# Post-Trump reforms you'd like to see **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 23, 2018, 9:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/post-trump-reforms-youd-like-to-see/814703 "2018-05-23T21:30:21Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 11\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![jsc1953](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/5daacb/32.png) [@jsc1953](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jsc1953)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2018, 1:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/post-trump-reforms-youd-like-to-see/814703/141 "2018-06-08T13:26:17Z")
I have to agree – there’s nothing wrong with an official POTUS Twitter feed. But in Trump’s case, it’s the message, not the medium. ---
**Author:** ![Egnu\_Cledge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/34f0e0/32.png) [@Egnu\_Cledge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Egnu_Cledge)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2018, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/post-trump-reforms-youd-like-to-see/814703/142 "2018-06-09T18:11:14Z")
> [@Jasmine](#): > > Bill Maher put it well. He pointed out that many more specifics are needed in terms of what a president can and cannot do. In the past, the “you just don’t do that” principle (tradition/decency/whatever) “controlled” the power of a president, but Trump is the first guy in the White House who will literally do ANYTHING to exercise his power and control everything around him. For example, he talks about things like “pardoning himself” (dictator) and being immune from an Obstruction of Justice charge because, as president, he supposedly is in charge of everything. > > I think it is time for the Constitution to go into far more detail in outlining and defining Presidential power and its limits. Trump has graphically shown that a president with the mentality of a dictator is a very dangerous thing. > [@Lemur866](#): > > The real answer is for the voters to not elect an incompetent corrupt small-fingered vulgarian to the office of the fucking Presidency. > > If the voters can’t be trusted not to do that, then a long list of formal rules won’t help a thing, because those rules will just be ignored. I agree that we have a major problem with the electorate (and the elected) not caring about following the rules, but since a lot of these rules are “unofficial” or not very well defined, I think making them a lot more specific with actual consequences would be very helpful. Take the issue of emoluments. There seems to be enough wiggle room in what qualifies that Trump has been able to ignore the usual practice of putting his business and assets into a blind trust, and is rather obviously using his public office to enrich his personal fortune. If we don’t want to encourage grifting and corruption, then we could simply write a law saying that the president is required to divest himself of any business holdings, or place them into a blind trust (an _actual_ blind trust that is also off limits to his family). Failure to do so would incur an automatic penalty, either the loss of those holdings, or some independent committee is given authority over them for the term of the presidency. Make all the other traditional “norms” explicit laws as well, with automatic penalties for each individual transgression. Then add in a three-strikes provision. If a president violates any three of these requirements for holding the office, he or she is automatically impeached. ---
**Author:** ![Lorne\_Armstrong](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@Lorne\_Armstrong](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lorne_Armstrong)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2018, 9:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/post-trump-reforms-youd-like-to-see/814703/143 "2018-06-11T09:29:04Z")
> [@Bullitt](#): > > Excuse me? You are way out of line. > > It’s funny how people accuse Trump supporters of evil things, and yet many anti-Trump folks behave uncivilly like that. It’s funny how the Left thinks they are so tolerant and morally superior. ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2018, 10:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/post-trump-reforms-youd-like-to-see/814703/144 "2018-06-11T10:18:23Z")
> [@Lorne\_Armstrong](#): > > It’s funny how the Left thinks they are so tolerant and morally superior. It’s funny how the right consistently pushes to limit LGBT rights, and how the current republican administration is separating asylum-seeking families at the border. Wait, no, that’s not funny. That’s not even a little bit funny. ---
**Author:** ![Lorne\_Armstrong](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@Lorne\_Armstrong](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lorne_Armstrong)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2018, 9:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/post-trump-reforms-youd-like-to-see/814703/145 "2018-06-13T09:47:16Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > It’s funny how the right consistently pushes to limit LGBT rights, and how the current republican administration is separating asylum-seeking families at the border. > > Wait, no, that’s not funny. That’s not even a little bit funny. But the Left believe they are so tolerant and accepting, and that they are above holding bigoted views. Yet anyone who disagrees with them is instantly labeled. ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2018, 9:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/post-trump-reforms-youd-like-to-see/814703/146 "2018-06-13T09:53:42Z")
> [@Lorne\_Armstrong](#): > > But the Left believe they are so tolerant and accepting, and that they are above holding bigoted views. Yet anyone who disagrees with them is instantly labeled. Wow, your language is fucking _loaded_. Let’s unpack this, shall we? “But (some people on) the left believe they are tolerant and accepting, and (some people who may or may not be the same people) think they can’t hold bigoted views. Yet anyone who disagrees with them (disagreement here is unspecified; it could mean anything from “voted for Trump” to “supported restricting gay rights” to “shouted transphobic slurs” to basically whatever the fuck else you’re talking about) is instantly labeled (by some vocal group of people which may or may not be the same as either of the previous two groups of people)” So basically, it’s so impossibly broad and vague that it’s impossible to tell what you’re actually talking about, yet the way it is phrased, it is trivially wrong; if you disagree with me on whether vanilla is the best flavor of ice cream I guarantee I will accept your opinion without problems. It’s just when we get to things like “are transwomen actually women” - y’know, shit that’s actually bigoted drivel - that the labels start coming out. ---
**Author:** ![jsc1953](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/5daacb/32.png) [@jsc1953](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jsc1953)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2018, 1:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/post-trump-reforms-youd-like-to-see/814703/147 "2018-06-13T13:49:07Z")
Don’t feed the troll, who’s just parroting the RW/Fox talking point. Any time a liberal points out bigotry and hate speech, out comes the “wow, the left is all about tolerance and free speech, except for conservatives.” ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2018, 3:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/post-trump-reforms-youd-like-to-see/814703/148 "2018-06-13T15:56:41Z")
> [@jsc1953](#): > > Don’t feed the troll, who’s just parroting the RW/Fox talking point. Any time a liberal points out bigotry and hate speech, out comes the “wow, the left is all about tolerance and free speech, except for conservatives.” This is a warning for accusing another poster of being a troll. This is not permitted in this forum. If you wish, the BBQ Pit is right around the corner. [/moderating] ---
**Author:** ![jsc1953](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/5daacb/32.png) [@jsc1953](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jsc1953)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2018, 5:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/post-trump-reforms-youd-like-to-see/814703/149 "2018-06-13T17:16:15Z")
My apologies – I forgot where I was. ---
**Author:** ![I\_can\_t\_think\_of\_a\_name](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/ed8c4c/32.png) [@I\_can\_t\_think\_of\_a\_name](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/I_can_t_think_of_a_name)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2018, 3:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/post-trump-reforms-youd-like-to-see/814703/150 "2018-06-14T03:14:41Z")
> [@Kobal2](#): > > The problem with that is, it seems less and less feasible all the time. I don’t know whether it’s because partisanship is on the rise, or gerrymandering, or voter turnout or wedge issues doing the wedging real good but fewer and fewer people in your great nation have a meaningful voice in determining the outcome of presidential elections. > > There didn’t _use_ to be red states and blue states. When Nixon lost in 1960, 20 states came within a 5 point margin, representing a good 75% of the electoral college. People had to campaign and message in every corner of the US back then. In 2012 Obama won with 4 states coming within that 5% margin. When Trump got elected, 4 states were actual close (less than 1%) races. Four. 12 within that 5 point margin. And I think we can agree that Trump is a slightly more, ah, polarizing completely insane figure compared to JFK, or Obama. > > In the other 38 States, people on the wrong side of the established split may as well stay home on election day because results have been the same for ever, come hell or high water. To be fair, minority voters in those places still have a voice when it comes to gubernatorial and congressional votes. But what they can’t do is meaningfully react to whatever the White House is cooking. Some form of proportional representation seems like a good idea to me, although the devil is in the details. First past the post in a system with effectively only two parties is a bad idea even when the parrisanship isn’t so extreme that one side is routinely calling the other “evil”, “deplorable” and suchlike. I think a hung parliament is generally the best approach. I don’t want any political party to command a majority. I want them to have to debate and compromise and find common ground. Maybe to the extent of not having any official political parties at all, with everyone running as an independent. ---
**Author:** ![Horatius](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/horatius/32/3572_2.png) [@Horatius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Horatius)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2018, 2:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/post-trump-reforms-youd-like-to-see/814703/151 "2018-06-14T14:12:25Z")
> [@Egnu\_Cledge](#): > > If we don’t want to encourage grifting and corruption, then we could simply write a law saying that the president is required to divest himself of any business holdings, or place them into a blind trust (an _actual_ blind trust that is also off limits to his family). Failure to do so would incur an automatic penalty, either the loss of those holdings, or some independent committee is given authority over them for the term of the presidency. The problem is, even a true blind trust wouldn’t be able to stop Trump from grifting, because his connection to his companies is too well known. If I wanted to bribe Obama by “investing” in a company he owns, I’m out of luck, because I have no idea what those companies are. But everyone knows that Trump is the owner of just about everything with the Trump name on it. Just open a Trump hotel in your town, and you know that the profits are going to Trump, even if indirectly, and he knows it too. The only thing that could prevent that is a complete divestiture of his holdings, and all the holdings of his family. You just might be able to justify a law that makes the President sell off his personal holdings, but would the courts accept that everyone else in the family must do the same, just because their father/brother/uncle/son decided to run for office? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/post-trump-reforms-youd-like-to-see/814703.md?page=7)