03-27-2020, 07:31 PM
(03-27-2020, 11:31 AM)JDG 66 Wrote:Obama has been mute on this, but I would expect him to have reacted faster and upon the best knowledge available. Obama, much unlike Trump and much like the elder Bush, trusts expertise. Such allows good results such as not having instability erupt in countries that had just undergone anti-Communist revolutions or transformations -- and whacking Osama bin Laden. All Presidents use their powers in efforts to serve their agendas, whether Dwight Eisenhower or Donald Trump.(03-18-2020, 12:10 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: That the Republican governor of Ohio cancelled the prime day of the Ohio primary, yes. MSNBC and Rachel Maddow reported this a few days ago. The three primaries reported on recently were originally scheduled as four.
If the shelter in place order is still in place in November, would Trump do same thing to keep a hold on power? Possible. He has often said he can do anything. He has ignored the two term constitutional limit in various daydreams. As far as I could tell, no big ruckus occurred in Ohio. It would likely make absolutely sure he was gone when the order is eventually canceled, but I wouldn't put it past him.
One guy's opinion. We'll see if the shelter in place thing sticks, how serious the isolation becomes. November is very far away to do much more than wonder. It is enough to start a discussion.
...I suspect that your "anything he wants" comment is based on an out-of-context statement. Trump was talking about firing prosecutors. The POTUS CAN fire anyone in the Executive branch, he's the HEAD of the executive branch. Article II, you know. Meanwhile, Obama sometimes claimed that he knew he wasn't a king, but then went ahead and acted like one. I suspect Obama would have been exploiting Wuflu for power faster than a hobo could jump on a hoagie.
Political power depends to no small extent upon credibility, and Obama protected his credibility far better than has Donald Trump.
Quote:As for primaries, they are essentially a partially taxpayer subsidized election for a private organization, i.e., a political party. A political party doesn't even have to pay attention to the results of an election, if it doesn't like the results. That's a little different from a constitutionally mandated election, isn't it?
Donald Trump is President, and liberals have accepted that reality even of they loathe the consequences. Liberals have no obligation to agree with him, adjust their values to fit his so that he can enact revolutionary and permanent changes onto American thought and institutions, do or tolerate his dirty work for him, undo 200+ years of Constitutional norms and nearly 400 years of heritage of responsible elected government (first emerging in the Massachusetts General Court soon after the settlement of the Massachusetts Bay Colony), or endorse strange ways of despotism that he has introduced.
You hypocritically demand that we liberals do for Donald Trump what we never demanded of the American Right.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.