Solution is of course a single strong man who will not be corrupted by power but a paragon of virtue and beyond reproach. I am most happy that our founding fathers did not believe that way instead set up a system of distributed powers that would be balanced against each other but I’m quite sure that everyone here who supports the strong man knows far better than Adams or Jefferson or Franklin or Madison.
A “disclaimer” first: I am leaning toward but not “committed” to Trump, and have Cruz as my #2, though Cruz’ campaign is weakening that latter, with me.
You are making it an either-or. Not to mention putting words in my mouth. Can you imagine the US going into WW2 with an Obama as President, and the current crop of (mostly) useless-or-worse dolts in Congress? We’d probably all be speaking German or Japanese, today. (No knock against Germans in general, as I am of partially German background myself.)
The situation today is much different, but just as dangerous as it was in Dec., 1941. Electing a strong President with a conservative bent and the will to fight the Establishment is a must. I wish we had another Reagan, or a conservative version of FDR, but we don’t, so we’ll probably have to settle for a strong-willed but admittedly erratic guy who at least is not controlled by his donors. The checks and balances you rightfully quote are still in place, not that I have much faith in Congress, but if things get too far out of hand, we boot the new Pres. out in 2020.
Now, if you think Trump would be a Putin or worse, then you are entitled to that opinion, but most of us here on FR just don’t see it that way, and none of us would support anyone who seriously appeared to be such.
IMO, the bigger threat is that even an independent (from the donors) & strong President cannot defeat the Establishment / Bureaucracy. Virtually no one is talking about what’s going on in the 2016 Congressional and lower races, which is a shame, and a potential huge problem.
Is there a risk that a strong President advocating a break from our present path would go awry? Yes. But, the thing is, it’s a lot lower risk to the country than continuing on more or less as we are.
One last thing: The former risk would be a lot easier for me to evaluate if somebody would actually ask Trump substantive questions.
I’m likely to be offline for a day or 2, so, I’ll have to leave it at that. Thanks for the civil discussion.