Moderator: Edi
This is my belief. Although we bitch and moan about how obstructionist Congress has been over the last 8 years, it would actually turn around and work in our favor if Trump were elected.Ironically, it might cause the most unity we've seen in Congress in awhile.
Yeah. Trump being President still wouldn't be a good thing, mind you. If the Republican leadership can talk him into toeing the party line-- there's always the "remember what happened to Nixon?" card-- he could wreak quite a bit of havoc.Borgholio wrote:This is my belief. Although we bitch and moan about how obstructionist Congress has been over the last 8 years, it would actually turn around and work in our favor if Trump were elected.Ironically, it might cause the most unity we've seen in Congress in awhile.
The thing is, though: Trump is so massively unliked by his party (a highly vocal crowd of supporters notwithstanding, that even in the highly unlikely event of him being elected, it's quite possible that the Republican leadership in Congress will have a sit-down with him and say something along the lines of "OK, you won this one, but from now on, you don't say anything stupid, you don't do anything stupid, or we kick you in the teeth."The Romulan Republic wrote:It certainly could. Not necessarily because Trump just decides "I'm going to start World War III" but because he's an arrogant buffoon who will lack the tact and intelligence to handle foreign policy. Either it'll be lower level people running things behind the scenes (which could lead to confusion and infighting in how the government responds to international crises, along with everything else), or it'll be Trump surrounded by yes-men trying to handle global affairs.
This. If Bush II couldn't start WW3 despite running around basically daring people to stop him and his crusade, Trump is unlikely to cause WW3.Sea Skimmer wrote:The guy is an isolationist who likes Putin, do you people not hear him screaming about it? If anything he will be far less likely then typical US presidents to cause WW3.
A sudden, ill-planned withdrawal of the US from global affairs could destabilize things just as much as a rash intervention.Sea Skimmer wrote:The guy is an isolationist who likes Putin, do you people not hear him screaming about it? If anything he will be far less likely then typical US presidents to cause WW3.
Bush was an amateur in the field of incompetent lunatic foreign policy.Gandalf wrote:Post by Gandalf » 2016-07-19 07:22pm
Upon what are you basing this conclusion?The Romulan Republic wrote:Bush was an amateur in the field of incompetent lunatic foreign policy.Gandalf wrote:Post by Gandalf » 2016-07-19 07:22pm
Trump is a master.
Even if I agreed with that, which I don't, as a 'rash intervention' could involve the US invading China, while US troops around the world cannot be less then 0, its so speculative as to be completely useless for any point of rational debate. Its on par with 'Trump falls on the big red button' level of value. Oh sure US isolationism might cause some conventional wars, that much is possible, but even those would by nature be dwarfed by the scale of fighting we used to expect in NORTHAG alone. They would be what the US military calls major regional conflicts. Not fucking thousands of nukes fly and wipe out a billion people in 45 minutes.The Romulan Republic wrote:[
A sudden, ill-planned withdrawal of the US from global affairs could destabilize things just as much as a rash intervention.
Actually he's been pretty damn consistent on this trend.
In any case, Trump constantly contradicts himself, so I wouldn't give much weight to anything he says.
Within what, 500 miles of his own capital? Or in the war against the moderate head choppers on the land of his traditional ally, the ones who just cut the head off a 12 year old on camera while laughing and smiling? And umm, actually nothing else comes to mind either. In fact events since 2014 only reinforce how unlikely WW3 is under any plausible near future circumstances. Putin is fighting over the fringes of the former Soviet Empire, places NEVER EVEN IN CONTENTION in the Cold War so strongly were they in Soviet hands. And even then its only parts of those countries and only with the strength of about 1 army corps in the Ukraine, and 1 air brigade and 1 artillery battery (they have exactly one ground fighting) in Syria. OH MY GOD WE NEED DAVY CROCKET NOW!
Also, Putin has been highly aggressive militarily in recent years.
And it's also quite possible that Trump would tell them to shut up or he'll go on TV and announce that a bunch of old guard traitor Republicans threatened to have him impeached if he didn't tow their line, but that he's going to put them into their place and that his supporters need to bombard their offices with complaints, vote for their opponents in the next election and possibly riot in the streets. Which he won't be arrested for. Because in this scenario he will be the president.Elheru Aran wrote: The thing is, though: Trump is so massively unliked by his party (a highly vocal crowd of supporters notwithstanding, that even in the highly unlikely event of him being elected, it's quite possible that the Republican leadership in Congress will have a sit-down with him and say something along the lines of "OK, you won this one, but from now on, you don't say anything stupid, you don't do anything stupid, or we kick you in the teeth."
Why would the Chinese fight a war with the US over Iran, exactly? They have a lot of other trading partners. Heck, we are a bigger Chinese trading partner than Iran is. If it came down to deciding whether to get to trade with the US or getting to trade with Iran, China would have every reason to pick the US.SolarpunkFan wrote:Problem is, I think Trump would be more than happy to put boots on the ground against both ISIS and Iran (because Republicans think that all Muslims are the same). And with China trying to do some trading with Iran, I wouldn't be surprised if they retaliated too. And if that happened then everything is up in the air as far as conflict goes.
You hate it more than you need to because you're panicking.I hate this election year, so so much.
Either Trump OR Clinton is likely to do things capable of provoking other great powers in the Middle East. Clinton is more likely to deal with the consequences effectively, but it's a problem either way.The Romulan Republic wrote:Clinton is unethical, but she is neither inexperienced, nor generally incompetent, nor insane, nor an extremist. She will not willingly do something that will destroy civilization, and is less likely to do so by accident.
Willingness to fight an illegal war is hardly an admirable quality, but it does not equate to likelihood of starting WWIII.
I do have some concerns about her no-fly zone in Syria policy, as that could lead to WWIII if enforced against Russia's wishes, but for the reasons I explain above, I suspect its mostly empty posturing, unless she can work out an agreement with Russia on the matter.
Clinton is slimy and two-faced, but she's that way in the manner of most politicians. She's not insane. She understands that in order for her power and influence to continue a certain stability is required, and that requires a certain level of moderation, compromise, and deal-making She reminds me of the former Chicago Mayors Daley – corrupt and in many ways vile, but there was also a certain stability and the system worked on a certain level. The lights stayed on, the garbage got collected, and the sewers worked. Trump is more of a loot-the-treasury-and-run sort of guy from what I can see, he'll gleefully strip a nation business of what he wants for himself and to hell with the mess left behind, it's not his problem and certainly not his fault.Grumman wrote:Trump? How about Clinton, the one who already voted for one illegal clusterfuck?
This isn't 1972, WWIII won't necessary start with a US v. Russia confrontation.Sea Skimmer wrote:The guy is an isolationist who likes Putin, do you people not hear him screaming about it? If anything he will be far less likely then typical US presidents to cause WW3.
W. also came from a political family, including a father who had been president and could give him advice/influence him. Trump does not. Trump is from the “greed is good” school of business and has a history of leaving wreckage in his wake as he tries to advance himself.The Romulan Republic wrote:Upon all the things I remember watching W. say, and all the things I've seen from Trump.
The lunacy is on a completely different level.
As is the lack of political experience. At least W. had been a governor.
Right.Simon_Jester wrote:The big consequence of a Trump victory is that we would have effectively no allies or support whatsoever and nearly every foreign power would distance itself from us. No one would trust him (notorious fraudster) or want to work with him personally (obnoxious blowhard). He's very unlikely to start a nuclear war simply because no one else wants a nuclear war, and he himself probably doesn't actively desire it either. But he's very likely to lose us trading opportunities, basing rights, the cooperation of other countries' intelligence agencies, and all the other things that you normally rely on allies to provide.
And we'd end up with a VP who is even more of an asshole becoming president.Imagine a scenario where the PotUS has to be forcibly removed from office.
Of course, if Pence doesn't become VP, his next job will most likely be US Senator. Then, he'll be representing Fascist Indiana for the next six years.Broomstick wrote:I've actually lived under Pence as governor for awhile. I don't like him and am actually glad that due to Indiana law his running as Trump's VP means we will not have another four years of him here in Indiana....
... but despite that...
...I'd still rather have Pence as PotUS than Trump. I have a fair idea of how Pence would fuck up and while it would suck on some levels it would not be a total disaster. You actually can get Pence to backpedal with enough public pressure, it's just damn hard. Trump doubles down against any opposition, no matter how small, and does not let go.
I apologize for implying you were.Broomstick wrote:Right... "fascist Indiana" which has a state-subsidized health care insurance that beats the stuffing out of Obamacare that I've been using the past 8 years. That provides job-seeking assistance to the un- and under-employed that I used to get my current job. You know, this state is not the hellhole you seem to think it is. Under Daniels it wasn't paradise but it was pretty decent and Pence did not manage to disassemble all of the good bits.
So fuck you, I'm no fascist and fuck you for implying I was.
