What if "the wrong person" wins in November?

[Meadmaker]

I listen to talk radio in my car, and that is almost exclusively right wing. I hear one theme repeated over and over. Hillary must lose. If she doesn't, "We won't have a country." or "It's the end of the United States as we know it."

The discussions have a very strong apocalyptic tone to them.

Meanwhile, somebody actually firebombed a Republican headquarters this weekend.

What are people so afraid of? Are some people taking all this a bit too seriously?

My opinion is that, when all is said and done, it's not all that important. I mean, I care and all, but whoever wins, the country will survive. I'd like to hear what other people think is so darned important about preventing "the wrong person" from winning. In doing so, I'd like to hear some sort of justification. In other words, it isn't enough to say what a horrible person the other candidate is. I'd like to hear what you think is so utterly terrible about the other candidate that preventing them from occupying the White House is so critical. I'll even start.

I don't like Donald Trump. I think he is impulsive, narcissistic, and thin skinned. This could lead him to be a bit trigger happy with our armed forces. I don't want that. I don't think it will lead to and end of our country, but I do think it could be a matter of life or death for some of our armed forces, not to mention civilians in the areas where military action could occur. Theoretically, he could start a full scale nuclear war, but how realistic is that, really? It's not something I give more than a passing thought to.

I also think the person of the president is an important factor in maintaining relationships with allies, and his tendency to shoot off his mouth could do great damage there. He yammers about "making them pay their fair share", but I don't see any significant pullback in United States forces after presenting a bill to our allies.

On the domestic front, assuming that the Congress stayed Republican, we might see a repeal of Obamacare, with no real replacement. That would be bad, in my opinion.

Oh, there also might be policies that helped or hurt the economy a little bit one way or the other but, if the truth be told, I think national policy gets too much credit and blame for the state of the economy.

So, to summarize, I think a Donald Trump presidency would be bad, but not apocalyptic.

So, did I miss something that The Donald is likely to do? I mean, I think he'll be an embarrassment on a regular basis, but in terms of really bad things that have really bad consequences, is there something I've overlooked? And on the other side, is there something about Hillary that I've not realized, that would make her a disaster that destroys our country?

 

[Tony Stark]

He could start WW3 all on his own.

 

[Ladewig]

I listen to talk radio in my car, and that is almost exclusively right wing. I hear one theme repeated over and over. Hillary must lose. If she doesn't, "We won't have a country." or "It's the end of the United States as we know it."

The discussions have a very strong apocalyptic tone to them.

Meanwhile, somebody actually firebombed a Republican headquarters this weekend.

What are people so afraid of? Are some people taking all this a bit too seriously?

If right-wing radio hosts spend 20+ years saying the Democrats are not to be viewed as patriotic Americans with different values but instead are to be viewed

• as a destructive force that creates detailed long-range plans to destroy America,
• as an embodiment of evil so great that it would be suicide to compromise on any legislation that the Democrats favor,
• as the only people in this country pushing the Gay Agenda (which teaches kids that homosexuality is not evil in an effort to convert children to that wicked lifestyle),
• as a group that actively hates Christianity and loves Islam so much that Hillary will try to institute Sharia Law, and
• as nefarious conspirators who will use every gun registration and every gun background check to construct a list of people who must be killed or rounded up in the first wave of the Democrats' violent seizing of the US.

Then, yeah, you are going to have hundreds of thousands of radio listeners believing that a society-shattering apocalyptic event is a few weeks away.

 

[PhantomWolf]

So, to summarize, I think a Donald Trump presidency would be bad, but not apocalyptic.

I'm not so sure.

One of my biggest worries about Trump is that both he and Pence have stated that they want to build up the USA's nuclear capability so that they can bargain from a place of strength with the likes of Russia and China.

The problem here is that when you use such a position of strength, i.e. what are basically bully tactics of I have bigger guns than you do, you have to be willing to go through with the implied threat if the people you are "bargaining" with refuse to accept your terms, because if you don't, then what use is showing off the guns in the first place?

The issue is this, if Trump gets in and uses the threat of the Military against China to get them to do what he tells them to do (which is one of the policies he has on his website) what will he actually do if they call his bluff and give him the finger?

What is an acceptable end game of using military action against the likes of China or Russia or North Korea?

Any sane leader would realize that it is crazy to use the military against these countries, and the leaders of those countries are going to know it too, so any power play backed with US military strength should be nothing but a bluff, I'm just not so sure it would be with Trump.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

I listen to talk radio in my car, and that is almost exclusively right wing. I hear one theme repeated over and over. Hillary must lose. If she doesn't, "We won't have a country." or "It's the end of the United States as we know it."

The discussions have a very strong apocalyptic tone to them.

Someone should remind these people that Obama was predicted to destroy the country, too, and that prophecy failed to come true. But, like typical doomsayers, "This time it's for real!"

 

[Apathia]

The wrong person will win in November. And we won't go up in flames.

 

[Mumbles]

In my very limited, no-crystal-ball-owning view...

Trump has proposed nation-wide racial and ethnic discrimination, via "Stop and Frisk" a "deportation force", and the like.

I expect a GOP-led house and senate to offer no resistance, because...well, if they were to do so, they would have stood up to Trump over a year ago.

The primary barrier here, clearly, is spending, effectiveness, and the simple fact that the president does not control any major police - which Trump simply does not seem to understand.

However, these all have their own issues. For example, Hillary has pledged to "provide money" for training, and to train police to deal with implicit biases, and to reform their training overall. This would be an opportunity lost - which is still very important, assuming we get another 4 years of marches, rallies, riots, dead bodies, an increase in police militarization, etc. Essentially, white supremacy writ large.

Similarly, the ultimate deportation move would be something like the Trail of Tears, although I doubt he'd be able to accomplish this. But it would still become a major drain on our economy - as well as on much of our labor pool. End result, poor economy.

I would also expect a defanging of the DOJ - which means a return to active disenfranchisement measures, an effective end to reviews of local police bodies, and the like. At the worst, lunatics like Arpiaio (sp?) or Clarke placed in positions of power.

And those are merely immediate. There are, of course, issues like the EPA, the Supreme Court, and the like.

I know far less about international relations, but he gives me absolutely no confidence in this regard.

 

[Slings and Arrows]

Assuming we get another 4 years of marches, rallies, riots, dead bodies, an increase in police militarization, etc. Essentially, white supremacy writ large.

Another 4 years? Who was at the helm during the previous 4 years?

Are you accusing Barack Obama of white supremacy?

 

[Mumbles]

Another 4 years? Who was at the helm during the previous 4 years?

Are you accusing Barack Obama of white supremacy?

This should be fun for...possibly a week.

Make your case. Whatever you wish to contradict me on

But take care, since you've already confused past and future.

 

[Mumbles]

The wrong person will win in November. And we won't go up in flames.

This is true, really.

 

[Seismosaurus]

So, did I miss something that The Donald is likely to do? I mean, I think he'll be an embarrassment on a regular basis, but in terms of really bad things that have really bad consequences, is there something I've overlooked?

I think there's probably a 20-40% chance that he would start World War III. Which, depending on the breaks, could kill anything from tens of millions of people to, well, everybody.

So yeah, IMO there's a definite chance of a Trump presidency being pretty damn apocalyptic.

And on the other side, is there something about Hillary that I've not realized, that would make her a disaster that destroys our country?

Honestly, I think the worst you could say about a Hillary Presidency is that it's gonna be more of the same. One of the things the right like to say is that Hillary would essentially be an extension of the Obama Presidency - policies that may not be identical, but are essentially similar. I agree with that, but I see it as a positive thing. I think Hillary will break more leftie on social issues, generally - not because she IS more left, but rather because the country has drifted more left so she has more space to be so.

Otherwise it'll be more of the same. I see Obama as one of the better Presidents the US has had in the last few decades, so more of that sounds pretty good to me.

 

[Meadmaker]

He could start WW3 all on his own.

He could...but he won't. He could do something very stupid that results in people getting killed, but I don't see nuclear annihilation in our near future.

To be fair, I wouldn't trust him with the nuclear button, just in case, but I don't actually think it would happen. If something goes horribly wrong and he does get elected, I won't start building bomb shelters and I won't move to some remote corner of the world where the fallout won't get to. I won't even move to Canada.

And if Clinton wins? I wonder if anyone will post some information on what dire consequences will develop, justifying the wailing and gnashing of teeth that I hear daily on my radio.

 

[Tony Stark]

He could...but he won't. He could do something very stupid that results in people getting killed, but I don't see nuclear annihilation in our near future.

To be fair, I wouldn't trust him with the nuclear button, just in case, but I don't actually think it would happen. If something goes horribly wrong and he does get elected, I won't start building bomb shelters and I won't move to some remote corner of the world where the fallout won't get to. I won't even move to Canada.

And if Clinton wins? I wonder if anyone will post some information on what dire consequences will develop, justifying the wailing and gnashing of teeth that I hear daily on my radio.

He's a deranged idiot who doesn't understand why American doesn't use its nukes.

Giving him nuclear weapons would be an insane risk.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Unlike Clinton, Trump doesn't understand what it means to be a democrat, by which I mean a person supporting a democratic political system for the US.

- he regularly ignores (or is unaware of) the separation of power
- he doesn't acknowledge the freedom of the press
- he questions the neutrality of the election process
- he presumes to have powers as President that he simply won't have
- he doesn't know the Constitution (he gets it regularly wrong).

 

[Ziggurat]

I'm not so sure.

One of my biggest worries about Trump is that both he and Pence have stated that they want to build up the USA's nuclear capability so that they can bargain from a place of strength with the likes of Russia and China.

The problem here is that when you use such a position of strength, i.e. what are basically bully tactics of I have bigger guns than you do, you have to be willing to go through with the implied threat if the people you are "bargaining" with refuse to accept your terms, because if you don't, then what use is showing off the guns in the first place?

The implied threat here is to build a bigger nuclear arsenal. Maybe that will work, maybe it won't (it seemed to work during the cold war, I'll note), but all that's necessary to deliver on that threat is to build the arsenal. We've done it before.

The issue is this, if Trump gets in and uses the threat of the Military against China to get them to do what he tells them to do (which is one of the policies he has on his website) what will he actually do if they call his bluff and give him the finger?

What is an acceptable end game of using military action against the likes of China or Russia or North Korea?

Unless you're willing to roll over for all our enemies, EVERY president will face this question.

Any sane leader would realize that it is crazy to use the military against these countries

No. Any sane leader would realize that we MUST be willing to use the military against these countries if the situation gets bad enough. Where to draw the red lines (and how to communicate those lines) is not an easy question, but if you categorically remove the possibility, then bad actors WILL act very, very badly.

and the leaders of those countries are going to know it too, so any power play backed with US military strength should be nothing but a bluff, I'm just not so sure it would be with Trump.

Is any power play backed with Chinese military strength likewise a bluff? Because they're making such power plays.

 

[Ziggurat]

The wrong person will win in November. And we won't go up in flames.

Absolutely. Even Johnson and Stein are the wrong people.

But as an additional note, if you think that having the wrong person as president will be apocalyptic, then the obvious logical conclusion is that the presidency has far too much power. Funny how few of the chicken littles can put 2 and 2 together on that note.

 

[Tony Stark]

Absolutely. Even Johnson and Stein are the wrong people.

But as an additional note, if you think that having the wrong person as president will be apocalyptic, then the obvious logical conclusion is that the presidency has far too much power. Funny how few of the chicken littles can put 2 and 2 together on that note.

It is the constitution that gives the President the power to start WW3. Though the founders obviously didn't consider nuclear weapons. Nor did they consider that a major party would go insane and nominate a deranged idiot.

 

[Belz...]

I listen to talk radio in my car, and that is almost exclusively right wing.

Do you deliberately try to be pissed off when you get to work?

I hear one theme repeated over and over. Hillary must lose. If she doesn't, "We won't have a country." or "It's the end of the United States as we know it."

Even left-leaning people are starting to have this sort of rhetoric. It's weird. I get the dislike for Hillary. I share much of it, myself. But there's a difference between disliking someone and thinking that they're the literal devil. Plus, I can't fathom why people, even considering their grievances with the establishment, think that Trump's the better option.

 

[Brainster]

This is pretty much the problem with moderates getting the nomination on both sides (and Trump is considered a squish on conservative talk radio). You can't rally the base of either party with half-a-loaf candidates, so you have to sell the notion that the other party's candidate is the second coming of Mao/Hitler.

It is amazing how many people buy into it every four years.

 

[Tony Stark]

This is pretty much the problem with moderates getting the nomination on both sides (and Trump is considered a squish on conservative talk radio). You can't rally the base of either party with half-a-loaf candidates, so you have to sell the notion that the other party's candidate is the second coming of Mao/Hitler.

It is amazing how many people buy into it every four years.

Donald Trump really is an idiotic, deranged piece of trash.