That's why I was "anybody but Trump" during the primary. In the Ohio primary I voted for John Kasich because I thought that was the best way to deny Trump Ohio's delegates.
John Kasich would have been my choice as well. He seems to be honest, and has more integrity than the other Republican candidates. He didn't act like Trump was Satan during the primaries and then his best friend during the election campaign like Ted Cruz and Chris Christie did.
I think the long term negative consequences of a Trump presidency are nil.
I hope you're right, Bob, but I find that extremely difficult to believe. As I've said, he has already started making moves that indicate that he will follow through with some of the promises that scare me most, like tapping a climate change denier to head his transition team for the EPA, or an oil tycoon for the Secretary of the Interior.
Citing all the things that Trump could do I think is just fear mongering because I don't think any of it is going to happen.
This why I don't understand your point of view, or the one expressed by bknight. If a politician promises to do something great I'm skeptical (but hopeful) that they will actually do it. If they promise to do something terrible I assume they will find a way to make it happen. I'm not going to vote for someone that promises to do terrible things and assume that it's all just an act or that the checks and balances will prevent it.
Why would I vote for someone who puts on an act during the campaign anyway? Especially if the character he is portraying is rude and beligerant. I'm selecting a President, not an actor to play the villain in a movie.
Republicans and right wing media fear mongered for 8 years. I'm still waiting for Obama to take away everyone's guns and declare himself "President for Life". He still hasn't forced everyone to convert to Islam either.
Our system of government has checks and balances just for that purpose.
But why would you take that chance? Why let it get to the point where you have to rely on those checks and balances to save the day? It's like knowingly hiring a pyromaniac and saying "don't worry, our building has a good fire supression system". It's safer to just not hire him in the first place. The first line of defence are the voters.
If the "checks and balances" (the House, Senate, and Supreme Court) are all on Trump's side, what happens then? Besides, from what I understand, some of the things he is promising to do can be done unilaterally. The EPA was created with an executive order and can be shutdown with one. He doesn't need the approval of the House or Senate.
The stock market is not the economy.
It's a very important part though. People depend on it for their retirement. And I think it's a pretty good indicator of investor confidence in the leadership of the country.
GDP growth has been dismal. The labor force participation rate is lower now than it was when Obama took office. Mean household income is also down.
I think the President has less impact on those things. He can't force other countries to import more of your products, especially if their economy is doing worse than yours. He can't force people to work, and he can't control the wages that companies pay. He can't force companies to hire more full time employees than part time.
Many of the economic problems are the result of decisions made by CEOs, not the President. The President's influence on those kinds of decisions is limited. And since Trump is a CEO himself, I would expect him to side with other CEOs, not with their employees.
