1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

[RD] Clinton vs. Trump - USA Presidential race.

Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by onejayhawk, Mar 23, 2016.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Commodore

    Commodore Deity

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2005
    Messages:
    12,059
    That's where Congress steps in. Congress has to approve all military actions the president orders and the president can only deploy forces for 60 or 90 days (I'm fuzzy on which one it is) and must seek Congressional approval for an extended deployment. Given that Trump has already alienated the Republican establishment, I don't see them approving any unpopular military actions he tries to take.

    So at most Trump could initiate a 90 day military action and then have to abandon it if Congress doesn't want to go along with it.
     
  2. Timsup2nothin

    Timsup2nothin Quad B

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2013
    Messages:
    46,591
    Location:
    Shadowy Fringe of the Candy Industry
    Not really. There was definitely no "international sympathy" involved. That had been used, justifiably, in Afghanistan. There was no one saying "okay, well eventually they'll get tired of invading random targets, after all, 9/11." Blair got browbeaten into a process of duplicating the stampede in his country, and pretty much everyone else just said "no."

    As to "blind patriotism," there may have been some of that involved. But if there had been enough there wouldn't have been any need for the "smoking gun/mushroom cloud" speech.

    What was really in play was a steady diet of "be afraid, be very very afraid," which if the convention last week is any indication Trump is more than willing to duplicate, coupled with a single speech to unleash that pent up fear into a demand that "something must be done" without any particular concern for what, or to who, or whether it relates at all to the actual problems. I see no reason to think Trump is incapable of making a similar speech, or that he wouldn't be so inclined. After all, war is good for business.

    PS...who said anything about an UNPOPULAR military action? That's the whole point. We are talking about putting this man in an office that has PROVEN to be capable of misleading the public into backing a grotesque misuse of the military in a POPULAR action.
     
  3. ParkCungHee

    ParkCungHee Deity

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2006
    Messages:
    12,921
    How is voting for the candidate that's in favor of shooting at Russian aircraft the safe option? Why would someone who has a history of involvement in wars of unprovoked aggression that have had disastrous negative consequences, and continues to call for them, the safe option?
     
  4. Takhisis

    Takhisis Free Hong Kong

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2005
    Messages:
    49,996
    Location:
    up yours!
    Drumpf is riding a wave of hatred that has precipitated Brexit, the rise of Marine Le Pen, Orbán, Putin, Kaczynski, and other equally ridiculous nationalistic chest-thumping leaders. Mind you, that's the Northern Hemisphere; South America's coming out of such a wave, but since mid-2001, when Bush decided to let them drop, LatAm has been out of sync.
     
  5. Lexicus

    Lexicus Deity

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2007
    Messages:
    24,445
    Location:
    Sovereign State of the Have-Nots
    I dunno, I consider any of these (particularly the first two) to be a pretty darn good imitation of the sky falling. You're basically saying we shouldn't worry about the possibility of a Trump presidency because hey, the military will just overthrow him. Maybe you're all right with living under military rule but I'm not.

    Ditto for the rest of what you're saying. Drastic break with our allies is not a good outcome. Our allies knowing they can't trust the US government not to go off the deep end whenever the voters feel a little crazy is a very bad outcome (already happened to some extent with Bush and we're reaping the consequences of the US's tarnished image worldwide - I for one also think Putin's renewed friskiness is a direct consequence of the US getting bogged down in the "War on Terror" idiocy.

    Considering that the Republicans have done everything they can to destroy every public service in the country how can you say this with any degree of confidence? Trump would try to privatize both. Then the schools won't close, you'll just have to pay for them and if you can't? Tough. Same with garbage: you'll have to pay, and if you can't pay it won't get collected.

    The scenarios you've described in the first post I quoted are of everything going to hell in a handbasket, not of "everything working itself out."
     
  6. Lexicus

    Lexicus Deity

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2007
    Messages:
    24,445
    Location:
    Sovereign State of the Have-Nots
    Because her opponent is even worse?

    Seriously, how could anyone possibly believe these fantasies after everything that's happened in the US since 1960?
     
  7. ParkCungHee

    ParkCungHee Deity

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2006
    Messages:
    12,921
    Can you point out how? In the Republican Race with the possible exception of Rand Paul, the most peacefully inclined candidate won out. What nation or polity has Trump threatened that Clinton has not threatened?
     
  8. innonimatu

    innonimatu Deity

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2006
    Messages:
    12,267
    Even looking at his main opponent alone, I don't think he manages to be worse; certainly not in the warmongering department. And that says a lot about Clinton.
     
  9. Takhisis

    Takhisis Free Hong Kong

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2005
    Messages:
    49,996
    Location:
    up yours!
    The US.
     
  10. rah

    rah Deity Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2005
    Messages:
    10,119
    Location:
    Chicago
    Just who is fear mongering more here, the Dumpster or CFC posters?
     
  11. Lexicus

    Lexicus Deity

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2007
    Messages:
    24,445
    Location:
    Sovereign State of the Have-Nots
    I don't know, you must not be looking at the same Republican race I was, because Trump was not the most "peacefully inclined candidate" by a long shot. Which other Republican candidate has openly promised to commit war crimes?

    Maybe you're using a different yardstick to measure "peacefully inclined." I don't know. I don't believe that Trump believes the Iraq War was a mistake; I don't believe he would show any reluctance to plunge the US into a war if, say, his poll numbers were dropping. I would put almost literally nothing past the man.

    I think it says more about you than about Clinton tbh. And I don't necessarily mean that in a bad way.
    Recently I've had occasion to be nauseated by the uncritical paeans to Clinton I've been seeing from some of my more ignorant "liberal" friends on social media. But it's nothing - nothing - compared to the feeling I get when a friend says they like Trump. As I said recently somewhere on OT I am cutting off all association with people who are supporting Trump. That is how much I fear and loathe him.
     
  12. Takhisis

    Takhisis Free Hong Kong

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2005
    Messages:
    49,996
    Location:
    up yours!
    CFC posters are simply holding Drumpf to what he has said over the past year.
     
  13. Phrossack

    Phrossack Armored Fish and Armored Men

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2008
    Messages:
    5,932
    The US military has never, ever attempted a coup. Even with the alleged Business Plot, General Butler immediately reported it. And the military went along with the invasion of Iraq without question. For better or worse, the US has a very loyal military.

    As Tim stated, it's very easy to corral people into going along with your war. While on trial, Herman Göring said,

    "All you have to do is tell them they are
    being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and
    for exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every
    country.”

    And he's right. Though it was before my time, older CFCers may remember the buildup to the Iraq War, and for some time afterward, during which a lot of fiercely patriotic American posters were militantly pro-war and shouted down anyone who disagreed. I am old enough to remember how Republicans during the war said that one shouldn't criticize a wartime president.

    Trump has already frightened a lot of voters already scared by terrorist attacks and public unrest and successfully harnessed that fear into support. He promises he's the savior of America, the only person in the world who can possibly Keep America Safe. It wouldn't take many more terrorist attacks or suspected terrorist attacks for him to get even broader public support for his plans for anti-Muslim laws and a ruthlessly prosecuted invasion of the Islamic State and any other country suspected to be a threat. His fanatics would demand blood and accuse anyone against more wars and discrimination of being unpatriotic or even treasonous. And he'd use white middle-class fear of social unrest to double down on police militarization until they essentially become an occupying army and crack down on BLM. He knows how easily people can be controlled by fear, so he finds it, bottles it, and sells it. And it works.

    Besides, as Sommer pointed out, if Trump did win, do insane things, and get impeached, overthrown, or even assassinated, that would not be good for the US at all. The best case scenario for his election is that he was bluffing for most of his insane policies, he actually has no idea what to do and delegates almost everything else to others, and his craziest ideas get blocked in Congress. America's reputation overseas is still tarnished, and the government is still dysfunctional and gridlocked. That's bad.

    If he were serious about his plans, they could go through and cause extreme harm. Deportation of illegal immigrants would require mass arbitrary arrests and searches and possibly the largest forced migration of people in history. Abandoning NATO and giving Russia the green light would lead to the Baltic states becoming Russian puppets at best and WWIII at worst. Banning Muslim immigration and generally enshrining anti-Muslim discrimination by law would encourage more bitterness, hatred, hate crimes against Muslim-Americans, and probably terrorism. Expanding the use of torture would severely damage American prestige for no benefit, and massacring the families of suspected terrorists would be a war crime that would be even worse.

    If, however, Trump were impeached, he might be removed from office. Which is still an embarrassing scandal for the US. His assassination would be something of a shock to the country; he might become a sacred martyr for the "Take our country back from those people!" types, and it wouldn't make America look terribly stable. A coup would make the US look like an utterly dysfunctional third-world country with a first-world military, and would set a dangerous precedent.

    None of these outcomes are in any way good for America or world peace and stability. And all of them tell closet racists, white supremacists, nativists, and anti-Muslim bigots that their time has come and their beliefs are supported by the highest office in the land.

    So yes, a Trump election is the stuff of nightmares.
     
  14. rah

    rah Deity Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2005
    Messages:
    10,119
    Location:
    Chicago
    You need to reread a lot of threads if you honestly believe that. While a considerable amount is, you guys have taken it to a whole new step.

    Really.
     
  15. Kozmos

    Kozmos Jew Detective

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2004
    Messages:
    13,124
    Location:
    Sitka District
    A couple of well-placed and timed terror attacks around election time and next thing you know, your system of checks and balances starts to corrode even more and NSA spying instead of being merely illegal as it currently is, becomes enshrined into law.
     
  16. ParkCungHee

    ParkCungHee Deity

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2006
    Messages:
    12,921
    Scott Walker talked about beginning an unprovoked war of aggression against Iran, without consulting congress, Day One in office. Ted Cruz repeatedly insisted on his intention to engage in indiscriminate Carpet Bombing.

    Now, off the top of my head I can name two countries that Clinton has made very clear she's interested in armed conflict with, that Trump has ruled out: Syria and Russia. If we're going to be painting doomsday scenarios, I really can't imagine worse than a war between the United States and Russia.
     
  17. Takhisis

    Takhisis Free Hong Kong

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2005
    Messages:
    49,996
    Location:
    up yours!
    The problem is that they are things Drumpf has said (mostly, in his waffled way).

    But he has spoken about performing illegal actions against the citizens of the US and also of committing war crimes. That's a problem.
    Scott Walker is an idiot who was never in the running except in name. Ted Cruz is an idiot who shouldn't have ever run.

    …

    …

    Actually, this is just making the GOP look even worse, isn't it?
    When did she speak about Russia? I must've missed it, but I can't be everywhere.
     
  18. metalhead

    metalhead Angry Bartender

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2002
    Messages:
    8,031
    The Washington Post has given a pretty thorough critique of how Trump is worse. Bellicosity is only the tip of the iceberg - a man with ostensible control over the military who not only has no respect for our constitutional tradition, has no knowledge of what the document that provides the foundation for the rule of law and separation of powers means or says, is a direct threat to our democracy.

    Our institutions remain strong and our nation durable only if those in power show deference to the constitution. In the end, the constitution is just words on a paper; things like separation of powers only mean something if the affected parties agree that they do. Someone who doesn't appreciate any of those things presents a literal threat to our democracy.

     
  19. ParkCungHee

    ParkCungHee Deity

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2006
    Messages:
    12,921
  20. _random_

    _random_ Jewel Runner

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2008
    Messages:
    6,793
    Location:
    Behind the man behind the throne
    That's both of them.

    While either candidate could start a massive interstate conflict, I will say that based on what we know, World War Trump would turn out worse than World War Clinton, given his support for nuclear proliferation and open willingness to use American nukes. Although that's not to say I can't imagine a scenario where WWC goes nuclear either. God they're both so terrible.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page