The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)

[Nurseken7]

On a related topic, CIA and military people say the president pulling troops out of Syria put in peril the plans to capture or kill the Isis bad guy. He actually made the mission more dangerous. And the critical intel came from the Kurds, according to the CIA and military people involved.So who got thanked first? The Russians, of course.

Since the topic is "The fate of the nation," seems to me the CIA and military intelligence served the nation better when they actually kept national secrets secret and the daily headlines weren't filled by their leaks.

It would be nice to also have a president who is not constantly demagogueing and trashing the CIA and military intelligence and calling the press the enemy of the people. 

[Dan Fienen]

I'm waiting for those who want to convince me not to vote for Trump to offer who I should vote for and why? I'm simply not convinced that just anybody would be better than Trump.

[Nurseken7]

I don't think the conversation is furthered either bny trashing Clinton or Trump.  We all have our opinions of them, positive and negative.

If one wants to put forward a future agenda that improves on what we are doing at present, especially as that ages.nda would be promoted by the president, then for Democrats that means promoting a strong candidate that has a chance of winning a sufficiently large enough share of the electorate and can appeal to both sides and broad sections of the country, thus winning both the popular vote and in the Electoral College. Which candidate seems to fit that description as the field stands at present?

n

obviously, that is the question.  Among independent voters who don't say or think "only Fox News tells the truth"  Biden or Warren might come closer than any of the other candidates  If that senater from Montana had better name recognition, Senator Steve Bullock, he might be a centrist southern or western democrat who could appeal to more "middle Americans"

[Richard Johnson]

I'm waiting for those who want to convince me not to vote for Trump to offer who I should vote for and why? I'm simply not convinced that just anybody would be better than Trump.

The Trump voters who voted reluctantly insisted that there would be competent people around whom who would restrain his worse impulses. That hasn't really worked. No matter who the Democrat is, it seems more likely to me that the "checks and balances" built into the constitution will restrain what you seem to fear. Even if Bernie, for instance, were to be elected, "Medicare for All" is not going to be approved by Congress. The usual legislative compromises would moderate any such plan, far more effectively than the alleged "adults in the room" have moderated Trump's tirades and impulsive actions.

[Dan Fienen]

I'm waiting for those who want to convince me not to vote for Trump to offer who I should vote for and why? I'm simply not convinced that just anybody would be better than Trump.

The Trump voters who voted reluctantly insisted that there would be competent people around whom who would restrain his worse impulses. That hasn't really worked. No matter who the Democrat is, it seems more likely to me that the "checks and balances" built into the constitution will restrain what you seem to fear. Even if Bernie, for instance, were to be elected, "Medicare for All" is not going to be approved by Congress. The usual legislative compromises would moderate any such plan, far more effectively than the alleged "adults in the room" have moderated Trump's tirades and impulsive actions.

Why should the checks and balances built into the system work any better to restrain a Democrat from acting impulsively or over reaching than they have in the current administration?

[John_Hannah]

Why should the checks and balances built into the system work any better to restrain a Democrat from acting impulsively or over reaching than they have in the current administration?

Theoretically there might be no difference. But most (not all) candidates have proven and clearly transparent records of public service. Some, if not all, have made tax returns available.

I agree with Richard that outlandish proposals deserve minimum consideration because the Congress will likely never approve them. Consider the fate of "repeal Obamacare" and "build a great wall".  Great speech material but no real impact in the end. All hat but no cowboy. 

Peace, JOHN

[Richard Johnson]

I'm waiting for those who want to convince me not to vote for Trump to offer who I should vote for and why? I'm simply not convinced that just anybody would be better than Trump.

The Trump voters who voted reluctantly insisted that there would be competent people around whom who would restrain his worse impulses. That hasn't really worked. No matter who the Democrat is, it seems more likely to me that the "checks and balances" built into the constitution will restrain what you seem to fear. Even if Bernie, for instance, were to be elected, "Medicare for All" is not going to be approved by Congress. The usual legislative compromises would moderate any such plan, far more effectively than the alleged "adults in the room" have moderated Trump's tirades and impulsive actions.

Why should the checks and balances built into the system work any better to restrain a Democrat from acting impulsively or over reaching than they have in the current administration?

Two centuries of experience?

[revjagow]

I'm waiting for those who want to convince me not to vote for Trump to offer who I should vote for and why? I'm simply not convinced that just anybody would be better than Trump.

Who would be better than President Trump?
- Someone who displays a smidgen of self-control while on Twitter.
- Someone who will listen to his/her military, state department and intelligence officials.
- Someone who shows more moral character than a person whose decision causes hundreds of deaths and afterward refers to it flippantly as a playground scrap.
- Someone who apologies when they make a mistake.
- Someone who can disagree with opponents without resorting to childish name calling.
- Someone who will not lie to the public by saying that troops are coming home when they are not.
- Someone who has a foreign policy.
- Someone who supports a free press.
- Someone who will support our allies and stand up to dictators.
- Someone who will not have a personal lawyer run shadow diplomacy in conflict with our State Department.
- Someone who is not afraid to be transparent about all their business interests and tax returns.
I'm not looking closely at any of the candidates this early in the race, but when I do, these would be a few things I would look for.

[Nurseken7]

Very well put

[Dan Fienen]

I'm waiting for those who want to convince me not to vote for Trump to offer who I should vote for and why? I'm simply not convinced that just anybody would be better than Trump.

The Trump voters who voted reluctantly insisted that there would be competent people around whom who would restrain his worse impulses. That hasn't really worked. No matter who the Democrat is, it seems more likely to me that the "checks and balances" built into the constitution will restrain what you seem to fear. Even if Bernie, for instance, were to be elected, "Medicare for All" is not going to be approved by Congress. The usual legislative compromises would moderate any such plan, far more effectively than the alleged "adults in the room" have moderated Trump's tirades and impulsive actions.

Why should the checks and balances built into the system work any better to restrain a Democrat from acting impulsively or over reaching than they have in the current administration?

Two centuries of experience?

So, if two centuries of experience tell you that electing a Democrat with some wacky policy proposals is no danger because the checks and balances of the legislature will prevent damage from those proposals, you still have not explained why you feel that those same restraints have failed to alleviate the danger that Trump poses.


It sounds like you're saying that we shouldn't be bothered if the Democratic candidate is proposing disastrous programs, elect him or her anyway and trust that Congress sill reign him in. Trump, on the other hand is much too dangerous. So why shouldn't we trust the checks and balances to check and balance Trump if we would trust them for a Democrat? 

[D. Engebretson]

 A bit unrelated to the other 'qualifications,' but what about age?
--Joe Biden is 76.  He would be around 80 at the end of his first term.
--Donald Trump is 73 now.
--Elizabeth Warren is the youngest 70-something front-runners at just 70.
--Bernie Sanders is 78 and would be well past 80 at the end of his first term.

Admittedly Ronald Reagan was 73 when elected to his second term, but some observed that by that point the effects of age were beginning to show. 

Bernie has had one serious heart episode on the campaign trail. 

Some wonder if Biden at his age has not lost his edge.

I realize that age is not an automatic determinant of competency.  Many are working and staying active in the workforce well past the 65 age mark usually identified as the retirement point. Even many pastors work well into their 70s and even 80s. Yesterday we observed the 100th birthday of one of my members who remains as sharp as ever. 

Still, age does factor in, especially since we are talking about the highest office in the country, one who is serving as commander in chief of all the armed forces of the nation. 

[peter_speckhard]

I'm waiting for those who want to convince me not to vote for Trump to offer who I should vote for and why? I'm simply not convinced that just anybody would be better than Trump.

Who would be better than President Trump?
- Someone who displays a smidgen of self-control while on Twitter.
- Someone who will listen to his/her military, state department and intelligence officials.
- Someone who shows more moral character than a person whose decision causes hundreds of deaths and afterward refers to it flippantly as a playground scrap.
- Someone who apologies when they make a mistake.
- Someone who can disagree with opponents without resorting to childish name calling.
- Someone who will not lie to the public by saying that troops are coming home when they are not.
- Someone who has a foreign policy.
- Someone who supports a free press.
- Someone who will support our allies and stand up to dictators.
- Someone who will not have a personal lawyer run shadow diplomacy in conflict with our State Department.
- Someone who is not afraid to be transparent about all their business interests and tax returns.
I'm not looking closely at any of the candidates this early in the race, but when I do, these would be a few things I would look for.

--I think Trump uses twitter with great control. His goal is to dominate the news cycle and make his critics crazy, and he does it. Every time.

--Not listening to the entrenched interests is what people put him there for. The entrenched interests are entrenched in self-interest.

--Trump supports a free press and even participates in it. Refusing to engage people whose goal is to undermine him is not an attack on a free press.

--Trump supports are allies to the degree he expects to be supported by our allies. He views alliances as two-way streets.

--He doesn't apologize because he understands that demands for apologies are political gamesmanship in Washington.

--Trump has a foreign policy. It is just different than the globablist vision of both neo-cons and progressives.

--Opposes dictators by airmailing them pallets of cash on the advice of experts? Giving cartels guns with which they shoot Americans and then lying about it? Blaming fatal attacks on American installations overseas on American youtube videos? It seems to me that standing up to China, going after ISIS, initiating a relationship with N. Korea, etc. shows Trump being especially adept at not perpetuating the manifestly failed polices toward dictators recommended by experts.

--lying to the public is political art form (and sometime necessity) that every single president has done and likely will do.

--As for personal lawyers, transparent personal finances, etc. those aren't the sorts of things I care much about, but good luck finding a candidate.

--Childish name-calling is preferable to the actual vitriol (if not threats of violence) with which progressives tend to deal with those who disagree with them. I'd rather be called a stupid name than declared a racist, hate-filled Nazi and deserving of moral contempt for disagreeing with Democrats.

[Charles Austin]

Peter, your apologetics for the president are trivial and essentially meaningless.
They fall into the weak category of “well others do bad things too.”
The “entrenched interests “ of our intelligence community? You find something nefarious in that? You would rather he listen to the Russians?
Foreign policy? He has one? Nonsense.
You may not care that his personal lawyer is conducting our foreign-policy, but that just happens to be against the law.
He does not deserve our moral contempt because he disagrees with Democrats, he deserves our moral contempt because he is in multiple ways immoral.
But, it is clear you are an always Trumper, or at least a never-Democrat.
Be honest about that at least.

[D. Engebretson]

I know that the rejoinder will be that such things have also happened at Trump rallies, but it still seems sad that we are at this point in our national politics.  Just sad. The days of real respect for anyone of any position appears to have gone.  We show respect only for those with whom we personally agree and like.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/lock-world-series-crowds-loudly-boo-donald-trump/story?id=66577201&cid=social_twitter_abcn&fbclid=IwAR3SK5qMdaCG5gle41lCN9qLxyDFVv615iW4uWMvwPf2WyA1E74UoJeVUF4

[Brian Stoffregen]

I think we need to differentiate social aid programs from socialism as a political philosophy and practice. One does not assume the other.  Socialism in its broader form assumes government ownership and control of a great deal of the societal structure.  It also assumes more power to a national government vs. local governmental systems.  Admittedly some who might decry "creeping socialism" abuse social aid programs and fail to appreciate the temporary nature of the aid. But the more conservative heartland is suspicious of governmental overreach that attempts to exert increasing control over their work, their businesses, and their places of faith.  Again, accepting some social aid such as subsidies or even social security does not automatically translate into acceptance of a socialistic structure.

My online dictionary has this under "socialism" (boldface added):


a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

• policy or practice based on the political and economic theory of socialism.

• (in Marxist theory) a transitional social state between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of Communism.

The term “socialism” has been used to describe positions as far apart as anarchism, Soviet state communism, and social democracy; however, it necessarily implies an opposition to the untrammeled workings of the economic market.The socialist parties that have arisen in most European countries from the late 19th century have generally tended toward social democracy.

The "community as a whole" doesn't have to be the government. I see farmers' co-ops as being socialism. A group of farmers becomes the "community as a whole" that makes decisions for that community. In addition, the definition doesn't say how those regulation decisions are made. In most "communities" in America parliamentary procedure is the means of approving regulations. Congregational meetings is an example of social democracy. That "community" owns and regulates the assets of the congregation by majority vote.

From another view, we do not have an "untrammeled workings of the economic market" that socialism opposes. While some might wished there were less government trammeling in our economic lives, it is necessary to curb human greed. Government (and/or unions) stepped in and created child-labor laws; minimum wage; 40-hour work weeks with overtime pay; break up of monopolies; building codes; etc. etc. It's also not just the government that imposes restrictions on free enterprise. My dad owned a franchise. He had to follow franchise rules in order to be in his business. He was not free to do whatever he wanted to to with his business.

Perhaps it is too simplified, but socialism seems to be to be when decisions are made for the good of the community (a social group - which could be a family on up to a whole nation); rather than individuals deciding what's good for me.