And I'm asking because I know basically nothing about the guy but I assume he'd be better because I assume anyone would be better. You seem to know something about him so curious if you think he'd be better than Trump.
Would he be better than Trump? It depends on what you seek in Trump for the answer to that. I would venture that he would be better, but I'm happy with the two S. Ct. Justices that Trump has appointed. A second Trump term might bring another two and cement the Court the way I would like it to be for about twenty to twenty-five years, health notwithstanding. I could not trust Weld to appoint judges that I trust. McConnell has essentially been the point man on those matters for the President, and I'm happy with it. It is not, to use an old phrase, the least dangerous branch, but rather, it interprets the Constitution, a power barely surpassed in all of government aside from the power to declare war by executive fiat. Trump has done extremely satisfactory, at least as far as this voter is concerned.
As far as corruption, the RussiaGate thing turned out to be what it appeared to be all along -- a canard designed to distract and detract from the admittedly spotty (that's a mild adjective) domestic agenda of Trump.
That said, Weld would probably take certain things and run with them to my satisfaction. First, Weld would bring a sane diplomacy that emphasizes NATO and older alliances that Trump sees fit to view as up for constant negotiation. Secondly, Weld would also bring fairly liberal social policies mixed with a fiscal moderate's streak, something I support. Thirdly, he would also bring a temperament sorely lacking in the current executive. Those are three key things that Weld would excel at over President Trump. And lastly, he might have a sane immigration policy that doesn't include wild promises and walls. We all know we need regulated, streamlined immigration for both society and industry to thrive.
That said, there are problems I see with Weld even given his superiority regarding those four things. Fiscal moderates often inevitably and almost inexorably tack left on programs and taxes when push comes to shove. Is this desirable or needed? Given that our deficit seems to be in the trillion dollar range, we may need to see a tax increase and corresponding austerity when it comes to social programs, something Weld
might -- and I stress might -- be amenable to. Could he execute either of these in a political sense? That is the big question here. Secondly, the sane diplomacy he would bring cannot and should not be at the expense of American interests nor the American dime. Part of Trump's legitimate gripe with NATO, the UN, and other world organizations is that other countries expect our generosity in both our military might and our expenditures. This needs to change, too. There must be a middle ground between the haphazard and wild west diplomacy of Trump and the stately inclination to do
nothing about other countries pulling their own weight so long as we retain our allies given our hegemony. Thirdly, I haven't seen too much temperament to admire coming from the hard left in both academia and the media the past thirty years. This is possibly a case of what's good for the goose being good for the gander.
That's my two cents from a person who is a conservative yet dissents from most of the things that President Trump stands for or embodies.
