Secret Trump Voters

No I see no New Deals, perhaps maybe a WPA but at least we will get something for our money. I do not see him as a social engineer. I think you have unfounded fears because you have bought into the what is being sold regarding Donald by same people who would have employed the same type of smear campaign against Ted, had he been the frontrunner.

Since 2007 Trump has given money to two Democrats.

Look this country is in deep trouble. Ted refused to make immigration his issue. Why is that? Even though it is really the number one issue facing this nation. Not that immigrants are bad, but uncontrolled immigration is a big problem. Especially when you and I are footing the bill so the politicians can court the new votes to their party, while ignoring our concerns.

Is Ted really who he has so carefully crafted himself to be? If so, explain away his hiring of a Bush brother to his campaign. Explain away his wife being a higher up within Goldman Sachs. Explain away her involvement with the CFR and her role in Building a North America. Another European Union type of arrangement where our borders effectively are erased. Our government becomes secondary to a higher government, and quite possible our money becomes one money. Explain away his willingness to throw us into a brokered convention where an insider just might come out as the nominee.

The smear campaigns are just noise. The long term damage done by the New Deal was not in any of the programs implemented by FDR, but in the precedent of the Substantial Effects interpretation of the Commerce Clause that enabled them. This has become the primary means of expansion of the federal government, and has become an open-ended grant of power to Congress, at the expense of the authority and sovereignty of the States. What Trump wants, and what he needs to have in order to do everything he's promising on his terms is the same kind of expansion of the power of the Executive Branch.

This is the "long view", and your arguments for Trump, or against Cruz suffer from the peculiar malady that seems to infect American politics - the inability to consider anything beyond the next election.

Okay I'll play FRiend. I noticed you totally ignored, or perhaps it was just flat out refusal to address any concerns I had posed regarding Ted and his wife Heidi. I will respond to your concerns, but you must promise me to respond to my concerns as well.

I'll grant you that Congress has played it's part in usurping power from the States to the Federal Government. However, the states themselves have played a consenting role in far too many times as well. The Courts have been complicit by sanctioning those power grabs. Blame lies at more than just the feet of Congress alone.

In some instances states provoked the Federal Government to seize power from the States. Segregation comes to mind. There was nothing the Federal Government could do to compel the states to dismantle the segregation they had erected. The only way top accomplish this was for the Federal Government to step in and dismantle it themselves. I personally think it was the right thing to do, because it was a pernicious and vile structure that needed to be dismantled.

You make claims that what Trump wants is more Executive power, yet you provide nothing to back up that claim. So I can't really respond to a claim that has no bearing on reality other than to say I disagree.

You also make claim that he will need to increase Executive power to deliver on his promises. Now that I can argue. He needs a mandate. That mandate will force Congress to provide him with the legislation and the funding to build a wall and triple the Border Patrol agents along the southern border. So he doesn't need to increase Executive powers at all to keep that promise. The laws are already on the books for him, so demanding enforcement of those laws do not require an increase in Executive power either.

For him to live up to his promise to repeal "Obamacare" will require legislation from Congress but he is signaling he is willing to sign that legislation. If Congress failed to provide that legislation, he would then appeal to the people to put pressure on Congress to present him with the legislation. So no new Executive power needed for that promise.

Those are the two main promises he has stated consistently through his campaign, if you have others you would like me to address I will gladly do so.

Now let's examine your last statement.

Right now border control and enforcement are extremely important, without them a "long view" is worthless. He can only suggest other things that you seem to fear him doing. It would be up to Congress to enable him to do so. That is where their responsibilities come into play. He is not the King, nor is he the dictator. Which is where we the citizens come into play, to speak out against anything he might suggest that would be counter productive to this society. Ah you say, he could use the power of the pen like Obama. The reality is any President can do that, and many past Presidents have. Again, that could be solved by a Congressional Act, but getting a President to sign that legislation would be rather difficult. The other avenue is an Amendment prohibiting it. But until either or both remedies have been used and provide the necessary change, that is the reality.

Since Presidents can only serve 8 years maximum, they can have only two ways of having a lasting impact. Supreme court Justice picks, and legislation they sign. Even Presidents we have supported have failed miserably on the Supreme Court Justice picks. Two of Reagan's Justices, Sandra Day O'Connor, and Anthony M. Kennedy were equally good and bad on decisions. Of course Kennedy came after Bork got "Borked". Antonin Scalia was an over-the-top great pick. Bush gave us John G. Roberts, absolutely horrendous in my opinion, but he did better with Samuel Alito. Bush's father gave us Clarence Thomas, another very good pick. Hopefully Donald will pick Justices that are on the more conservative side of the spectrum, but that is why the Senate is tasked with Advise & Consent responsibilities. Something they have not lived up to expectations on in too many instances, but that is the way it is. Hopefully since Republicans are in control of both Houses of Congress they will not be providing Donald with legislation that is damaging to the Republic either, but we can't even guarantee that, can we.

Now provide me the "long view" you think Ted has to have wio your vote for him, and how you think he will get the job done.

I won't make that promise. You expressed concerns earlier that I didn't support Trump because I had be prejudiced by the "smears" against him. I assure you that is not the case. I've based my concerns purely on what he has to say, not concerns about his sister and her association with Planned Parenthood, his reported associations with the Mob, his past political contributions, or any number of the "guilt by association" arguments that are floating around out there. If you can't or won't allow that to be applied equally to both sides then quit now. We're done.

If you're still with me, here is Donald Trump talking about Obama's use of executive orders and his own intent to continue in his footsteps:

"I won't refuse it. I'm going to do a lot of things," Trump said when asked if he would use executive orders in an interview Sunday on NBC"s "Meet the Press."

“I mean, he’s led the way, to be honest with you,” he added, referring to Obama.

The Republican primary front-runner said his executive orders, unlike the president’s, will be for the “right things.”

“But I’m going to use them much better and they’re going to serve a much better purpose than he’s done,” he said.

And here is Donald talking about starting to return federal land to state control:

Trump cautioned, however, that states would be unpredictable in maintaining the designated lands.

"I mean, are they going to sell if they get into a little bit of trouble?" Trump asked. "I don't think it's something that should be sold."

He added: "We have to be great stewards of this land. This is magnificent land. And we have to be great stewards of this land."

From a constitutionalist perspective, Trump is dead nuts wrong on both of these issues, and likely will continue to be on any domestic policy decision that would result in the continued erosion of the authority of the states, and the concentration of power and control in the legislative and executive branches of the federal government.

Interesting article written by Richard V. Allen (President Reagan's first national security advisor) on how Bush was chosen at the 11th hour after negotiations with Ford, who had insisted on a power-sharing arrangement with Reagan, fell through.

Glad the subject arose here, since I was curious myself and just too lazy to research it before.

There are many plausible versions of how and why Reagan chose George Bush as his running mate, but most are wide of the mark. One conventional view is that Reagan, about to be nominated, recognized that he ''needed a moderate'' like Bush to balance the ticket; another version has it that Reagan, supposedly unschooled in foreign affairs, saw the wisdom of naming someone with extensive experience in the field to offset his own shortcomings. Yet another explanation holds that Reagan, a Californian, needed ''geographic balance'' and got that in Bush, with his Connecticut and Texas lineage.

These explanations are wrong. George Bush was picked at the very last moment and largely by a combination of chance and some behind-the-scenes maneuvering. Many Reagan advisers have claimed a deal was never close. The post-convention media commentary has largely reflected this view. In fact, Meese and Deaver have gone so far as to declare that Bush was their first choice all along. I take exception to their account. I saw a very different story unfold, and saw it from a privileged vantage point. From the moment I walked into that suite until the moment Bush was finally selected, I was the only person to remain in Reagan's presence throughout the adventure. With detailed notes to back up my memory, this is what I saw at the dawn of the Reagan Revolution on that long night in Detroit.

George Herbert Walker Bush - The Accidental Vice-President

I won't make that promise.

Of course you won't, because obviously you cannot defend your man, even to yourself. Any attempt to do so might just cause you to reexamine Ted. BTW, these are not rumors regarding Ted and Heidi, they are facts. Rumors can be ignored, and rightly should be, but you refuse to acknowledge facts and respond on those.

Executive Orders have been issued by every President. of the United States. So much for your knowledge of the Constitution. Reagan issued 381 himself.

You rail against Trump as to his possibility of his eroding States authority and bringing it under the authority of the Federal Government. To support this theoretical possibility, you choose to use his promise to return Federal lands back to the States. Not sure I understand the logic of that. I would even think you would rejoice that stated action. Perhaps it was the fact that he raised concerns about how the States would react when they felt an economic pinch. I see absolutely nothing that a constitutionalist, or anybody else, should object to. With either his stated commitment to return lands to the States as they should, or his expressions of concern. Both seem legitimate to me.

Bottom line, you have no valid arguments in saying Trump would be an awful President. Only perceptions of him created by many false smears leveled against him, that you have bought into, hook, line & sinker.

Now, muster the courage to at least attempt to defend your man against the facts, not rumors, that are present.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.