Surprising article in the Atlanta Journal Constitution today!

[napi21]

If Donald Trump manages to win the election, he would have a mandate. That mandate would not be specific or limited in nature; it would be expansive. Trump could legitimately claim authority from the voters to do just about anything that he damn well wants to do.

Now, that’s not what apologists and sophists in Washington would have you believe. To reassure nervous voters, his fellow Republicans talk soberly of the checks and balances that were carefully written into the Constitution, about the constraints imposed by the separation of powers. Yet the necessity of even saying such things tells you that something different is afoot — members of Congress don’t typically go around promising constraints on a potential president of their own party.

“What protects us in this country against big mistakes being made is the structure, the Constitution, the institutions,” as Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell put it. “No matter how unusual a personality may be who gets elected to office, there are constraints in this country. You don’t get to do anything you want to.” House Speaker Paul Ryan takes a similar tact, continuing to act as if the House, not a President Trump, would take the lead in setting policy through its “A Better Way” agenda, even though that agenda contradicts Trump in important ways. In addition, Ryan promises, “I would sue any president that exceeds his or her powers.”

But if we look at it honestly, such talk isn’t plausible. Ryan and McConnell do not seem to comprehend that Trump’s campaign is a revolt against the very idea of checks and balances. His voters are frustrated that Washington hasn’t been able to give them what they want, and if he wins in November, neither he nor they are going to be in a mood to be told no. What they want, they will demand, and what they demand they will get, at least initially.

http://jaybookman.blog.myajc.com/2016/09/19/this-is-what-a-trump-presidency-would-look-like/?ecmp=newspaper_email##



The article at the link is directly from the AJC site. I don't know if you will be able to read it. I enetred my subscription PW to read it.

It's quite astonishing to me that here in RED Ga. the major newspaper is actually telling people how bad the consequences of a Trump presidency would be. I HOPE the AJC knows more than I do about the voters of Ga. and they can impact their vote.

[Wellstone ruled]

1. Someone is worried.

[redstateblues]

2. Atlanta is very liberal. The rest is red as the red clay.

[brer cat]

4. There are many other blue spots in GA;

the best known is the area around UGA. A lot of smaller cities and rural counties have large AA populations and are consistently democratic voters. Obama got 47% (2008) & 45% (2012) of the state-wide vote, so GA turning blue isn't just a pipe dream.

[GoDawgs]

6. Half of Georgia's Democratic congressional delegation are from districts outside Atlanta

[brer cat]

3. Jay Bookman,

someone I like and respect, is their "fair and balanced" liberal side of the opinions, and he isn't the voice of the paper. He and Mike Luckovich keep it entertaining. However, I would be very surprised if they don't come out and endorse Hillary. The original Atlanta Constitution was a very liberal paper under Ralph McGill in the 1950s-60s.

[Wounded Bear]

5. Doesn't much matter....

They will claim a mandate, whatever the actual result.