0
Happy and at peace. :)
- 556
- Posts
- 8
- Years
- Pallet Town
- Seen May 13, 2023
Exactly. It's not enough for him to just raise wages, certainly not enough to vote for him. But it is a good point.
2016 US Presidential Elections Thread [Trump Wins]
- Thread starter Kanzler
- Start date
I just want to jump in with a couple of quick points.
1. I don't think most of us are saying that Trump is going to be able to turn the US into Fascist Germany single handed, free of any opposition or w/e if he manages to get elected. That's not the problem. The problems here are that
2. If you think that the US and your immediate neighbours are the only countries that's going to be effected by the outcome of this election you're extremely detached from the rest of the world. The US is a superpower with a lot of influence, a lot of allies (and a lot of enemies) and a huge economy that has a profound effect on the global economy. If Clinton wins things will remain mostly unchanged internationally. But if Trump wins, global politics will change and as, unlike Trump-style economics, that kind of sudden change and radical leadership for a previously moderate superpower has an enormous trickle-down effect that will make sure that change is dramatic. It might be a US election, but its not just North America that stands to lose a lot from a Trump presidency.
It does not matter that Clinton is inherently flawed as a candidate because both from a domestic and a global standpoint, Trump is not only an objectively far worse candidate but also a dangerous one that would not just have a negative impact on the US as President but on the rest of the world as well.
1. I don't think most of us are saying that Trump is going to be able to turn the US into Fascist Germany single handed, free of any opposition or w/e if he manages to get elected. That's not the problem. The problems here are that
a. He will get some stuff through, because even though the Republicans as a who;e don't like Trump much either, they do have a lot of overlapping policies. With Trump as president life will absolutely, without a shadow of a doubt, get harder for minority groups. Civil rights will take a hit.
b. It will cause issues with US foreign diplomacy. Trump is poorly educated, doesn't care who he offends, thinks he knows more about military strategy than he does and is an unabashed racist who is quite happy to let Russia/Putin manipulate US politics. He's making nice with the one large country who hates the US and alienating legions of existing allies. You want a leader that will make you more friendships not lose most of them in exchange for Russia - who will basically be running your country at that point. Not to mention the wars he will inevitably start.
c. Even though Trump will not be able to get every twisted idea he has passed and turn the US into some twisted totalitarian state, if he secures the presidency it does the worst thing it possibly could. It legitimizes his worldview and behaviour. If the president is allowed to be a xenophobic, stupid sexual predator who doesn't care whom he hurts as he shits on lower socio-economic classes then suddenly it becomes perfectly reasonable for the KKK to exist, for police to be prejudiced towards minorities and for homosexuals to be barred from marrying. Trump being elected doesn't necessarily mean it will become legal to go around beating gays or Mexicans to death but it will socially legitimise that behaviour.
b. It will cause issues with US foreign diplomacy. Trump is poorly educated, doesn't care who he offends, thinks he knows more about military strategy than he does and is an unabashed racist who is quite happy to let Russia/Putin manipulate US politics. He's making nice with the one large country who hates the US and alienating legions of existing allies. You want a leader that will make you more friendships not lose most of them in exchange for Russia - who will basically be running your country at that point. Not to mention the wars he will inevitably start.
c. Even though Trump will not be able to get every twisted idea he has passed and turn the US into some twisted totalitarian state, if he secures the presidency it does the worst thing it possibly could. It legitimizes his worldview and behaviour. If the president is allowed to be a xenophobic, stupid sexual predator who doesn't care whom he hurts as he shits on lower socio-economic classes then suddenly it becomes perfectly reasonable for the KKK to exist, for police to be prejudiced towards minorities and for homosexuals to be barred from marrying. Trump being elected doesn't necessarily mean it will become legal to go around beating gays or Mexicans to death but it will socially legitimise that behaviour.
2. If you think that the US and your immediate neighbours are the only countries that's going to be effected by the outcome of this election you're extremely detached from the rest of the world. The US is a superpower with a lot of influence, a lot of allies (and a lot of enemies) and a huge economy that has a profound effect on the global economy. If Clinton wins things will remain mostly unchanged internationally. But if Trump wins, global politics will change and as, unlike Trump-style economics, that kind of sudden change and radical leadership for a previously moderate superpower has an enormous trickle-down effect that will make sure that change is dramatic. It might be a US election, but its not just North America that stands to lose a lot from a Trump presidency.
It does not matter that Clinton is inherently flawed as a candidate because both from a domestic and a global standpoint, Trump is not only an objectively far worse candidate but also a dangerous one that would not just have a negative impact on the US as President but on the rest of the world as well.
0
Happy and at peace. :)
- 556
- Posts
- 8
- Years
- Pallet Town
- Seen May 13, 2023
I'm truly amazed that you can read the future! Incredible! So that's how it is. Life will automatically be harder absolutely, without the shadow of a doubt for minority groups?
What will cause issues, a Trump presidency? Trump is poorly educated in what way? Oh, you mean that one other country that also has the firepower to destroy the world hundreds of times over? Yep, bad idea to make friends with the bully, ok. I am again amazed that you know about the war he will inevitably start! How will life be with Hillary???
But again, your future reading powers really must come in handy. I mean, one mans world view is suddenly reflected on his entire population of over 300 + million right off the bat? That's really incredible, I almost can't believe it.
Xenophobic - deep-rooted fear towards foreigners. Interesting, so all the deals and friendships he has made with blacks doesn't count? Becoming friends with Russia doesn't count?
"stupid sexual predator" What is the meaning of this? The accusations and such? I don't think he has even been convicted of such a thing, but maybe you have evidence to the contrary?
Most of the founding fathers had slaves, that didn't suddenly legitimize their worldview or make slavery cool. Same here. Trump simply becoming president doesn't taint the presidency, even if you are racist. Again, his views are all talk, and aside from your future readings, you have no evidence that Trump can reverse 150 years of civil rights.
I find the KKK existing perfectly reasonable, as long as they don't start hanging blacks or beating them. Again, your world views are one thing, your actions are another. They are not equal. Having homicidal thoughts doesn't make you a murderer. Having suicidal thoughts doesn't mean you've killed yourself. Thoughts != Actions.
Police being prejudiced has literally nothing to do with Trump becoming president. Nothing.
Gay marriage should be a community matter, and people have allowed the federal government to control this. Seriously though, Trump here again?
Lol, how does Trump becoming president = legitimizing beating gay people? lmao, what?
I am not understanding how you arrived at me believing that. So, to clear the record, what I said was that countries, like Australia, Spain, etc are effected by the presidency, as the USA is a world super power. However, you are all not nearly effected as much as say me or Nah. We have to live with whoever wins, under their direct rule, so while you all are looking mostly at foreign policy, I am looking at domestic policy, as frankly, that matters to me more then what the USA does in other countries. You have your own rulers/governments, who provide the infrastructure for you to work, get health care, and find jobs so you can eat, where as we in the USA are directly effected by who wins. And it's not looking too good either way.
As Badsheep mentioned above, a higher minimum wage is significant to us in the USA, but not nearly as much as someone in Australia. Hell, you probably skipped over that, but what it means that I can put better food on the table for me and my family. While Hillary prances about playing with our allies (I know the importance of this), I'm sitting here looking for another damn job because my current one doesn't pay enough, because companies here are allow to pay scraps. So, in this respect, Trump represents a better candidate to me.
Don't think I don't know that a higher minimum wage would be short term. But this is what directly effects me, while it doesn't affect you. If I had to pick, Trump seems to be more for me then Hillary.
I am getting extremely sick of hearing this one rehashed for the 100th time. "Clinton is flawed, but that doesn't matter because Trump is a meanie who says mean things which hurt my feelings." Like you literally are putting Clinton in a blind spot while Trump gets the negative limelight.
I see few to no Hillary supporters going "Well, these are Hillary's flaws, these are Trump's flaws, this is why I choose Hillary over Trump." This is exactly what I've done, except I've either take a no confidence stance, or a Trump stance like now.
What is most every Hillary supporter on this thread doing? "THESE ARE TRUMPS FLAWS!!! What, Hillary has flaws? (brush under the table) WELL TRUMP IS WASIST!!!!!!!!!! Hillary and some emails? Oh, that's nothing compared to TRUMPS MISOGYNISTIC ATTITUDE!"
Come on, be real. I accept the fact that Trump is a racist. I accept the fact that he'd probably make the country worse if he wins. But I have to accept that second fact with Hillary too. I've had to accept it with at least the past two presidents, and it seems it will be a third.
But I've seen both of their flaws, and I think Trump is better. His attitude might be rude or offensive, but I'd rather have a loudmouth who can be stopped then a quiet sneak who hides in the shadows.
It was fun playing devils advocate, as again, I vote no confidence. But you can now see that I vote Trump over Clinton. So, go for it.
Somewhere_
i don't know where
- 4,494
- Posts
- 8
- Years
- somewhere (duh)
- Seen Jun 5, 2019
While I do not think Trump will trample on civil rights (cause he can't), he will place judges in the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade. Both Trump and Pence have an interest in doing so.
If you believe abortion is an essential right for women, that right will most likely take a hit. The effects of such would be huge. Gimmepie definitely has a valid point here.
I wont even cover the rest of the post because I would rather engage in a fruitful discussion about Clinton and Trump's policies than a petty debate on their obvious and aggregious personality and character flaws. We (and Americans around the states and around the world) have discussed them for far a year and it has gotten nowhere. Neither side is winning this debate because both candidates are so bad. We get it: Trump, KKK, Clinton, emails, etc etc etc etc. It only displays the pitiful situation American politics is in right now and does not produce a healthy discussion. At this point, I am getting quite tired of it.
Gimme brought up foreign policy, which is very important. Especially following the Iran deal and issues with ISIS. How about we talk about this?
If you believe abortion is an essential right for women, that right will most likely take a hit. The effects of such would be huge. Gimmepie definitely has a valid point here.
I wont even cover the rest of the post because I would rather engage in a fruitful discussion about Clinton and Trump's policies than a petty debate on their obvious and aggregious personality and character flaws. We (and Americans around the states and around the world) have discussed them for far a year and it has gotten nowhere. Neither side is winning this debate because both candidates are so bad. We get it: Trump, KKK, Clinton, emails, etc etc etc etc. It only displays the pitiful situation American politics is in right now and does not produce a healthy discussion. At this point, I am getting quite tired of it.
Gimme brought up foreign policy, which is very important. Especially following the Iran deal and issues with ISIS. How about we talk about this?
You don't have to have supernatural powers to understand that electing a president who has no respect for minority groups/women is going to make life worse for those people.
Trump is poorly educated in the sense that he has next to no political knowledge, routinely spouts "facts" that are completely untrue (and seems to believe that him saying things with no research done in the matter suddenly makes them true) and had exactly no idea how an economy works.
If you think the kind of "alliance" Trump would form with Russia is going to be in any way equitable you're deluded. It would very much be Russia calling the shots - basically a superpower with another superpower as a puppet. That's going to spell bad news for global politics, it's going to create a power imbalance and it probably means all kinds of horrible shit is going to go down in the Middle East under the guise of targeting ISIS (what will actually be happening is Russia strengthening their own power).
Life with Hillary will probably be exactly the same as it is now. She's extremely similar to Obama and like Obama will probably have most of the good things she intends to do blocked by the Republicans (who will then claim the Democrats are the ones obstructing things).
I love how you keep mistaking logical deductions as Hillary favourtism. I'm not saying that Hillary is a flawless candidate - although she's shitloads better than some people in this thread have made out. She did some really stupid stuff with those emails, she's a little more friendly with corporations than I'd like, she's made mistakes in the past but she is not even in the same ballpark as Trump. Hillary is a competent politician with the correct expertise and experience to run your country. Trump is a racist, misogynistic businessman with no prior experience in politics, the temperament of a primary school bully and next to no actual policies who doesn't even handle his own money effectively or ethically. Both candidates have told lies and both have done some shady shit but to even imply that Hillary is anywhere near as bad as Trump is a complete fallacy.
Again, I don't have to be able to read the future to make logical deductions. There is already a great deal of hyper-conservative people in the US. It was very clear that I was not saying the entire populations views are going to magically change depending on the results of the elections, but there's already a lot of people in the US with the same ridiculous viewpoints as Trump and having him in power very much sends the message that racism, ignorance, misogyny and all those other wonderful traits rampant in hyper-conservative culture are all perfectly okay. It sends the message that devaluing anyone who isn't a male in the majority demographic(s) is perfectly reasonable behaviour (it's not).
Suggesting black people in the US can be considered foreigners when the vast majority of black families have been in the US since the 1800s is ridiculous and considering the way he thinks of Central America, Asia, Africa and the Middle East wanting to make friends with another primarily white country that also has a conservative agenda and tendency toward discriminating against minority groups really doesn't cut it no.
At this point I think if you need evidence that Trump is not particularly intelligent you should just check out his Twitter or listen to him talk. Did you know that the person who wrote Trumps book on business strategies for him considers it one of his greatest mistakes that he made Trump sounds almost reasonable?
As for him being a sexual predator, I believe you heard those tapes correct? That is irrefutable evidence that at least one point in his life Trump has inappropriately touched women without their consent. Don't give me that "locker room bragging" bullshit either, there's no proof of at all to suggest he was making anything up or exaggerating and plenty to the contrary - including numerous claims of sexual assault from all across the US and other misogynistic comments.
There's also been charges filed against him (twice now as a clerical error lead to the plaintiff having to refile in a different state) implicating him in the sexual assault and/or rape of minors. Now, I agree that this is a shaky point to make. The accuser is very poor and waited a very long time to file charges. She could easily be doing this for money or fame. However, she also implicated a convicted paedophile who Trump is good friends with and has spoken highly of, has her story corroborated by a woman who was apparently paid to manipulate young girls into coming to parties said friend and Trump both attended and Trumps own attitude towards women and indisputable ideas about how women should look and act don't really help his case.
It doesn't now but it sure as hell did at the time. If early presidents had been speaking out against slavery and denouncing the slave trade, it would have added a lot of legitimacy to the anti-slavery view and would probably have resulted in slavery being abolished long before Lincoln. Unfortunately though, the majority of people in the US at the time were racist and politicians were no exception to that rule. But yes, it doesn't make it okay now but back then US leaders being pro-slavery definitely added legitimacy to slave ownership and to suggest otherwise is ridiculous.
His views aren't all talk, they can and do effect his actions and there's no evidence to suggest that will change if he secures the presidency. His beliefs and his actions are intimately related and you're wearing rose-coloured glasses if you think his getting elected will suddenly make him a decent human being.
Trump's not going to overturn 150 years of civil rights and I didn't say he would. He has however made it abundantly clear that he intends to overturn the legalization of gay marriage which will be a huge step backwards for civil rights. You can argue all you want about him "only returning the decision to the states" but that's with him knowing full well that there's a lot of highly-religious, ultra-conservative states that will proceed to ban it once more. It's also ignoring that states shouldn't have that kind of power anyway which is a whole different kettle of fish.
Trump has also made it pretty damn clear that he doesn't think particularly highly of immigrants or Muslims. He's implied numerous times that he wants to ban Islamic religious attire, he's happy to split up families and separate legal children from illegal parents, wants to make it even harder to immigrate to the US legally (even though it's already extremely difficult to do so) and he constantly implies that illegal immigrants are all rapist and drug mules even though most of them are running away from that kind of criminal activity. This is not just his own messed-up perspective on the world this is his policy.
You also think that Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are equally as bad as one another despite all evidence to the contrary, you're hardly displaying the best judgement so it doesn't at all surprise me that you find the existence of a group that exists specifically to hate minority groups is okay.
Thoughts don't always equal actions, but the things is people with homicidal thoughts are a lot more likely to commit murder. People with suicidal thoughts are a lot more likely to kill themselves. Thoughts might not necessarily equal actions outright but there is a pretty strong correlation between the two. That's why people who believe in their own racial superiority, who hate minority groups and who spout discriminatory rhetoric are a lot more likely to actually engage in behaviour that negatively effects the people they hate.
Him being president won't change their views one way or the other no, it will just legitimize them. I've already explained how this works.
Civil rights should absolutely not be a community matter. Ever. It should absolutely be the federal government making that call. The states in the US have far, far too much power and that's a big part of why you have such a convoluted legal system over there. Not to mention all consenting, legal adults should have the ability to marry - maybe not religiously but the ability to enter into a legitimate fully recognized marriage should be there.
This "give the power back to the states" rhetoric is usually just homophobes making any excuse to see gay marriage overturned but more importantly is also just a fundamentally stupid idea.
Socially legitimate =/= legal. It might not make gay bashing legal and Trump himself might not be anti-gay (although I'm pretty damn sure he is) but Trump is very much perceived as anti-gay so him being in power automatically gives social credibility to those people whether we like it or not. It's ludicrous, but it's how society works.
I didn't intend to imply it would effect everyone equally. I just want to make it clear that it will have a noticeable global effect. I would argue though that whilst it might be the American election it will probably have a bigger effect on the middle east than anywhere else.
If you think that Donald Trump - or the vast majority of conservative candidates actually - are ever going to improve things for the working class, you've got another thing coming. Trump's policies benefit one group of people - rich, white men.
I actually haven't heard that Trump intends to raise the minimum wage. I'm very curious how he plans on doing that whilst simultaneously destroying your economy since a weak economy means lower wages. Not that Trump actually cares so long as rich people are taxed less.
I'm not entirely sure how Hillary stands on minimum wage either to be completely fair, but I do know that her policies benefit the lower socio-economic classes a lot more than Trumps do. Trump is going to make welfare payments harder to obtain, he's going to make affordable health care and insurance harder to obtain and he's going to make your economy much weaker which means raising the minimum wage will be borderline impossible. He's also completely against renewable energy which means lots of jobs that could be created won't be. Hillary is basically the opposite of that, which is a good thing.
As a side note, you shouldn't be basing your vote off of one issue.
It has nothing to do with Trump "hurting feelings". Trump winning the election isn't just going to make a few people sad it's going to set social progress back several years, tt's going to make the rich richer and poor poorer, it's going to hurt foreign relations and have a definitely negative impact on the entire globe and it's also going to ruin your economy whilst he's at it. Oh, he's also going to let Putin run your country. He doesn't have the right temperament to lead a country, has bad business skills, is a sexual predator most-likely, he's a racist and misogynist and has exactly no redeeming traits at all except his apparently going to somehow raise minimum wage and create jobs even though doing that in a weak economy is basically impossible.
Comparatively, Hillary is a bit too friendly with corporate backers (this is a bad thing to base the vote on because anything that benefits the corporations also benefits Trump), she screwed up with some emails once and armed insurgents without forethought in the middle east a few years back. But unlike Trump, she's also got plenty of redeeming qualities. She's not going to set social progress backwards, she's not going to let a foreign nation run the show, she's not going to allow that same nation to completely take control of the middle east, she's going to strengthen the economy and promote green energy, she's planning to invest in education and make it easier to attain a higher degree of education, she's going to raise taxes on the rich which means less money will have to come out of the pocket of the poor and she's going to make it easier to attain healthcare and insurance. This is all on top of having actual political experience, plenty of positive achievements in her track record and a demeanour that's actually befitting a world leader.
You say that but I've seen several times over that being done. Alien does it frequently, Hands does it frequently and I literally just did exactly that in the paragraph prior to this one. The problem isn't that you're not seeing anyone mention Hillary's flaws it's that you're not happy with the conclusion we're drawing - Hillary has less flaws than Trump does.
I also love how you keep claiming to take a no confidence stance but then go on to not only support him subtly but also openly admit to taking a pro-trump stance in your last post.
Nobody is brushing Clinton's faults under the table. I just listed several and so have other people. She's just a better candidate and has less faults. Also, I love how you're implying that racism and misogyny are somehow okay for a president and that those are trumps only flaws even though he'll be an economic and foreign relations disaster.
Okay, you're never going to hear me say that George W. Bush didn't make your country worse because he was god awful and probably the only President in your history who could be worse than Trump. Even Reagan wasn't that bad and from my understanding he was pretty terrible. However this constant implication from Trump supporters (can we stop pretending you aren't one now?) that Obama was a bad president is ridiculous. He inherited a huge mess from his predecessor and actually cleaned it up quite well, he's improved civil rights in your country and has advocated for better health policy. The problem is that he was also blocked constantly by a party full of conservatives who don't really care about any of those things. He in no way made your country worse and certainly not to the extend that Bush did or that Trump would. Hillary is much the same and I'd take stagnancy over a downward spiral any day if it was up to me.
Actually you've downplayed several of Trumps flaws and completely ignored his awful economic and foreign policies whilst simultaneously not making any actual case at all against Clinton. That's hardly taking an unbiased look at both their flaws and making a comparison.
So what you're saying is you'd rather a lunatic with no morals who has no has no political experience, who is openly racist, homophobic and misogynistic, who will destroy what's left of your economy and ruin your foreign relations so long as he is open about being an asshole? Not to mention that you're also ignoring all of Trumps illegal and/or shady dealings including sexual assault, abusing illegal immigrant workers and tax evasion. Hell, he won't even release his tax returns (Clinton has).
You prefer that to an actual politician who knows what they're doing, has a demeanour actually suitable for a head of state, won't set social progress back by years, won't ruin the economy just to benefit people who are already rich and who won't totally screw up our country's global reputation and relationships... because she actually acts like a politician.
I'd like to give you the benefit of the doubt and say you're at least being logical but you're not. You've actually given no reason at all for your dislike of Clinton other than her being "a snake" which is not only just you giving in to campaign rhetoric with no real evidence against her besides the email incident (for which all charges have been dropped I'm fairly sure) but is also a better way of describing her opponent.
You weren't playing devils advocate. You were very clearly taking a pro-Trump position without ever actually giving either candidate real critiques. Saying you don't support either and that you're just playing devils advocate doesn't make it true. Kind of like how Trump claiming he doesn't discriminate doesn't make it true. You're a Trump supporter. At least own up to it if you're going to defend him and take a stance against Clinton - evidence be damned.
0
Happy and at peace. :)
- 556
- Posts
- 8
- Years
- Pallet Town
- Seen May 13, 2023
^ funny enough, after reading your post above, I think I support Hillary a bit more then trump now.
The points you made above, especially the downward spiral made sense. See, I hoped trump would set things back a bit so that a lot of people would wake up and question "What has our nation become." That's the message I take from make America great again.
However, on further reflection, I realize that no one would wake up, and that he could possibly set the ball rolling much quicker then Clinton ever could for the collapse of the nation.
However, I truly take the side of No Confidence. I understand that Clinton might be a better candidate, but she is still corrupt. In fact, it seems there is corruption that extends pretty deep in this country.
I don't think it can be healed to be honest. The country will fall, but I now get that it is inevitable. Every single nation has fallen in the past, and will continue to do so in the future.
Since this country is on such a decline, I can see I failing in the next 75 years. It is very interesting to realize that one is in such a situation, although I hope it doesn't get too bad.
I've always wondered how Rome fell and the answer was, "It got too big." It is the same here.
Thanks mate for the chat.
As for Badsheep, I found both foreign policies unique in their own ways. Clinton has actual political experience and is well equipped to handle many diplomatic situations, where as it seems Trump has a more business/negotiation type approach, which can be interesting to see. Clinton has some failures, but so does Trump, and it will be interesting to see how the winner handles foreign and domestic issues.
The points you made above, especially the downward spiral made sense. See, I hoped trump would set things back a bit so that a lot of people would wake up and question "What has our nation become." That's the message I take from make America great again.
However, on further reflection, I realize that no one would wake up, and that he could possibly set the ball rolling much quicker then Clinton ever could for the collapse of the nation.
However, I truly take the side of No Confidence. I understand that Clinton might be a better candidate, but she is still corrupt. In fact, it seems there is corruption that extends pretty deep in this country.
I don't think it can be healed to be honest. The country will fall, but I now get that it is inevitable. Every single nation has fallen in the past, and will continue to do so in the future.
Since this country is on such a decline, I can see I failing in the next 75 years. It is very interesting to realize that one is in such a situation, although I hope it doesn't get too bad.
I've always wondered how Rome fell and the answer was, "It got too big." It is the same here.
Thanks mate for the chat.
As for Badsheep, I found both foreign policies unique in their own ways. Clinton has actual political experience and is well equipped to handle many diplomatic situations, where as it seems Trump has a more business/negotiation type approach, which can be interesting to see. Clinton has some failures, but so does Trump, and it will be interesting to see how the winner handles foreign and domestic issues.
- 322
- Posts
- 12
- Years
- Seen Jun 21, 2018
Rome didn't fall because it was "too big" it fell because of a wide variety of social, economic and diplomatic problems without any single cause and equating empires of antiquety with modern globalised nations really just doesn't... work? What would a modern country like the US "failing" even mean? I've seen a lot of nihilistic views like that and i honestly don't get anything about it beyond that people have a vague sense of dread that life will suddenly fall apart in some unknown and unseeable way.
The foreign policy of Trump being.... "Business/negations" kind of ignores both his own ability and what he's actually lain out. I'd actually say negotiation fits more with diplomacy than it does with a buisiness approach, which simply cannot work as the foundation for inter-country interaction. While he claims "i'm a successful business man, i can renegotiate all our alliances to be better for the US" he really can't. He doesn't have the negotiation skills and he doesn't understand how foreign policy even works? Claiming that he'll make countries pay to have US army bases in them ignores both the point of having them there and their purpose, claiming vaguely that he'll "renegotiate trade deals" means near nothing nor is it likely that he could even get anything better than is already there- with it more likely that it'll be worse off.
Shaking up old alliances for no functional purpose, or for a purpose that goes against the point of said alliances simply won't work. A man who claims that the US should've taken the middle east's oil as "payment" for their involvement and thinks it was an awful, stupid decision not to steal the resources of sovereign nations for no reason can hardly be thought to have any great negotion skills, not even mentioning his clear lack of understanding of what's politically "good" to make "better" through negotiation
The foreign policy of Trump being.... "Business/negations" kind of ignores both his own ability and what he's actually lain out. I'd actually say negotiation fits more with diplomacy than it does with a buisiness approach, which simply cannot work as the foundation for inter-country interaction. While he claims "i'm a successful business man, i can renegotiate all our alliances to be better for the US" he really can't. He doesn't have the negotiation skills and he doesn't understand how foreign policy even works? Claiming that he'll make countries pay to have US army bases in them ignores both the point of having them there and their purpose, claiming vaguely that he'll "renegotiate trade deals" means near nothing nor is it likely that he could even get anything better than is already there- with it more likely that it'll be worse off.
Shaking up old alliances for no functional purpose, or for a purpose that goes against the point of said alliances simply won't work. A man who claims that the US should've taken the middle east's oil as "payment" for their involvement and thinks it was an awful, stupid decision not to steal the resources of sovereign nations for no reason can hardly be thought to have any great negotion skills, not even mentioning his clear lack of understanding of what's politically "good" to make "better" through negotiation
0
Happy and at peace. :)
- 556
- Posts
- 8
- Years
- Pallet Town
- Seen May 13, 2023
You can't even give the man a single good point? Like really, he asked what I thought of their approach to foreign matters, and I still think Trump would be pretty good at negotiating deals and such.
We've had a president who was an actor, and he didn't do quite so bad. I'm sure that being a business man would help in negotiations. He does have a multibillion dollar empire(?) after all so you can give him some credit. After reading around, I
candidates approach was good enough, with Hillarys being better due to her past experience. That is all on that matter that I'd like to discuss, as I'm not advocating for one or the other. Both have different flavors of foreign policy.
As for Rome, when I say it got too big, I meant in the context of being a huge empire that spanned quite a length that would inevitably have issues which would lead to it's decline. Social, economic, etc were all implied by that to reclairify.
My view is not nihilistic. I don't think the US will be the same thing however. When Rome fell, you had a split in the empire. It wasn't that Rome suddenly was destroyed. But the Rome that had existed prior was gone, replaced by the Byzantines the scholars and the barbarians (?) who didn't view knowledge as important.
I can see something like how after world war I and II, the maps had been changed quite significantly from even 50 years prior. The theory I have is that the USA would split into smaller sub nations. A more modern example would be Britian and the British empire. The empire did fall, but it wasn't like Britain was destroyed. But there was a redrawing of the entire world map, with nations becoming independent of British control. Same here except, again, the USA would be redrawn into smaller portions.
The economy would tank, however, as USA currency would be invalid, being based on the federal reserve system, and not physical gold or silver or other precious metals. What country would use bills from another country that doesn't have any backing? It would be just paper at that point.
This is all just theory, as I cannot see into the future, but it is based on past events and visualizations. But don't be fooled, the USA as everyone knows it will cease to exist, be it 75 years or 300. I say that also based on past history. If I'd like to go further, it is completely possible that globalization as we know it fails, replaced with some other system. As you said, there are unique circumstances here that simply didn't exist in classical times. But using the past can help with painting the future.
What I know for certain is that any nation that has had huge amounts of corruption has failed, and the USA is not some exception to the rule. The way the system is set up, one can see that it is eventually doomed to failure.
OK point finished!
We've had a president who was an actor, and he didn't do quite so bad. I'm sure that being a business man would help in negotiations. He does have a multibillion dollar empire(?) after all so you can give him some credit. After reading around, I
candidates approach was good enough, with Hillarys being better due to her past experience. That is all on that matter that I'd like to discuss, as I'm not advocating for one or the other. Both have different flavors of foreign policy.
As for Rome, when I say it got too big, I meant in the context of being a huge empire that spanned quite a length that would inevitably have issues which would lead to it's decline. Social, economic, etc were all implied by that to reclairify.
My view is not nihilistic. I don't think the US will be the same thing however. When Rome fell, you had a split in the empire. It wasn't that Rome suddenly was destroyed. But the Rome that had existed prior was gone, replaced by the Byzantines the scholars and the barbarians (?) who didn't view knowledge as important.
I can see something like how after world war I and II, the maps had been changed quite significantly from even 50 years prior. The theory I have is that the USA would split into smaller sub nations. A more modern example would be Britian and the British empire. The empire did fall, but it wasn't like Britain was destroyed. But there was a redrawing of the entire world map, with nations becoming independent of British control. Same here except, again, the USA would be redrawn into smaller portions.
The economy would tank, however, as USA currency would be invalid, being based on the federal reserve system, and not physical gold or silver or other precious metals. What country would use bills from another country that doesn't have any backing? It would be just paper at that point.
This is all just theory, as I cannot see into the future, but it is based on past events and visualizations. But don't be fooled, the USA as everyone knows it will cease to exist, be it 75 years or 300. I say that also based on past history. If I'd like to go further, it is completely possible that globalization as we know it fails, replaced with some other system. As you said, there are unique circumstances here that simply didn't exist in classical times. But using the past can help with painting the future.
What I know for certain is that any nation that has had huge amounts of corruption has failed, and the USA is not some exception to the rule. The way the system is set up, one can see that it is eventually doomed to failure.
OK point finished!
Last edited:
- 322
- Posts
- 12
- Years
- Seen Jun 21, 2018
And my question is why, when he very clearly has expressed that he isn't and wouldn't be? Not to mention the whole concept of a business negotiation being one completely different to an inter-country one, but that aside- when he's repeatedly expressed himself as not capable of neither understanding how to negotiate in a political sense nor that he'll try to change them in a good way- how can you say you think he will, and why?
Not much credit can be given when he was born with a silver spoon in his mouth and founded his empire on the financial support of many millions of dollars in actual exchanged money and bailouts of failed ventures from his father, then inherited the lions share of money from his dementia addled father when he did die, screwing over the family of his own dead brother in the process.
I know, i'm just very interested in why exactly you think he'd be good at negotiating despite it all, as stated before. Who wants to give an internationally disliked man a better deal than is already going, when any rearrangement would be worse for the US than your own country?
I don't think many of the issues attributed to the downfall of Rome were size-based as much as a perfect storm of other things, but it should be noted that what became the Byzantine empire was literally just the other segregated half of the roman empire, it didn't rise from the ashes as much as it as just there and re branded itself after the other half crumbled and went on to survive for a thousand years more
I don't really get your line of thinking beyond "I think this would happen" but the British Empire was an empire founded on colonialism expansion of foreign lands, not a single landmass so there's a lot of difference there that can't really be applied here (Separate nations before British rule returning to their own ruler ship, which isn't the same as states rising up as their own powerhouses in the absence of the government as a whole)
I don't really think "failure" has any real meaning in the same way it used to, Rome fell and the british isles were conquered but there really is a "too big to fail" thing going on, with the US supported by the global network. There's not really any way to describe or quantify a country "falling" in the same manner
But this isn't relevant and you're right that it's just speculation so this is just opinion v opinion without much fact basis to discuss
0
Happy and at peace. :)
- 556
- Posts
- 8
- Years
- Pallet Town
- Seen May 13, 2023
^ do you have links or sources to the first three points that show how being someone who can negotiate a business deal is significantly different from negotiating a political deal?
Do you have a source that is not CNN, fox news or any other huge completely biased news source?
As for the country deal, your right, its just a theory. We can speculate all day, but at the end of the day, we wont know who is right because my speculation is that the nation would collapse probably past my lifetime, and I can't even prove it would collapse. So, I let that issue rest.
Do you have a source that is not CNN, fox news or any other huge completely biased news source?
As for the country deal, your right, its just a theory. We can speculate all day, but at the end of the day, we wont know who is right because my speculation is that the nation would collapse probably past my lifetime, and I can't even prove it would collapse. So, I let that issue rest.
- 322
- Posts
- 12
- Years
- Seen Jun 21, 2018
I'm... not sure how I'm supposed to source that claim since it's not really something built around a factual telling of events as much as it is a concept, but i'll try. Mostly all i can give you is examples of how Trump has been/is a poor negotiator (I.E that his what his (Probably, as he won't release his tax returns) current net worth is less than if he'd just invested the money he got from his father and made no buisiness deals at all by a factor of at least 2x, though that's a poor example considering everything else)
https://fortune.com/2016/07/19/donald-trump-negotiating-the-art-of-the-deal/
https://hbr.org/2016/04/what-donald-trump-doesnt-understand-about-negotiation
A choice quote from that second article that sums this up pretty well:
Spoiler:
I'll give this a pass since you actually did list two awfully biased american news sources there so i can't be sure if you're implying all big media outlets are bias or that there's some form of anti-trump mainstream media alliance (There's not, there's simply no way to favourably cover someone constantly doing things that are awful)
0
Happy and at peace. :)
- 556
- Posts
- 8
- Years
- Pallet Town
- Seen May 13, 2023
Your first point made sense, and those sources seem unbiased, though I read your except only so as to get a general concept of the idea.
You are right, conducting negotiations is not easy at all, especially international negotiations. Foreign policy dealing with countries in the middle east are very sensitive and Trump is too gung ho about it.
As for the second point, I was actually mentioning that, because when trying to find trumps foreign policy, I was looking for an unbiased source. Every title was hurr durr, Trump is bad. I wasn't looking for that, I was looking for a real answer and eventually got one.
J also mention it because people in debates typically throw out crap sources like CNN, Fox, etc, which are laughably biased.
My favourite source for Trump's policy is Trump. Watch videos of his debates and speeches. He's probably got a campaign website too.
- 32
- Posts
- 7
- Years
- Seen Apr 23, 2017
1. Domestic
Trump's rhetoric may influence policy, as well as the discretion of bureaucrats (police, teachers, judges, case workers etc.) During the campaign and debates Trump has compared inter-cities to a "living hell", responded to the topic of racial tension "with two words - 'law' and 'order' ", and other rhetoric implying he wants to adopt a Bill Clinton or Reagan strategy of cleaning up the streets and "saving" black people. So, it's not like he's just a racist, but he has vaguely etched out his attitudes toward "the blacks" as criminals he wants to control and fix.
Systematic discrimination against individuals can and does occur and Trump's rhetoric highlights similarities to other administrations on race and crime. For instance, the 1990's Crime Bill under the Clinton Administration called for "getting tough" on criminals and supporting privatized prisons. Basically, this is what ensued after the single omnibus bill was mass incarceration. Literally, one bill caused mass incarceration to spark off (though obviously Reagan got the ball rolling). Similarly, Reagan pushed the "drug war" which systematically targeted "crack" users rather than cocaine users -- of course, the two groups were comprised of different racial demographics. As such, the high-risk areas for crack use were targeted, rather than the cocaine user (many of whom worked in white-collar industries). Black drug users were viewed as the "criminals" and white people who used drugs were just "drug-users". Anyway, both presidencies really screwed over the lives of black people after making so much head-way during the civil rights movement.
Anyway, the aforementioned topic of black incarceration is just the tip of the iceberg as to how CORRUPTION can permeate in public policy and its enforcement. Corruption can be 100% legitimized when a reckless majority of the public targets minorities in order to earn more privileges and be treated differently under the law and enforcement of those laws. As Rousseau, and many others have articulated, when laws do not apply to everyone equally those laws are not geared toward public good or "general will", and rather, those laws are indicative of populist rule or "particular will" formation. Some people who are a part of the populist mob are so blind to their privilege they fail to see how they themselves are a participant in corruption.
Now apply this one policy issue has impacted minorities and their families differently than non-minorities, and see how the disparity influences millions of people differently -- just one policy area.
There are numerous examples of corrupted democracy tied to legal structures throughout recent history of the United States that has impacted LGBTQ, women, and other groups differently. One leader can make that disparity of rights and power far worse.
2. Abroad
When we make racist, sexist, homophobic, and disregard non-binary people it sends a message to countries that we either do not value equality and it could inspire people abroad to:
1. Coalition-build populist movements utilizing which ever flavor of oppression fits their societal model.
2. Coalition-build Anti-American movements through appealing to others who are pointed out by Trump, our head of state, as being somehow inferior. (easy ISIS ammunition)
3. Diffuse power away from the United States among country heads who do not support Trump's xenophobia since that xenophobia distinctly expresses an opposition to their own interests. A weak American influence of soft power to influence policy abroad and support stability and linking international interests as to avoid conflict and war. Basically, losing soft-power (the ability to sway policy directions of other countries as to inspire interest convergence) means losing our ability to influence other countries and international encourage stability, and that likely it means a loss of hard-power as well. Rhetoric does have physical power, it literally changes behavior, strategy, and sense of what is rational discourse in taking on action.
As I have stated, Trump's rhetoric is a recipe for shifting alliances and encouraging instability when we combine all three of the above different outcomes as a result of Trump's words. When information distorts communication, people's identity, interests, and actions change in ways that are hard to predict, but almost certainly if more people adopt Trump's black-and-white thinking it is a recipe for conflict. Populist movement including Brexit are mobilized groups of people who want hegemony as a group. These groups listen to rhetoric and rally around whichever leaders tell them that they are more virtuous and other groups need to be silenced or are somehow inferior (Mexicans, the Blacks, the Gays, anyone with a "pussy" to grab, Arabs, etc.) How the hell do you not understand that divisive words have more negative influence than corruption amongst and against oppositional political parties? Trump and Clinton are corrupt, but in ways that encourage different degrees of instability. Please argue why Clinton's corruption, is somehow encourages instability vis-a-vis Trump's rhetoric to the rest of the world?
PS - I black-boxed the nonbinary debate as per Nah's request. Generally, I have to say how we define men and women has changed drastically in the past 100 years because of the inefficiency of controlling women. How we define men and women, as they relate to one another has changed in the workplace, economy, law, family structure, sexual domain, education, among others places. Non-binary people do not fit either of these core defintions or may be on the peripheries of both. Certainly how we define the roles of men and women have degraded over time in all the above spaces, as such, as individuals men and women are becoming more equal and free to make choices. Though, non-binary people may still not fit the cultural aspects regardless of these changes. For whatever reasons, they cannot navigate the same binary and we should respect that and learn from how they see their gender and navigate the world in order to further improve upon the gender binary at-large.
Basically, the theme of our back and forths has been a difference in how we value pluralism. The more difference we are able to maintain, the more we deconstruct group identities, the more individualistic all people can be -- not just the ones afforded special rights due to conforming. Though, those who conform in many ways are being controlled through a social incentive structure. We should let people be individuals and break up the lines that distinguishes groups of people in order to encourage less corruptible policy and enforcement of that policy. Freedom of expression requires that there is not cultural hegemony linked to some sort of incentive structure that favors some expressions over others. Racists for instance, are not expressing their individuality, but rather their delusional sense of group identity. They have a distorted sense of priorities and interests that cannot truly be their own -- this is what populism is at its core, mind control and indoctrination of a group of people that feel superior. That is what we are getting with Trump. This is his brand of corruption.
I have ranted about Clinton during the primary season, but most of these critiques were similar to Trump, but to a incomparably lesser scale.
Also, I hope we can get the ball rolling in the right direction as far as the tone of our discussion so we can more effectively get our points across. Let me know your thoughts.
Sir Codin
Guest
- 0
- Posts
People still think Trump's gonna win?
- 322
- Posts
- 12
- Years
- Seen Jun 21, 2018
For the explicit purpose of complaining about the election being rigged when he loses, yes
Sir Codin
Guest
- 0
- Posts
I don't even give a shit about Hillary's flaws anymore, it was a forgone conclusion that she was going to win that I suppose I'll just have to live with it. She doesn't even seem that bad, who knows, she could lead America to a new Golden Age for all I even know with how much I've even paid attention this past year....which is nearly nil. Really, this election has been so toxic to my health and sanity that I just stopped paying attention to it completely.
I'll be glad when it's over and my friends can get back to only mildly hating each other for the next four years. Kind of like all of America, really.
I don't know what it's like in other countries, but in America, politics is so seriously lacking in integrative complexity and often feels like the country is bordering on civil war. It's an extremely toxic subject and one of two things my parents taught me to never discuss with anyone if you want to keep a conversation civil (the other being Religion).
I'll be glad when it's over and my friends can get back to only mildly hating each other for the next four years. Kind of like all of America, really.
I don't know what it's like in other countries, but in America, politics is so seriously lacking in integrative complexity and often feels like the country is bordering on civil war. It's an extremely toxic subject and one of two things my parents taught me to never discuss with anyone if you want to keep a conversation civil (the other being Religion).
User19sq
Guest
- 0
- Posts
![2016 US Presidential Elections Thread [Trump Wins]](https://i3.ytimg.com/vi/JsOPHyuAuT0/hqdefault.jpg "2016 US Presidential Elections Thread [Trump Wins]")
If Hillary wins, rigged-fans will kill us all. If Trump wins, rigged-fans can stay home and let him do it for them.
If only Johnson wasn't such a ditz, I'd have supported him. And that other one... Joan Stool, she was nowhere to be found in this race.
Ivysaur
Grass dinosaur extraordinaire
- 21,082
- Posts
- 17
- Years
- Age 33
- He/him
- Madrid, Europe
- Seen May 31, 2024
Appropriate music:
Btw, turnout data shows Florida's nonwhites hitting record levels of vote share. That clearly sounds good for Trump.
Btw, turnout data shows Florida's nonwhites hitting record levels of vote share. That clearly sounds good for Trump.
0
Happy and at peace. :)
- 556
- Posts
- 8
- Years
- Pallet Town
- Seen May 13, 2023
You'd be surprised how many people vote for Trump here. Hell, I even see people wearing the clothes, which I can't say for Hillary minus a bumper sticker.