Potential consequences of Trump's victory

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?
 
Beer w/Straw said:
I'd like to pay taxes on universal health care.

Is Donald for that?
Click to expand...
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?
 
Yazata said:
Yes. He's never set it down as a set of abstract principles, a 'Trump Doctrine'. But his approach can easily be read off of the things he says about particular issues.

Trump's defining characteristic is that he's an American nationalist. His thinking is in terms of 'what's in the interests of the United States and its people'. Not in terms of what's consistent with a set of abstract moral principles based on spreading enlightenment values, globalization and internationalization and so on.

That's why he's skeptical of international trade agreements that hurt US workers, just because they represent 'free trade' and free trade is supposed to be good, right? He doesn't see the world through the lens of the big-business elites, in whose interest globalization is (it makes them much richer, even as thousands of factories are closed and millions of jobs are shipped off to Asia), which is why both the Republican and Democratic establishments hate him.

It's why he's expressed doubt about the US' traditional Cold War role as Europe's military savior, when collectively Europe has a GDP equal to ours and there's no reason why they can't defend themselves against any military threat that they currently face if they actually spent what they should on defense and cooperated effectively. (They have hundreds of thousands of troops and hundreds of nuclear weapons.) There's no reason why they should continue to insult America and Americans as crude and less-sophisticated war mongers, then immediately squeal "Where are the Americans???" whenever they feel threatened. (Russia is the only credible threat they face, but it's less powerful militarily than Europe would be if it got it's shit even half-way together.) The media commentariat anguishes over Trump destroying the post-war world order, but given that the Cold War has been over for 25 years, maybe it's time that America's allies wean themselves off their child-like dependence on us.

It's why Trump opposes more military adventures in the Middle East that leave dangerous power-vacuums in their wake (as in Bush's Iraq and Hillary's Libya). He doesn't believe that it's the US' job to spread democracy around the world, if the locals don't want it and have their own very different cultures that they like better. Having said that, he doesn't believe that all of the world's cultures should be imported here or have equal standing in the United States with American culture as 'multiculturalism' requires. Foreigners should only be allowed into the United States as immigrants if they don't represent a threat to us and want to assimilate into American culture. He doesn't want to Americanize the world, nor does he want America worldized.

If foreigners want to form a good prediction of what policies Trump would favor as President, they only have to ask what's in the best interests of the US. Think of foreign affairs as a whole collection of business deals, and think of Trump as the American deal-maker. He's going to be thinking, 'Why should we sign this? What's in it for us'? He's less likely to be signing it just because it seems to represent some abstract principle that the international global elites insist is morally good, mainly because it's in their interest.

I think that Trump is most comfortable with world leaders that think the same way. Putin does, he thinks in terms of Russian interests, which makes Putin reasonably predictable, makes it possible to negotiate with him and makes it possible to influence Russian policy with carrots and sticks. I don't think that Trump's as comfortable with leaders like Angela Merkel, since she seems to be driven primarily by emotion and by her own personal moral instincts. So German policy will reflect whatever Angela believes is moral and good, which is a lot harder to predict or influence.
Click to expand...
When you put it like that, I actually like Trump, at least these aspects. I haven't thought of him that way so far.
 
iceaura said:
One of the penalties of running Clinton is that all good humor possibilities are undermined by the prospect of a Clinton Presidency, but when stuff as happens keeps happening around Trump - - - a Trump spokesman just blamed Obama and Hillary for the rules of engagement that led to the death of that soldier, Khan, whose father was articulate in slamming Trump.

He was killed in 2004.
Click to expand...

Agreed to the blaming, but I'd shy clear of the father. Another case with too many... other interests, shall we say.
 
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:

images


If the rock gets more votes than either candidate, recall them and try again.
 
sculptor said:
In many ways, Trump is more liberal than Clinton.
Really curious, that
Click to expand...
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:
sculptor said:
Clinton has demonstrated a well-documented willingness to use American military power overseas. Gates’ book is just the latest evidence, along with previous reporting and original interviews with current and former Obama officials, of the strikingly hawkish voice Clinton offered during Obama Situation Room debates.
...
As Secretary of State, Clinton backed a bold escalation of the Afghanistan war. She pressed Obama to arm the Syrian rebels, and later endorsed air strikes against the Assad regime. She backed intervention in Libya, and her State Department helped enable Obama’s expansion of lethal drone strikes. In fact, Clinton may have been the administration’s most reliable advocate for military action. On at least three crucial issues—Afghanistan, Libya, and the bin Laden raid—Clinton took a more aggressive line than Gates, a Bush-appointed Republican.
... “The Democratic party has two wings—a pacifist wing and a Scoop Jackson wing. And I think she is clearly in the Scoop Jackson wing,” says former Democratic Congresswoman Jane Harman
...
The political grief Clinton has suffered over the September 11, 2012 attack on a U.S. compound in Benghazi, Libya, comes with an ironic twist: the tragic episode might never occurred had Clinton not supported intervening in Libya’s civil war.
from:
http://swampland.time.com/2014/01/1...pologetically-hawkish-record-faces-2016-test/
Click to expand...
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.
 
GeoffP said:
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:
Click to expand...

The rock appears to be excluded from presidential service under USC II.1.5.
 
sculptor said:
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
Click to expand...
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?
 
joepistole said:
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?
Click to expand...

It ain't "my definition".
Blame Webster.
 
sculptor said:
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
Click to expand...
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?
 
iceaura said:
You going to vote for Trump?
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
sculptor said:
Meanwhile Hillary Hawk Clinton's advocating for military adventurism goes way back and is well documented.
Click to expand...
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.
sculptor said:
I ain't decided yet.
Looking forward to the "debates".
Click to expand...
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?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top