PDA

View Full Version : What if he really wins??



CathyA
9-29-16, 10:43am
I'm trying to imagine our country if Trump wins. I really can't. I mean..........really. What would you envision?
Chaos. I think the fact that he's done so well (and I hope I'm not offending too many here)......shows how many uninformed, angry, uneducated, aggressive people there are now in the U.S. He may have had a couple reasonable ideas at the beginning, but then he went schizoid. Seriously........what do you think would happen to the U.S.? We'd be the joke of the world, I think. I can't believe we even have reason to be worried. :(

nswef
9-29-16, 10:58am
I see war rampant, military excited. He will be the commander in chief. I just hope people wake up to the importance of having a sane person in the position of ruling the world, not a man who thinks anyone who disagrees with him needs to be bullied into submission. He's made blatant bigotry, hate and misogyny not only acceptable but required!

LDAHL
9-29-16, 11:01am
Trump's a fool, but we've been badly led before. The Republic will survive.

We might even benefit in the long run. After years of drift toward a more imperial presidency, the country at large may learn a new appreciation for constitutional checks and balances. If anything, this election has highlighted a growing dissatisfaction with political elites on both the left and right. Hopefully some good will come of that. Perhaps they will learn that you can't arrogantly dismiss large segments of the population as a basket of uninformed, angry, uneducated deplorables without consequence.

LDAHL
9-29-16, 11:04am
I see war rampant, military excited. He will be the commander in chief. I just hope people wake up to the importance of having a sane person in the position of ruling the world, not a man who thinks anyone who disagrees with him needs to be bullied into submission. He's made blatant bigotry, hate and misogyny not only acceptable but required!

If you think the military is excited by the prospect of Trump as Commander-in-Chief, you haven't been paying attention to all those retired officers who have been saying much the opposite.

bae
9-29-16, 11:27am
Not much of substance will happen. The President isn't the King, contrary to popular opinion. Assuming the other two ranches of our government do their jobs, we'll be fine.

Ultralight
9-29-16, 11:48am
The supreme court will go super right wing. Other than that I think we'll just be doing a sad-lol for 4 years.

ApatheticNoMore
9-29-16, 11:49am
The president has a lot of power (like to decide who to kill, uh drone). Plus to fill a lot of administrative slots. But Trump is probably too much of a novice to make much use of it except for narrow corruption, as he's in over his head. So I think other people would mostly run the show. Those other people might be pretty bad (Pence for instance).


If you think the military is excited by the prospect of Trump as Commander-in-Chief, you haven't been paying attention to all those retired officers who have been saying much the opposite.

yea Hillary is the hawk here, not that I'd rule out Trump being hawkish enough out of sheer bumbling or far more likely based on who he is advised by (has some pretty bad picks). But the MIC has overwhelmingly endorsed Hillary, as well as neo-cons, Henry Kissinger etc.. Believe what you see. The war machine doesn't favor Trump.

I do think a Trump win might empower a bunch of bigots with no political power as such to do racist stuff (torch a mosque or something) but that's by sheer example (just a *bully* pulpit type thing not by any actual power Trump has).

Checks and balances, how I wish we could eliminate the Presidency entirely, it makes very little sense to have one.

ToomuchStuff
9-29-16, 12:23pm
I do expect to hear more discussion of Congressional veto power. He will have the SCOTUS to deal with, but he is used to being in court and won't be using Congressmen as his lawyers on retainer. Life will go on as usual, and people will wonder how we got here.:treadmill:

I did hear an interesting discussion about this, elsewhere. I do consider this similar to the Perot time frame and expect we will see a bigger Johnson support, as a none of the above/no confidence vote in the other two parties. Some call that a wasted vote, others call it a conscientious objection, in the same vane as not voting. But in the discussion which I more hovered around, a comment has me thinking, as one thing they mentioned was how our state has the party vote, where you choose a side, then you choose your candidate from that side. (the primaries) What they asked was if we, as a society, could pick a candidate from both sides, so that the public would choose ones they could live with (more moderates, then extremes), or would it turn into a blood fest, where they pick their want and someone weaker for them to go up against. (more general populace voting which might bring more moderates, or not much of a percentage change in voters, but those voting going more as strategists)

Miss Cellane
9-29-16, 12:56pm
I think the country will bumble on as usual. There are checks and balances in place to help keep the President in check.

Except for bigotry. My greatest fear is that more people will start to think like those men who set a woman on fire in NYC just because of what she was wearing. That open violence towards those not exactly like you will become more acceptable. Because Trump so openly espouses rampant discrimination on race, color, religion, sexual orientation, gender, ethnicity.

What I really fear is what Trump would do on the international level. His apparent inability to censor what comes out of his mouth would probably lose us many allies. And I don't care how "great" the US is, we need allies more than we need enemies.

Ultralight
9-29-16, 12:59pm
The majority of Americans need to learn a tough lesson: Stupidity has consequences.

Trump is the man to teach Americans that lesson.

It'll be a tough 4 years though. haha

bae
9-29-16, 1:07pm
It is clear that we don't teach the Constitution in school anymore...

Geila
9-29-16, 2:21pm
I'd say that people of color, in general, will suffer the most if he wins. Followed by women in vulnerable positions. Being sexually or racially harassed at work will be a different thing when the president of the country proudly models those behaviors. And I'd think hatred, aggression, and violence would also increase tremendously. It already has and so far he's only been a candidate. But he models, supports, and validates those values and it gives them legitimacy and power. If I were a white male I'd probably not be too worried about him winning. But I'm not. If he wins, life will pretty much suck for people like me. Too bad for us. I guess we have it coming since we were not born white, rich, and male. It's our own damned fault.

LDAHL
9-29-16, 2:22pm
I don't think it's so much ignorance of the constitution as indifference. People want to believe that some savior will come along to make them safe, happy and prosperous. I remember Obama accepting the nomination like some new Apollo in his fake Parthenon, bidding the oceans to recede. People ate it up. They find that shining image much more appealing than a bunch of grubby politicians making compromises that leave everyone a bit unsatisfied.

When a President becomes impatient with Congress, and decides his phone and pen are an orb and scepter, or when a Congress simply refuses to fulfill it's function, it chips away at the constitutional framework, we need to oppose that. When political candidates promise to insert "except for" language into the Bill of Rights, and we let them, we only have ourselves to blame.

freshstart
9-29-16, 2:23pm
Not much of substance will happen. The President isn't the King, contrary to popular opinion. Assuming the other two ranches of our government do their jobs, we'll be fine.

I keep telling myself this but find myself still petrified that he will win

Rogar
9-29-16, 2:27pm
Optimistically, I look at politics two or three moves beyond a Trump presidency and see a backlash when people start seeing their rights being infringed upon, a failing budget due to more spending and tax breaks for the wealthy, and a tone of racial and gender profiling. Then maybe we can finally get back on track in a better way than we've ever seen before.

Pessimistically I can think of all sorts of problems, but the president is only one part of government and there are checks and balances that may protect us from the war and riots.

freshstart
9-29-16, 2:28pm
I do think a Trump win might empower a bunch of bigots with no political power as such to do racist stuff (torch a mosque or something) but that's by sheer example (just a *bully* pulpit type thing not by any actual power Trump has).



I think they will have power with Pence in a position of limited power plus all the Religious Right in Congress who are already pushing a bigoted agenda.

Alan
9-29-16, 2:37pm
I think they will have power with Pence in a position of limited power plus all the Religious Right in Congress who are already pushing a bigoted agenda.I often hear this sort of thing from the left but I'm never sure what they're talking about. Can you give an example of a bigoted agenda?

Ultralight
9-29-16, 2:41pm
I often hear this sort of thing from the left but I'm never sure what they're talking about. Can you give an example of a bigoted agenda?

Yes! They are going to try to prevent women from getting proper healthcare.

Alan
9-29-16, 2:43pm
Yes! They are going to try to prevent women from getting proper healthcare.Really? Can you elaborate?

jp1
9-29-16, 2:43pm
I often hear this sort of thing from the left but I'm never sure what they're talking about. Can you give an example of a bigoted agenda?

Maybe we need a sticky pen for a thread about persecuted christians versus the rest of us, considering how often we slog down this road. It's not as though any of us are going to change our opinions on this topic.

CathyA
9-29-16, 2:44pm
Pence is such a dork. Whenever he's on the TV news, I just have to mute it. I'm just glad he won't be our governor anymore..........but he'd better not be our V.P. He's so full of..............you know what.

freshstart
9-29-16, 2:47pm
I often hear this sort of thing from the left but I'm never sure what they're talking about. Can you give an example of a bigoted agenda?

just off the top of my head, when several states allowed Christians to not serve gays

Ultralight
9-29-16, 2:47pm
Really? Can you elaborate?

Alan... when a liberal says "women's healthcare" you know exactly what we are talking about.

freshstart
9-29-16, 2:47pm
Maybe we need a sticky pen for a thread about persecuted christians versus the rest of us, considering how often we slog down this road. It's not as though any of us are going to change our opinions on this topic.

then I'll drop it, sorry

Alan
9-29-16, 2:49pm
Maybe we need a sticky pen for a thread about persecuted christians versus the rest of us, considering how often we slog down this road. It's not as though any of us are going to change our opinions on this topic.I guess that depends upon your perspective, whether it's a whiny Christian or someone being denied their right to live by the tenets of their faith is a long standing discussion, and one without resolution even after being codified in the Constitution.

Alan
9-29-16, 2:51pm
Alan... when a liberal says "women's healthcare" you know exactly what we are talking about.Yes, I do. You mean being denied free contraception, which isn't technically health care.

Geila
9-29-16, 2:54pm
Yes, I do. You mean being denied free contraception, which isn't technically health care.

It is if you're the one who has to grow, carry and deliver the child. Not to mention provide said child with food, shelter and health care for 18 years, more if the child is born with a disability that requires special care for the rest of their lives.

ApatheticNoMore
9-29-16, 2:59pm
Alan... when a liberal says "women's healthcare" you know exactly what we are talking about

women not having easy access to prevent pregnancy on their end, and yet of course don't make the guy wear a condom it interferes with his pleasure afterall, and vasectomies are too scary so don't even think about suggesting it. But no implant/IUD/morning after pill/tubal for you! It's not really healthcare afterall.

Alan
9-29-16, 3:00pm
It is if you're the one who has to grow, carry and deliver the child. Not to mention provide said child with food, shelter and health care for 18 years, more if the child is born with a disability that requires special care for the rest of their lives.If I decide to skydive, is it someone else's responsibility to buy my parachute?

Geila
9-29-16, 3:03pm
Yes, I do. You mean being denied free contraception, which isn't technically health care.

Given your argument, one could also argue that many things shouldn't technically be considered health care and instead be considered "lifestyle choices": viagra (duh!), cholesterol meds (just eat healthy!), diabetes meds (avoid sugar), blood pressure meds (avoid stress), etc.....

When dh goes to his doctor for a visit, his co-pay is $20, when I go to my ob-gyn my co pay is $50. Somehow my breasts and vagina are considered "specialty medicine" but his penis and testicles are not. Go figure.

Geila
9-29-16, 3:05pm
If I decide to skydive, is it someone else's responsibility to buy my parachute?

You are making the choice to go skydiving. Being born with a vagina or penis was not a choice within your control.

Alan
9-29-16, 3:09pm
Given your argument, one could also argue that many things shouldn't technically be considered health care and instead be considered "lifestyle choices": viagra (duh!), cholesterol meds (just eat healthy!), diabetes meds (avoid sugar), blood pressure meds (avoid stress), etc.....
It's not really an argument as much as an exercise in semantics. When a woman becomes pregnant, that means her body is doing what it was designed to do, it's working properly. Your other examples indicate a body not working properly.

Geila
9-29-16, 3:12pm
If I decide to skydive, is it someone else's responsibility to buy my parachute?

And.... by this analogy, denying women contraceptives is the equivalent of you choosing to go skydiving, going to the store to buy a parachute, and being told that you are not allowed get one. Because you don't NEED to go skydiving. Women pay for their contraception in one way or another, sometimes in more ways than one - insurance premiums, co-pays, tax dollars, etc...

Why is one person entitled to receive medication that improves their quality of life and another one isn't, and the only thing different is the gender they were born with? Would you deny someone access to medication for depression, anxiety, bipolar, etc... and say that it's their responsibility to get themselves under control?

Geila
9-29-16, 3:13pm
It's not really an argument as much as an exercise in semantics. When a woman becomes pregnant, that means her body is doing what it was designed to do, it's working properly. Your other examples indicate a body not working properly.

Says who? A body that reacts with diabetes to too much sugar is working properly. Same with blood pressure, etc. It's designed to do that.

Alan
9-29-16, 3:16pm
And.... by this analogy, denying women contraceptives is the equivalent of you choosing to go skydiving, going to the store to buy a parachute, and being told that you are not allowed get one. Because you don't NEED to go skydiving. Women pay for their contraception in one way or another, sometimes in more ways than one - insurance premiums, co-pays, tax dollars, etc...

Why is one person entitled to receive medication that improves their quality of life and another one isn't, and the only thing different is the gender they were born with? Would you deny someone access to medication for depression, anxiety, bipolar, etc... and say that it's their responsibility to get themselves under control?
So, you're saying that the religious right in Congress is denying women the ability to purchase medications, including contraception. I'm not aware of that.

greenclaire
9-29-16, 3:18pm
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/ff/Teenage_birth_rate_per_1000_women_15%E2%80%9319%2C _2000-09.svg/940px-Teenage_birth_rate_per_1000_women_15%E2%80%9319%2C _2000-09.svg.png

The above is a graph of rates of teen pregnancy per 1,000 women. It's noticeable that countries with access to free contraception and a decent sex education programme have a much lower rate than those that don't. Giving people access to contraception / sex education does not encourage people to have sex, there is no evidence of that. What is clear is that even if people don't have access to contraception they will still have sex even if they know the risks. Why not at least make it safe for people? People have had sex since before we even evolved as homo sapiens as it is a natural process and guess what people realise it feels good so want to do it again and again. No amount of restricting contraception or access to women health clinics will stop people having sex, people are deluded if they think that will happen.

Geila
9-29-16, 3:21pm
This week I am tired, sad, angry and depressed. Maybe it's not all Trump's fault, after all I have been self-medicating with hot chocolate. But at any rate, engaging in this is not helping. So you can remain smug and secure in your ivory tower. The of us down here at the bottom will trudge along as best we can. Goodbye.

ApatheticNoMore
9-29-16, 3:46pm
I suppose there are people who think they have enough of a personal stake in it that they just HAVE TO vote for one of these jokers or other. The way I see it either way the horror continues. And the best I can do is not be a part of it (though if something came over me in the voting booth the Ouija board would move my hand to Trump versus Hills). With Hills we get trade agreements that throw away national sovereignty in favor of corporate rule. Maybe we get that under Obama anyway. Either way the streets are full of homeless, the rent and the healthcare pushes unaffordable for most everyone (maybe birth control would be more affordable under Hills unlike most medical procedures it's fully covered before you reach your deductible), there's global war and Hillary for sure will continue it (Obama was relatively restrained), everyone pushes fracking, no one protects the environment much (maybe worse under Trump). All I can do is express that this all is not okay (yes by a 3rd party vote probably). It's literally all I can do in the voting booth. Are the people of Libya (a war Hillary pushed for) among those at the bottom.

jp1
9-29-16, 3:50pm
then I'll drop it, sorry

My comment wasn't directed at you, and I'm sorry if that's how you interpreted it. My comment was simply that Alan always takes the socratic method of explaining to us that he's against public accomodations that are privately owned being forced not to discriminate against certain categories of people and that when they are forced to do so they become the victim. Then a bunch of people argue against him for a few pages and nothing gets settled.

Alan
9-29-16, 3:59pm
My comment wasn't directed at you, and I'm sorry if that's how you interpreted it. My comment was simply that Alan always takes the socratic method of explaining to us that he's against public accomodations that are privately owned being forced not to discriminate against certain categories of people and that when they are forced to do so they become the victim. Then a bunch of people argue against him for a few pages and nothing gets settled.
It's actually a little more than that, including the question of do I have a right to your (generic) labor or service and must someone be forced to violate their principles to accommodate someone else. Sorry if it's tiresome, I'll put those deplorable questions back into the basket.

freshstart
9-29-16, 4:28pm
I understand now

creaker
9-29-16, 4:31pm
I think it will be a little like putting wild cards into a poker game - just make everything a bit more unpredictable.

For example, for as much as Congress and Obama have presented being at odds with each other, they haven't shut down government and the spending bills go through. I think Trump would add a bit of unpredictability to that - he might go ahead let everything shut down, leaving Congress to either unify or let us default. And I really doubt the former would happen.

Beyond that unless Trump can consolidate power in Washington, I expect even his own office would ignore him when possible and conduct business as usual. And I just can't imagine Trump dealing with the drudgery part of the job - he's always been free to do whatever he wants whenever he pleases - I can't picture him dealing with the day-to-day stuff day after day. Maybe Pence will play Cheney for 4 years and run things from his office?

LDAHL
9-29-16, 4:45pm
I think a more interesting question to consider may be the fate of the Republican Party in the wake of a Trump victory. Especially if the voters keep GOP majorities in the House and Senate. Would there be a philosophical schism between traditional small-government, free trade conservatives and the economic nationalists? I could see that happening during a Trump administration.

Would the Paul Ryan wing of the party eventually strike out on it's own the same way the ur-Republicans abandoned the moribund Whigs?

jp1
9-29-16, 5:02pm
It's actually a little more than that, including the question of do I have a right to your (generic) labor or service and must someone be forced to violate their principles to accommodate someone else. Sorry if it's tiresome, I'll put those deplorable questions back into the basket.

It's only a deplorable question if you're trying to support one of teh four categories she called deplorable (I realize it's so much less fun to actually listen to all of what she said instead of stopping at the word deplorable and freaking out but unless you're misogynistic, homophobic, xenophobic or racist she didn't call you deplorable).

And it's only tiresome because we've had this conversation multiple times and no one's opinion is going to change. And for better or for worse our courts decided back in the 60's that yes, black people, and now by extension various other minorities, have the right to eat at the woolworth's lunch counter and purchase goods and services of various other public accommodations.

Alan
9-29-16, 5:51pm
It's only a deplorable question if you're trying to support one of teh four categories she called deplorable (I realize it's so much less fun to actually listen to all of what she said instead of stopping at the word deplorable and freaking out but unless you're misogynistic, homophobic, xenophobic or racist she didn't call you deplorable).
But are you automatically labeled as misogynistic, homophobic, xenophobic or racist if you'd simply rather not have your principles violated by the force of government?

iris lilies
9-29-16, 6:05pm
My comment wasn't directed at you, and I'm sorry if that's how you interpreted it. My comment was simply that Alan always takes the socratic method of explaining to us that he's against public accomodations that are privately owned being forced not to discriminate against certain categories of people and that when they are forced to do so they become the victim. Then a bunch of people argue against him for a few pages and nothing gets settled.
dude, do you expect things to get settled? So that we all go off hand in hand and sing Kumbaya?

Some people like geting upset. Hey, sometimes that is me. Other people like jabbing them. Sometimes that is me. :)

JaneV2.0
9-29-16, 6:05pm
But are you automatically labeled as misogynistic, homophobic, xenophobic or racist if you'd simply rather not have your principles violated by the force of government?

Most of us have our principles violated by the government every day--i certainly didn't want my taxes going for war, or to line the pockets of the banksters or other grifters. The Bundys think their principles are violated by land use laws. White nationalists think their principles are being violated by their having to share "their" country with various ethnic groups. And on and on.

freshstart
9-29-16, 6:08pm
if your principles are those things, then you will be judged by the court of public opinion and shamed into giving those groups the same rights you have by the power of government. How sad government need be involved.

jp1
9-29-16, 6:15pm
I suppose change might occur without force of government, just not as quickly. After all, with a little more patience slavery would've ended on its own without all the bloodshed of the civil war, once the industrial revolution made farming machinery less costly to buy and operate than slaves. But that evil President Lincoln insisted on using the force of government to assert its will on those deplorable slave owners to tell them that their principles were unacceptable.

Gregg
9-30-16, 10:12am
I don't see the 'end of days' scenario unless Mr. Trump were to be RE-elected in 2020. Then all bets are off.

LDAHL
9-30-16, 10:38am
I don't see the 'end of days' scenario unless Mr. Trump were to be RE-elected in 2020. Then all bets are off.

If that were to happen, wouldn't it be a good thing? He would have had to convince the public in the intervening four years that he wasn't the existential threat to all we hold dear that some of our more hysterical pundits claim him to be?

peggy
10-3-16, 5:44pm
It's not really an argument as much as an exercise in semantics. When a woman becomes pregnant, that means her body is doing what it was designed to do, it's working properly. Your other examples indicate a body not working properly.

Oh please! So that doesn't make it healthcare? so when you fall on your head from skydiving we should just leave you lying there in the field cause blood gushing out your ears is 'normal' for someone falling a thousand feet on to their head. I guess by your reasoning, women shouldn't go to a doctor for prenatal check-ups cause 'everything is as it should be'! And Insurance shouldn't pay for it. or the childbirth...but then, the little women should just squat in a field to give birth.

Unbelievable, even for you Alan. To spin that caring for pregnant women, and childbirth, or preventing it, isn't healthcare because women give birth, is beyond the pale. Wow! You're even starting to talk like Trump.

Alan
10-3-16, 6:43pm
Unbelievable, even for you Alan. Thanks!

You're even starting to talk like Trump.First you giveth, then you taketh away. :(