[LtdGovt]

If the Club for Growth prefers bad trade deals I won't take them seriously.

There is no such thing as a bad trade deal, economists would say.

Really, if you prefer Giuliani, you should change the screen name, because you prefer a police state to an empowered citizenry.

Rudy is one of the candidates I like. And a president does not have the authority to unilaterally impose a police state.

[Carry_Okie]

There is no such thing as a bad trade deal, economists would say.

Economists, as a group, are ignorant of socialized risk.

Rudy is one of the candidates I like. And a president does not have the authority to unilaterally impose a police state.

The hell he doesn't. I suggest you read USC Title 10, Section 333:

The President, by using the militia or the armed forces, or both, or by any other means, shall take such measures as he considers necessary to suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy, if it—

(1) so hinders the execution of the laws of that State, and of the United States within the State, that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law, and the constituted authorities of that State are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection; or

(2) opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.

In any situation covered by clause (1), the State shall be considered to have denied the equal protection of the laws secured by the Constitution.

The language of this section is so broad and places so much interpretive discretion in the hands of the President, that to allow a naked gun-grabber to hold that post with the excuse of terrorism is totally unacceptable.

Got it?