Potential consequences of Trump's victory

Trump will lose, but he's going to destroy as much as he can on the way out, and not just the GOP. He's setting up the conspiracy theory now that the election will be stolen from him.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

There is no urgency to establish blah blah about US Democracy that look now we have our "first gentleman" (!!), absolute gender equality. The more important things in the mind of a US citizen are his safety and well being, terror plays a cruclial role in instilling the uncertain fear and anyone who seems to be doing something to eliminate that fear, is welcome, even if.......... It is unfortunate that terror got assoiated with a particluar community, and Trump is playing the trump exactly on that.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

“I think we have widespread voter fraud, but the first thing that Trump needs to do is begin talking about it constantly,” Stone said [Trump confidant Roger Stone-SG]. “He needs to say for example, today would be a perfect example: ‘I am leading in Florida. The polls all show it. If I lose Florida, we will know that there’s voter fraud. If there’s voter fraud, this election will be illegitimate, the election of the winner will be illegitimate, we will have a constitutional crisis, widespread civil disobedience, and the government will no longer be the government.’”

“If you can’t have an honest election, nothing else counts,” he continued. “I think he’s gotta put them on notice that their inauguration will be a rhetorical, and when I mean civil disobedience, not violence, but it will be a bloodbath. The government will be shut down if they attempt to steal this and swear Hillary in. No, we will not stand for it. We will not stand for it.”

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/conte...iracy-theory-general-election-might-be-rigged

I don't know what would be more dangerous, Trump winning or Trump losing.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Trump winning bids to invalidate the Supreme Court - imagine an entire Court of Alitos or Thomases. Trump losing would not be a bloodbath - that crowd talks big.

Trump himself will take no avoidable physical risks whatsoever.

 

If a humanist finds contrary views and standards difficult to handle they were not much of a humanist to begin with.

 

If Trump ever discovers his hair is not real he may just implode.

 

I don't know about that. Clinton would use the military to destabilize the world--middle east. Trump would use it to actually start a war--far east. I'm not certain which would be worse

 

Global stock market collapse - immediately

Followed closely by global economic recession

Destruction of supreme court by lining the court with folk like Scala & Thomas

Increased global uncertainty

Russia and China would become more aggressive.

Global war becomes more likely due to increased uncertainty.

Terrorism spreads and America becomes like Turkey as Trump cracks down on civil liberties under the guise of fighting terrorism.

Corruption increases

We had better hope no on insults Trump, else there could be a nuclear war. We know Trump does't take insults or facts very well.

And General Allen, a retired 4 star Marine general, says Trump could well cause a civil military crisis. That's code for a constitutional crisis. If Trump does what he said he will do, torture and kill terrorists suspects, the military could well revolt, and I think the military would be well within their constitutional right to do so. We would see things, I never thought I would see in this country.

If the nation survives, the Republican Party will lie in ruins. It would be worse than Watergate for Republicans.

If Trump wins it would begin a period of extreme uncertainty, domestically and internationally. That's why GDP was less than expected last quarter. Consumers were spending, businesses weren't. Businesses are not investing pending this election, because the consequences would be profound should Trump win this fall. I am personally aware of a couple of large retailers who have the land, plans, and approvals, but have delayed construction of new stores pending the outcome of this election. I certainly understand the rationale. It makes a lot of sense.

That's what happens if Trump should be elected this fall. Now, I don't think Americans are crazy enough to elect Trump this fall, but that's what is at stake.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/ret-gen-john-allen-donald-trump-credibility/story?id=41021091

 

It isn't as if the ME is going to stabilize itself because Trump is President. So status quo for Clinton - the same destabilized Middle East W gifted us with - and lots of brand new problems with Trump.

 

Yeah, and other countries have been opposed to humanist values for centuries.

 

Now Trump is singling out specific Republican leaders for retribution e.g. Speaker of the House, Paul Ryan. Now this is jaw dropping. Should Trump be elected, he would need to work with Ryan. Trump is subverting Speaker Ryan because Ryan has not supported his attacks on the Khan family. Yeah, and it just keeps getting worse for Republicans. But Republicans created Trump, so now they have to live with him.

Senior Republican strategists, these are the people who get Republicans elected, are jumping ship and supporting Hillary and Democrats. You just don't see this kind of stuff.

 

pot..kettle?
http://us.123rf.com/450wm/lucky1124/lucky11241001/lucky1124100100027/6308076-billiard-ball.jpg?ver=6

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

This is pretty absurd, although one could suppose America has had it coming.

The consequences of Trump winning have to be weighed against the consequences of Trump losing. Both outcomes look bad.
Never mind if he wins, I think that possibility is edging closer each day to highly unlikely, the man seems to have sensed this, he looks (from the rational pov) like he's actively sabotaging his own campaign.

If he loses and millions of his followers believe it was because the system is rigged, he never had a chance, will there be riots in the streets? A breakdown of law and order, large scale civil unrest, callout of the National Guard, a military coup? How many people does he need to get behind him following their saviour, an army of Trump, to make things that bad?

Are there any think-tanks thinking on it, and what would they be considering to prevent something like the above? To wit, is Trump's candidacy a threat to National Security, and what's being considered, aside from dropping a nuke on Trump Towers?

 

I'm sure they will do exactly that, but they are a minority of a minority. Trump has never mustered more than 40% of the Republican vote, and with each passing day he keeps irking more and more Republicans. Trump has repulsed the Republican donor class and many elected Republican officials in congress and around the land. I think things are going to get much worse for Trump over the course of the next 100 days. We have the debates coming up, and Trump is a horrible debater. He really can't talk about policy issues, nor does he have much interest in policy. He's not a very disciplined guy. I think he has little to no interest in public policy. I think he will get slaughtered in the debates and if he keeps stumbling as he has done throughout this campaign more and more people will leave him. Already, even now, senior Republican strategists are jumping ship and becoming Democrats. I think, a hundred days from now, Trump will be a much weaker candidate.

 

Hillary Clinton is a warmonger.
Hillary Clinton took credit for the U.S. intervention in Libya, but she will never take the blame. As a detailed, damning new account in The New York Times shows, the former secretary of state was indeed instrumental in pushing President Obama to pick sides in Libya's civil war by bombing longtime dictator Muammar al-Qaddafi's forces and arming his opponents. But as the Times also shows, her warmongering is nothing to be proud of, although she bragged about it in 2011 and continues to portray its results as a paradigmatic example of "smart power."

Robert M. Gates, the secretary of defense at the time, describes Obama's decision to intervene as a "51-49" proposition, adding, "I've always thought that Hillary’s support for the broader mission in Libya put the president on the 51 side of the line for a more aggressive approach." Given the huge practical and moral risks of getting involved in a civil war 5,000 miles away, you'd think the standard of proof would be a little bit stronger than a preponderance of the evidence, especially since Qaddafi clearly posed no threat to the United States. "He was not a threat to us anywhere," Gates says. "He was a threat to his own people, and that was about it." That really should have been the end of the analysis, unless you think the Defense Department's role extends beyond defense.

Clinton clearly does. "She's very careful and reflective," claims Anne-Marie Slaughter, Clinton's director of policy planning at the State Department. "But when the choice is between action and inaction, and you've got risks in either direction, which you often do, she'd rather be caught trying." This bias in favor of action, regardless of whether the "risks" have anything to do with U.S. national security, is anything but careful. It is the very definition of recklessness. At any given moment, there are myriad situations around the world in which the U.S. government might intervene militarily to prevent injustice, oppression, or the slaughter of civilians (the official justification for fighting Qaddafi). If that is the U.S. government's job, as Clinton seems to assume, and if there is no distinction between making bad things happen and letting them happen, which she also seems to believe, a preference for intervention is a recipe for never-ending mischief.
......................
These were the risks of acting, none of which Clinton foresaw. "We came, we saw, he died!" she gloated after Qaddafi was captured and killed. "

It ain't her life that she will be throwing away on needless military adventurism.

 

One example, the current tensions in the South China sea, is likely to still be on the table whoever gets to the Oval Office.
What would Trump do to deal with the Chinese and the UN? What would Clinton do?

Trump has shown contempt for the Chinese because of what he thinks is a trade problem, he isn't very flattering about the UN either. Clinton is a believer in institutions and making them work. But Trump getting to decide what to do is looking increasingly hypothetical, so Clinton will be doing it. Doing what?

 

That's not war mongering or evidence of war mongering. She also participated in withdrawing troops from Iraq and Afghanistan and the transition of power. You have Gates, a Republican, who thinks Hillary's advice caused Obama to make the decision. It was Obama's decision. It wasn't Hillary's. Hillary was pressured by the G8 nations to assist NATO forces for a few weeks and that's what the US did. Remember, most of the bombing was done by Europeans. Europeans wanted to prevent a mass exodus of Libyans and a bloody civil war. That's not war mongering. That's just normal blocking and tackling. Where the US went wrong is in leaving. The Libyan government wasn't strong enough. Obama is now trying to remedy that with the bombings he has very recently ordered.

War mongers don't just drop a few bombs and leave.

 

http://www.silverbearcafe.com/private/06.14/warmonger.html

Hillary Clinton: Warmonger For The Bankster Elite
Charleston Voice

As though obvious tweedism in the dnc weren't enough, we now have a rampant hawk and warmonger swaying liberals in a brainless support for the military industrial complex.

When she is president, this will most likely get ugly and tens or hundreds of thousands will die.
Your vote makes you responsible for their deaths.

 

Except you have no evidence to back up your assertions, and that should be a problem for you but it isn't. I wonder why.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Before you go calling "liberals" of brainless support, you should take a long and serious look at yourself friend.

 

Clinton has demonstrated a well-documented willingness to use American military power overseas. Gates’ book is just the latest evidence, along with previous reporting and original interviews with current and former Obama officials, of the strikingly hawkish voice Clinton offered during Obama Situation Room debates.
...
As Secretary of State, Clinton backed a bold escalation of the Afghanistan war. She pressed Obama to arm the Syrian rebels, and later endorsed air strikes against the Assad regime. She backed intervention in Libya, and her State Department helped enable Obama’s expansion of lethal drone strikes. In fact, Clinton may have been the administration’s most reliable advocate for military action. On at least three crucial issues—Afghanistan, Libya, and the bin Laden raid—Clinton took a more aggressive line than Gates, a Bush-appointed Republican.
... “The Democratic party has two wings—a pacifist wing and a Scoop Jackson wing. And I think she is clearly in the Scoop Jackson wing,” says former Democratic Congresswoman Jane Harman
...
The political grief Clinton has suffered over the September 11, 2012 attack on a U.S. compound in Benghazi, Libya, comes with an ironic twist: the tragic episode might never occurred had Clinton not supported intervening in Libya’s civil war.
from:
http://swampland.time.com/2014/01/1...pologetically-hawkish-record-faces-2016-test/