[quote]The citizens who are putting their agendas above the welfare of others.. Are the politicians who are currently in office. Clinton included. [b][u]Which is why I said our current federal govt is a broken system. And also why I think electing someone from outside the system, regardless of how much of a reckless, narcissistic prick he is, is the first step toward getting some positive change.[/u][/b] Also, the United States is not a democracy and never has been. Which is somewhat part of the issue, as a rift has formed between the people and our elected officials.[/quote] This so wrong on so many levels, it's extremely dangerous to think like this.

Explain please.. Which part of my thinking? Thinking that our system is broken? Or electing someone who will remind the people of how -blam!-ed up our system is? (and motivate them to change it)

Which part? The fact that you think the system being "broken" is a greater evil than handing one of the most powerful political offices in the world to someone without the termperment to use that power responsibly. That is how Germany got saddled with Hitler. The German Aristocracy by and large KNEW that he was a sick -blam!-, but considered him to be less of a threat (to them) than Communism. So they helped broker the deal that installed him as Chancellor, figuring they could control him once he had power. Not only could they not control him. He first smashed up what was left of Germany's democracy. Smashed up most of Europe...and then wound up smashing up Germany and leaving it a divided nation (half of which was under Communist rule) for 50 years. Deals with the Devil, NEVER end well. In the end, you never get what it is you really want.....and you usually wind up CREATING very thing you were looking to avoid when you made the deal.

I'm not really sure you understand how the office of the president works. Or how the little power the president has. Or the differences in the American people of 2016 and the German people of the 1930s. Or how much power the people have. And the reason you're so afraid of a man like Trump being elected, is because you have so little faith in our system of government. Also, you're talking to me, rather condescendingly I might add, as though I want Trump elected president. [b][i]I do not want that[/i][/b]. Trump is an absolute retard. But Clinton has already proven that her policies and methods don't work. You keep trying to compare Trump to Hitler. [b][i]THEY ARE NOTHING ALIKE[/i][/b]. It's hilariously absurd of you to think that a man like Trump could or would in any way end up doing to the modern United States what hit did to 30s and 40s Germany. It's also kind of insulting to me that you have such little faith in our people or the armed forces. Do you think the people would just blindly follow a psychotic dictator? That's the entire purpose of the 2nd Amendment! It was designed to prevent the government from becoming an overpowered dictatorship. Which is also why the 2nd Amendment reads: The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. And quite honestly, reading you comments and opinions, you sound very educated. But you also sound like a coward. You sound like the kind of person that thinks we don't need guns because we can call the cops, and we don't need fire extinguishers because we can call the fire department. The fact that you're so scared to elect a man like Trump, because you fear some imagined, potential dictatorial power trip, is the really scary part. That you'd rather have a lying, information leaking, two-faced, money grubbing bureaucrat who has compromised our security, and who's poor job performance and terrible, hesitant decision making has led to the deaths of American citizens, rather than a guy who's too stupid not to get impeached and get a reasonable individual put in place, is really -blam!-ing scary. Our system is broken. It's why we have a greater national deficit than any other time in US history. It's why people think that the government is some omnipotent, omniscient power. It's also why our politicians and elected officials do whatever the hell they want, and all we can do is choose the lesser of evils. They've very cleverly helped the people forget that, as a democratic republic, [b][i]they work for us[/i][/b]. And all of that is the reason we're in the mess that we're in. Yes, our system is -blam!-ing broken.

I understand that you have a pronoun problem.....because I understand quite well what I'm talking about. (Never assume you know who you are talking to on the Internet, or what you THINK they know. Because 90% of the time you are going to be wrong.) 1. The President runs the EXECUTIVE branch of the government...and because of Seperation of Powers...there is very little that Congress and The Supreme Court (Legislative and Judicial Branches) can do to limit that authority. Congress provides Oversight...and has the ability to cut off funding. The SCOTUS....has SOME authority to call the Executive to heel when it feels the Constituion ahs been violated. But the when that can be invoked...and the Judicial branch's ability to ENFORCE its will is MURKY..and never been tested. In fact the ability of the Congress to remove a President from office via Impeachement has never really been tested. Johnson and Clinton were acquitted. Nixon resigned to avoid being humiliated. 2. Separation of powers ONLY works if the people running the government put tribal and partisan agendas aside. In 1974, the GOP did that. They reached across the aisle, joined with Democrats to push an out-of-control President out of office. But today's GOP is a group that puts partisanship and having control of the country and the government above all other concerns. Not only did the Republican Congress FAIL in its responsibility to oversee the Bush (44) Administration...they were little more than a rubber stamp. 3. If Separation of Powers is lost to partisanship and win-at-all-costs authoritarian politics.....then ALL bets are off. The Presidency now has the potential to become disproportionately powerful. In fact the entire governing philosophy of the Bush years was BUILT around the notion of the President being what many considered Unconsittionally powerful. Google "The Unitary Executive". Power once taken, is almost never given back. Other constitutional protections now come into jeopardy....and the reach and scope of the Executive functions of Governent------FBI, CIA, NSA, Justice Department, IRS, the Miltiary, just to name a few-----now become the potential sources of great mischief..... ...and even possible oppression. [i]Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty; power is ever stealing from the many to the few. The manna of popular liberty must be gathered each day or it is rotten. The living sap of today outgrows the dead rind of yesterday. The hand entrusted with power becomes, either form human depravity or esprit de corps, the necessary enemy of the people. Only by continued oversight can the democrat in office be prevented from hardening into a despot; only by unintermitted agitation can a people be sufficiently awake to principle not to let liberty be smothered in material prosperity.” [/i] IOW. The arrogant assumption that you could never LOSE your democracy IS THE FIRST STEP TO LOSING IT. Because it creates the environment that allows those power-hungry forces that exist in every society to slowly tear down and undermine the very structures that limit their power, and protects freedom. It CAN happen here.

The only reason it would happen here, is because sheep like you with more brains that balls, would just blindly do what you're told. Never served in the military did you? Honestly, from the way you talk about these issues, I know you know more than I do about it. I never assumed you didn't know these things. But you seem to put so much into the way our system of government works. Yes, I know there is a separation of offices in the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government. But these branches would have very little power if the people chose to put our collective foot down. If one gained more power than the other two and scales tipped and fire rained from the sky as the Antichrist rose to power, the American people can just say no. There are nowhere near enough police and/or military power to stop the people. And I can tell you that, in the event of some kind of unjust or unconstitutional order, the military wouldn't do much for the government. [spoiler]How dare you point out my pronoun problem? I'm offended..[/spoiler]

Disagree. ...and the United States is a onstitutional democracy that functions as a modern representative democracy. Just like the UK is a constitutional monarchy that functions as a parliamentary democracy.

What do you disagree with?

That electing an outsider---with little regard or consideration for WHO that outsider is and what they stand for----is an improvement over a broken system. Hitler----once again----was an "outsider'. Sometimes the Devil you Know truly IS better than the Devil you don't.

So what you're saying is you have no faith in our system of government...

A system is only as good as people's dedication to the principles that led to its creation. Which is why the notion of "Oh it can't happen here" is a dangerous indulgence. Is it much less LIKELY to happen here than other places? Yep. Its it IMPOSSIBLE that the US could give away its democracy? No. We've already given it away partially through apathy and a willingness to sell our elections to the highest-bidder via our asinine campaign finance laws...and a SCOTUS that stupidly equated money with "speech" with no regard for the level of corruption that could lead to.

When you say "the notion of 'oh it can't happen here' is a dangerous indulgence", what are you referring to?

"It Can Happen Here" is the title of a novel written by Sinclair Lewis about life in a fascist United States. It where the quote, "When fascism comes to America, it will wrap itself in the Flag and be carrying a Cross" is from. The dangerous indulgence is to think that we could never give away our democracy. Because there are very much elements in this society who see the world in authoritarian terms and are comfortable giving control to a "strong leader" ( ironically the same terms the typical German used to refer to Hitler). Or being that authoritarian leader themselves. So there are elements who would be more than happy to take away our democracy if we get careless with it or put partisan and other tribal agendas ahead of its preservation.

I understand all that. What I'm asking is where is that coming from? How is that linked to our current presidential predicament?

The nexus between Trump's narcissism and the authoritarian elements on the Right that Trump shamelessly courted to win the primary. He's flirting with a group of people who want America run THEIR WAY, and don't care what they have to do to achieve that end. So a very dangerous game is being played by someone who lacks the character or the temperment to understand and respect that danger.

So what is the danger you see from Trump being elected?

Actually you ought to reflect that question to yourself yet ask, "What aren't the dangers........"?

The same question can be asked when considering Clinton. Also, I am by no means suggesting that I want Trump to be president. I just do not want Clinton in office.

Truth be told neither do I, but I'd rather her than him...ANYDAY.

I don't want either one of them in office. But I'd rather Trump because he's not smart enough to avoid impeachment. Clinton is.

You know that is a rather silly intellectual reason for voting who the president is, no offense.

Yes, I realize that my reasoning is ridiculous. But such are the times we live in. IMO anyway. Our country is in a bad way and neither of our current presidential candidates are going to make things any better. If Trump gets elected well probably get nuked by Canada because he can't keep his fat mouth shut. If Clinton gets elected we'll probably end up nuking ourselves because of some kind of internal crisis.