And once again we see what a bad idea it is for the US to only have two major political parties. If there was at least another major left-wing party, they could freely criticize Obama for acting more like a right-winger than a left-winger during his terms.
But the "supposed left-wing" Democrats can't do that right now even if they wanted to, because that would hurt their chances with the Democrats, and Independents are irrelevant in this context, as if they want to vote left-wing, they'll have no choice but to go Democrat anyway - even though Independents make up almost 50% of the country and could easily support at least another 2 major parties if they all were a little more organized and didn't get brainwashed into voting the same Democratic or Republican parties that they hate (and the reason they registered Independents).
Imagine you need to hire someone to guard a big red button. The best that can happen is nothing; but the worst that can happen is that they themselves decide to push the button.
The Executive branch effectively only has the purpose of destroying, stopping, blocking, canceling, and annulling things. The president vetos bills; stops foreign invasions with military power; commutes federal prison sentences created by the judicial branch; stops legislation from applying by signing trade agreements or granting amnesties; etc. And every department within the Executive, like the FDA or the SEC, exists solely for the purpose of blocking people from doing things.
So the President is effectively just sitting there in front of a control panel consisting entirely of big red buttons. Sometimes, rarely, situationally, it helps to press one of them. Pressing one at random, though, would almost certainly do damage and serve no purpose.
Obama's status quo was done by just avoiding pressing the big red buttons. That's bad in one way. But it's an entirely different kind of bad to start pressing lots and lots of the big red buttons. That's what George W. was actually hated for—what he did, not what he didn't do.
Trump couldn't accomplish much good, certainly. But he would have full access to a panel of big red buttons. Do you trust Trump there?
The conclusion here doesn't quite follow from the premises :). Obama didn't do what he said does not imply vote for Trump any more than it implies vote for tajen.
Now I'm going to delve into specific politics more than I normally like to do, but I think there are important ideas to consider. Even if a president doesn't do what he/she promised to do, the attitude of a president does have an effect on the country. Judging from the attitude of Trump and the raucousness of some of his rallies, I don't think Trump's attitude and that of his more violent supporters should be spread across the country. That alone is enough reason to vote for someone other than Trump.
It's pretty sad, though, to have several elections in a row where more and more people are voting against a candidate rather than for a candidate. I can only think of one current candidate who I would vote for positively, rather than to just to avoid another candidate who is more negative.
The good news about Trump is that he's not bought or sold. He is what he is, which from my viewpoint is better than the unknown that we currently have.
You don't become a billionaire without having deeply entrenched political and business connections. Donald Trump may be "self funded" but I don't believe for an instant that his persona is any less calculated than that of any other politician, or that his agenda is entirely his own.
Because he is a politician, and by definition a very successful one. Just because he wears a red baseball cap and is willing to use vulgar language and encourage violence at his rallies in the name of denouncing political correctness doesn't mean he's an anti-establishment maverick and hero of the common man, or that anything he says is sincere. He's simply found a gimmick that works.
To his credit, it seems to work extremely well. But that doesn't make him qualified for the office.
Ok, it might, to a degree because it's a political office, but... he seems like a charlatan. I don't understand why people trust him, he seems like the most obviously political figure in the entire field.
There is a large segment of the population (in every country) that responds very well to power figures. The same reason why people in Russia like Putin, and so many other dictators have been quite popular at times. Trump is trying to reach those people by acting like the power person in the race. On the other hand, a big part of the population is also adverse to power figures, myself included. I would never vote for an authoritarian figure and there are many others like me.
I've read this so many times I am starting to think this makes sense to the people saying it: "Trump may be [insert whatever], and [policy X] is ridiculous, and [statement Y] went over the line. But [X] won't ever happen, so I don't have to worry about it."
Don't get me wrong, using policy and public statements to judge fitness for public office isn't perfect, but it seems in this case we are substituting policy and public statement with something that has little or no relationship with executing a complex and demanding job.
You act like his entire life hasn't been "executing a complex and demanding job"? Running a small business is hard enough, I can't even imagine running an empire.
Trump has been one step ahead of every last person this entire election cycle. It's been fascinating to watch and I'm done doubting him, underestimating him, or second-guessing why he does or says anything. Now I'm simply at the point where I'm just trying to learn from it, because there are lessons for any business owner or public figure inside.
In fact, if he were to win, I'm not even convinced [X] "won't happen".
It doesn't have to be hard to run an empire badly.
A shell script that just repeats "Sell all assets and invest in SPY" would outperform Trump at running his empire, and it would have the side bonus of not being a crazy asshole.
If what you're trying to learn is how to manipulate people, then I agree, he is a master. There is a name for this type of people, they're called con men. Trump is a sales person. He has trained himself to sell anything, and he is just selling a quick solution for people that feel disenfranchise by the current political system.
How come? Polls & numbers (whatever value they have this early on in the "general" cycle) state otherwise. In fact, it looks like Bernie has a much better chance at the moment than Hilary... Don't you think Trump would dominate 24/7 news cycle on digging up Hilary's old wounds? What does he have on Bernie? "He's a communist you're voting for a communist!"?
Interestingly enough, the polls say otherwise. [0] [1]
As the Politifact piece notes, (1) it's early in the campaign; (2) Bernie is much less well known than Hillary, and his perceived negatives might become more important in the general election; and (3) polls can always be wrong. Nonetheless, it doesn't seem to be correct to say he has far worse odds against Trump than she does.
I'm giving Bernie Sanders one last chance. But if he is elected and also reneges on his promises, I will probably stop caring about politics permanently.
edit: Whoops! Shouldn't have revealed I'm a Bernie supporter. Forgot that HN is a libertarian paradise!
It's funny, some threads you'd think everyone here was at least a socialist. Then in others you'd think everyone is one step short of declaring themselves sovereign citizens.
I think the lizard people who run the site just flip a coin when each story is posted to decide which kind of comments it'll have.
There is such a thing as left-libertarianism, and I suspect that a lot of people here have at least one foot in that ideology even if they've never heard about it.
I think people put too much importance on the role of the president with regards to domestic policy. You can't expect the president to effect change if congress opposes the president 100% of the time.
Electing Bernie won't make a huge difference if the republicans still control congress.
Woodrow Wilson sprang immediately to mind as an example of a president who effected change despite an intransigent congress. He is also a president who fought against entrenched interests.
Your idea seems to be more of an observation of recent presidents than a property of the presidency itself. I think there are two things that make it so. First, modern presidents are generally picked from a very narrow pool of candidates which the parties and the media help select and shape, thus making sure a relatively docile candidate is chosen. Second, most modern presidents are very politically oriented and beholden to the groups that donated to them during their campaigns.
I think that can be used to describe Hillary, but I think both Sanders and Trump are non-docile and not beholden to outside interests. Sanders, because his funds largely come as a mandate from individuals and he is very clear about who he works for. Trump, because he has nothing at all to lose by doing whatever he wants.
This is kind of sad, when I think about it - what you're describing is Trump and Sanders being opposed to Hillary and <Trump's opposition, I forget the name> in a way that matters just as much as Democrat VS Republican, but that decision is entirely up to the Dem/Rep oligarchy.
The president has an enormous amount of power. The executive branch has been steadily expanding its power since the beginning of the country.
Consider, for example, a Sanders DOJ vs. a Trump DOJ? (I suspect a Trump FBI would be primarily interested in cataloging and spying on anyone critical of Trump or of Muslim faith, essentially use COINTELPRO as a starting point, but make it better and stronger and do good deals). What about a Sanders DEA? EPA? DHS? The executive can do nearly anything if they are bold enough. The executive can ignore the judicial branch ("He has made his ruling, now let him enforce it"), the legislative branch (subpoenas from congress? About illegal leaks of classified information for political purposes concerning Valerie Plame? Please direct the law enforcement officers with weapons in your branch to serve them. You don't have any?)
I believe Sanders would refrain from using executive power to make things worse, while I am certain all of the other candidates would not refrain. Hillary will not differ from Obama nor does she claim to. Trump's shtick is to be an American dictator, an executive strong man who advocates violence and abuse towards anyone who disagrees with him and acts as an outlet for racism and hate and anger. Imagine if he had an army of FBI, DHS, NSA agents at his beck and call.
I've always wondered what would happen if a President gave a TV-broadcast speech, telling people to write to their congressmen and demand a change of their policy on some issue.
Would that be illegal? Would it be speech? It's not like the President would be telling you who to vote for (though it might be different if the US had referendums, because the President would be telling you what to vote for); the President is simply attempting to sway your opinion, and then telling you to inform someone else of your (hopefully swayed) opinion.
This is exactly what I think Trump has in mind. First time congress doesn't do what he wants, he'll get on TV and list off every single congress critter that is getting in the way of Making America Great Again. They'll quickly fall in line or find themselves replaced in 2 years.
I wasn't implying that republicans controlling all three branches of government would be good. In fact, it's rather horrifying considering the current state of that party.
However, even if democrats won back the majority of congress -- are there enough left leaning democrats enough to support Bernie's platform?
If Sander's doesn't reneg on his promises he'll be a one-term president (which of course assumes he gets elected which would never happen). I mean, think of how much people hate Carter.
Based on the title of the post alone, someone with even center to left politics should expect to get jumped on in the following discussion. It's a post that's trolling for conflict, not solutions.
But the "supposed left-wing" Democrats can't do that right now even if they wanted to, because that would hurt their chances with the Democrats, and Independents are irrelevant in this context, as if they want to vote left-wing, they'll have no choice but to go Democrat anyway - even though Independents make up almost 50% of the country and could easily support at least another 2 major parties if they all were a little more organized and didn't get brainwashed into voting the same Democratic or Republican parties that they hate (and the reason they registered Independents).