theoretically, he needs congress to start a war, but he can into conflicts that are wars in everything but name. He could fire nuclear weapons.  He can prioritize federal law enforcement, and he could indeed step up deportations.   He could drag his heels on implementing environmental laws.  

In fairness Bernie can't make college education free without congress either.  Most of the things promised by nominees are not within the powers of the president.

Have you heard of arguments that disguise themselves in rhetorical questions?

Should I answer that myself?

Should I be more concerned about making you look bad, attracting the scorn of others for what I'm posting right now, or about curing your naivete?

Which one of the above would be better for the environment, so to speak?

Could I be more subtle about pointing to the metaphor in the above question?

I really hope no one thinks I'm being sarcastic when I say I really hope no one thinks I'm being sarcastic.

[AFTT47]

A couple of questions. (Addressed to anyone interested in answering them.)

How bad could Trump really be and how much power does the potus really have?

Isn't the choice between the two a no-brainer and do you really fear that the voting population could make that big of a mistake, assumming you gave a certain answer to my first question?

Is it really fair to compair Hillary to her husband?

---

I think there's a better chance I'll became president than Sanders, at this point. That ship has sailed for some time now.

The POTUS has enormous power.  But very little power over the kinds of things Trump most often claims he will do.  He could not build a wall without Congress, nor can he impose a tarriff all, by himself, nor could he change the tax code.  Nor would he have much control over the economy.

What he can do is exert military power.  Theoretically, he needs congress to start a war, but he can into conflicts that are wars in everything but name. He could fire nuclear weapons.  He can prioritize federal law enforcement, and he could indeed step up deportations.   He could drag his heels on implementing environmental laws.  

In fairness Bernie can't make college education free without congress either.  Most of the things promised by nominees are not within the powers of the president.

A potentially very big power (and duty) of the President is to appoint federal judges on both the appeals courts and the Supreme Court. These appointments must be confirmed by the Senate but there is only so much stalling they can do. For example, if the Republican Senate makes good on their promise to not consider President Obama's nominations to replace Antonin Scalia, his successor will do so - and he or she will have their way within reason. The Senate cannot drag their feet on a court vacancy for four years without there being consequences.

Speaking of Scalia, he became a SCOTUS Justice in 1986 under Reagan. He served on the court for 29 years. During his tenure, there were 5 different Presidents. A 2-term President typically appoints 2 SCOTUS justices. The next one may easily appoint 4. They will be be there, at the top of the Judicial Branch, long after Hillary or Trump have left the building (or perhaps this earth).

[Silver]

Hillary is the lesser of the two evils, but Bernie is the non-evil one.

[scoobysnack]

A couple of questions. (Addressed to anyone interested in answering them.)

How bad could Trump really be and how much power does the potus really have?

Isn't the choice between the two a no-brainer and do you really fear that the voting population could make that big of a mistake, assumming you gave a certain answer to my first question?

Is it really fair to compair Hillary to her husband?

---

I think there's a better chance I'll became president than Sanders, at this point. That ship has sailed for some time now.

The POTUS has enormous power.  But very little power over the kinds of things Trump most often claims he will do.  He could not build a wall without Congress, nor can he impose a tarriff all, by himself, nor could he change the tax code.  Nor would he have much control over the economy.

What he can do is exert military power.  Theoretically, he needs congress to start a war, but he can into conflicts that are wars in everything but name. He could fire nuclear weapons.  He can prioritize federal law enforcement, and he could indeed step up deportations.   He could drag his heels on implementing environmental laws.  

In fairness Bernie can't make college education free without congress either.  Most of the things promised by nominees are not within the powers of the president.

Yes, nobody wants a dictator. We need a balance of power.

There will never be free college, or free anything as sociaism likes to make us think we deserve. Nothing is free, it's always paid through taxes whether direct or indirect/hidden. Remember the talking point that the affordable care act was going to have free health care. Most don't remember, but it was something that was going around, plus of course people who said it wasn't true were racist because the president was black. Well turns out it was never intended to be free, just like college will never be free. Nothing is free. Even those that don't directly pay for it will indirectly pay for it through higher taxes.

What about the people that don't want to go to college or don't need to? They will still pay for it. We still need janitors, garbage men, plumbers, fast food workers, etc. Instead everyone will be forced to pay for the college of those that go, instead of them paying themselves. This is the basic flaw of collectivism, which always fails throughout history, and will continue to. One of the reason's college is so expensive is because government has subsidized it through loans. As long as students can get the loans, they can charge higher prices because the government guarantees the loans. What we will see under Bernie is colleges charging the govt more, because they have a guaranteed lender. It's like a drug dealer that has an addict, they can charge whatever they want, because the customer will pay whatever it takes.

In the socialist plan, the money will be deferred to the tax payer as a whole, so the real cost is never seen by the individual. This always happens. Venezuala which the US media isn't covering is in complete collapse and a prime example of socialism run it's course and collapsing, but they want to focus on scandinavian countries which are in teh process of collapsing. We need to wait two more years before that happens due to the influx of migrants which will strain their welfare system, create social chaos, and eventually collapse. Europe is still suffering from PC mania to understand what's about to happen until it's too late, and then the solution will be introduced. Complete control, loss of liberty in exchange for security.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Wait, you think only the US is the real world?

Child, you desperately need to broaden your horizons, which right now seem to mirror the circumference of a goldfish bowl.

By the by, Abaris lives in a country beset by a refugee crisis that makes our illegal-immigration problem look like child's play. I think he's certainly got a better grip on that issue than you do, myself.

I think you need to stop [...]

Remember that time I asked you what you think about me?

Yeah, neither do I.

Don't know which country you live in because you refuse to divulge that so far [...]

He's shared it already, plenty of us know it. Perhaps you should read more and post less?

[Wyrd of Gawd]

The POTUS has enormous power.  But very little power over the kinds of things Trump most often claims he will do.  He could not build a wall without Congress, nor can he impose a tarriff all, by himself, nor could he change the tax code.  Nor would he have much control over the economy.

What he can do is exert military power.  Theoretically, he needs congress to start a war, but he can into conflicts that are wars in everything but name. He could fire nuclear weapons.  He can prioritize federal law enforcement, and he could indeed step up deportations.   He could drag his heels on implementing environmental laws.  

In fairness Bernie can't make college education free without congress either.  Most of the things promised by nominees are not within the powers of the president.

Yes, nobody wants a dictator. We need a balance of power.

There will never be free college, or free anything as sociaism likes to make us think we deserve. Nothing is free, it's always paid through taxes whether direct or indirect/hidden. Remember the talking point that the affordable care act was going to have free health care. Most don't remember, but it was something that was going around, plus of course people who said it wasn't true were racist because the president was black. Well turns out it was never intended to be free, just like college will never be free. Nothing is free. Even those that don't directly pay for it will indirectly pay for it through higher taxes.

What about the people that don't want to go to college or don't need to? They will still pay for it. We still need janitors, garbage men, plumbers, fast food workers, etc. Instead everyone will be forced to pay for the college of those that go, instead of them paying themselves. This is the basic flaw of collectivism, which always fails throughout history, and will continue to. One of the reason's college is so expensive is because government has subsidized it through loans. As long as students can get the loans, they can charge higher prices because the government guarantees the loans. What we will see under Bernie is colleges charging the govt more, because they have a guaranteed lender. It's like a drug dealer that has an addict, they can charge whatever they want, because the customer will pay whatever it takes.

In the socialist plan, the money will be deferred to the tax payer as a whole, so the real cost is never seen by the individual. This always happens. Venezuala which the US media isn't covering is in complete collapse and a prime example of socialism run it's course and collapsing, but they want to focus on scandinavian countries which are in teh process of collapsing. We need to wait two more years before that happens due to the influx of migrants which will strain their welfare system, create social chaos, and eventually collapse. Europe is still suffering from PC mania to understand what's about to happen until it's too late, and then the solution will be introduced. Complete control, loss of liberty in exchange for security.

They are giving illegal aliens free college educations.  Of course they are charging the hell out out citizen students.

[downbeatplumb]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hq0zw0hPoUM

[Pat Mustard]

It boggles my mind that there isn't a fiscally conservative, socially liberal alternative.

There is, it's called the Democrat party.

[The Grand Nudger]

That the social programs mentioned are faltering or failed is not some inescapable consequence of illegal immigrants - or socialism.  It's a consequence of the rate at which -asylum seekers- were absorbed.  Too quickly to return the yield that would be expected from the programs. A yield -well demonstrated- in the case of Sweden.

Sure, I suppose that they could have said "no, fuck you, go home or elsewhere" - but they have a strong commitment to asylum seekers (and aso, apparently, basic human fucking empathy........obvs lacking in some of us), and didn't get to determine the status of syria or the rate at which people needed to flee a shitty situation.  Had other EU nations pulled their weight, rather than deferring to xenophobic pieces of shit within their own government and populace....they wouldn't be in such a bind.

That dolts point to this situation and say "this is socialism run it's course" is unsurprising. They couldn;t call it what it was and is..a humanitarian crisis beyond the control of those affected, and still ramble on about the evils of socialism or immigrants.