Potential consequences of Trump's victory

Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by mtf, Aug 1, 2016.

  1. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,498
    Bush= trillions of dollars wasted on needless wars = military industrial complex = no money left over for infrastructure and education.
    (and those trillions ain't money we had, it's money we borrowed.)
    In many ways, Trump is more liberal than Clinton.
    Really curious, that.
    And yet, he managed to bring enough new republicans into the party to win the republican nomination. The republican old guard think that he ain't a republican so they won't support him.
    Trump wants to spend much more $ on infrastructure which had been falling apart under Bush and Obama. Which is very liberal.

    The big wall-street money and the military industrial complex want Hillary hawk Clinton so they will support her.

    Every year we have millions of people graduating from colleges so heavily in debt that they become virtual slaves to the economic imperative. Many can't even keep up with the interest payments. Which means that that debt will be hanging over their heads for most of their working lives.
    If it ain't obvious to everyone not born rich that throwing the tax dollars away on military adventurism instead of investing in our infrastructure and next generation, then we are truly doomed.

    eg:
    It cost the military over $400.oo per gallon of gas for their vehicles in Afghanistan. And, those vehicles ain't known for their fuel economy.

    If you were an american tax payer, where would you rather spend your tax dollars?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Beer w/Straw Transcendental Ignorance! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,336
    I'd like to pay taxes on universal health care.

    Is Donald for that?
     
    cluelusshusbund likes this.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,498
    In "The America We Deserve" Trump wrote that he supported universal healthcare and a system that would mirror Canada's government-run healthcare service.

    ....................
    liberal?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. mtf Banned Banned

    Messages:
    352
    When you put it like that, I actually like Trump, at least these aspects. I haven't thought of him that way so far.
     
  8. Beer w/Straw Transcendental Ignorance! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,336
    Give a reference.
     
  9. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    Agreed to the blaming, but I'd shy clear of the father. Another case with too many... other interests, shall we say.
     
  10. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    I have an alternate proposal. Given the unpopularity of both candidates with many, many voters, how about entering into the ballot this common garden rock:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    If the rock gets more votes than either candidate, recall them and try again.
     
    sculptor likes this.
  11. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    24,293
    As the sensible people have been trying to get through to the crazy for decades now: the Clintons are both center-right, authoritarian, Eisenhower-Republican, corporate friendly, religiously oriented, essentially conservative politicians. This has always been true. It has obviously been true. It has been posted, with reams of evidence (from Hillary's handling of single payer health care in 1993 and Bill's negotiation of the acronym trade deals of the 90s down to the present day), right in front of your eyes, on this forum, for years now.

    The Reagan agenda that was enacted (the non-crazy, merely objectionably corporate-swaddling parts, not the repeal of Social Security etc) was enacted largely with Clinton cooperation. The support of black people for first Bill (termed the "first black President" by several black intellectuals) and now Hillary (won the Democratic primary on the black vote, straight up) is predicated on the fact that American black people are by and large conservative, religiously oriented, blue-collar, people.

    It is not at all curious that a politician of either Party would be more "liberal - in some ways" than either Clinton. They might, for example, find environmental protection to be a higher priority than the Clintons find it. Or they might have found equal protection under the law for gays and lesbians a sound, basic, American principle, decades ago. Or they might object to the military backing of American corporate interests in foreign lands.

    Trump, on the other hand, is not more liberal, or less liberal, than Clinton. Trump has no such ideology, or set of principles, either conservative or liberal. He's reactionary, completely devoted to gaining office and without interest in governing the country, running against "whatever you've got" - if what you've got is liberal he's "conservative", if what you've got is conservative he's "liberal", whatever. He's fascistic without the vision, i.e. criminal - government as organized crime.

    Supreme Court justices appointed by a short-sighted mob boss, is one of the consequences of a Trump Presidency. News media employing the likes of Corey Lewandowski (who recently on CNN used a good share of the most valuable media time and space there is to advance the thesis that Obama obtained admission to Harvard as a non-citizen) so as to be "balanced" in their coverage of US government policy, is another.
     
    Last edited: Aug 3, 2016
  12. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,875
    Even if all of what you say were true, that doesn't mean Clinton is a war monger. There is a war on terrorism underway and it didn't being with Clinton nor is it likely to end with Clinton. Sometimes the use of force is warranted. That's why we have a military and spend significant sums to support it. I find nothing in Clinton's history to suggest she is a war monger. Just because you support the use of military force under a certain set of circumstances, it doesn't make you a war monger. Under the rules you are trying to impose every military power is a war monger. Clinton didn't cause the disintegration of Assad's government. Assad did that all on his own. Clinton didn't cause the Libyan civil war, Gaddafi did that all on his own. Clinton wakes up in the morning and Republicans are causing her grief. That's not new. They have been doing it for decades. Nor is it unique to Clinton, Republicans have done it to every Democratic threat to their political power. It's what they do. If Mahatma Gandhi posed a threat to Republican political power, Republicans would pain him as a war monger and much worse just as they have done with Clinton and others.
     
  13. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Messages:
    34,677
    The rock appears to be excluded from presidential service under USC II.1.5.
     
  14. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,498
    war·mon·ger
    ˈwôrˌməNGɡər/
    noun
    1. a sovereign or political leader or activist who encourages or advocates aggression or warfare toward other nations or groups.
      synonyms:militarist, hawk, jingoist, aggressor, belligerent
     
  15. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,875
    Using your definition, virtually every American POTUS has been a warmonger including George Washington, Ronald Reagan, both Bushes, Obama, FDR, Eisenhower, et al. Do you really believe that?
     
  16. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,498
    It ain't "my definition".
    Blame Webster.
     
  17. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    24,293
    Clinton does not appear to fit that definition. She seems too quick to resort to military force (quicker than Bill was, say), and of course very interested in appearing tough on terrorism while campaigning, but puts no energy into advocating aggression or beating the drums for war. And she is not, as we know, confrontational.

    Besides, it's too late. You going to vote for Trump?
     
  18. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,498
    I ain't decided yet.
    Looking forward to the "debates".
    ..........
    Meanwhile Hillary Hawk Clinton's advocating for military adventurism goes way back and is well documented.
    ..............
    Bias: I am an antiwar vietnam vet. Any war, all wars. Bombs ain't the way to make friends.
    If our elected officials are willing to assume a position on the front lines, I might reconsider.
     
  19. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,875
    So why are you singling out Clinton and ignoring all previous presidents?
     
  20. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,498
    current affairs
     
  21. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,875
    It didn't bother you when previous presidents did it or when other Secretary of State did it.
     
  22. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,498
    I've been "bothered" off and on since 1967
    that was the start-----within 2 years my discontent had grown
    and never really abated
    ..................
    circa 1968-69
    I had a sergeant who lividly and vociferously hated the state department.
    He seemed to have sound reasons.
     
  23. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    24,293
    It falls short of advocating aggression and war. It appears to be a quick trigger resort to violence in the face of immediate threat - military response, rather than military venture.
    Good Lord, we're doomed.

    What could Trump possibly say in a debate that would justify a vote for him?

    You do realize that he cannot actually do the job, right? That the confidence is not grounded in competence, that he's in over his head in the actual office? And that the vacuum will be filled by some sharp-heeled bureaucrat with tough guy delusions, some Cheney or Rumsfeld whose name we don't even know yet and may never learn?

    Will he attempt to appoint his wife or daughter to the Supreme Court, do you think? How about Corey Lewandowski? If not, why not?
     

Share This Page