Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
Also, while he's a petty madman, I think he's still sane enough to want to keep living, so he's unlikely to launch nukes, provided that he can grasp that other countries will retaliate.
And since he's already 70 and the Presidency is a notoriously stressful job, he has higher than average odds of dying of natural causes while in office. That said, this isn't as good as it sounds, because if thin-skinned fascist Donald Trump dies, we get theocratic Veep Mike Pence as our President and High Inquisitor.
Foreign Policy Argument: China Just Won The U.S. Election
There are four major victories for the Chinese leadership here, tempered by one possible fear. The first victory is the obvious one, the geopolitical victory; China no longer faces the prospect of Hillary Clinton, a tough, experienced opponent with a record of standing up to bullies. Instead, it faces a know-nothing reality TV star who barely seems aware that China has nuclear weapons, has promised to extort money from U.S. allies around China like South Korea and Japan, and has repeatedly undercut U.S. credibility as a defense partner. Trump is also exactly the kind of businessman who is most easily taken in by China — credulous, focused on the externalities of wealth, and massively susceptible to flattery. A single trip, with Chinese laying on the charm, could leave him as fond of China’s strongmen as he is of Russia’s Putin.
Countries like Vietnam, Myanmar, and the Philippines, uncertain about who to back in the contest for power in the Pacific, will swing massively China’s way, preferring a country that keeps its promises to one that can turn on the pull of an electoral lever. The strongest U.S. allies, Taiwan, South Korea, and Japan, no longer confident in the U.S. nuclear umbrella, will begin seriously considering other alternatives — like acquiring their own nuclear deterrent, prompting new tensions with China.
But generally, these developments will only embolden China. After the 2008 financial crisis, Beijing was convinced the world was going its way, resulting in a spate of overconfident military moves in southeast Asia which pushed some countries more firmly into the U.S. camp. Now China’s confidence will return, and few in the region will have confidence in Washington’s ability to provide shelter from China’s nascent hegemony. Taiwan, already facing tough mainland rhetoric after electing anti-Beijing leader Tsai Ing-wen, will feel completely isolated — and perhaps be vulnerable to actual invasion — without the firm promise of U.S. protection.
The second victory is in the contest between authoritarianism and democracy. From a Chinese point of view, an electoral system that produces somebody like Trump — utterly inexperienced in governance but a skilled demagogue — is an absurdity, the equivalent of picking a major company’s CEO through a horse race. In China, leaders need to be carefully chosen, groomed, and pushed, gaining experience at every level of the Communist Party system before being anointed for the top job. (That comes amid a flurry of brutally nasty and corrupt internal struggles at each level, mind you.)
China aspires toward the Singaporean model of carefully controlled elitism, a country in which Trump represents, in the words of one writer, everything they were taught to fear about democracy. The crudity of Trump’s triumphant campaign gives credence to Chinese media’s criticisms of a “chaotic political farce.” The likely split between the popular vote and the Electoral College will only further the often-made case that U.S. democracy is a sham.
Trump himself has given every sign of governing like the authoritarian leaders China has favored from Myanmar to Zimbabwe. Every piece of paranoid security theater he has threatened, from a ban on Muslim immigration to the wall with Mexico, will be used by Beijing to justify its own myriad oppressions.
That leads to the third victory, on human rights. Every year, the United States puts out a report on China’s human rights calamities — and every year China responds with its own report, a mixture of indignant bluster and genuine poking at American sore spots, from police treatment of minorities to the gender gap in pay. But under President Trump, Beijing’s stockpiled ammunition against U.S. hypocrisy on human rights looks set only to grow, given his close ties to white nationalist groups, the likely gutting of civil rights, and his — and his supporters’ — attacks on the notion of press freedom. Any Western attempts to call out China’s reassertion of traditional patriarchy, from the arrest of the Feminist Five to the Communist Party’s absence of female leaders, can be countered with any number of references to the new groper-in-chief. Resurgent Republican homophobia will be a gut blow to China’s gay rights movement. Calls for transparency in China’s military spending and local government budgets can be met by pointing out the victory of a candidate who never even bothered to release his tax records. Racist violence, judging by the experience of Brexit and the composition of the Trump base and rhetoric, may see horrifying new peaks, which would give a brutal new credibility to the old Soviet whataboutism whenever they were challenged on the gulag: “But in America, you lynch Negroes.”
That’s assuming a Trump administration would even press China on human rights at all. Given Trump’s often-expressed admiration for dictators ranging from Saddam Hussein to Vladimir Putin, and his call for isolationism in foreign affairs, China might find itself with a reliably quiet White House that would turn a blind eye to crackdowns in Xinjiang — or even Hong Kong.
And finally, the fourth victory is on media credibility. The almost unanimous condemnation of Trump by newspapers from across the political spectrum — to tragically little effect on the voters — will strengthen the case made by Chinese state media that Western media is biased and elitist.
When China wants to bash Trump, on the other hand, they’ll point to the failure of TV news to call out his myriad failings.
Those are contradictory criticisms of Western media, of course, but Chinese state media has never balked at hypocrisy, so expect both points to sometimes be made in the same article. (China has been quite happy bashing both the shortsightedness of referenda and the corruption of the EU over Brexit, for instance.) Secondly, the failure by pollsters — even Nate Silver, though laudably uncertain compared to others, had Clinton as two-to-one favorite — will be used by China to cast doubt on the claims of experts across Western newspapers.
But there’s one major worry that may mute the celebrations in Zhongnanhai. Although China regularly trashes the US, the country’s growth has been dependent, ironically enough, on a strong, stable and prosperous United States willing to trade with the world. Globalization, as Chinese authors have repeatedly argued in the last few months, is vital for a country that needs the markets of others to keep pushing its population into the middle class and achieve the dream of being a “moderately prosperous” country by 2020.
If Trump actually follows through on his protectionist plans, and his decisions have the same effect on the United States as they have on his many failed businesses, China’s own economy, already quivering, will start to shake. Beijing’s ambitious plans to develop other global trade networks through the “One Road, One Belt” scheme may be able to compensate for that — or may prove just as unstable in a rudderless world. China and the United States have often been compared to the two wings of the global economy; if one goes, they spiral down together.
You know, I had a feeling this was inevitable. If Clinton got through instead, the 'Trump moment' would just be delayed for another four years. I mean, there's never been a successful presidential candidate like him. I'm probably going to regret saying this, but perhaps the next four years will constitute a much-needed lesson to a good chunk of the US, once Trump does whatever bone-headed thing he's planning.
Honestly, though, I'm still hoping that his election rhetoric was just that - rhetoric - intended to get him into office, and once things settle down he'll start flip-flopping again. He's a businessman who's clearly very good at selling himself, but actually holding political office is a completely different field. I wouldn't be surprised if he's silently panicking right now.
I'm reminded of that Cracked video I saw which depicted the Trump campaign as being started as a joke by two college-aged guys which blew rapidly out of proportion, and whenever they phoned the man himself he was crying and whimpering ineligibly. :V
Those sell-by-dates won't stop me because I can't read!The lesson of tonight is that middle aged white men are still numourus enough to push an election one way or the other.
This is gonna be a depressing four years, well maybe two years if the Dems win big in 2018, but for that to happened we'd probably have to see either: a gigantic economic collapse following Trump taking office, a bloody war (probably with Iran) that kills many American servicemen and women, or Trump getting impeached after going full crazy and doing something like getting caught raping someone in the White House.
None of which sound nice, all of which don't actually sounds entirely impossible though.
I just hope that the secret service actually have a plan for if Trump tries to randomly nuke a country because he doesn't understand that that shit has real consequences.
edited 9th Nov '16 2:37:05 AM by Silasw
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranBut this not going be a healthy political environment.
On the other hand, a Democrat who wielded some amount of, essentially "moral" authority, who stood up to things like the Dakota Access Pipeline unilaterally, would be something a lot of people would welcome.
One thing I could appreciate about Clinton was that she at least understood complexity and nuance. But it worked against her. Take fracking for example. The wikileaks info showed she was taking the approach that there was an acceptable type of fracking, and an unacceptable type of fracking. The stance that there is no right kind of fracking is something she would never consider. And people want leadership, not triangulation.
edited 9th Nov '16 2:41:50 AM by Eschaton
Then a better system should be set up to catch them with their hands in the proverbial cookie jar.
edited 9th Nov '16 2:39:40 AM by Clarste
Sorry the double post but this tweet is very important. https://twitter.com/BibleReloaded/status/796260452451909633
@Pushover: See here
for the full presidential line of succession.
For a recent example of this coming up in media, the main character of Designated Survivor was 12th in line.

Its over, they could take away every right a citizen has and there is nothing they could do any more.
Not that there going to go that far, but it is going to be BAD.
Yes, the biggest fear is removing rights for minorities, which they might actually be able to do with full control of all three branches of government. For example, they could potentially overthrow certain Supreme Court decisions or implement new laws explicitly allowing states to discriminate in certain ways.
These are things they've actually been trying to do for a while now, so it's not exactly just a hypothetical.
edited 9th Nov '16 2:28:09 AM by Clarste