What if "the wrong person" wins in November?

[Jrrarglblarg]

Still no citation. And you are wrong. Hell, the president cannot even detonate a nuke underground just for testing, let alone to start a war (a power the constitution explicitly reserves for Congress).

Those are two totally different things utterly unconnected in any logical or legal manner.

 

[Ziggurat]

During the Cold War the aim was to have Mutually Ensured Destruction if there was an attack, that's still in place, there is no need to build up the stockpiles again as if it ever got to a nuclear war the US alone has enough to destroy the human population of the planet several times over.

Nuclear deterrence is a little more complicated than that. But if that's what you think, then Russia has no reason to be concerned if we build more, so if won't escalate tensions with Russia if we do.

False Dichotomy. This is the failing of the right, you believe that you have to win and have things your way or it's a total utter defeat.

Yeah, no. YOU set up the false dichotomy regarding war. I'm just pointing out the absurdity of it.

The idea of talking an reaching a settlement that might not be perfect for either side, but gives both something seems to be an anathema to you. You can negotiate without pointing a gun at someone, in fact, amazingly it tends to work better too.

Wrong again (I'm sensing a trend). I never said we shouldn't negotiate. But you can't negotiate with an enemy if you aren't willing to use force under any conditions. If you're never willing to use force, then your enemy is guaranteed to defeat you, and has no reason to negotiate with you. You seem to think I'm arguing that using force is the goal, but that's a complete misreading of my position.

At what cost?

At a huge cost, obviously. Which is why we shouldn't do it except under extreme circumstances, which I hope never to see. But the point is that if you refuse to use force no matter how extreme the circumstances, you are actually making those dire possibilities more likely.

Perhaps you need to take a clue from JFK when faced with a "Red Line"

Our policy has been one of patience and restraint, as befits a peaceful and powerful nation, which leads a world-wide alliance. We have been determined not to be diverted from our central concerns by mere irritants and fanatics. But now further action is required-and it is underway; and these actions may only be the beginning. We will not prematurely or unnecessarily risk the costs of worldwide nuclear war in which even the fruits of victory would be ashes in our mouth-but neither will we shrink from that risk at any time it must be faced.

There's no conflict between what he said and what I said.

Now consider, are Trump's Red-Lines and demands on China worth having "the fruits of victory [become] ashes in [y]our mouth"?

Now you're making a different argument. You're now saying that Trump's position is to aggressive. And maybe it is. But that's not what you said before. Arguing about exactly when we should be willing to use force is a fundamentally different argument than arguing about whether we should ever, under any conditions, use force. And your prior objections to Trump were of the latter sort.

China's power plays are in their own back yard and to do with their own borders

No. Their moves in the South China Sea are NOT their own borders. They're trying to take over territory that does NOT belong to them. As for being in their own back yard, again, that goes back to a question of where you want to draw the lines for when you're willing to use force. Being in your "own back yard" is generally recognized as a reason for countries to be more willing to use force, but (again) that's not the basis for your prior objection to Trump.

 

[Mycroft]

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!"

From their perspective, it did come true, and only the brave obstructionism of the Republicans has saved us from the worst of Obamas socialism.

 

[Foolmewunz]

From their perspective, it did come true, and only the brave obstructionism of the Republicans has saved us from the worst of Obamas socialism.

Well, for the true believers, it's come true time and again. Roosevelt elected, Roosevelt re-elected, Roosevelt re-re-elected, Roosevelt re-re-re-elected, Truman desegregating the armed forces, Ike rolling over for the Supremes and supporting desegregation, that Irish-Catholic getting elected president, good old boy Johnson turns on them and gives firm rights to black people, commie Supreme Court Traitors legitimize baby-murdering, etc... Segue to OMG Black President Elected!!!!

It's the end of the world as we know it is very accurate. But we all go through that. It's the reactionaries who worry about it. It's called "progress". The world has changed so much in the past century that glass-half-empty types always have something to piss and moan about.

 

[Mumbles]

"Pray Trump wins."

No.

 

[catsmate]

The very same executive orders that people fear Clinton will overdo, for instance.

But she's a Democrat and a woman while the Trumpet is a manly Republican, so his executive orders would be fine.

 

[Belz...]

Bob is an anarchist/libertarian. All government policies are bad to him.

Funny has the technology he's using the post all this would not exist if not for nation-states.

 

[Spindrift]

Funny has the technology he's using the post all this would not exist if not for nation-states.

Inconvenient facts are duly ignored.

 

[Ladewig]

A number of decent persons are Republicans.

Your claim is simply no better than the opposite claims that Democrats want Sharia law or some such. It's made up of whole cloth.

Don't you think that it would be better to be in a position to reason with one's opposition, rather than to demonize them? Don't you think that democracy requires such a willingness?

I think that almost everyone involved in the political process, and especially the political leaders, want what they think is best for the country. I'll admit that Trump is a special case, but I can believe that even he thinks that he would be best for the country. So let's focus on what is best for the country, and not on the supposed evil in the opposition.

really?

I have yet to see a scintilla of evidence that Trump could put the needs and desires of of his country ahead of his own. The guy has difficulty understanding that women are actually persons with their own wants and needs and that they should not be treated as objects. Can anyone seriously believe that Trump could look at a piece of legislation and say "while this bill would greatly benefit me, I can see that it would harm America both in the short and long term, therefore I must veto it"?

No. Trump is too self-centered, mentally-ill, and morally-bankrupt to be considered a reasonable and useful candidate who wants what is best for America.

ETA
I can understand that many of his followers may want what is best for America and that they may have different value systems. But Trump? No. He has no values that extend beyond the tip of his penis.

 

[Spindrift]

really?

I have yet to see a scintilla of evidence that Trump could put the needs and desires of of his country ahead of his own. The guy has difficulty understanding that women are actually persons with their own wants and needs and that they should not be treated as objects. Can anyone seriously believe that Trump could look at a piece of legislation and say "while this bill would greatly benefit me, I can see that it would harm America both in the short and long term, therefore I must veto it"?

No. Trump is too self-centered, mentally-ill, and morally-bankrupt to be considered a reasonable and useful candidate who wants what is best for America.

ETA
I can understand that many of his followers may want what is best for America and that they may have different value systems. But Trump? No. He has no values that extend beyond the tip of his penis.

Trump believes that what is best for him is best for America. Reality doesn't enter into the equation.

 

[phiwum]

really?

I have yet to see a scintilla of evidence that Trump could put the needs and desires of of his country ahead of his own. The guy has difficulty understanding that women are actually persons with their own wants and needs and that they should not be treated as objects. Can anyone seriously believe that Trump could look at a piece of legislation and say "while this bill would greatly benefit me, I can see that it would harm America both in the short and long term, therefore I must veto it"?

No. Trump is too self-centered, mentally-ill, and morally-bankrupt to be considered a reasonable and useful candidate who wants what is best for America.

ETA
I can understand that many of his followers may want what is best for America and that they may have different value systems. But Trump? No. He has no values that extend beyond the tip of his penis.

I agree that his actual behavior would be completely self-serving, but Trump's very high opinion of himself makes it plausible to me that he regards himself as the best option for this nation.

But this is all speculation, of course.

 

[Ladewig]

I agree that his actual behavior would be completely self-serving, but Trump's very high opinion of himself makes it plausible to me that he regards himself as the best option for this nation.

But this is all speculation, of course.

I will concede that your speculation is plausible. But I will also assert that it is plausible that Trump cannot conceive that the nation's interests could be in conflict with his own interests. I could easily imagine someone asking him if one of his announced plans might be good for Trump and bad for the nation and Trump saying "L'ėtat, c'est moi."

OK, not in those exact words, but something along the lines of "how can something be good for me and not be good for the nation?"

He doesn't strike me as the kind of guy who could define in any meaningful way the term public servant.

 

[Belz...]

But I will also assert that it is plausible that Trump cannot conceive that the nation's interests could be in conflict with his own interests.

So he's like most people, then?

To be clear: I don't think most people should be president of the USA.

 

[Meadmaker]

The thought that really drove this thread was listening to the gloom and doom about "the end of this country" if Hillary got elected. I was hoping we would hear from someone who actually agrees with that perspective to see what they would say. Alas, I am forced to speculate.

Among the big issues that is apparently going to make our country unrecognizable is that the Supreme Court will have some Hillary appointed justices. I can understand the concern, but "the end of the country?" Really? What is so bad?

I just have a hard time believing that the average right winger has such a deep reverence for the law and constitutional principles that they believe a judicial activist would actually make the country unrecognizable. From what I can tell, they are perfectly happy with judicial activism if it comes form their side. It has been decades, but I remember the Robert Bork confirmation hearings, and reading that guy's judicial philosophy. I thought it ironic that this darling of the right wing who called himself an originalist, wasn't. He was a big time judicial activist, on the right wing.

So, if it isn't really judicial activism that troubles them, what is it?

I think it's gays. I really think that's what they are all in a tizzy about I can't think of any other issue that could be really driving them to think that a Hillary appointed Supreme Court would mean "the end of the country".

I suppose it might be guns. Although recent decisions have all gone the way that the gun lobby wants, a Hillary court might end up supporting restrictions on ammo clip size, or something, and then we could just throw our country out the window, or something.

So, when it's all over, I think guns and gays are what has them in a panic about the Supreme Court.

 

[Mycroft]

I think it's gays. I really think that's what they are all in a tizzy about I can't think of any other issue that could be really driving them to think that a Hillary appointed Supreme Court would mean "the end of the country".

Probably. Lot's of rapid advancement for Gay rights, and a portion of the population doesn't want to cede that ground without a greater fight.

They also want access to abortion rolled back, probably anti-marijuana too.

 

[phiwum]

I will concede that your speculation is plausible. But I will also assert that it is plausible that Trump cannot conceive that the nation's interests could be in conflict with his own interests. I could easily imagine someone asking him if one of his announced plans might be good for Trump and bad for the nation and Trump saying "L'ėtat, c'est moi."

OK, not in those exact words, but something along the lines of "how can something be good for me and not be good for the nation?"

He doesn't strike me as the kind of guy who could define in any meaningful way the term public servant.

I don't think we disagree on anything substantial here.

 

[Cainkane1]

Both candidates are wrong for ASmerica. I can't understand how the American people could have narrowed it down to two such arrogant and incompetent individuals. If Donald Trump wins I'm afraid he will say something offensive to a world leader or worse. Hillary,s past will come back to haunt her and she may even end up in jail while in office not to mention the fact that her sexual past which includes relations with other women will come back to haunt her.

 

[Spindrift]

Both candidates are wrong for ASmerica. I can't understand how the American people could have narrowed it down to two such arrogant and incompetent individuals. If Donald Trump wins I'm afraid he will say something offensive to a world leader or worse. Hillary,s past will come back to haunt her and she may even end up in jail while in office not to mention the fact that her sexual past which includes relations with other women will come back to haunt her.

Her sexual past? I think her having relations with other women would probably make her more popular.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

How come the forum lacks a delete-post function? Dupes are dumb.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

Probably. Lot's of rapid advancement for Gay rights, and a portion of the population doesn't want to cede that ground without a greater fight.

They also want access to abortion rolled back, probably anti-marijuana too.

In another thread, logger specifically made a statement in which "leftists" are the opposite of "morality."

Morality of course being defined by opposition to "leftist" policies ....