Why I should vote for Trump?

[P.J. Denyer]

See the link in post #383

Just read it (had to go out), so I was too late for a "Ninja'd". Both stories are true then! The odd thing is that they represent thecomplete opposite of each other, one is "Technically right is the best right" while the other is attempting to discern the actual will of the voter.

 

[Mike!]

Can I vote him off the island?

 

[Emily's Cat]

One reason to vote for Trump is the people he surrounds himself with. The many, many people. I believe he had 4 different Chiefs of Staff in 4 years, the briefest spokesperson ever. The majority of cabinet members in the end were "Acting" Secretaries. In this way, no one person can get into excessive trouble, everybody has to walk around on tip-toes. You never know when the axe is going to fall... and fall... and fall. In short, dysfunction has its merits.

There's some merit to that approach. We're faced with two choices, which are highly polarizing and divisive, each of whom is strongly disliked by the other side, and in many cases both are strongly disliked by a very, very large non-partisan portion of the country. One of those is capable of getting their policies enacted; the other is incapable of working with people so is unlikely to be effective.

 

[Mike!]

There's some merit to that approach. We're faced with two choices, which are highly polarizing and divisive, each of whom is strongly disliked by the other side, and in many cases both are strongly disliked by a very, very large non-partisan portion of the country. One of those is capable of getting their policies enacted; the other is incapable of working with people so is unlikely to be effective.

While history may say otherwise, now is not the time to find out if Trump actually CAN learn from his previous mistakes.

 

[SteveAitch]

Just read it (had to go out), so I was too late for a "Ninja'd". Both stories are true then! The odd thing is that they represent thecomplete opposite of each other, one is "Technically right is the best right" while the other is attempting to discern the actual will of the voter.

Fair enough.

Bet the disgruntled voter was even more disgruntled when he found out his 'artwork' had been accepted as a valid vote.

 

[dasmiller]

While history may say otherwise, now is not the time to find out if Trump actually CAN learn from his previous mistakes.

History suggests that when Trump learns from previous mistakes, he learns who wasn't blindly loyal to him and thus should be attacked by Trump's followers.

 

[Darat]

While history may say otherwise, now is not the time to find out if Trump actually CAN learn from his previous mistakes.

I am sure this time if he becomes president he will become presidential, all this fluff is just his election campaigning to get attention, he doesn't mean any of it....

 

[lobosrul5]

There's some merit to that approach. We're faced with two choices, which are highly polarizing and divisive, each of whom is strongly disliked by the other side, and in many cases both are strongly disliked by a very, very large non-partisan portion of the country. One of those is capable of getting their policies enacted; the other is incapable of working with people so is unlikely to be effective.

And what, pray tell, did Trump get done last time he was President?

He got a tax break (mostly for the wealthy, it actually increased my taxes) enacted. That is literally it.

ETA: or did I read that wrong and you meant the highlighted as Trump?

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Would WWIII be more or less likely if Trump got elected? Or do you think it would make no difference?

 

[Mike!]

Would WWIII be more or less likely if Trump got elected? Or do you think it would make no difference?

Far and away more likely than not.
Even now we're only a few steps away from always being at war with Eastasia as it is, so he'll be happy to go all in.

Stir up the hornets nest that is Iran and it's proxies as much as possible.
Send U.S. troops to Ukraine, to fight on the side of Russia, in order to 'establish peace between them like only he can.'
Bomb Mexico and select South American countries.
Ignore China's advance on Taiwan.
Wage actual outright war on anything even remotely referred to as, "green energy", starting with that pesky windmill in Scotland.

Those are just off the top of my head, I'm sure I've missed something.

 

[Fidelio]

Deleted because some ugly humour could be mistaken for dangerous speech

 

[Regnad Kcin]

Policy matters but so does competency, I don't actually think either potential candidate is especially competent, so that leaves me with the one that's least dangerous. Yep.

We do not vote for a candidate, we vote for an administration. And the current administration is competent, lawful, adult, and more than a little interested in the betterment of all.

Trump II, based on what many potential members, and countless backers, of are right now loudly proclaiming they'll work feverishly to accomplish, will be wanton, cruel, lawless, destructive, vindictive, anti-American, and anti-world order.

It's so hard to decide!

 

[Mike!]

We do not vote for a candidate, we vote for an administration. And the current administration is competent, lawful, adult, and more than a little interested in the betterment of all.

Trump II, based on what many potential members, and countless backers, of are right now loudly proclaiming they'll work feverishly to accomplish, will be wanton, cruel, lawless, destructive, vindictive, anti-American, and anti-world order.

It's so hard to decide!

One for all, or all for one.
Shouldn't be a hard choice, should it?

 

[Hans]

Far and away more likely than not.
Even now we're only a few steps away from always being at war with Eastasia as it is, so he'll be happy to go all in.

Stir up the hornets nest that is Iran and it's proxies as much as possible.
Send U.S. troops to Ukraine, to fight on the side of Russia, in order to 'establish peace between them like only he can.'
Bomb Mexico and select South American countries.
Ignore China's advance on Taiwan.
Wage actual outright war on anything even remotely referred to as, "green energy", starting with that pesky windmill in Scotland.

Those are just off the top of my head, I'm sure I've missed something.

I'd suspect he'd tried to set up a situation like Russia a 'Tsar' and oligarchs made up of a new nobility of rich people, everyone else put under the heel.

 

[Ziggurat]

Far and away more likely than not.

Everyone said that about Trump's first term.

And everyone was wrong. **** hit the fan after he left office, not during.

Those are just off the top of my head, I'm sure I've missed something.

Don't forget the Nazis hiding on the far side of the moon.

 

[ahhell]

We do not vote for a candidate, we vote for an administration.

Not really.

And the current administration is competent, lawful, adult, and more than a little interested in the betterment of all.

Sure, if you say so.

Trump II, based on what many potential members, and countless backers, of are right now loudly proclaiming they'll work feverishly to accomplish, will be wanton, cruel, lawless, destructive, vindictive, anti-American, and anti-world order.

It's so hard to decide!

But that bit is true.

 

[Emily's Cat]

And what, pray tell, did Trump get done last time he was President?

Almost nothing - that's the point.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Would WWIII be more or less likely if Trump got elected? Or do you think it would make no difference?

In my opinion, which president the US elects is not likely to make a material difference. At the very outer limit, there might be a minor influence on how quickly we end up with WW3. Neither the US nor other European and English speaking nations are driving the conflicts. The conflicts are being driven by dictators and by religious zealotry.

I have a personal opinion, but it's very much based on impressions and my own biases. Other people will have opinions that differ, and there's simply no way to say which opinion (if either) is correct. I fall very, very slightly on the side of Trump slightly delaying the onset of WW3, simply because other countries would have a bit of hesitation about how Trump would respond, and how "proportionate" the US response is likely to be. My personal view is that over the past few years, Biden has shown a reticence to engage with the full force of the US military, and so to those currently engaging in aggressive campaigns, Biden is not viewed as a deterrent. Trump is a bit of a wild card - they might do nothing at all, or they might start taking out foreign generals and heads of state with targeted drone strikes.

But like I said, that's my view, and others will disagree.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Far and away more likely than not.
Even now we're only a few steps away from always being at war with Eastasia as it is, so he'll be happy to go all in.

Stir up the hornets nest that is Iran and it's proxies as much as possible.
Send U.S. troops to Ukraine, to fight on the side of Russia, in order to 'establish peace between them like only he can.'
Bomb Mexico and select South American countries.
Ignore China's advance on Taiwan.
Wage actual outright war on anything even remotely referred to as, "green energy", starting with that pesky windmill in Scotland.

Those are just off the top of my head, I'm sure I've missed something.

I have skepticism about some of your assumptions.

Why do you think Trump would support Russia? I could see it if you believed Trump would remove any tine vestiges of support we've provided to Ukraine, but actually switching sides to support one of the US's largest and longest-lasting threats is extremely far-fetched.

Why do you think Trump would bomb Mexico - an ally? Let alone any South American countries with which we are not currently at war, nor engaged in substantial conflict? And why do you think congress would support it, and why would the US military follow such a clearly unconstitutional order?

Why do you think Trump would ignore China's aggression toward Taiwan, given that Trump has been the only president in my memory to literally recognize Taiwan as an independent entity, and to actually place significant tariffs and trade consequences on China?

I get that Trump is a wild card, and I wouldn't be surprised to see them engage in some crazy aggressions... but the ones you've selected seem extremely unlikely. Do you think Trump is actually The Joker, wanting to watch the world burn? Because "literal crazy person who genuinely wants to genocide the entire human species" is about the only explanation for the items you chose.

What I think Trump would be likely to do is
1) to massively increase US engagement as an ally to Ukraine, disregarding the consequences of that to our NATO Allies, and increasing Russian aggression in response - possibly pulling in China as a semi-ally of Russia
2) Drone assassinate military generals (even if they're "rebels) and heads of state for many Middle Eastern countries, including Syria, Yemen, and Iran
3) Actively engage against Hamas alongside Israel
4) Massively increase border patrol staff, and increase actions against illegal border crossers, and probably just start closing our southern border completely.

All of those come with consequences, many of which are likely to be serious problems for stability in the world... But those are all (imo) more likely given Trump's platform and past actions.

 

[ahhell]

Almost nothing - that's the point.

That is true but some of that is because he had enough responsible people around him saying no and slow walking some of his ideas. His administration was a lot better than I expected right up until Jan 6th. There will be a lot fewer of those folks working for him if he's elected this time.

I wouldn't rely in incompetence as a bulwark against authoritarianism. For christ's sake, he's basically claiming a president can never be prosecuted for crimes committed while in office. Basically. literally saying he could shoot someone on Broadway and nobody could do anything about it.