This is why I fear a Trump presidency less than a Clinton presidency. If we are going to be honest, the President of the United States is only as good as his advisers. I am not going to go as far as to say the president is a ceremonial figurehead, but many, if not most, presidential "decisions" come from his cabinet/ other advisers.

 

I have exponentially more confident that Trump will be able to build a stronger, more competent cabinet than Hillary would be able to. Heck, wasn't one of the emails in the leak specifically asking donors which board positions they want? I know they weren't main or vital board positions, but nonetheless this gives us an idea of how she might build her cabinet.

 

This would be the fingers crossed, sweating bullets, praying out loud "I hope he does that" best case scenario of a Trump presidency, but I don't share your faith in its likelihood. He struggled for months to put together a foreign policy team and has only managed to cobble together a hodgepodge of political opportunists and unearthed crackpots. That doesn't give me any faith he'd turn around and recruit an elite team of advisers and cabinet members or would have any desire to try. The only conceivable evidence of that is the claim by Kasich's team that Trump told him his vice-president would be in charge of foreign and domestic policy. And that's the best case scenario.

This would be the fingers crossed, sweating bullets, praying out loud "I hope he does that" best case scenario of a Trump presidency, but I don't share your faith in its likelihood. He struggled for months to put together a foreign policy team and has only managed to cobble together a hodgepodge of political opportunists and unearthed crackpots. That doesn't give me any faith he'd turn around and recruit an elite team of advisers and cabinet members or would have any desire to try. The only conceivable evidence of that is the claim by Kasich's team that Trump told him his vice-president would be in charge of foreign and domestic policy. And that's the best case scenario.

 

But you have to look at when he was doing that. That was in the midst of the primary elections, when he was running against 9 other (or however many there were) republican nominees. I wouldn't expect his counterparts to accept to be apart of his campaign, whilst campaigning against him.

 

Now that he has the nomination, I would expect that people who had previously campaigned against him, would be more willing to become apart of his cabinet.

I think he is referring to why we feel like we have to constantly be accepting immigrants all the time. If you go back and look at how the US handled immigrants during WWI and WWII, i think you would see it is very different than how we handle them today. Now, I acknowledge that we are not currently in a scenario similar to WWI or WWII, but I don't know where we picked up this idea where we have to accept immigrants from a region we are currently engaged in conflict in, especially when that conflict is defined by the use of deception and guerrilla tactics.

 

In my opinion, there is a difference between what is written on the Statue of Liberty, and accepting immigrants from a region where terrorist forces have been known to disguise themselves as immigrants to gain access.

I'll be interested to hear what he has to say.

So your main reason relies on the unlikely event that a nuclear missile is launched?

With Trump in control of our nuclear arsenal, I'm not so sure that "unlikely" is accurate.

 

Trump supporters believe there's a serious side to Trump that we're not seeing. I have seen no evidence that Trump has a "mature switch" that he can turn on. As for your argument that Trump would assemble a competent cabinet ... have you seen any evidence that this guy would actually listen to the advice of others? I haven't.

But you have to look at when he was doing that. That was in the midst of the primary elections, when he was running against 9 other (or however many there were) republican nominees. I wouldn't expect his counterparts to accept to be apart of his campaign, whilst campaigning against him.

 

Now that he has the nomination, I would expect that people who had previously campaigned against him, would be more willing to become apart of his cabinet.

Looks like people like Kaisch, Cruz and Paul have already shown that they don't feel that way.

With Trump in control of our nuclear arsenal, I'm not so sure that "unlikely" is accurate.

 

Trump supporters believe there's a serious side to Trump that we're not seeing. I have seen no evidence that Trump has a "mature switch" that he can turn on. As for your argument that Trump would assemble a competent cabinet ... have you seen any evidence that this guy would actually listen to the advice of others? I haven't.

 

I thought republicans were supposed to be the paranoid ones?

This would be the fingers crossed, sweating bullets, praying out loud "I hope he does that" best case scenario of a Trump presidency, but I don't share your faith in its likelihood. He struggled for months to put together a foreign policy team and has only managed to cobble together a hodgepodge of political opportunists and unearthed crackpots. That doesn't give me any faith he'd turn around and recruit an elite team of advisers and cabinet members or would have any desire to try. The only conceivable evidence of that is the claim by Kasich's team that Trump told him his vice-president would be in charge of foreign and domestic policy. And that's the best case scenario.

 

And what are Pence's qualifications in that area?

I thought republicans were supposed to be the paranoid ones?

 

The potential of Hillary actually losing has ramped up paranoia on both sides of the aisle.

I'm still waiting to see anyone truly defend Hillary. Seems like people are either anti-Trump or anti-Hillary. Or anti-both. Pointing out Trump's warts doesn't make a person pro-Hillary.

 

I think she has the makings of a much better President tht the alternative. But that's not anything close to a ringing endorsement.

I don't watch either convention. All both sides do is bash the other.

 

But I think the Dems bash more as expected and get away with more.

 

Also I find it so hard to listen to those liberals, they are so stupid and out of touch.

As I mentioned in the R convention thread the thing that interests me most is messaging/branding. While I haven't been able to watch a lot of the D due to schedule conflicts from the parts I did see I thought the messaging was OK at best initially. Yes, they did a great job of appealing to minorities which is extremely important in this and every future election. However, I thought they went a bit too far with the "she's a female" angle. No question it is needed but there needs to be a balance.

 

I thought the President did a great job changing the message a bit last night. It got away from she's a female and towards she's been in the room and involved in some serious decisions. Experience. I think that's a big deal in people looking for differentiation especially coming off of some comments Trump has made about NATO allies.

 

Will it be enough to overcome so many negatives? Not sure. But I think it certainly helped her cause.

I don't watch either convention. All both sides do is bash the other.

 

But I think the Dems bash more as expected and get away with more.

 

Also I find it so hard to listen to those liberals, they are so stupid and out of touch.

 

From what I've gathered the R's spent much more time bashing.

As I mentioned in the R convention thread the thing that interests me most is messaging/branding. While I haven't been able to watch a lot of the D due to schedule conflicts from the parts I did see I thought the messaging was OK at best initially. Yes, they did a great job of appealing to minorities which is extremely important in this and every future election. However, I thought they went a bit too far with the "she's a female" angle. No question it is needed but there needs to be a balance.

 

I thought the President did a great job changing the message a bit last night. It got away from she's a female and towards she's been in the room and involved in some serious decisions. Experience. I think that's a big deal in people looking for differentiation especially coming off of some comments Trump has made about NATO allies.

 

Will it be enough to overcome so many negatives? Not sure. But I think it certainly helped her cause.

 

Have you witnessed all the anti-Trump rhetoric? Just wondering how you feel it compares to the anti-Clinton rhetoric you saw at the RNC.

Conventions without criticism of the other side would be pointless.

I thought republicans were supposed to be the paranoid ones?

Trump put his junior high emotional maturity front and center in Las Vegas, when he said he wanted to give a protester a shot to his jaw. What's Don going to do when Kim Jong-un of North Korea starts rattling his cage? Is he going to say something like: "Boy, I'd like to put a nuclear warhead right in the middle of his Commie compound."?

 

First thing Trump needs to do if he wins the election is reinstitute the draft, because he's going to need a lot of 18-year-old boys -- and girls -- to go to battle for him.