|
I don't think Trump would do as much damage as W. Mostly because he'd have way fewer channels of access. But maybe I'm just naive. Mia Wasikowska fucked around with this message at 07:44 on May 9, 2016 |
#
?
May 9, 2016 07:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 22:16 |
|
|
Zas posted:I don't think Trump would do as much damage as W. Maybe I'm just naive. The best case scenario for a Trump administration is that it's staffed by the same kind of neocon chickenhawks who staffed the GWB administration. They probably won't start WW3, but they'll do more dumb poo poo like the invasion of Iraq.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2016 07:44
|
|
|
Antti posted:The best case scenario for a Trump administration is that it's staffed by the same kind of neocon chickenhawks who staffed the GWB administration. They probably won't start WW3, but they'll do more dumb poo poo like the invasion of Iraq. Invade Iran and Syria... at the same time!
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2016 07:47
|
|
|
I think because we're still so close to the W years we don't really have a clear view of how much his administration hosed things up. And a lot of that came from sneaky stuff I don't imagine Trump could pull off. He would go for big brash things and some of them would happen, and some wouldn't, but I doubt he would be responsible for a disaster like Iraq.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2016 07:50
|
|
|
an another example, I'd say the W's policy of covert torture, rebranded, done through back channels is much more effective at the executive level than Trump's apparent strategy, which seems to be to strong arm the military into torturing in the open cold light of day
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2016 07:58
|
|
|
Joementum posted:The fact is: in the last week he's become the nominee of the Republican party. Should he win the election, and there's now a non-zero chance he does, he has access to a nuclear arsenal that can destroy the world ten times over. There's a reason that there's no obvious intelligent life in the galaxy when the Drake Equation implies that maybe there should be. There's one Trump in every species.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2016 08:05
|
|
|
Foreign policy wise, I'm not sure how badly he could gently caress the poo poo out of things. The GOP could send all the war hawks and defense contractors his way. Since he's kind of an idiot he could just become their new Reagan. Or he can saber rattle his way into a nuclear war. Domestically he can do some serious damage by signing into law whatever the gop-controlled Congress sends his way. Repeal of everything Obama did, restart the predatory lending machine, national-level antigay Kim Davis laws, that one Alabama judge to scotus (or Ted Cruz), full austerity now, etc. Those things have the potential to destroy the economy and freedoms of many. All of this is purely hypothetical since Donald Trump will not become president.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2016 08:43
|
|
|
quote:I don't think Trump would do as much damage as W. Mostly because he'd have way fewer channels of access. Republican Congress was probably more corrupt during the W years, but it wasn't as batshit or weighed down with ideological shibboleths as the current one. Imagine all the lovely bills you hear about being passed in Kansas (for example), except applied at the national level. Trump would probably veto a few of these to swing his dick around, but for the most part they'd pass. I'm taking it as a given that the GOP will have a rock solid control of Congress in that case, since the GOP needs like 51-52% of the popular vote to win the prez race.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2016 09:09
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:On the one hand, I wouldn't give Trump greater odds than ten percent. And that's being polite.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2016 09:15
|
|
|
Antti posted:The best case scenario for a Trump administration is that it's staffed by the same kind of neocon chickenhawks who staffed the GWB administration. They probably won't start WW3, but they'll do more dumb poo poo like the invasion of Iraq. Are any of those neocons going to ask Trump how that's possible if he closes down American overseas bases?
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2016 09:30
|
|
|
DemeaninDemon posted:Foreign policy wise, I'm not sure how badly he could gently caress the poo poo out of things. The GOP could send all the war hawks and defense contractors his way. Since he's kind of an idiot he could just become their new Reagan. Or he can saber rattle his way into a nuclear war. The most damaging foreign policy thing that Trump could do that is actually feasible for a hypothetical President Trump to do is close down American overseas bases and withdraw from Europe and Asia. That would be a disaster of epic proportions and a sudden 21st century nuclear arms race between like a dozen actors is the best case scenario in that event. This keeps me up at night more than any of his disastrous domestic policies which would still face stiff opposition from Congress.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2016 09:31
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:The most damaging foreign policy thing that Trump could do that is actually feasible for a hypothetical President Trump to do is close down American overseas bases and withdraw from Europe and Asia. That would be a disaster of epic proportions and a sudden 21st century nuclear arms race between like a dozen actors is the best case scenario in that event. This keeps me up at night more than any of his disastrous domestic policies which would still face stiff opposition from Congress. "The worst thing you can possibly do in a deal is seem desperate to make it. That makes the other guy smell blood, and then you're dead. The best thing you can do is deal from strength, and leverage is the biggest strength you can have. Leverage is having something the other guy wants. Or better yet, needs. Or best of all, simply can't do without."
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2016 10:28
|
|
|
as halfway crooks posted:"The worst thing you can possibly do in a deal is seem desperate to make it. That makes the other guy smell blood, and then you're dead. The best thing you can do is deal from strength, and leverage is the biggest strength you can have. Leverage is having something the other guy wants. Or better yet, needs. Or best of all, simply can't do without."
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2016 10:31
|
|
|
Antti posted:The best case scenario for a Trump administration is that it's staffed by the same kind of neocon chickenhawks who staffed the GWB administration. They probably won't start WW3, but they'll do more dumb poo poo like the invasion of Iraq. bad news, neocons are moving to the dems cfr, the economist, kagan, koch bros, etc hope youre comfortable with these new friends
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2016 10:31
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:Are any of those neocons going to ask Trump how that's possible if he closes down American overseas bases? The idea behind this scenario, which might not come to fruition, is that despite his rhetoric Trump is sufficiently captured by the GOP establishment when it comes time to govern that most of Trump's adlibbed agenda will be thrown away. What I'm basing this on is that the actual policy papers Trump's campaign has shat out have been very cookie-cutter movement conservative policies written by second rate hacks who see Trump as the path to prominence. So while on the rhetorical level he'd keep blustering about this and that, in effect we'd get something like what a Ted Cruz presidency would look like.'
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2016 10:34
|
|
|
Samurai Sanders posted:Is that from one of Trump's books? Sounds just as vacuous as the things he says in speeches. yeah i agree we should totally pay to maintain 174 base sites in germany because otherwise how will they afford to provide migrants with welfare
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2016 10:35
|
|
|
as halfway crooks posted:yeah i agree we should totally pay to maintain 174 base sites in germany because otherwise how will they afford to provide migrants with welfare
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2016 10:38
|
|
|
Samurai Sanders posted:Did you mean to respond to me? I was just commenting on the wording of the quote. the deals "art of the deal" shore tackle is indiscriminate (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2016 10:42
|
|
|
Jazerus posted:There's a reason that there's no obvious intelligent life in the galaxy when the Drake Equation implies that maybe there should be. I know this is probably a joke, but I think that's a fair point. I am sure Trump like citizens of extraterrestrial civilizations have acted as "great filters" in the past and prevented them from further expansion. The absence of intelligent life in the observable universe may very well be caused by Trumps. It's possible humanity's filter is whether or not we can tell orange men with baby hands to piss off. On the surface, it's funny, but if you think about it, it's actually rather scary. Global civilizations face so many challenges, and one of the most insurmountable could simply be a situation like this. Nichael fucked around with this message at 11:00 on May 9, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 9, 2016 10:55
|
|
|
I don't think Trump will be President, but neither did I think he would be the nominee. I'm not the only one, either. How do I reconcile these things?
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2016 11:33
|
|
|
cheerfullydrab posted:I don't think Trump will be President, but neither did I think he would be the nominee. I'm not the only one, either. How do I reconcile these things? Liberally apply alcohol directly to the brain.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2016 11:34
|
|
|
cheerfullydrab posted:I don't think Trump will be President, but neither did I think he would be the nominee. I'm not the only one, either. How do I reconcile these things? The primary is not the GE, and thinking Trump won't be the nominee was against the polls, while thinking Trump won't be President is in line with the polls.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2016 11:47
|
|
|
cheerfullydrab posted:I don't think Trump will be President, but neither did I think he would be the nominee. I'm not the only one, either. How do I reconcile these things? Keep reading this thread. Plenty of quality posts like the unfavorable demographics post and the anti azry map. He needs to sweep the swing states harder than the Cubs swept the Nats in order to hit 270 EVs. As of right now he's up by 1% in loving Georgia of all places.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2016 12:10
|
|
|
cheerfullydrab posted:I don't think Trump will be President, but neither did I think he would be the nominee. I'm not the only one, either. How do I reconcile these things? Quit moving the internal goalposts and huffing the hillbot's farts. Don't need to arzy about it, but like stated there is a non-zero chance he is elected. Gives you even more of a reason to help campaign.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2016 12:12
|
|
|
Easy to see how he wins. People forget poo poo he says, maybe a terrorist attack, non-white voters stay home. It's not out of the question.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2016 12:18
|
|
|
CelestialScribe posted:Easy to see how he wins. People forget poo poo he says, maybe a terrorist attack, non-white voters stay home. It's not out of the question. It's easy to imagine all sorts of scenarios. One more unlikely as the last. A lot has to go wrong for it to happen and some of those (like non-whites staying home) look extremely unlikely. Hell, Latinos have poured out of the woodwork to vote for not-trump.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2016 12:28
|
|
|
Zas posted:I don't think Trump would do as much damage as W. Mostly because he'd have way fewer channels of access. He's already talked about making very poor economic decisions like cutting our debt payments on T Bills.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2016 12:31
|
|
|
Mr Hootington posted:Quit moving the internal goalposts and huffing the hillbot's farts. Don't need to arzy about it, but like stated there is a non-zero chance he is elected. Gives you even more of a reason to help campaign. I don't think it's being unreasonable to be a little dismayed by these things: 1. Of course wacky Donald Trump won't be the nominee, that's what everyone says and also just plain common sense. 2. Of course wacky Donald Trump won't be President, that's what everyone says and also just plain common sense. Now I've read the analyses, I've seen the maps and the graphs, I genuinely believe #2, but I also genuinely believed #1, and so did a lot of other facts and smarter people than me. I don't in any way see how I or the smart people or the apparent facts could be wrong about #2, in no concievable world, but everyone was wrong about #1. See how this is disconcerting on a basic level?
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2016 12:50
|
|
|
cheerfullydrab posted:I don't think it's being unreasonable to be a little dismayed by these things: no you dont get it, hes losing in the polls and this time is different 
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2016 12:55
|
|
|
The Republican primary electorate is exactly the same as the American general electorate and will vote accordingly, this has never been disproven by the likes of Sarah Palin or Todd Akin
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2016 12:58
|
|
|
Primary voters are only a small subset of general election voters. A subset of primary voters are gop primary voters. A subset of gop primary voters is actually a bunch of dumpsters on fire that spell out Trump. So it goes general voters >>> primary voters > gop primary voters > dumpsters on fire.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2016 12:59
|
|
|
cheerfullydrab posted:I don't think it's being unreasonable to be a little dismayed by these things: Hedge your bets. Be confident on the outside, but get active in the campaign for Clinton. Trump really is a crisis and like any crisis should be confronted immediately with a level head and not ignored. People should have learned their lesson with the nomination process. Will Trump win? No. Could Trump win? Yes.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2016 13:01
|
|
|
DemeaninDemon posted:It's easy to imagine all sorts of scenarios. One more unlikely as the last. A lot has to go wrong for it to happen and some of those (like non-whites staying home) look extremely unlikely. Hell, Latinos have poured out of the woodwork to vote for not-trump. My nightmare scenario involves some of Trump's supporters showing up outside of minority-majority polling places, wearing enclosing white outfits decorated with obscure symbols to show their support. While there vicious thugs become hostile towards them and the local police are forced to close the polling place for the safety of the populace. If that happens in enough places in atrategic states...
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2016 13:07
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/phil_mattingly/status/729631914181660672 Think I'm just gonna turn around and go right back to bed today.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2016 13:08
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:The Republican primary electorate is exactly the same as the American general electorate and will vote accordingly, this has never been disproven by the likes of Sarah Palin or Todd Akin See this makes me feel better.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2016 13:08
|
|
|
The betting markets have Trump at what, 25%? That's a fair assessment. Even a 25% shot of a Trump presidency is scary. It's good to be scared. But it's not 100%.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2016 13:10
|
|
|
Hillary has 12.6m out of 22.5m Democratic primary votes while Trump has 10.7m out of 26.6m primary votes. Hillary has a larger piece of the Democratic pie and more overall. However, the gop pie is larger but primary turnout and general election aren't correlated. Source is fair vote. They have a Google doc but I'm not sure if that's bad to link here.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2016 13:12
|
|
|
Ballz posted:https://twitter.com/phil_mattingly/status/729631914181660672 That is actually true though.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2016 13:13
|
|
|
Ballz posted:https://twitter.com/phil_mattingly/status/729631914181660672 Trump's biggest advantage in the Republican primary, all along, is that every once and a while he could say all the unutterable truths the rest of the party couldn't get away with acknowledging.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2016 13:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 22:16 |
|
|
Ballz posted:https://twitter.com/phil_mattingly/status/729631914181660672 hes not wrong
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2016 13:21
|
|