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
I agree with Rational Insanity: Trump won, and as much as we all don't like it, he deserves at least 4 years to succeed or (most likely) fail (hard). If he fails, then we all get to say "We told you so", then elect someone actually qualified for the job in 2020. If he succeeds... Well, he did it through the worst way possible, but America (and most of us) won't suffer because of it.
Meh. Hopefully seeing Rogue One tonight will make me forget about Trump for two hours so i can at least pretend the good guys win
New Survey coming this weekend!If he does that, though, he's going to run into the debt ceiling. Reagan was lucky that the ceiling in his time was set high enough that Congress wasn't running into it every single year. They have to suspend it between November and March and then reset it with the new budget in mind every year now.
edited 15th Dec '16 7:16:19 PM by Zendervai
![]()
![]()
Unlike Reagan, Trump does not have a Federal Reserve with massive interest rates to relieve or a crumbling geopolitical rival that he can claim victory over.
As far as things going well he has far less going for him then Reagan did, though depending on how things go that may not matter.
edited 15th Dec '16 7:16:27 PM by Mio
Trump has proven himself compromised as a leader.
Internal political destabilization might in the end be better than the world destabilization that a Trump presidency might bring. We still haven't even healed from the damage Bush has done to our country. We're going to need several decades to fix Trump's mistakes.
Climate change can't wait 8 years to fight. That's an existential crisis that we must tackle on now.
edited 15th Dec '16 7:20:33 PM by MadSkillz
![]()
Some Republicans will certainly make a fuss over it though, especially if the government's only spending and no 'real' cuts are made.
I don't think advocating for causing turmoil in a country, let alone a Nuclear Global Power like the United States, is a good idea at all. Yes, Trump so far has shown himself to be a terrible leader, but he's still the one who won. We have to respect that, as much as we hate it. Plus, him being a terrible leader will become evident to everyone, even his followers, once he's elected and him and his Republican buddies do things that screw everyone over. We have to have them lead us so that we're reminded how terrible they are, and then they get kicked out and everything gets fixed.
Wow, he wants to turn the US into Venezuela? I have been getting Chavez-esque vibes from him for a while now.
I'm positive, though, that the Tea Partiers aren't going to simply blindly follow Trump, considering they didn't even play ball with their fellow Republicans when they needed to pass a budget multiple times. Trump will have to play ball with them, or they will hold up Congress again.
edited 15th Dec '16 7:30:09 PM by DingoWalley1
The last time someone voiced the idea that the president is above all things and has to be trusted no matter what, it was Nixon who said this. So, no, I don't think that we have to give Trump a chance being the president if enough evidence piles up that he is either unfit for the job or involved in illegal activities or has connection which would compromise him - or all of the above.
It is not just that Russia might have meddled in the election, Trump openly encouraged them to do so in one of his speeches and now he has a close friend of Putin in his cabinet. Those are not minor issues.
There is a reason why there are mechanism to impeach a democratic elected leader. Because we are not lemmings, we have the right to balk if someone wants to lead us down the cliff (in fact, not even lemmings are that stupid). It is unusual to impeach one before he has even taken office, but if there is a sound case for doing so, it has to be done.
edited 15th Dec '16 7:37:30 PM by Swanpride
The Russian hack has discredited the entire election.
No, I don't think that might even be enough. He's built a cult of personality and so far he's been impervious to facts. Nothing sticks to him. He can just lay the blame at Democrats and his supporters would eat it up and radicalize even further.
Not to mention all the gerrymandering he'd do in Republican favor and the voter suppression that Republicans are becoming and more and more enamoured with.
![]()
![]()
Now now, I didn't say we had to trust him, and by all means, you should never trust an elected official until they actually govern. I'm saying that the choice is either Anarchy and Chaos because a successful attempt was made to stop Trump (which I am wholeheartedly against), or we accept the pill we have to swallow, let Trump run the country (probably terribly) for 4 years, while making sure Democrats take over at least the House in 2018, and vote Trump out in 2020. The 2nd option sucks, yes, but it will not result in Anarchy and Chaos (hopefully), it will result in a unification of anyone who isn't a Neo-Nazi or Trumpeteer against Trump and gives whoever takes over after Trump a strong mandate to do whatever is necessary to fix America.
![]()
Things might not stick to Trump personally, but most of the people who voted for him did so out of economic 'desperation', not out of blind ignorance or devotion to him. The minute everything turns to hell, they will leave him, because they always blame the President when things go to hell.
edited 15th Dec '16 7:41:20 PM by DingoWalley1
I hear that didn't work with Reagan who people have mythologized as one of the greats.
@ Swanpride: there is virtually no chance of Trump being impeached by a Republican Congress no matter he does, as I suggested in my above post. If and when there is sufficient evidence to remove him, it will be at the hands of a domestic intelligence agency under military purview, most likely the NSA; Trump would be arrested at gunpoint with a writ countersigned by the Supreme Court. And Trump would be the first of numerous GOP leaders; they hitched their star to him, and part of endorsing him was putting their signature in writing after Trump openly called on Russia to interfere. The only ones likely to survive that are those like Mc Cain who have pushed for the investigation.
edited 15th Dec '16 7:47:25 PM by ViperMagnum357
I could literally give you a list of differences between Reagan and Trump, but I honestly hope I don't have to start listing various reasons as to what makes Reagan different then Trump.
![]()
Gilphon has listed one already.
![]()
![]()
![]()
Reagan also had a huge economic upturn going into his next election which Trump may not have.
Whether or not Trump's base will turn on him is also rather uncertain. There are plenty of real "deplorables" who will eat up anything he says as long he keeps "them" down and out. On the other hand there do seem to be some folk who genuinely did not believe that Trump was going to dismantle the social safety net including the ACA. Whether they can be bought off with racist rhetoric is uncertain.
![]()
I don't think you would find many in the military who would go along with what is essentially a military coup. Not to mention that Trump is pretty popular with large segments of the military right now with his appointment to Sec Def.
edited 15th Dec '16 7:53:24 PM by Mio
Preventing Trump taking office after the electoral college vote would require force, that would likely lead to civil war and the military splitting in two.
You're afraid of what Trump might do with a nuke now? Imagine what he'd do if he was kept from the White House by force and had nuclear armed parts of the military join with him, he might well nuke LA to "teach them traitors a lesson".
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran

The problem is that vindicating the GOP base's paranoia would just delay the inevitable. In 2020 someone even worse than Trump would pop up and you'd arguably be in an even more terrible position.