Right, now I am going to reply.
I still think he is dangerous in both roles, but as the role of President of the US, I think that is more dangerous in a wider context.
The question is of course here is if people would put him on trial and if he would be aware of these things being crimes. Trump's track record is one that typically ignores regulations and conventions as well as having to be informed regularly that he cannot do things because they are illegal. The Mueller report sets out that insubordination in the White House right now is often keeping Trump from breaking the law.
If I can recall, the ObamaCare bill had to be heavily watered down because certain aspects of your society wouldn't accept it, which could explain its flaws. Personally, I would argue what you need is a universal health care system like other countries, such as the UK with our NHS. I understand the problem is convincing certain aspects of American society that this is a good thing that works for the society as a whole, but then from the outside, I suspect many issues could be because of an ideological stance within American politics.
Our UK commentators were quite interested in the Trump family holiday btw
But have you got a Private Eye? Plus one of the front runners for the next leader of the Conservative Party (Jeremy Hunt) keeps having people mispronounce his name in a wonderful Freudian slip. Here is the megamix (NSFW, regular swearing)
Good to hear and good luck.
Yes it is a pity, I should have done that, but at the time I wasn't entirely certain why you requested it. Unfortunately the lack of moderation here means that it is rather hard to keep things on topic. However, I think you have a candidate for "typical Trump supporter"
I believe in a case like this, we could compromise that he is equitably dangerous in both positions, if only for separate reasons.
Trump as President may be able to willfully decide on the use of nuclear weaponry, however he is still bound by several International laws and codes to not use such a weapon. Just as well, the use of nuclear weapons is for all intents and purposes considered a "War Crime."
Presidents can indeed cause much damage, take Barrack Obama for this example, and more precisely ObamaCare. Upon approval of ObamaCare former president Obama enacted a Federal Mandate, or a federal requirement, a mandate that requires tax-paying citizens to own an asset or portion of property under perjury of civil criminality. This asset was insurance, and in a capitalistic society whose market structure is a bit more complicated than A+B+C, that was a very damaging move.
Referring to the earlier Oligarchical comments, this would have been the third time such a precedent would have taken place - Hillary being president, I mean, after Bill. George Bush Jr. after George Bush Sr., and Franklin Roosevelt after Theodore Roosevelt.
Thankfully it's pretty well ingrained in American culture to mock and have distaste for a crowned ruler, we have a holiday for that, "Independence Day." --- This was intended as a joke, kind of.
My energy isn't quite back up to snuff, but I did have a minor victory in court. I've caught a former co-worker lying to a judge and two police officers, so I just need to subpoena the proper information and he'll be a knight out of my way. This guy, he's the only thing stopping me from getting my former employer slapped for things like organized crime and such, but a hand-written confession of organized crime is such a beautiful thing, and he foolishly gave it to me at this first hearing. Now I'm going to torch him for slander and libel.
I also think this a shame, but to reiterate, please don't bicker. I had requested this to be a "NotD" thread in hopes that would circumvent this exact type of exchange, however I had also hoped that conversing about this subject wouldn't erupt into a matter of subjectivity over the political divisiveness. Be a Huey Freeman, not a Riley.
Nobody of the still active, not newly registered people, except maybe Cass and bibob will miss you