• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Life After President Trump

JonA said:
I don't expect much changing. Presidents do not have the kind of power people like to pretend they do.

At most we will see some changes to immigration policies and more relaxed regulations on industries.

In terms of presidents, a President Trump wouldn't really be that outrageous - we've gotten through worse.
Click to expand...

Agree.

I actually think it'll be good - not what he's going to do, but the retards voting for him, will realize just what they are. Maybe its going to change the country for the better in the future, to have been through Trump. Kind of like beating aids or something.
 
crispy said:
JonA said:
I don't expect much changing. Presidents do not have the kind of power people like to pretend they do.

At most we will see some changes to immigration policies and more relaxed regulations on industries.

In terms of presidents, a President Trump wouldn't really be that outrageous - we've gotten through worse.
Click to expand...

Agree.

I actually think it'll be good - not what he's going to do, but the retards voting for him, will realize just what they are. Maybe its going to change the country for the better in the future, to have been through Trump. Kind of like beating aids or something.
Click to expand...

Right, it's like how you never went and randomly blew shit up for stupid reasons in the Middle East after Bush. You learned your lesson.
 
crispy said:
JonA said:
I don't expect much changing. Presidents do not have the kind of power people like to pretend they do.

At most we will see some changes to immigration policies and more relaxed regulations on industries.

In terms of presidents, a President Trump wouldn't really be that outrageous - we've gotten through worse.
Click to expand...

Agree.

I actually think it'll be good - not what he's going to do, but the retards voting for him, will realize just what they are. Maybe its going to change the country for the better in the future, to have been through Trump. Kind of like beating aids or something.
Click to expand...
Didn't work after W.
 
Jolly_Penguin said:
So again... Trump vs G.W. Bush: Who do you vote for?
Click to expand...

Probably Trump. With Bush, we know about the hundreds of thousands of innocent murders and the countless billions of lost money and conservative ideologues on the Supreme Court, etc. With Trump, it's just a possibility.

It's like the choice to jump into the pool of acid or to jump into the pool of an unknown, bubbling liquid. You know that the one will kill you and while the other will probably kill you, there's a chance that it won't, so it's the best of two unpalatable options.
 
crispy said:
...
I actually think it'll be good - not what he's going to do, but the retards voting for him, will realize just what they are. Maybe its going to change the country for the better in the future, to have been through Trump. Kind of like beating aids or something.
Click to expand...

or, ... the Flint Michigan water supply will be replaced with Brawndo and Trump University will begin offering law degrees in affiliation with Costco.
 
Jolly_Penguin said:
So again... Trump vs G.W. Bush: Who do you vote for?
Click to expand...

Most of what W did that was harmful was an agenda pushed onto him by the Neocon machine that got him elected took control of his cabinet.
As an individual, Trump is far worse.

Also, compared to 2000, we face more complex issues that are at critical states right now. Trump has more opportunities to completely fuck up so many foreign and domestic issues coming to a head at the moment. He is guaranteed to get it dangerously wrong on every single issue from Russia and Korea, to immigration and police/race relations, to the 2-4 SCOTUS judges he would nominate and the decision they will make in every area from abortion and gun control to corporate power that will have generations of impact on every aspect of society.

The damage isn't just due to the person but their party and the context that determines the choices to be made and the opportunity for impact.

The damage Trump would do compared to Hillary is likely many times greater in severity, breadth, and future impact that the damage that W Bush did relative to the outcome of a Gore presidency. The irony of the fools who equivocate a Trump and Hillary presidency is that the outcome could have more impact than the outcome of almost any presidential election since Lincoln beat Breckenridge.
 
ronburgundy said:
Jolly_Penguin said:
So again... Trump vs G.W. Bush: Who do you vote for?
Click to expand...

Most of what W did that was harmful was an agenda pushed onto him by the Neocon machine that got him elected took control of his cabinet.
As an individual, Trump is far worse.

Also, compared to 2000, we face more complex issues that are at critical states right now. Trump has more opportunities to completely fuck up so many foreign and domestic issues coming to a head at the moment. He is guaranteed to get it dangerously wrong on every single issue from Russia and Korea, to immigration and police/race relations, to the 2-4 SCOTUS judges he would nominate and the decision they will make in every area from abortion and gun control to corporate power that will have generations of impact on every aspect of society.

The damage isn't just due to the person but their party and the context that determines the choices to be made and the opportunity for impact.

The damage Trump would do compared to Hillary is likely many times greater in severity, breadth, and future impact that the damage that W Bush did relative to the outcome of a Gore presidency. The irony of the fools who equivocate a Trump and Hillary presidency is that the outcome could have more impact than the outcome of almost any presidential election since Lincoln beat Breckenridge.
Click to expand...
You mean the same neo-con machine that's currently backing Hillary?
 
Damn Jolly. That's a tough one there. GW or Trump.

How about a Snicker bar and a rock?

(My apologies to chocolate and and all things sedimentary.)
 
Jimmy Higgins said:
Oh my, probably the worst part of his Presidency will be him speaking solemnly at the site of a natural disaster. The fake solemnness will probably make tens of thousands of Americas choke on their own vomit.
Click to expand...

You're overestimating the amount of time he'd be speaking that way. Yes, as President, he absolutely must speak solemnly, but although he won't actually have the power of a dictator with full control of the media, his dictator aspirations will help curb how much time he takes doing that which he must.
 
A loss of confidence in the US dollar. For as little confidence there is in Trump within the boarders of the US, Us having the world currency and being the world cop will rattle nerves the world over during a Trump presidency. God knows what level of saber rattling and wild-ass statements he might make but it's not far fetched to think they will be many and half-baked. Investors (the wealth of nations) are particular about their safe havens. They want them to be just that. Donald Trump will tarnish, perhaps irreparably confidence in the US dollar as that safe haven. Were the world to move to a basket of currencies as a result of a Trump presidency it'd be unlikely the world would reverse that decision AT.
 
Jimmy Higgins said:
Anyone remember when Obama won that Nobel Peace Prize? The awarding oddly came after being elected President of the US. Talk about not being respected by the International Community! He literally just replaced the last guy and was given the Employee of the Month award for replacing the last guy.
Click to expand...

Well, when you consider who the last guy was, almost anyone who wasn't that man deserved every prize going, surely?

- - - Updated - - -

Jolly_Penguin said:
So again... Trump vs G.W. Bush: Who do you vote for?
Click to expand...


Have you stopped beating your wife? Answer Yes or No.
 
ksen said:
ronburgundy said:
Most of what W did that was harmful was an agenda pushed onto him by the Neocon machine that got him elected took control of his cabinet.
As an individual, Trump is far worse.

Also, compared to 2000, we face more complex issues that are at critical states right now. Trump has more opportunities to completely fuck up so many foreign and domestic issues coming to a head at the moment. He is guaranteed to get it dangerously wrong on every single issue from Russia and Korea, to immigration and police/race relations, to the 2-4 SCOTUS judges he would nominate and the decision they will make in every area from abortion and gun control to corporate power that will have generations of impact on every aspect of society.

The damage isn't just due to the person but their party and the context that determines the choices to be made and the opportunity for impact.

The damage Trump would do compared to Hillary is likely many times greater in severity, breadth, and future impact that the damage that W Bush did relative to the outcome of a Gore presidency. The irony of the fools who equivocate a Trump and Hillary presidency is that the outcome could have more impact than the outcome of almost any presidential election since Lincoln beat Breckenridge.
Click to expand...
You mean the same neo-con machine that's currently backing Hillary?
Click to expand...

Nope, almost all the neo-cons with any power and who controlled the Bush administration(s) and were responsible for Iraq are behind Trump. That includes Cheney, Rumsfeld, Bennet, Ashcroft, Snow, and John Bolton who is likely to be Trump's Secretary of State. They and over 50 other neo-cons that controlled the Bush administrations not only back Trump, they have created a formal coalition to demonstrate public support for Trump.

John Wolfowitz is among the only key players in Iraq that doesn't endorse Trump but he also does not "back Hillary". He only said he "might" (which only means more than a 0% chance) vote for Hillary, and his reasons were quite sound, namely that Trump has promoted borderline treason in encouraging Russia to steal Hillary's emails, and is dangerously hostile toward NATO and all of our allies, indicating he would not help protect them against foreign aggression.

Trump's named "foriegn policy team" is a who's who of neo-con stalwarts with deep ties to the worst in US foreign policy over the last 30 years, including the COO under Bremer of the provisional authority following the Iraq Invasion, a Blackwater executive, and a terrorism fear monger mouthpiece for Fox News whose been pushing for US intervention in the middle East for 30 years.

There are some rather powerless talking head "neo-cons" who find Trump to be too recklessly dangerous to support. But by their own admission, they are not "backing Hillary" because she is a neo-con, but only as a long term strategy to ensure the GOP only nominates uunabashedly extreme neo-cons in the future. And "backing" her doesn't give them any real control, unlike the very direct control over foreign policy that Trump has already promised to the neo-cons should he get elected.

Besides all that, most of the real long term impactful issues over the next 4-8 years will be domestic, where neo-cons are not the major problem but rather idiots like Trump and most of his supporters are the problem and their impact differs starkly from what a Clinton administration would do.
 
The government is utterly corrupt and your vote means nothing. They spend so much time raising funds that they couldn't do their actual jobs even if they wanted to, which they clearly do not. That's unlikely to change regardless of who gets elected.
 
ronburgundy said:
ksen said:
You mean the same neo-con machine that's currently backing Hillary?
Click to expand...

Nope, almost all the neo-cons with any power and who controlled the Bush administration(s) and were responsible for Iraq are behind Trump. That includes Cheney, Rumsfeld, Bennet, Ashcroft, Snow, and John Bolton who is likely to be Trump's Secretary of State. They and over 50 other neo-cons that controlled the Bush administrations not only back Trump, they have created a formal coalition to demonstrate public support for Trump.

John Wolfowitz is among the only key players in Iraq that doesn't endorse Trump but he also does not "back Hillary". He only said he "might" (which only means more than a 0% chance) vote for Hillary, and his reasons were quite sound, namely that Trump has promoted borderline treason in encouraging Russia to steal Hillary's emails, and is dangerously hostile toward NATO and all of our allies, indicating he would not help protect them against foreign aggression.

Trump's named "foriegn policy team" is a who's who of neo-con stalwarts with deep ties to the worst in US foreign policy over the last 30 years, including the COO under Bremer of the provisional authority following the Iraq Invasion, a Blackwater executive, and a terrorism fear monger mouthpiece for Fox News whose been pushing for US intervention in the middle East for 30 years.

There are some rather powerless talking head "neo-cons" who find Trump to be too recklessly dangerous to support. But by their own admission, they are not "backing Hillary" because she is a neo-con, but only as a long term strategy to ensure the GOP only nominates uunabashedly extreme neo-cons in the future. And "backing" her doesn't give them any real control, unlike the very direct control over foreign policy that Trump has already promised to the neo-cons should he get elected.

Besides all that, most of the real long term impactful issues over the next 4-8 years will be domestic, where neo-cons are not the major problem but rather idiots like Trump and most of his supporters are the problem and their impact differs starkly from what a Clinton administration would do.
Click to expand...

No fair using FACTS!
</trump>
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom