Would the World Survive a Killary presidency?

Again, I raised this question a couple of years ago to no avail:

http://rabble.ca/babble/rabble-reactions/ukrainerussia-threads-inventory

Remember that we have in the past seen duplicate threads deleted  or merged. No such luck on the troll factory and  conspiracist stuff.

Maybe you could try posting a few of these threads of your own to see how far you can push the envelope.

I think I see what's going on here.

I don't really believe that the Hillary/Shrillary/Killary folks genuinely prefer Trump.  But they're enjoying some kind of Disney movie fantasy wherein, once Hillary is out of the picture, either Bernie Sanders or Jill Stein will help the orphans put on a talent show to raise enough money to save the farm from foreclosure (by Hillary).

Except, of course, this isn't The Little Rascals, and if the FBI were to drag Clinton to Guantanamo in leg irons, their next assignment would be to repaint the Oval Office in Donald Trump's favourite colour.

Mr. Magoo wrote:

babble needs some kind of "Chicken Little" forum for all of the pessimistic, partisan, clickbait Eeyore nonsense that currently gets lumped in with actual news that's actually happening in the actual world.

Can it be sub-titled "discuss weirdass conspiracy shit from a pro-Putin point of view"?

Quote:

Can it be sub-titled "discuss weirdass conspiracy shit from a pro-Putin point of view"?

Wouldn't that be "othering" if some crank who comes along who's not pro-Putin?

Ken Burch wrote:

Would the world survive a Trump presidency?

That is the only other possibility.

Of course that's irrelevant, because there is no difference between the two of them. Isn't that how that narrative goes?

But we can't have Hillary because it will be the end of the world.

Better question. Would the world survive a Donald Trump presidency?

I think that is a real discussion for debate.

Clinton isn't sending troops anywhere. She isn't in office.

No no, we have always been at war with Erdoganasia. 

Clinton..LOL! Would you please pay attention to what Trump is saying. Neocon war hawks have NOTHING on the alt-right movement. Far more scarier and far more dangerous.

If you're really, really mad at Hillary Clinton, or the Democrats, or the whole U.S. electoral system, then I suppose it must be kind of galling to even admit that she's the lesser of two evils.  Silliness ensues.

No US president is ever going to try to confiscate people's guns.  None would ever be THAT stupid.

Sending the military or the police door-to-door to take away the firearms of civilians would instantly incite a massive armed uprising, with untold casualties on both sides and most likely result in some sort of dictatorial regime no matter which side-civilian or state-ended up winning. 

If a US president actually wanted to set up a police state, she or he would never confiscate personal weaponry-he or she(or eventually they, if a trans version of Adam Sutler ever appeared) would carpetbomb a large city or two(or possibly an entire "red state") in the dead of night, in order to instantly instill fear in the population with as little troop exposure as possible).  The tactic would be annihilation, not one-on-one combat in which the government forces would have no strategic or tactical advantage or all.

Those who think gun confiscation would be the first step in the establishment of tyranny make a fundamental mistake in their analysis of the tyrranical mind:  They assume a would-be tyrant would be decent enough to "fight fair".

I don't see any of those doomsday scenarios happening, and I see Trump doing probably just as much damage doing what he is doing already as he would if he became president. After all, he has poisoned the water already by saying if he loses it is proof things are fixed.

And it is worth remembering that Jimmy Carter said he considered Trump not as bad as Ted Cruz.

But I do think things like who might be chosen as a supreme court nominee is a significant difference that could potentially be longer lasting than any wall. There have been justices who lasted longer than the one in Berlin.

Yeah, and the not interfering in the Middle East thing came back to bite him in the ass last night. Not that his base will notice the lie.

This is probably not productive, but I'll give it a go.

alan smithee wrote:

@Cody.

He's mentioned much more than building a wall. For one thing,there is no chance in Hell that Mexico is going to pay for it.

Well, Mexico isn't going to write a cheque for it if that's what you mean. It's absolutely within the power of the U.S. government to make Mexico pay for it, whether it's the Mexican government (through trade measures, withholding aid, etc) or the illegal immigrants living in America (through taxing remittances sent back to Mexico).

So Trump can make Mexico pay for the wall in the same way as a parent could make a child pay for a broken window by withholding allowance.

By the way, "Mexico won't pay for the wall" is a trap. Every time a Trump detractor says "Mexico won't pay for the wall," you're bringing attention back to one of Trump's most popular policies (in the U.S.) and easiest boasts to realize once in office. In the context of the U.S. economy, the wall is not expensive and anyone who cares about illegal immigration would rather see the wall on America's dime than no wall because Mexico won't pay for it. So even as they point out what I pointed out above, internally they don't even care if America ends up paying for it because they just want the wall. By saying Mexico would pay for it, Trump skipped right over the debate of "wall or no wall" to "will Mexico pay for the wall" - something easier for his detractors to criticize but something nobody actually cares about. And then, as here, it's used as an example of him being "wrong" as though all instances of being "wrong" about something are equally bad.

Quote:

I think you should dig deeper at things he has said and more importantly,the people he has surrounding him and feeding him his talking points.

Steve Bannon,Roger Ailes,Rudy Guiliani...His supporters,the KKK and other white nationalist groups.

Sure, and his prominent supporters in the alt-right, Milo Yiannopoulos, Stefan Molyneux, Stephen Crowder, Mike Cernovich, Alex Marlow...have I missed any? I've been paying attention.

So Trump is an egotistical maniac who never listens to anyone which makes him dangerous because he's unpredictable. But if it's a crazy white supremacist whispering in his ear then suddenly he loses all independent thought and becomes a puppet. Sorry, but you can't have it both ways. Neither of those propositions are good, but they are mutually exclusive so it would be a lot more convincing if the story stayed straight.

Never mind the fact that Trump denounced the KKK as well as neo-Nazis, explicitly, all the way back in 2000 when he left the Reform party.

Quote:

Listen to his 'tough talk' about crime and law and order. What do you think he has mind? Listen to him. He openly wants to turn the US into a complete Police State.

There are cities in the United States where young black men are less safe (more likely to die) than on deployment in the middle east. Imagine if there were Canadian cities where young people were encouraged to join the military and go to a desert halfway across the world to fight terrorists because they would be safer.

I'd be talking about law and order too.

Quote:

Look at how he treats the media. How he blacklists media circles who fact check him. I think at this point the only 2 media outlets he gives time for is Breitbart.com and Faux News.

This is another one of those things that is a trap. Donald Trump revoked the press credentials of a specific outlet, IIRC the Washington Post. Now, to be clear, they could still come to his press conferences etc. but he wasn't going to take their questions. He was still dealing with all the other outlets but claimed the Post was too biased. What a lunatic, he actually thinks the media is biased in favour of Hillary! Two weeks later, a bunch of DNC emails get leaked which show massive collusion between the democrats and the media, with by far the worst offending outlet being - you guessed it - the Washington Post with more than 20 writers taking their lead from the DNC.

This does not make Donald Trump look bad.

Quote:

Tell me. Trump said he can rid the world of ISIS in 30 DAYS!! What do you think he has in mind.

Boots on the ground and working with Russia, instead of hindering Russia. We know Clinton doesn't want to defeat ISIS - she wants the middle east destabilized with infighting to weaken Iran's influence in order to protect Israel. Thanks, Wikileaks.

Quote:

I can come up with much more but it''s early in the morning and I'm too tired.

I'll be waiting. None of this scares me as much as Clinton.

I mean honestly. Your reasons for being terrified of Trump are:

He said Mexico will pay for the wall.

Some of his supporters are racists.

He wants to address rising crime in a major cities where even the police are starting to get assassinated.

He doesn't like the media that is completely in the tank for his opponent.

Honestly, do you think Clinton has a healthier relationship with the media?

If my choice is someone who might ban the media, and someone who already and provably owns it, well, that's a wash they are equally bad.

Quote:

But how would Trump be as President? GFoogle Mike Pence. Take a good look at thje people he surrounds himself with. Listen to what he says.,especially what he says off the cuff.

Tim Kaine is far more likely to be president than Mike Pence is.

Quote:

I'm no Conservative but I can hear his message clearly  through the barrage of dog whistles he blows.

You mean your confirmation bias is so strong that you interpret literally everything he says to have the worst possible meaning.

Quote:

Get over the fact that Clinton is a Republican and a war hawk. Trump is a fucking certified maniac.

I have yet to be convinced that Trump is likely to be as bad, from a loss of human life perspective, as Clinton is certain to be.

Timebandit wrote:

Did you hear Trump suggest he'd deploy nukes?

No. When was this?

Quote:

so the decision to go to war, drop bombs and missiles, and kill innocent people won't be left up to either candidate. Power in the US just isn't wielded that way.

It's actually Congress who decides when to go to war.  The POTUS just signs the paper.

But Congressional elections are boring.  And there are so many of them!  So let's just argue about who would be "the WAR President".

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:

so the decision to go to war, drop bombs and missiles, and kill innocent people won't be left up to either candidate. Power in the US just isn't wielded that way.

It's actually Congress who decides when to go to war.  The POTUS just signs the paper.

But Congressional elections are boring.  And there are so many of them!  So let's just argue about who would be "the WAR President".

That is what is supposed to happen however the POTUS now makes those kinds of decisions on his/her own. The idea that the Congress needs to approve military actions is a quaint notion from the past.Tell the people of Libya that the US and its NATO allies where not engaged in war when they had most of their modern infrastructure bombed into the dark ages.

Quote:

Most legal scholars agree that the nation’s founders intended to separate the power to decide to initiate a war from the power to carry it out. But ever since the Korean War, presidents of both parties have ordered military action without Congressional authorization.

The divergence between presidential practice for the past 60 years and the text and history of the Constitution makes it hard to say whether such action is lawful, scholars say. “There’s no more dramatic example of the ‘living Constitution’ than in this area,” said David Golove, a New York University law professor.

...

The administration’s legal team appears to be distinguishing between a full war and a more limited military operation, on the theory that the Libyan intervention falls short of what would prompt any Congressional authority to control decisions about whether to initiate hostilities.Asked about Mr. Obama’s 2007 statement, Tom Donilon, Mr. Obama’s national security adviser, said Monday that the administration “welcomes the support of Congress in whatever form that they want to express that support.” But, Mr. Donilon added, Mr. Obama could authorize the operation on his own.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/22/world/africa/22powers.html?partner=rss...

Quote:

Yoiu think this babboon is President material? Get your head checked,Cody.

Many believe that things have to get worse before they'll get better.  They believe that the greatest threat to the world right now is "comfort" -- if people have a job and a car and some leisure time and they basically think their life is OK then radical change will never happen.

So if Clinton is bad and Trump is worse, support Trump.  Maybe if things are a living hell for the next four years the complacent middle classes will take to the streets.  But if Clinton does nothing to enrage them -- or worse yet, if they actually like some of her policies -- then nobody's gonna get hanged by their own entrails.

Happens every election.

Remember my baboon story?

I think it's pertinent here too.  I mean, what better way to slash Clinton and the DNC in the ass than by supporting President Trump?  Right now, in the middle of the chase, is literally the perfect time.

I guess I forgot to mention, in the original story, that once the payback went down it turned into a baboon fight, the prey got away, and all the baboons went to bed without dinner. 

Progressives for Trump just signed an historic accord with Vegans for Bacon. 

Good slash, sir!  Good slash!

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Cody87 wrote:

I have yet to be convinced that Trump is likely to be as bad, from a loss of human life perspective, as Clinton is certain to be.

It has nothing to do with speculations about loss of life, or imagining that any wall is going to be built. That is not going to happen.

The man is simply unqualified for the job. Really, whether he gets it or not is kind of irrelevant. He is doing the real damage right now. 

As for Clinton's supposed powers, just look at how free a rein Obama had during the last eight years.

But I do appreciate you coming right out and saying it. That's more than Julian Assange did.

Also, Trump is specifically calling for a country where some people are automatically considered less American and less trustworthy than others, and essentially treated as fair game for hate speech, mob violence, and police brutality, simply because of their religion or ethnicity, and a country in which only Protestants of Northern European or British Isles descent are seen as "real Americans".  Do you really think that that is no big deal, Cody?  Do you really think that the US should have a leader who treats large groups of its own citizens as essentially part of the enemy?

And as for crime in the cities...actually, violent crime has been falling sharply in most of US cities for decades now, and will keep falling even if criminal justice reform and and sentencing reform are put in place, so there is no epidemic of crime and people of color are no more inherently violent or criminal than anyone else.

The people of the United States have nothing to gain from electing an arrogant, belllicose, possibly delusional total bastard as presdient.  It's not about electing a Nightclub-Heckler-In-Chief, or a Highest Bully In The Land.

Hillary has a lot of flaws, but at least she's not trying to incite a freaking race war. 

Trump simply has nothing positive to offer for his country, and cannot make anything better.