It's not so bad, the system is setup so that sweeping change is very difficult. The difference between an active president and an inactive president is small.

It's also convenient his campaign manager worked for pro-Putin forces.

You overestimate the President's ability to change existing programs. He can veto new funding, but probably can't change existing structures too much.

The president can directly affect military engagements.

I also think you greatly overestimate what the damage would be from the welfare cuts (that he probably doesn't have power over). Millions?

I wonder if the press actually rewrites the "Hillary reintroduces herself" each quarter or just slaps a new date on top and lets it fly. http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/25/politi...ic-convention/

the president needs congressional approval to go to war, just the same as he needs it for welfare reform, basically. with a republican congress to back him, GJ and trump both could do serious damage.

i dont think you quite have a real understanding of just how many americans depend on the govt to provide food, housing, medical care, etc in a major way and just how ****ed they would be without it. you can also expect to see a sharp rise in the infant mortality rate as they limit the poors' access to hospitals and pre-natal care in particular

so yes, millions.

You're underestimating how much damage a megalomaniacal would-be tyrant could do if he gets elected by a majority of the electorate and has the support of a GOP house and senate.

You're essentially arguing that the history of this campaign dictates that TRUMP will never drop in support, that there's no reason any of his bumps should ever be temporary, and I can't really say anything against that except that it's obviously insane.

A lot of would-be dictators were democratically elected.

The Trump/Putin comparisons are very valid. And honestly, the US and Russia might be more alike then we'd want to admit.

I fail to see how blaming Putin without any hard evidence is a good diplomatic play.

Its even leaking out within the Clinton campaign that they're only using Putin as damage control to try and shift the media narrative. Using Putin as "fearmongering" tactic is something I thought only Republicans would do.

It reeks of desperation and is quite pathetic.

Not sure, but I don't think the President needs any approval to remove troops from foreign engagements.

Not sure why Trump gets brought up here. We were talking about how you can care about others' wellbeing and vote for GJ.

Yes, it is scary how much popular support dictators have among their own people.

I'm sorry what limits to the access of prenatal care and delivery do you think have ever existed? Your millions dead in the streets line is idiotic. You mean millions with higher than normal BP and poor glucose control and chronic back pain.

There are a lot of idiots out there that think the Constitution tyranny proofs America, see: awvaals posts. It doesn't. Even the founders didn't believe such ridiculousness. Tyrants don't follow rules. The same Senate and House members kissing the ring aren't going to impeach Trump for overstepping executive power. This is pure fantasy. The Republic will be dead, flat out.

Lol. You don't have to be such a homer that it makes you say such dumb things.

The US has engaged in over 125 military actions without congressional approval.

There were 16000 "military advisors" in Vietnam before the gulf of Tonkin resolution.

We dropped the equivalent of more than 30 atomic bombs on Cambodia and Laos without approval.

Hundreds of thousands were killed in central America with direct involvement and maybe millions in Indonesia/East Timor with aid.

We had a brutal protracted unauthorized war in the Philippines.

And congressional support for a war is often a rubber stamp. Hillary or Trump will absolutely get any war they want on the slightest of pretexts.

Cutting social services on the other hand absolutely would face opposition in congress and Gary Johnson, without anyone in congress supporting him out of party loyalty, would find passing unpopular legislation impossible.

There's plenty of evidence that Russia hacked the DNC.

are you high? you're the one who brought up trump in your little projection of most deaths likely to be caused by each of the 3 candidates, whilst claiming that gary johnson would cause the least. i thought i did a pretty neat and tidy job of explaining why you're likely wrong about that.

Barriers certainly exist and explain the higher infant mortality rates as well as incidence of premature infants born among poorer people. Also people with higher BP and poor glucose control have more complications, meaning higher costs to the healthcare system, and die earlier. So no, millions won't be dead in the streets, but people DO die as a result of regressive healthcare policies, like Republican governors refusing to expand Medicaid at no cost to themselves.

you gonna take over the job of pretending not to be a republican and semantikesing me now that our hero has been banished?

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/executive_power

what makes you think that welfare-cutting legislation would be unpopular if gary johnson somehow was elected to the presidency?

Trump World Order does seem to be alignment with Russia and conflict with China.

From an evil axis point of view, that's a big step to dominating oil and natural gas supplies.

We'll be good if Trump wins--we'll all be taking InfoWars brand antibiotics with added Androsteel compounds. Hell, people might not even die anymore without the chemtrails.

A rigged democracy is a dictatorship in sheeps clothing.

Hillary as the wolf. Remember Hillary barking, very ominous.

Agree. The reason Bernie isn't the nominee to begin with is because the BernieBros didn't bother to show up to the polls.

The reason Bernie isn't the nominee is because there aren't a ton of Bernie fans. He actually did well in low turnout, high barrier caucuses.

Are you quoting the war powers act that was clearly broken, without consequences, in Libya?

And you're denying there have been "illegal wars"? If so, try putting your bong down and learning something before you post. And of course, getting congressional approval for something like invading Iran, which by the war powers act isn't even required for 60 days after it starts, would be virtually automatic.

It's not semantikesing or being a Republican to point out that the content of your post was idiotic.

There is no world where GJ will win, so that's too speculative, but it's quite common in the real world for Presidents to not be able to get legislation they want on domestic issues.

Now, I don't expect Hillary to start a war and she's less likely than Trump imo, and GJ won't win. There was a better alternative, but that ship has sailed.

is this a cute way of referring to diabetes, which routinely causes amputations and death if not treated properly?

idk if you've ever been to the south, but it's a problem, to say the least.

GJ proposes to cut federal govt spending by over 40% while entirely removing income tax and capital gains tax. considering republicans spent the better part of the last 6 years trying to shut down the government over obamacare, and they still control congress...you really think that programs like medicaid and CHIP and care providers like planned parenthood will somehow be insulated from cuts?