The 2016 US Election (Part I)

[Borgholio]

I honestly wonder if this time around, the Republican Party will accept an electoral defeat without major violence.

Nah.

If they lose this time, there can be no doubt that it's because of the evil liberal conspiracy and it must be uprooted from our society using any means necessary.

[The Romulan Republic]

Yeah, its the "...using any means necessary." that worries me. I'm not suggesting that they'd use violence against themselves, so much as against their victorious opponents.

[Simon_Jester]

Terrorism by isolated loonies (a la the Oklahoma City bombing) is more likely than organized violence by a wing of the party.

The Republicans, no matter HOW crazy Trump and the Trumpoids get, aren't like the Nazis, because the Nazis weren't an establishment party. The Republicans are- even the Tea wing is, because they are in large part funded by a relatively small number of billionaires. And the various wings of the party are too tightly interconnected for a radical wing to easily form and spin off from the rest of the party.

[Gandalf]

Yeah, its the "...using any means necessary." that worries me. I'm not suggesting that they'd use violence against themselves, so much as against their victorious opponents.

Angry conservatives have been threatening violence for a while. It's just how they deal with things, whether it's freed slaves or the existence of the IRS.

For me, the more concerning aspect is when the police don't step in against such threats, but that's another issue entirely.

[The Romulan Republic]

I'm not sure why you'd bring up slavery as an example of why not to be concerned with this sort of thing. Seeing as the slavery dispute ended with several hundred thousand dead Americans. Now, I'm not saying things will get that bad (God forbid). It just seems an odd example to use for the point you seem to be trying to make.

And police in a southern state are apparently willing to turn a blind eye to assaults on Black Lives Matter protesters? Who would have thought it?

Probably a lot of the police down their are hard core racist conservatives who think Trump and his thugs have the right ideas.

[Gandalf]

I was talking in the sense of the modern people who think the Confederacy and its institutions were a good thing, and who like to threaten violence when things don't go their way.

[The Romulan Republic]

Okay, that makes a bit more sense.

[Crossroads Inc.]

So Trump has done it again!!!
He has had yet another "omg this will be the end of Trump for sure!!!" Moments...

Basically he swears that at 9/11 he saw "THOUSANDS" of Muslims dancing in the streets of New Jersey!
A lie so blantantly false, so idiotically stupid that this time.. THIS TIME his supporters must surely see what an idiot he is! Except...

Except now Trumpers are swearing "omg I also totally saw TONS of Muslims celebrating! Omg me too! Like there was a while parade down town as it was happening!!!"

Yeah ... just read the comments

Donald Trump claims that "thousands" of people in New Jersey were "cheering" amid the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on US soil.
In an interview on ABC's "This Week" on Sunday, Trump doubled down on his assertion that he saw people in New Jersey — where the real-estate mogul claims there are "large Arab populations" — cheering as the World Trade Center came down.

"There were people that were cheering on the other side of New Jersey, where you have large Arab populations. They were cheering as the World Trade Center came down," Trump said on Sunday. "I know it might be not politically correct for you to talk about it, but there were people cheering as that building came down — as those buildings came down. And that tells you something. It was well-covered at the time."

Trump first made the claim at a Birmingham, Alabama, rally on Saturday.

"I watched when the World Trade Center came tumbling down, and I watched in Jersey City, New Jersey, where thousands and thousands of people were cheering as that building was coming down,” he said.

As The New York Times reported, it's unclear to what Trump was referring. Images were broadcast of cheering in Middle Eastern countries, but local officials had to dispute a prevalent internet rumor that Muslims were cheering in Paterson, New Jersey.

Trump has recently embraced a number of hard-line, provocative positions specifically targeting Muslims in the US.

After the Paris attacks, for which the group ISIS has claimed responsibility, Trump repeatedly said the US needs surveillance of "certain mosques." He criticized New York Mayor Bill de Blasio's support for ending a New York City Police Department surveillance program that placed plainclothes officers undercover in mosques and Muslim student groups.

"I don’t want to close mosques — I want to surveil mosques. I want mosques surveilled. We were doing it New York City for a while until the worst mayor that New York City has ever had got elected," Trump said on Sunday, referring to de Blasio.

Trump also said on Sunday that he would bring back waterboarding if the US captured ISIS members, and did not rule out whether he would create a national database of Muslims.

[The Romulan Republic]

Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia...

[Purple]

I wonder if Trump would actually be a bad president though. I mean, most of the things he says he want's to do are too over the top to be real goals. And even if they were they just can't be done. And beyond that he seems to be a legitimately capable businessman.

[Iroscato]

I wonder if Trump would actually be a bad president though. I mean, most of the things he says he want's to do are too over the top to be real goals. And even if they were they just can't be done. And beyond that he seems to be a legitimately capable businessman.

[The Romulan Republic]

The fact that he considers it an acceptable tactic to incite bigotry and violence is reason enough to think that he'd be a bad President.

These tactics of his have consequences, weather or not he ever puts his policies into practice.

I mean, I posted stuff about various violent incidents committed by his supporters and how he's egged them on.

Edit: Also, there's America's international reputation, or what's left of it, to consider. And Trump does not strike me as a man who has much in the way of tact or diplomacy.

[Purple]

The fact that he considers it an acceptable tactic to incite bigotry and violence is reason enough to think that he'd be a bad President.

We already had this discussion...

Edit: Also, there's America's international reputation, or what's left of it, to consider. And Trump does not strike me as a man who has much in the way of tact or diplomacy.

From where I am coming from the only way your reputation could get any worse is if Trump used atomic weapons to carve a picture of his penis on the moon or something.

[The Romulan Republic]

The fact that he considers it an acceptable tactic to incite bigotry and violence is reason enough to think that he'd be a bad President.

We already had this discussion...

Edit: Also, there's America's international reputation, or what's left of it, to consider. And Trump does not strike me as a man who has much in the way of tact or diplomacy.

From where I am coming from the only way your reputation could get any worse is if Trump used atomic weapons to carve a picture of his penis on the moon or something.

Yeah, you basically think their's no real difference between Nazi-like shit and politics as usual.

You also, apparently, think there is no difference between how America is already perceived and how it would be perceived if this lunatic became President.

What can I say, if you have no ability to distinguish between different degrees of badness, then Trump probably seems just fine.

Of course, if that's the case, then it doesn't really matter who wins the election, so I'm not sure why you're posting here.

[Purple]

Yeah, you basically think their's no real difference between Nazi-like shit and politics as usual.

Well yea. Like words are just words are just cynical ways to get votes.

You also, apparently, think there is no difference between how America is already perceived and how it would be perceived if this lunatic became President.

Comedy aside I basically don't see how he could make things much worse. He isn't going to start WW3. He isn't going to re institute slavery, set up death camps or anything like that. The worst thing he can do is go all liberal capitalism and be the next Regan or something like that. Or maybe hell start yet another pointless war in the middle east to continue off the tradition of things we already expect from you guys.

[The Romulan Republic]

America really doesn't need another Regan, or another unnecessary war.

Besides, while I don't think Trump is suicidal, he might be stupid, clumsy, and arrogant enough to blunder into World War III. I certainly don't think he has any experience when it comes to foreign policy really.

[Purple]

America really doesn't need another Regan, or another unnecessary war.

Well sure, but like if you got one it would not be the end of the world.

Besides, while I don't think Trump is suicidal, he might be stupid, clumsy, and arrogant enough to blunder into World War III. I certainly don't think he has any experience when it comes to foreign policy really.

Now this is just scaremongering. As Trump him self said back at the beginning of his campaign he'd get people to handle the things he does not know well.

[The Romulan Republic]

Is it unreasonable to ask that our President knows jack about foreign policy, especially when their are multiple wars going on?

And another Reagan means more bad economic policy, which likely means another recession or even depression, which means more extremist politics, bigotry, and violence all over the world.

[Iroscato]

I don't think it's unreasonable to say that Trump would make people misty-eyed for the days of Dubya.
I'm praying to any god that might currently be working the nightshift that he falls apart immediately after winning the candidacy, anyway.

Surely he won't win.




Surely.

[Purple]

Is it unreasonable to ask that our President knows jack about foreign policy, especially when their are multiple wars going on?

Beats having him have started them.

And another Reagan means more bad economic policy, which likely means another recession or even depression, which means more extremist politics, bigotry, and violence all over the world.

I think you are overstating the damage he could do at this point. Like as far as I understand most damage has already been done.

And on the plus side after he is done people will be screaming for someone sane, maybe even someone that's almost European.

[Civil War Man]

Now this is just scaremongering. As Trump him self said back at the beginning of his campaign he'd get people to handle the things he does not know well.

And how would he know he does not know those things well? Even people who are not well-known narcissists fall victim to the Dunning-Kruger effect.

Also, even when he gets people to handle the things he doesn't know, the people he choose may be even worse. Mark Fuhrman, for instance, is frequently brought onto Sean Hannity's show to comment on police issues.

[Elheru Aran]

The big problem with Trump is that he's all flash and (lack of) style; there is very little real substance behind what he says. He's a real estate tycoon; we can count on him to make (reasonably) decent investments, buy up big plots of land and build tasteless hotels and casinos on them. We can't count on that knowledge being applicable in any meaningful fashion to running a country, because a government is not directly parallel-able to a business. Yes, there are individual factoids and notions that could be put to bear. In general however, a business is about making money. A government is about taking care of its country and citizens-- not an operation noted for profitability.

Trump's financial history (the man's company has filed for bankruptcy several times IIRC) and questionable deals, his attitudes towards minorities and non-white, non-Christian, non-middle class or higher, non-American citizens, his rhetoric, and what little he has revealed about his plans as President, all combine to show that he would be an extremely poor President.

Certainly it's possible he could turn it around and become a superlative President out of the blue on Inauguration Day. Forgive us for a little skepticism towards the odds of such occurring, though.

If Trump got elected, there are a few drawbacks that can be identified pretty immediately:

--This would confirm to the Republicans that the way to get elected is to be an extravagant, xenophobic, near-illiterate and obnoxious extremist. We would be inundated with more Sarah Palin and Trump types in the next election cycle.

--Given the guy's attitude towards foreign politics, he would blacken the name of the US even worse than it's already been. And it's bad enough that you think it can't get worse... it can. It could very well get to the point that refugees from active war zones look at us and back at their war zone, and start wondering which one would be the worse option. Is it *likely*? Probably not... but Trump being President would shift those odds.

--His election would polarize society even more than it already is, and could very well embolden conservative politics in the country to the point where they start advocating reprehensible things again such as segregation, voter suppression, and xenophobic isolationism. You think it's bad now, again I tell you, it can get worse.

That is the fact of life-- if it was bad before, it's probably better now... but it can always get worse, and will almost always get pretty damn bad before it gets better.

[Purple]

And how would he know he does not know those things well? Even people who are not well-known narcissists fall victim to the Dunning-Kruger effect.

Honestly I don't know. But if I had to take a guess I'd say that he is probably smarter than he lets on. I mean, he has earned millions. That has to count for something. Like don't get me wrong. I don't expect him to be more intelligent than the other war mongering brainless monkeys from your past. But I think I can reasonably expect him not to blunder into WW3 because he thought the big red launch button was a novelty cup holder.

Basically I guess what I am saying is that he'd be bad but not any worse than any of the other alternatives. I don't really see any way any of your candidates could make things better given the political situation you have with the deep ideological hatred against socialism and all that. And I don't really see any of them as being something super evil like say an actual evil ideologue.

Also, even when he gets people to handle the things he doesn't know, the people he choose may be even worse. Mark Fuhrman, for instance, is frequently brought onto Sean Hannity's show to comment on police issues.

I have no idea who these people and things are.

[The Romulan Republic]

Is it unreasonable to ask that our President knows jack about foreign policy, especially when their are multiple wars going on?

Beats having him have started them.

And another Reagan means more bad economic policy, which likely means another recession or even depression, which means more extremist politics, bigotry, and violence all over the world.

I think you are overstating the damage he could do at this point. Like as far as I understand most damage has already been done.

And on the plus side after he is done people will be screaming for someone sane, maybe even someone that's almost European.

Europe has its share of far Right lunatics too.

And isn't a "European" (meaning socialist) style candidate what we have now with Bernie Sanders?

[Purple]

Europe has its share of far Right lunatics too.

Absolutely. But where I am from they don't commonly get a 50% chance at becoming the most powerful man in the world.

And isn't a "European" (meaning socialist) style candidate what we have now with Bernie Sanders?

I am not sure who and what he is beyond having heard the name. But if my general knowledge of your political spectrum is any indication your definition of socialist is still well within what we'd call the far right. Like does he support things like single player universal health care, standardized nation owned education on the federal level with a fixed federal controlled curriculum etc?