So what's gonna happen when Trump wins?

[Sodia]

i'll just leave this here

[IIamaKing]

Thank you for stating this. Somehow this gets lost in the hysteria.

Same thing happened with the right when Obama was looking to win. I even bought into it for a time. Bottom line, Trump wins, it fuels a left wave in the midterms and we get gridlock like we have now.

[Tijuana]

Trump is now the official candidate for the republicans and as a european im getting all excited. As Jim Jefferies puts it " let's just do it and see how crazy shit can get!"

So what do you think will happen? War with Mexico? Mass migration? America becoming a third world country with a few rich people?
Or will America become great again?

What about Trump makes you think he is any different than other politicians? They are all scum but we act like Trump is unique.

[NineSpine]

What about Trump makes you think he is any different than other politicians? They are all scum but we act like Trump is unique.

Other politicians are generally competent in the basic mechanics of governance. He is not.

[Tijuana]

Other politicians are generally competent in the basic mechanics of governance. He is not.

You think being a politician involves having a unique skill set? What makes you think that?

[breadisfunny]

george w. bush wasn't competent in anything either.

[NineSpine]

You think being a politician involves having a unique skill set? What makes you think that?

My degree in the history of US foreign policy gave me that idea. I've spent the better part of my life studying how countries interact.

- - - Updated - - -

george w. bush wasn't competent in anything either.

He was not a narcissist, so he vested power in people who were competent in basic governance.

[Tijuana]

My degree in the history of US foreign policy gave me that idea. I've spent the better part of my life studying how countries interact.

So, you studied the founding fathers and how they intended this to be a rotating, citizen government? So career politicians were never the intention, and bring nothing to the table, other than corruption. They don't even write the bills they don't read and vote for. They have staffers for that.

Did it bother you when we elected Obama, a man who had never ran anything in his life? Or do you feel like president is a legislative position, as Obama does?

[Sama-81]

What really has me baffled about this thread, apart from people being convinced Trump will win in the first place that is, is the sentiment of "Hilary can't be trusted, so I'll vote Trump". Or similar talking points, such as corruption, etc. I don't particularly disagree with not trusting Hilary, but you do realize the alternative is Trump, right? Whoever fully trusts Trump to do what he says he will, has a screw loose. I mean, being close to criminally gullible. I'm not saying he would necessarily be just as bad in that particular regard, but I am saying that there is certainly a major risk for it. And pretending that there isn't, well that is just plain silly.

[Tijuana]

What really has me baffled about this thread, apart from people being convinced Trump will win in the first place that is, is the sentiment of "Hilary can't be trusted, so I'll vote Trump". Or similar talking points, such as corruption, etc. I don't particularly disagree with not trusting Hilary, but you do realize the alternative is Trump, right? Whoever fully trusts Trump to do what he says he will, has a screw loose. I mean, being close to criminally gullible. I'm not saying he would necessarily be just as bad in that particular regard, but I am saying that there is certainly a major risk for it. And pretending that there isn't, well that is just plain silly.

I would prefer a risk of danger to a known danger.

Also, people over estimate the powers of the US president, greatly. This isn't Europe; we have checks and balances to power.

[zenkai]

Depends on what kind of congress he got. If Trump wins I hope democrats are the majority, vise versa if Hillary wins

[Alefnir]

He'll realize that being a politician (particularly the president) requires a different skill set and has far more boundaries than being in the free market. Afterwards, he will be a lame duck and what congress does / who congress consists of will matter far more than the president.

[Sama-81]

I would prefer a risk of danger to a known danger.

Well, that is at least a position I can understand. As long as one actually do acknowledge that fact, as in "this could easily get far worse than the alternative, but there's at least a slim chance it will get better". I wouldn't be particularly prone to such a risk-taking myself, it would be a better strategy to get a better candidate than either of them propped up till next election (and not a last-minute "oh this Sanders-guy seems different", for example), but each to his own.

And of course there are checks and balances. That is rather irrelevant in regards to Clinton vs. Trump though, since that is equally true in both scenarios.

[Laerrus]

We've all seen the protests at Trump rallies.

My guess is that people will absolutely flip their shit if he wins in November. It will make the 1992 LA riots look like child's play.



If something like this happens again, I don't think he will do anything to calm the flames. Looking at his past behavior, he'll probably add gasoline to it.

[Tijuana]

Well, that is at least a position I can understand. As long as one actually do acknowledge that fact, as in "this could easily get far worse than the alternative, but there's at least a slim chance it will get better". I wouldn't be particularly prone to such a risk-taking myself, it would be a better strategy to get a better candidate than either of them propped up till next election (and not a last-minute "oh this Sanders-guy seems different", for example), but each to his own.

I also have a good understanding of the powers and duties of the president. They are not kings and queens. They can't even declare war.

[Tyrianth]

I would prefer a risk of danger to a known danger.

Also, people over estimate the powers of the US president, greatly. This isn't Europe; we have checks and balances to power.

I can't take anyone seriously when they suggest that a continent does or doesn't have checks and balances, as if a continent has some form of government.

[Tijuana]

I can't take anyone seriously when they suggest that a continent does or doesn't have checks and balances, as if a continent has some form of government.

Ok. Duly noted. I promise I wrote that down over here by my monitor. This is very important information to me. Very important.

[NineSpine]

[QUOTE=Tijuana;41568971]So, you studied the founding fathers and how they intended this to be a rotating, citizen government?[QUOTE]

Yes, except I also studied the part where the US was intended to be an evolving nation where the laws kept up with change. I recommend you look into that part as well. Furthermore, you are really arguing for something that was very much an ideal, not a reality. The founders were politicians, through and through. They weren't interested in having their place in society removed by the average person. They didn't even grant the average person the right to vote. They ruled the nation, albeit through multiple factions, for decades after the Revolution, only ceding control when they were dead.

So career politicians were never the intention, and bring nothing to the table, other than corruption. They don't even write the bills they don't read and vote for. They have staffers for that.

The older model, which as I said wasn't really reality anyway, slowly became impractical, especially for a technologically advanced nation. The adaptability of the American system is it's greatest strength. The rigidity you are arguing for is counterproductive, and really just impossible today. The idea that citizens with other jobs are going to have enough enough time and understanding to address an issue like nuclear waste disposal is asinine.

Did it bother you when we elected Obama, a man who had never ran anything in his life? Or do you feel like president is a legislative position, as Obama does?

I don't care whether someone has ever ran anything before. There is no such thing as being qualified to be president. It's too unique of a job. The President has more authority than he did previously because Congress constitutionally vested him with that power, due to necessity. It's not feasible for congress to do something like manage standing armies, or regulate nuclear power plants.

At some point, we have to deal with reality, not half baked a-historical narratives about the founders.

[Tyrianth]

Ok. Duly noted. I promise I wrote that down over here by my monitor. This is very important information to me. Very important.

You should send a letter to the North American Department of Education asking why continental governments weren't covered in the curriculum.

[Sama-81]

I also have a good understanding of the powers and duties of the president. They are not kings and queens. They can't even declare war.

Certainly. As do I, which is partly why I'm not particularly worried either way. It would be fun to see Trump's "I'll cut a great deal!"-thing, in regards to diplomacy, in action however. Even though I actually think he's too smart to believe that stuff himself, it's simply for show.