2016 U.S. Presidential Race Megathread Mark 2.

RobertKK

B0jangles wrote: »

Check out the reports from the NYTimes and NYPost about this event:

https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/776811245974515712/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

NYT completely leaves out the bit where Trump lied about Clinton starting the birther crap - why?

nm, NYT story updated with missing info added.

Hahaha, the press pool is refusing to do a free ad for Trump's hotel

https://twitter.com/Hadas_Gold/status/776811426082091008?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

A CNN correspondent who was there claimed the press were not allowed to follow Trump, and the cameraman was restrained, as Trump left and questions of what made him change his mind were shouted at him.

Amerika

B0jangles wrote: »

Check out the reports from the NYTimes and NYPost about this event:

https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/776811245974515712/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

NYT completely leaves out the bit where Trump lied about Clinton starting the birther crap - why?

nm, NYT story updated with missing info added.

Hahaha, the press pool is refusing to do a free ad for Trump's hotel

https://twitter.com/Hadas_Gold/status/776811426082091008?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

LOL. Hillary avoids news conferences like the plague and the media stays silent . The media doesn’t get what they hoped for at a Trump press conference and goes ballistic.

http://dailycaller.com/2016/09/16/media-outraged-after-trump-tricks-them-to-cover-endorsements-from-military-heroes/

Memo to the biased media... You’ve Been Trumped!

Overheal

Amerika wrote: »

Come on... you know none of that really matters. Yeah, it’s great sport for people like us to talk about things like policies, agendas, traditions, and what can and can’t be done by a POTUS. I think you know as well as me that a large number of the electorate don’t know much of the two candidates more than the sound bites they see on social media. And when they go into the voting booth they will vote with their hearts rather than their heads. Democrats will vote overwhelmingly for Clinton and Republicans for Trump. The fight is for the Independents and those on the fence. I believe Trump might win now because people will remember the few things they've heard from Trump and that he favorably addresses many of their top concerns... and they know little about what Hillary wants to do, and that she is corrupt and a liar.

i think you fundamentally misunderstand independents.

Overheal

Mark Cuban has unleashed a $10 mil carrot for Trump

http://yhoo.it/2cPaQWh

No doubt Trumps campaign will find some reason to shy away, as always.

Pro Hoc Vice

Overheal wrote: »

Mark Cuban has unleashed a $10 mil carrot for Trump

http://yhoo.it/2cPaQWh

No doubt Trumps campaign will find some reason to shy away, as always.

People give out when people say Trump supporters are stupid or don't understand. Yet Trump says and I quote, "I know mark, the problem with mark is he is not smart enough to know whats going on" "Mark is not smart enough to know what's going on, he is a mixed up guy"

Mark Cuban has a net worth of 3.3 billion but he does not understand.

B0jangles

Amerika wrote: »

LOL. Hillary avoids news conferences like the plague and the media stays silent . The media doesn’t get what they hoped for at a Trump press conference and goes ballistic.

http://dailycaller.com/2016/09/16/media-outraged-after-trump-tricks-them-to-cover-endorsements-from-military-heroes/

Memo to the biased media... You’ve Been Trumped!

Did you watch the event?

1. He opened by using his position as candidate for President as an opportunity to advertise his own business.
2. We got a succession of retired military persons spouting platitudes in his favour.
3. He backtracked on a lie he's been pushing for 8 years and then pushed out a new lie.
4. He ran away.

I know its difficult to admit to being wrong about someone, but how can you in good conscience defend Donald Trump after this latest performance?

Overheal

B0jangles wrote: »

Did you watch the event?

1. He opened by using his position as candidate for President as an opportunity to advertise his own business.
2. We got a succession of retired military persons spouting platitudes in his favour.
3. He backtracked on a lie he's been pushing for 8 years and then pushed out a new lie.
4. He ran away.

I know its difficult to admit to being wrong about someone, but how can you in good conscience defend Donald Trump after this latest performance?

It's a matter of cognitive dissonance. Assuming that Hillary is a snake, you sell your vote to another snake.

B0jangles

Breitbart (you know, the people currently running Trump's campaign) are reporting that last event as a Trump trolling the press.

https://twitter.com/Olivianuzzi/status/776843448456450048/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

The potential next president of the United States is a troll according to his own campaign manager.

(and its just a coincidence they used an image of a gorilla when referring to an event which centred on the birthplace of the first black president.)

Amerika

B0jangles wrote: »

Did you watch the event?

1. He opened by using his position as candidate for President as an opportunity to advertise his own business.
2. We got a succession of retired military persons spouting platitudes in his favour.
3. He backtracked on a lie he's been pushing for 8 years and then pushed out a new lie.
4. He ran away.

I know its difficult to admit to being wrong about someone, but how can you in good conscience defend Donald Trump after this latest performance?

No I didn’t see it. But I did read about it.

And so what about how he opened up the event or wouldn't take questions afterward. He got what he wanted and the media ultimately got what they had expected.

"Hillary Clinton and her campaign of 2008 started the birther controversy. I finished it. President Obama was born in the United States. Period."

What is everyone so mad about?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/09/16/donald-trumps-birther-event-is-the-greatest-trick-hes-ever-pulled/

Overheal

That is already covered ground - and it's false.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/sep/23/donald-trump/hillary-clinton-obama-birther-fact-check/

B0jangles

So what?

So what?

I watched the whole thing; he used his position as candidate for the presidency of your country to score some free advertising for his latest hotel development.

He closed with a lie which was debunked before he even opened his mouth.

He ran from the stage to avoid answering questions from the press at what was supposed to be a press conference.

How is that ok with you? Do you have any respect for what the role of a president should entail?

Overheal

The right would be frothing if Hillary held a political press conference to advertise her side business.

Amerika

Overheal wrote: »

The right would be frothing if Hillary held a political press conference to advertise her side business.

The right would be shocked if Hillary held a press conference... Period!

Overheal

Amerika wrote: »

The right would be shocked if Hillary held a press conference... Period!

That's almost a clever evasion

KingBrian2

B0jangles wrote: »

Did you watch the event?

1. He opened by using his position as candidate for President as an opportunity to advertise his own business.
2. We got a succession of retired military persons spouting platitudes in his favour.
3. He backtracked on a lie he's been pushing for 8 years and then pushed out a new lie.
4. He ran away.

I know its difficult to admit to being wrong about someone, but how can you in good conscience defend Donald Trump after this latest performance?

Hillary is getting much of her support for being a Clinton and having access to the Clinton Foundation which has aided the eradication of poverty and HIV in the world. Take that away and what does she really have. She caused more heartache than genuine reform in the foreign affairs field an area she was placed in charge of by President Obama. She and she alone is getting the agro for contributing to the mess in Syria. A little unfair to place it all on her yet the same was true for Bush & Blair. They have both been labeled murderers and war criminals.

Amerika

B0jangles wrote: »

So what?

So what?

I watched the whole thing; he used his position as candidate for the presidency of your country to score some free advertising for his latest hotel development.

He closed with a lie which was debunked before he even opened his mouth.

He ran from the stage to avoid answering questions from the press at what was supposed to be a press conference.

How is that ok with you? Do you have any respect for what the role of a president should entail?

On Thursday Trump gave an economic speech. I've heard virtually nothing about it from the media. Have you? The media seems only interesting in reporting on his gaffs and not on anything he has to say with substance. So after what the media has been doing to him lately, in a way, I'm a little glad he got some pay-back on them. They didn't have to report on anything. They could have just waited until he said what the media was expecting. Nobody put a gun to their heads.

How is it okay with me? How is it okay with anybody the way the media acts? Do you not have any respect for journalistic integrity?

(this post could probably find a home in both this thread and the media bias thread. I will let it up to the mods to decide where it is best located)

Overheal

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Hillary is getting much of her support for being a Clinton and having access to the Clinton Foundation which has aided the eradication of poverty and HIV in the world. Take that away and what does she really have. She caused more heartache than genuine reform in the foreign affairs field an area she was placed in charge of by President Obama. She and she alone is getting the agro for contributing to the mess in Syria. A little unfair to place it all on her yet the same was true for Bush & Blair. They have both been labeled murderers and war criminals.

I don't follow that; havent heard much about her foundation and nothing about HIV this cycle. Also besides Benghazi (which, we all know how futile that is) what has she done? Syria would have happened anyway, the UN predicted it in a think tank 10+ years ago because of climate changes, that would lead to food shortages and conflict which all transpired. Libya was something that the left wanted less than the right - the whole "boots on the ground" soundbyte and all. The cost of a cruise missile became a nice talking point when we dropped FREEDOM on it. Trump himself has been quoted both being fully behind and wholly against involvement in Libya. A foreign policy debate between the two, which we can expect before the election, will be very enlightening though sadly will not predict how either will actually lead.

Pro Hoc Vice

Amerika wrote: »

On Thursday Trump gave an economic speech. I've heard virtually nothing about it from the media. Have you? The media seems only interesting in reporting on his gaffs and not on anything he has to say with substance. So after what the media has been doing to him lately, in a way, I'm a little glad he got some pay-back on them. They didn't have to report on anything. They could have just waited until he said what the media was expecting. Nobody put a gun to their heads.

How is it okay with me? How is it okay with anybody the way the media acts? Do you not have any respect for journalistic integrity?

(this post could probably find a home in both this thread and the media bias thread. I will let it up to the mods to decide where it is best located)

What is his main economic policy in detail as he set out on Thursday?

Overheal

Amerika wrote: »

On Thursday Trump gave an economic speech. I've heard virtually nothing about it from the media. Have you? The media seems only interesting in reporting on his gaffs and not on anything he has to say with substance. So after what the media has been doing to him lately, in a way, I'm a little glad he got some pay-back on them. They didn't have to report on anything. They could have just waited until he said what the media was expecting. Nobody put a gun to their heads.

How is it okay with me? How is it okay with anybody the way the media acts? Do you not have any respect for journalistic integrity?

(this post could probably find a home in both this thread and the media bias thread. I will let it up to the mods to decide where it is best located)

Have a summary of that press release?

Pro Hoc Vice

Amerika wrote: »

On Thursday Trump gave an economic speech. I've heard virtually nothing about it from the media. Have you? The media seems only interesting in reporting on his gaffs and not on anything he has to say with substance. So after what the media has been doing to him lately, in a way, I'm a little glad he got some pay-back on them. They didn't have to report on anything. They could have just waited until he said what the media was expecting. Nobody put a gun to their heads.

How is it okay with me? How is it okay with anybody the way the media acts? Do you not have any respect for journalistic integrity?

(this post could probably find a home in both this thread and the media bias thread. I will let it up to the mods to decide where it is best located)

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/sep/15/donald-trump-jobs-vision-25-million-economic-policy

https://www.yahoo.com/news/i-brought-some-notes-trump-delivers-economic-policy-speech-in-latest-rebranding-effort-190325395.html

http://time.com/4495507/donald-trump-economy-speech-transcript/

https://thinkprogress.org/trump-economic-plan-climate-dangers-4b685b8bb576#.5cvacn50m

http://www.wsj.com/articles/donald-trump-lays-out-more-details-of-economic-plans-1473955537

KingBrian2

Overheal wrote: »

I don't follow that; havent heard much about her foundation and nothing about HIV this cycle. Also besides Benghazi (which, we all know how futile that is) what has she done? Syria would have happened anyway, the UN predicted it in a think tank 10+ years ago because of climate changes, that would lead to food shortages and conflict which all transpired. Libya was something that the left wanted less than the right - the whole "boots on the ground" soundbyte and all. The cost of a cruise missile became a nice talking point when we dropped FREEDOM on it. Trump himself has been quoted both being fully behind and wholly against involvement in Libya. A foreign policy debate between the two, which we can expect before the election, will be very enlightening though sadly will not predict how either will actually lead.

The Clintons broke their word to the people not to get back into the war game which is what they have done. They are promising exactly what the GOP of a few years ago was talking about keeping the Nation safe. Being tough of foreign powers. The same as Bush & others.

US forces remained in Iraq training the Iraqi gvt and special forces were sent into Syria to ferment instability. The US was so fast in Libya looking to cause a crisis. This is not what I call reducing America's military presence in the region. We call this an act of aggression which violated International law.

The Democrats are following the same playbook the Republicans have while Trump has made it very clear he wants a completely different approach and America's role is one of eradicating Al Qaeda brainchild's like ISIS & Al Nusra and making the American economy grow.

Pro Hoc Vice

KingBrian2 wrote: »

The Clintons broke their word to the people not to get back into the war game which is what they have done. They are promising exactly what the GOP of a few years ago was talking about keeping the Nation safe. Being tough of foreign powers. The same as Bush & others.

US forces remained in Iraq training the Iraqi gvt and special forces were sent into Syria to ferment instability. The US was so fast in Libya looking to cause a crisis. This is not what I call reducing America's military presence in the region. We call this an act of aggression.

Simple question which needs just a simple answer how is Trump going to bomb the **** out of ISIS and not be in the War game?

oscarBravo

Amerika wrote: »

On Thursday Trump gave an economic speech. I've heard virtually nothing about it from the media. Have you? The media seems only interesting in reporting on his gaffs and not on anything he has to say with substance.

You mean like how the Guardian ignored it completely?

edit: PHV got there first.

Overheal

KingBrian2 wrote: »

The Clintons broke their word to the people not to get back into the war game which is what they have done. They are promising exactly what the GOP of a few years ago was talking about keeping the Nation safe. Being tough of foreign powers. The same as Bush & others.

US forces remained in Iraq training the Iraqi gvt and special forces were sent into Syria to ferment instability. The US was so fast in Libya looking to cause a crisis. This is not what I call reducing America's military presence in the region. We call this an act of aggression.

National and international politics downright demanded immediate intervention in Libya. NATO answered, France and USA were quick to the theater yes. You can look on this board for the conversation if you like. Special forces were sent in to support a coup to overthrow a government that was using its military on its own people:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8335934/Libya-protests-140-massacred-as-Gaddafi-sends-in-snipers-to-crush-dissent.html

It is the gift of hindsight and anonymity that permits one to sit and say "it was a disaster should've never gone in" but that would be total horsesh$t

If you want to claim there was a conspiracy to justify war for "reasons" "cause a crisis etc" click the conspiracy theories link by my avatar (Mega Man) and start a thread.

Did the Clintons promise 'not to get back on the war game?' When? Do you have a quote or source?

KingBrian2

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

Simple question which needs just a simple answer how is Trump going to bomb the **** out of ISIS and not be in the War game?

I believe he said he wanted the Arab Nations to be doing more to combat the terrorist menace which is killing way more Arabs, Kurds, Turks & Iranians than Americans.

Pro Hoc Vice

oscarBravo wrote: »

You mean like how the Guardian ignored it completely?

Funny he must also have missed the Wall Street Journal.

Overheal

KingBrian2 wrote: »

I believe he said he wanted the Arab Nations to be doing more to combat the terrorist menace which is killing way more Arabs, Kurds, Turks & Iranians than Americans.

So the exact same stance as both Bernie and Hillary

KingBrian2

Overheal wrote: »

National and international politics downright demanded immediate intervention in Libya. NATO answered, France and USA were quick to the theater yes. You can look on this board for the conversation if you like. Special forces were sent in to support a coup to overthrow a government that was using its military on its own people:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8335934/Libya-protests-140-massacred-as-Gaddafi-sends-in-snipers-to-crush-dissent.html

It is the gift of hindsight and anonymity that permits one to sit and say "it was a disaster should've never gone in" but that would be total horsesh$t

If you want to claim there was a conspiracy to justify war for "reasons" "cause a crisis etc" click the conspiracy theories link by my avatar (Mega Man) and start a thread.

Did the Clintons promise 'not to get back on the war game?' When? Do you have a quote or source?

Not all Europeans were persuaded by the argument to go into Libya. NATO members were being Loyal to the US but now coming from a neutral country Ireland that decision was not beneficial to Europe at all.

Amerika

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/sep/15/donald-trump-jobs-vision-25-million-economic-policy

https://www.yahoo.com/news/i-brought-some-notes-trump-delivers-economic-policy-speech-in-latest-rebranding-effort-190325395.html

http://time.com/4495507/donald-trump-economy-speech-transcript/

https://thinkprogress.org/trump-economic-plan-climate-dangers-4b685b8bb576#.5cvacn50m

http://www.wsj.com/articles/donald-trump-lays-out-more-details-of-economic-plans-1473955537

Almost nobody here reads the Guardian. Other than the WSJ, none of those can be considered major media sources. But I'm sure even the major media sources gave it a couple of lines worth of reporting... buried on page 6 or something.

ebbsy

Another day, another Trump press conference which overshadows any Clinton activity.

He has the press eating out of his hands.

Pro Hoc Vice

Amerika wrote: »

Almost nobody here reads the Guardian. Other than the WSJ, none of those can be considered major media sources. But I'm sure even the major media sources gave it a couple of lines worth of reporting... buried on page 6 or something.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/trailguide/la-na-trailguide-updates-watch-live-donald-trump-gives-economic-1473952782-htmlstory.html

http://www.nbc-2.com/story/33109328/economists-say-trumps-economic-plan-is-an-impossible-blend

http://mediamatters.org/research/2016/09/15/experts-and-critics-tear-apart-trump-s-recycled-tax-and-economic-policy-reforms/213118

God you make up more stuff than Trump himself and you wonder why people might think Republicans are full of .....

Amerika

Overheal wrote: »

That is already covered ground - and it's false.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/sep/23/donald-trump/hillary-clinton-obama-birther-fact-check/

Oops. Au contraire mon ami.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/09/16/hillary-clinton-campaign-manager-admits-birtherism-started/

Amerika

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/trailguide/la-na-trailguide-updates-watch-live-donald-trump-gives-economic-1473952782-htmlstory.html

http://www.nbc-2.com/story/33109328/economists-say-trumps-economic-plan-is-an-impossible-blend

http://mediamatters.org/research/2016/09/15/experts-and-critics-tear-apart-trump-s-recycled-tax-and-economic-policy-reforms/213118

God you make up more stuff than Trump himself and you wonder why people might think Republicans are full of .....

Media matters is a joke. NBC-2 is some regional TV station out of NYC. I clicked on that LA Times link you provided and it sent me to the article “Campaign 2016 updates: Donald Trump refuses -- again -- to answer the 'birther' question”

Overheal

Amerika wrote: »

Oops. Au contraire mon ami.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/09/16/hillary-clinton-campaign-manager-admits-birtherism-started/

She comes out with that hours after Trumps conference? Don't be so gullible until you at least find out how she pays the rent this month..

Edit: never mind this isn't new info. Still false claim.

Pro Hoc Vice

Amerika wrote: »

Oops. Au contraire mon ami.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/09/16/hillary-clinton-campaign-manager-admits-birtherism-started/

So you can't understand simple forms or get the difference between a staffer who was fired and Clinton herself.

Overheal

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

So you can't understand simple forms or get the difference between a staffer who was fired and Clinton herself.

Even the Breitbart article makes it clear it was a volunteer, not a staffer. It's stupid easy to become a campaign volunteer.

Pro Hoc Vice

Overheal wrote: »

Even the Breitbart article makes it clear it was a volunteer, not a staffer. It's stupid easy to become a campaign volunteer.

The said person is even named.

Overheal

But basically Trump back pedaled and tried to blame birtherism on Hillary. He will blame any problem he would face as POTUS on anyone but himself. Which makes him no different than any politician. Why are people voting for him again?

RobertKK

Overheal wrote: »

But basically Trump back pedaled and tried to blame birtherism on Hillary. He will blame any problem he would face as POTUS on anyone but himself. Which makes him no different than any politician. Why are people voting for him again?

Because people find Hillary even more detestable.

It is an election of who you detest the most and then holding one's nose.

Overheal

RobertKK wrote: »

Because people find Hillary even more detestable.

It is an election of who you detest the most and then holding one's nose.

Out more accurately: "The iPhone has no headphone jack; the Galaxy explodes"

oscarBravo

RobertKK wrote: »

Because people find Hillary even more detestable.

It is an election of who you detest the most and then holding one's nose.

Fair enough, but it's hard to see how that justifies criticising one candidate for something that the other candidate exemplifies more so. For example: you've criticised the Clinton Foundation, but are silent about the fact that the Trump Foundation spent tens of thousands of dollars buying a portrait of Donald Trump for Donald Trump. Why is that?

I don't think Clinton will be a great president, but I'm fairly certain that Trump would be an absolutely catastrophic one. Most of the support for him as a candidate seems to be on the basis that he might not be as big a farce as a president as he was as a candidate, which strikes me as some dangerously wishful thinking.

Amerika

oscarBravo wrote: »

Fair enough, but it's hard to see how that justifies criticising one candidate for something that the other candidate exemplifies more so. For example: you've criticised the Clinton Foundation, but are silent about the fact that the Trump Foundation spent tens of thousands of dollars buying a portrait of Donald Trump for Donald Trump. Why is that?

I don't think Clinton will be a great president, but I'm fairly certain that Trump would be an absolutely catastrophic one. Most of the support for him as a candidate seems to be on the basis that he might not be as big a farce as a president as he was as a candidate, which strikes me as some dangerously wishful thinking.

And I think it’s interesting that when I complained about Obama’s overreach of power just about everyone here jumped on me about the President’s limitation of powers. That the role of Obama was extremely limited in scope. I disagreed and said Obama exceeded his authority and created laws which were the job of Congress.

Now everyone fears Trump. Why? If the argument was a President’s authority was so limited, why the concern over Trump? Actually, I believe it is because deep down everyone here knew I was right. And Obama’s overreach of powers has set a nasty prescient that the next President will continue, especially if he belongs to the same party that controls Congress.

And if that is the case, is it apropos for me at this time to say I told you so?

As for the listed powers of the President, this is what the US Congress states…

• Command the military, including Army, Navy, and National Guard.
• Grant clemency, pardons, and other reprieve for offenses against the United States.
• Handle all foreign affairs, including negotiating treaties.
• Appoint ambassadors, justices, public ministers, councils, and executive officers.
• Convene, or dismiss, congress at the President’s leisure.
• Oversee the execution of the laws.
• Sign bills, return them to congress with suggested changes, or veto them.
• Recommend legislature and measures to Congress.
• Has Executive Power as needed in order to fulfill the above duties.

B0jangles

RobertKK wrote: »

Because people find Hillary even more detestable.

It is an election of who you detest the most and then holding one's nose.

Trump is a joke candidate and is treating the election as a joke. Clinton is a career politician who has been exhaustively investigated for 25 years and convited of nothing

If people look on these two candidates and think Trump is a better option than Clinton, then those people are Idiots.

Overheal

Two words:

Nuclear Codes.

KingBrian2

B0jangles wrote: »

Trump is a joke candidate and is treating the election as a joke. Clinton is a career politician who has been exhaustively investigated for 25 years and convited of nothing

If people look on these two candidates and think Trump is a better option than Clinton, then those people are Idiots.

Not quite true. Nobody was taken Trump serious even though at the beginning many of his views were very popular. By contrast Hillary has been beset with controversy and rivals who were clambering to become the next President. Trump defo believes in limited gvt. Hillary am not sure what she stands for. She says she is against war. Not convinced about that.

Brian?

When is the first debate?

B_Wayne

Overheal wrote: »

Two words:

Nuclear Codes.

I would also say that he'd sink the US international reputation and liable to create numerous serious diplomatic incident.

Overheal

His company is millions in debt with China. Serious, grave conflict of interest with a major opposing world power.

Pro Hoc Vice

Amerika wrote: »

And I think it’s interesting that when I complained about Obama’s overreach of power just about everyone here jumped on me about the President’s limitation of powers. That the role of Obama was extremely limited in scope. I disagreed and said Obama exceeded his authority and created laws which were the job of Congress.

Now everyone fears Trump. Why? If the argument was a President’s authority was so limited, why the concern over Trump? Actually, I believe it is because deep down everyone here knew I was right. And Obama’s overreach of powers has set a nasty prescient that the next President will continue, especially if he belongs to the same party that controls Congress.

And if that is the case, is it apropos for me at this time to say I told you so?

As for the listed powers of the President, this is what the US Congress states…

• Command the military, including Army, Navy, and National Guard.
• Grant clemency, pardons, and other reprieve for offenses against the United States.
• Handle all foreign affairs, including negotiating treaties.
• Appoint ambassadors, justices, public ministers, councils, and executive officers.
• Convene, or dismiss, congress at the President’s leisure.
• Oversee the execution of the laws.
• Sign bills, return them to congress with suggested changes, or veto them.
• Recommend legislature and measures to Congress.
• Has Executive Power as needed in order to fulfill the above duties.

And you as an American know many of the above list requires the consent of Congress perfect example is the appointment of Supreme Court Justices. In a blatant partisan move the Republicans are refusing to vet The Presidents nomination. And you know the same with ambassadors.

What do you mean "Convene, or dismiss, congress at the President’s leisure."

You also know the power of Veto is limited, either you know or like Trump you never read the Constitution. I am surprised as a college educated American you don't seem to get the idea of checks and balances within the federal system.

B0jangles

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Not quite true. Nobody was taken Trump serious even though at the beginning many of his views were very popular. By contrast Hillary has been beset with controversy and rivals who were clambering to become the next President. Trump defo believes in limited gvt. Hillary am not sure what she stands for. She says she is against war. Not convinced about that.

Stop listening to your gut.


Listen with your brain.