Trump 2.0 would be a catastrophe for the world...

[The Don]

I think this would be obvious, but several people in the forums here seem almost welcome a Trump victory because they think that would eman the end of the USA as a major power, and that is a good thing in their minds.
I think they are incredibly ignorant of reality, and are allowing a fashionable contempt for the USA amond certain Euro political factions to overcome there sense of reality.

I absolutely don't want to break the MA and turn this into a callout thread and ask for examples, but it's not something I see a lot of around here - apart from three groups:

- MAGA supporters
- Attention seeking trolls
- Tankies

Those people on this board who aren't necessarily thrilled with the United States' performance as the leader of the free world (and I include myself in that group - especially under President Trump's leadership) are painfully aware that a second Trump term would be far, far, worse than the first and that terrible for the world in general.

IMO a second Trump term would see the United States accelerate towards being a theocratic, isolationist, kleptocracy. For sure there are many, excellent, protections within The Constitution to allow powerful blue states to be islands of secular liberalism in the short to medium term but the hold that the religious right have over the judiciary may see those protections watered down significantly.

 

[3point14]

I absolutely don't want to break the MA and turn this into a callout thread and ask for examples, but it's not something I see a lot of around here - apart from three groups:

- MAGA supporters
- Attention seeking trolls
- Tankies

Those people on this board who aren't necessarily thrilled with the United States' performance as the leader of the free world (and I include myself in that group - especially under President Trump's leadership) are painfully aware that a second Trump term would be far, far, worse than the first and that terrible for the world in general.

IMO a second Trump term would see the United States accelerate towards being a theocratic, isolationist, kleptocracy. For sure there are many, excellent, protections within The Constitution to allow powerful blue states to be islands of secular liberalism in the short to medium term but the hold that the religious right have over the judiciary may see those protections watered down significantly.

You wait til he's appointed seven of the nine SC Judges...

 

[Ziggurat]

I think this would be obvious, but several people in the forums here seem almostwelcome a Trump victory because they think that would eman the end of the USA as a major power, and that is a good thing in their minds.
I think they are incredibly ignorant of reality, and are allowing a fashionable contempt for the USA amond certain Euro political factions to overcome there sense of reality.

You are correct that the end of the USA as a major power would be bad for the world.

As an example, China actually depends very heavily on the USA in ways that often aren't appreciated. Yes, everyone knows that we're their biggest customer for manufactured goods. But China's literal survival, not just economic prosperity, depends on the free shipment of goods. China is neither food nor energy independent, and they get a lot of the food and energy they need from overseas via cargo ships. Who makes sure that those cargo ships can travel the world unmolested? Historically, it's been the USA. China is not capable of protecting its own shipping lanes. Even the navy that they've been building is designed for a Taiwan invasion, not to protect far-off trade choke points. We're seeing a bit of what can happen in that regard to the Houthis, but it will get much, much worse without a strong US navy. Even our enemies depend on Pax Americana.

But that's not the only error such people make. I'm not sure if you believe this because you aren't making the claim explicit, but a second Trump presidency will not end the USA as a major power, or even the preeminent global power.

 

[Ziggurat]

I think the real danger here is applied regality theory: one of the easiest ways to maintain an autocratic rule is to get involved in a war. A population who fights (real or perceived) outside enemies is more amenable to accepting losses of previous liberties and democractic checks and balances. A US slouching towards dictatorship might start a war in order to keep itself together.

And yet, no wars were started under Trump.

Huh. Was he just doing it wrong, or is he not actually the next Hitler?

 

[TragicMonkey]

And yet, no wars were started under Trump.

Huh. Was he just doing it wrong, or is he not actually the next Hitler?

He didn't have immunity to criminal prosecution then.

 

[alfaniner]

One thing I just can't figure out - how does he keep winning? It always reminds me of that final race in Breaking Away (spoiler!) where the main guy is blocked by the other team, and somehow at the last moment he manages to quickly shift position and zoom between and past them, to win. (LIke Trump did for that picture opportunity.) Or the book The Messiah Stone (not recommended, btw), where certain politicians in history have acquired a magical talisman (not revealed until late in the book) that allows them to succeed.

The worst thing was the luck of him being able to put in three Supreme Court justices in that short four years, which good people will be paying for for decades to come. I can hardly bring myself to watch the news any more as I just get so upset.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Trump keeps on winning because the system is built to benefit him.

 

[Hercules56]

And yet, no wars were started under Trump.

Huh. Was he just doing it wrong, or is he not actually the next Hitler?

He inherited wars. And he gave our "allies" and even enemies, excuses to start new wars.

 

[3point14]

And yet, no wars were started under Trump.

Huh. Was he just doing it wrong, or is he not actually the next Hitler?

This is the weakest objection ever, lacking in anything approaching logic.

 

[stanfr]

For the upteempth time--Trump is NOT the same person who was President 4-8 years ago. When he lost, it affected his sanity. He is INSANE! Through his narcissistic lens, he believes he is the messiah annointed by his cult. It is beyond debate that if he wins back the Presidency, the many terrible and irreparable things he did during his first term will be amplified by a factor of 1000! There are no checks in place this time; the SC is on his side, the entire GOP is in fear of him, he will have no one but 100% loyalists surrounding him (someone like a Fauci will be unthinkable) and he will deliver on his threats for retribution, because that is the only thing that will calm his paranoia. So get over this "but he didn;t start any wars last time" nonsense--observe the obvious, which is this is full-fledged lunatic intent on whatever form of dictatorship he can acquire.

 

[Ziggurat]

He inherited wars.

And? The claim was specifically about starting wars.

And he gave our "allies" and even enemies, excuses to start new wars.

But they didn't. That happened under Biden, not Trump.

 

[Ziggurat]

This is the weakest objection ever, lacking in anything approaching logic.

It's not an objection at all. It's an observation plus a question. You aren't contesting the observation, and you aren't answering the question.

 

[Ziggurat]

For the upteempth time--Trump is NOT the same person who was President 4-8 years ago. When he lost, it affected his sanity. He is INSANE!

In the membrane?

It is beyond debate that if he wins back the Presidency, the many terrible and irreparable things he did during his first term will be amplified by a factor of 1000!

Nonsense! Of course it's debatable. They will be amplified by a factor of 863, not a factor of 1000.

There are no checks in place this time; the SC is on his side

What, did Biden appoint a pro-Trump justice?

he will have no one but 100% loyalists surrounding him

You don't understand how government works, do you? Nor do you seem to understand that Trump doesn't have the best track record of picking who will and won't be loyal to him. Do you think he's gotten better at that?

(someone like a Fauci will be unthinkable)

Thank god for that. Fauci was a disaster.

 

[Ziggurat]

He didn't have immunity to criminal prosecution then.

Dictators don't need any kind of formal immunity. That's not how dictatorships work.

Plus, what war do you think Trump would have started, but for a fear of criminal prosecution? I'm really curious on this one.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

have you seen anything about Agenda 2025?

 

[Ziggurat]

have you seen anything about Agenda 2025?

Yes. And?

 

[The Atheist]

Well, except Putin. Putin would love it. Putin probably made it happen, like he probably did with Brexit. Still, best not investigate that, on either side of the pond.

I was going to say, USA and UK must have very fragile democracy if one black hat can pull the strings in both countries.

Then Blank says it all anyway:

Can't vote in the US so not much stake on the game here, but my impression just is that if a lazy incompetent narcissistic orangutan can destroy one of the oldest democracies in the world, maybe the foundations are not that strong.

He will cause max.4 years of facepalming and international embarrassment, sure.. But destroy Democracy and other scaremongering? He'll spend the years golfing and basking in the admiration of his henchmen but in the end get nothing done.. Destroying something takes effort and Trump sure as hell isn't going to put out any.

Absolutely nailed.

I think people on both sides confuse Trump with the persona he portrayed in The Apprentice. That was scripted - the bloke's never had an original thought in his life.

If Heather Mac Donald fails with her message, then Stephen Pinker will explain.

Ole Pinky has some 'splaining to do in the htread I started a couple of years ago, so if you see him tell him I want a word.

One thing I just can't figure out - how does he keep winning?

I can tell you why in three words:

John Fitzgerald Kennedy.

He started the trend of celebrity presidents. Who was president before Kennedy? Dwight Eisenhower, a Republican who today would be vilified as a ******* commie!

Can you imagine either Biden or Trump giving this speech?

https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/president-dwight-d-eisenhowers-farewell-address

Another factor in maintaining balance involves the element of time. As we peer into society's future, we-you and I, and our government-must avoid the impulse to live only for today, plundering, for our own ease and convenience, the precious resources of tomorrow. We cannot mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without risking the loss also of their political and spiritual heritage. We want democracy to survive for all generations to come, not to become the insolvent phantom of tomorrow.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Yes. And?

It would be the biggest executive overreach in US history - a complete politization of all levels of government, replacing skill for loyalty.

Not only would it be disastrous for the functioning of the government, it would also set the precedent that any new Administration would have to spend most of their time routing out the loyalists of the Old Regime or risk constant sabotage.


But I guess you think only Liberals can overreach.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Dictators don't need any kind of formal immunity. That's not how dictatorships work.

Plus, what war do you think Trump would have started, but for a fear of criminal prosecution? I'm really curious on this one.

I wasn't suggesting Trump attempted and failed to wage a war during his term. A second term is when I think a war is likely, that's what I meant when I brought up regality theory. If Trump get a into office I think this new expansion of the powers of the presidency (as well as his other divisive baggage) will lead to unrest, and a simple way to ease domestic unrest is a war.

 

[Ziggurat]

I wasn't suggesting Trump attempted and failed to wage a war during his term.

It sounded to me like you suggested that he might have started one had he had presidential immunity.

A second term is when I think a war is likely, that's what I meant when I brought up regality theory. If Trump get a into office I think this new expansion of the powers of the presidency (as well as his other divisive baggage) will lead to unrest, and a simple way to ease domestic unrest is a war.

Except he never really tried to expand his powers while in office. Nor are his actual powers expanded now. Immunity isn't a power. In fact, given that Chevron deference has been removed, the executive branch now has less power than it had before this latest batch of SC rulings.