The positive things that could come out of a Trump presidency

[2kt09]

Defcon nuclear threat REDUCED to safest level following Donald Trump victory

 

[Kyle]

Defcon nuclear threat REDUCED to safest level following Donald Trump victory

That makes a lot of sense. "America has a nut in the white house, if we attack - he'll start nuclear armageddon."

I think we'll have a bigger threat from someone mocking Trump on Twitter leading him to going nuclear over someone attacking.

Headline reading :

"PRESIDENT TRUMP SENDS NUCLEAR MISSILE AFTER RECEIVING A TAUNTING TWEET READING NANA NANA POOPOO."

 

[Dark Raven]

Is Donald Trump's talk about draining the swamp essentially the same thing as Malcolm Merlyn in Arrow talking about levelling the glades?

 

[Hotwire]

I'm with Doug on this one!

 

[samsnee]

That makes a lot of sense. "America has a nut in the white house, if we attack - he'll start nuclear armageddon."

I think we'll have a bigger threat from someone mocking Trump on Twitter leading him to going nuclear over someone attacking.

Headline reading :

"PRESIDENT TRUMP SENDS NUCLEAR MISSILE AFTER RECEIVING A TAUNTING TWEET READING NANA NANA POOPOO."

Nah, I'm waiting for someone to hack his Twitter account and write:

China is manipulating its currency again! Bad! Nuking them will stop it!

 

[KevanG]

Is Donald Trump's talk about draining the swamp essentially the same thing as Malcolm Merlyn in Arrow talking about levelling the glades?

I think I'd trust Trump less with an earthquake machine than Merlyn.

 

[Legendver2]

Nah, I'm waiting for someone to hack his Twitter account and write:

China is manipulating its currency again! Bad! Nuking them will stop it!

Then he'll turn to the camera and tell the hackers :"Stop it!"

 

[2kt09]

[YT]-xbabgEcEws[/YT]

 

[The Overlord]

I'm not. Heck, even our current president has to concede to the fact that Trump can "mobilize people" and he does so in a very short time span.
So, it's up to other candidates to attain that skill set.

Are you honestly telling me that a year and a half campaign was a good thing and there is no way to shorten it? I don't buy it.

Conservatives always demand more streamlined and simplified government system and you are defending an election system that is over complicated and Byzantine. That is a huge contradiction.

I don't see how you can say your system is fine after an election has made things more partisan and divided. I don't how you be proud of 45% of the electorate not showing up. How this is a great system compared to other democracies?

Washington could be on fire next year and some people will still say there is no problem.

Term Limits + Anti-Lobbying Clause. "Positive things that could come out..."

He was going to put a bunch of lobbyists in his government and know he isn't, how many times is Trump going to change his mind on things? I don't trust anything this guy says, he is ruled passions of the moment, rather then a logical plan.

So heated, our government had to shutdown for a couple weeks because of it.

That is not what I meant and you know it. The President never has to go to Congress and answer questions about his policies, like PMs do in Westmister.
The Prime Minister answers questions in the House of Commons and we didn't have a government shut down.

Again, how is your system better then other democracies?

Not enough, unfortunately. We have a handful of big populous cities/states that are mostly single party supporters. So, based on just the popular vote, this nation would be ran by one party for decades OR candidates will only try to convince those few cities neglecting the rest of the country.

But its not working the way it should, if it was, there would not be so many calls to change it.

Just because I don't like something, doesn't mean I am ignorant of it.

I explicitly stated I did from the start and welcomed you to correct me on those assumptions.

Well then sit back and absorb some knowledge, rather then saying things you don't understand are absurd.

I'm not a professor of Canadian politics, just someone who experiences it, so my knowledge is not perfect, but you should be careful about commenting on things of which your knowledge is somewhat limited as well. I don't want to seem arrogant, but yes, I do think I know more about the American system then you know about the Canadian one, the information between the two countries flows only in one direction.

You simply put an end to it. Individuals and their perspective on governing is more valuable, more specific than the collective they sprouted out of. Also, it incentivizes voters to have to actually research those candidates. This doesn't mean once elected they can't build whatever caucuses or groups within the government.

That is easier said then done. I also think people think that higher levels of government need a built in party apparatus to run it.

Again the Canadian system is not perfect and America can't and should not adopt it whole sale, that would just be silly.

But again, what is the harm in democracies learning things from each other?The idea that America has nothing to learn from other democracies is just unwarranted hubris, I think the Canadian system can learn from countries with a better Senate system then what we have now.

 

[2kt09]

Are you honestly telling me that a year and a half campaign was a good thing and there is no way to shorten it? I don't buy it.

No, I said Trump can mobilize more people in less time and he does so often.
Shorten the election to 3 months and he'd still get more buzz.

Conservatives always demand more streamlined and simplified government system and you are defending an election system that is over complicated and Byzantine. That is a huge contradiction.

Primaries -> General Election = People vote candidates representing each party -> The people vote electors -> The electors decide

I don't see how you can say your system is fine after an election has made things more partisan and divided. I don't how you be proud of 45% of the electorate not showing up.

Lol, because I know how this happened and it coincidentally involved things within the election coverage and not the election itself (well except in the case of the DNC). Also, 45% doesn't mean much given we've had around that for the past 2-3 elections and people didn't seem to care then. Plus, our voter turnout has been on an upward trajectory overall, with this year officially being the highest to date.
I'd assume you guys have higher voter turnouts because again of that population difference, which would be the equivalent of ours 2 centuries ago. That national population is less than our most populated state.

How this is a great system compared to other democracies?

I never said it was. I just find yours lacking because it's essentially our congressional electoral system. Again, just weird that you don't actually pick your PM.

Washington could be on fire next year and some people will still say there is no problem.

Jeez, speaking of sensationalism.

He was going to put a bunch of lobbyists in his government and now he isn't, how many times is Trump going to change his mind on things? I don't trust anything this guy says, he is ruled passions of the moment, rather then a logical plan.

Oh you haven't heard about his first 100 days?...which he still hasn't even been inaugurated into. Definitely read up on that.
If he breaks his promise, of course there should be hell to pay.

That is not what I meant and you know it. The President never has to go to Congress and answer questions about his policies, like PMs do in Westmister.
The Prime Minister answers questions in the House of Commons and we didn't have a government shut down.

Ok, who fed you this BS? Gov't shutdown happened precisely because Congress and the President couldn't see eye-eye on that hotly contested and major policy.

But its not working the way it should, if it was, there would not be so many calls to change it.

Do it county-by-county, those same people would still be pissed.
The fact is, one candidate got more popular votes by too small of a margin in not enough states and regions.

Well then sit back and absorb some knowledge, rather then saying things you don't understand are absurd.

We each explain ourselves as we exchange opinions. What's wrong with that?

I'm not a professor of Canadian politics, just someone who experiences it, so my knowledge is not perfect, but you should be careful about commenting on things of which your knowledge is somewhat limited as well. I don't want to seem arrogant, but yes, I do think I know more about the American system then you know about the Canadian one, the information between the two countries flows only in one direction.

I shot you down on this arrogance. Totally useless for either of us to be aware of.

That is easier said then done. I also think people think that higher levels of government need a built in party apparatus to run it.

Again if those elected want to form coalitions after the fact they won, that's fine. Beforehand, it's just obviously rote partisanship.

Again the Canadian system is not perfect and America can't and should not adopt it whole sale, that would just be silly.

But again, what is the harm in democracies learning things from each other?The idea that America has nothing to learn from other democracies is just unwarranted hubris, I think the Canadian system can learn from countries with a better Senate system then what we have now.

If you insist there's something worth learning from Canada, I'm all eyes.
You guys vote in your Legislative branch, but let that branch and a monarch appoint the Executive.

 

[The Overlord]

No, I said Trump can mobilize more people in less time and he does so often.
Shorten the election to 3 months and he'd still get more buzz.

You are assuming a partisan argument. If Trump won in a shorter election cycle, so be it. But I think people would be happy with a shorter election cycle and you can't seem to come with a reason why it can't be shortened.

Primaries -> General Election -> The people vote electors -> the electors decide


Lol, because I know how this happened and it coincidentally involved things within the election coverage and not the election itself. Also, 45% doesn't mean much given we've had around that for the past 2-3 elections and people didn't seem to care then. Plus, our voter turnout has been on an upward trajectory overall, with this year officially being the highest to date.
I'd assume you guys have higher voter turnouts because again of that population difference, which would be the equivalent of ours 2 centuries ago. That national population is less than our most populated state..

I think you are making an assumption and not studying why American turn out is lower then other countries, in an in depth manner:

http://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-37634526

I think having 2 unpopular candidates at once did not help things.

I never said it was. I just find yours lacking because it's essentially our congressional electoral system. Again, just weird that you don't actually pick your PM.

I don't see how that is a problem, if you don't like the party, you likely don't like the party leader and can vote for another party.

Jeez, speaking of sensationalism.

You do understand facetiousness right? I was being facetious for a purpose. If think you think this election was fine, then I wonder what other flaws you are willing to tolerate and not see as worthy of correction?

Oh you haven't heard about his first 100 days?...which he still hasn't even been inaugurated into. Definitely read up on that.
If he breaks his promise, of course there should be hell to pay.

Hell to pay in what way? Not electing him again 4 years? So what? That is nothing, he has free reign for 2 years at least. You gave him and his party not a lot in the way of checks and balances, unless the GOP is consumed by infighting, which could happen.

Also its naive to trust a man who contradicts himself all the time, frankly I don't think his 100 day plan means anything, he will just do whatever he feels like doing that day. I don't even think Trump has much in the way of actual ideological beliefs, I think he just said a bunch of things to get elected.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/05/donald-trump-2016-contradictions-213869

How is Trump even supposed to achieve some of those promises? How is he going to build a wall and make Mexico pay for it? Do you know what a logistical nightmare that wall would be?

http://www.businessinsider.com/can-donald-trumps-build-wall-mexico-2016-3

How will there be "Hell to pay", when he promised things that don't have a basis in reality? Unless he is a wizard, he can't do a lot of the stuff he promised. I am not criticizing him from a ideological basis, I am telling you that a lot of his promises are simply not feasible. Whether I like the wall or not, doesn't matter, it doesn't change the Herculean effort that would be needed to create such thing, with little in the way of benefits. That is a child's solution to the immigration issue. Populists are very good at promising simple solutions to complex problems, but reality soon sets in once they gain power.

Ok, who fed you this BS? Gov't shutdown happened precisely because Congress and the President couldn't see eye-eye on that hotly contested and major policy.

Do you actually read what I wrote, all I said is the Prime Minister has to go the House of Commons every day and answer questions and the US President doesn't have to go to Congress everyday and answer questions. The Prime Minister is the House of Commons every day defending his policies in the Legislature, which I think is a cool feature of the Canadian system, because he has to defend his polices every day the House of Commons is open.

What does that have to do with the US government shut down, you brought this up and has nothing to do with my point and frankly it doesn't make your system.

Do it county-by-county, those same people would still be pissed.
The fact is, one candidate got more popular votes by too small of a margin in not enough states and regions.

Again, I am not coming up with partisan suggestions, just suggestions.

Trump won, Clinton lost and frankly a lot of the reason why Clinton lost is due to her faults.

I don't think a system where Dems win all the time is a better system and I think there are some simple ways to make things better for almost everyone involved.

If you think this last election was a great example of the virtues of democracy, I just think you are mistaken. This election seemed overtly mean, cruel, untruthful and divisive, no one in other democracies see this as a great election and I'm not sure how many Americans admire this election.

We each explain ourselves as we exchange opinions. What's wrong with that?

Because I can't explain the entire the Canadian system within this thread and you are making assumptions on it with little to no basis in facts on that system. Why don't you do independent research on this, rather then expecting me to spoon feed everything and then have you talk about things you don't really understand.

I shot you down on this arrogance. Totally useless for either of us to be aware of.

I don't think its arrogant to say I have a better understanding of the American system then you do of the Canadian one, that is just a fact. I am not trying to intend offense, but do I think people needs a good basis in something, before they try to speak with authority about it.

If you insist there's something worth learning from Canada, I'm all eyes.
You guys vote in your Legislative branch, but let that branch and a monarch appoint the Executive.

Exactly how is that better or indeed worse then the American system?

Consider this, a lot of people (both left and right) have been critical of executive orders made Presidents over the years, a Canadian PM has no such power, so there is no rancor over that issue in Canada, because it doesn't exist. Some people have complained about the Prime Minister's Office trying to exert more authority, but its not the same rancorous debate that the US about the idea of an "Imperial Presidency".


Also no offense intended, but I think you have been presenting your opinions as facts, you don't like what I described of the Canadian system, so you assume its inferior instead of researching it.

You don't like my opinions on the Electoral College, so you assume I am ignorant of its purpose, rather then simply feeling it is outdated in its mandate.

Its just hubris to assume democracies can't learn things from each other and I even pointed out a flaw in the Canadian system, just to be be fair. America doesn't have to adopt the Westminster system to look and see if there are any good ideas in say the Common Wealth countries. Democracies learning from each other is not a bad thing.

Anyway, we are getting into wall of text arguments, so we should either streamline these posts or agree to disagree.

 

[2kt09]

You are assuming a partisan argument. If Trump won in a shorter election cycle, so be it. But I think people would be happy with a shorter election cycle and you can't seem to come with a reason why it can't be shortened.

Just not 3 months. I actually argued why a shorter election was possible and stated why Trump would be the person to pave that path. I didn't realize that wasn't implicit. Shorter and also with way less campaign financing.
I bring up Trump because that's what this thread about. I wasn't making a partisan argument. It could've been Bernie, for all I care.

I think you are making an assumption and not studying why American turn out is lower then other countries, in an indepth manner:

http://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-37634526

I think having 2 unpopular candidates at once did not help things.

Actually, 2 unpopular candidates did in fact help with greater turnout, even better for making that case of having more parties involved.
Also, thanks for the list of more democracies with less land per capita with overall smaller populations.

I don't see how that is a problem, if you don't like the party, you likely don't like the party leader and can vote for another party.

Too partisan. Sure, I get that you still vote for people within those parties.
We have 2 major parties, but even then we make a big deal as far as who represents them.

You do understand facetiousness right? I was being facetious for a purpose. If think you think this election was fine, then I wonder what other flaws you are willing to tolerate and not see as worthy of correction.

I think this election was the most engaging one yet. I've laid out the flaws time & time again.
The major actually related to the election system gripe has been the DNC (since they were pretty much Sony). Hopefully, they've learned their lesson through how the country decided to sway.

Hell to pay in what way?

You've seen the news. If 25-30% can get this riled up over him not yet even taken office, I can't wait to find out how that leads to genuinely meaningful discourse.

Not electing him again 4 years? So what? That is nothing, he has free reign for 2 years at least. You gave him and his party not a lot in the way of checks and balances, unless the GOP is consumed by infighting, which could happen.

Yeah, I'm far more concerned with the Democrats, atm. We've had a GOP majority to keep Barack in check and Trump isn't suddenly a Republican over this election cycle.

Also its naive to trust a man who contradicts himself all the time, frankly I don't think his 100 day plan means anything, he will just do whatever he feels like doing that day. I don't even think Trump has much in the way of actual ideological beliefs, I think he just said a bunch of things to get elected.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/05/donald-trump-2016-contradictions-213869

Could care less about the soundbites. What he remained consistent on even in the vaguest sense, he got around to specifying. Now, we wait for January 20.

Do you actually read what I wrote, all i said is the Prime Minister has to go the House of Commons every day and answer questions and the US President doesn't have to go to Congress everyday and answer questions.

What does that have to do with the US government shut down, you brought this up and has nothing to do with my point and frankly it doesn't make your system.

I've implied the exact opposite. It's not quite a daily ritual, since the president has other roles to play simultaneously. I brought up the government shutdown as the most extreme scenario of how much the president has to debate with Congress. Just another opinion - you make the PM answering House questions sound quite trivial.

If you think this last election was a great example of the virtues of democracy, I just think you are mistaken. This election seemed overtly mean, cruel, untruthful and divisive, no one in other democracies see this as a great election and I'm not sure how many Americans admire this election.

Then, insist you hold the people who cover this election accountable because that's what this mostly boils down.

I don't think its arrogant to say I have a better understanding of the American system then you do of the Canadian one, that is just a fact.

lol

Exactly how is that better or indeed worse then the American system?

I'm implying it's less democratic.

Frankly I think you have been presenting your opinions as facts, you don't like what I described of the Canadian system, so you assume its inferior instead of researching it.

You don't like my opinions on the Electoral College, so you assume I am ignorant of its purpose, rather then simply feeling it is outdated in its mandate.

You haven't even provided a proper rationale for your EC opinion, just more appeals to emotion and vague claims.

 

[The Overlord]

Just not 3 months. I actually argued why a shorter election was possible and stated why Trump would be the person to pave that path. I didn't realize that wasn't implicit. Shorter and also with way less campaign financing.
I bring up Trump because that's what this thread about. I wasn't making a partisan argument. It could've been Bernie, for all I care.

Well that is all I am saying, maybe election seasons can be shorter. That is a fair question to ask.

Actually, 2 unpopular candidates did in fact help with greater turnout, even better for making that case of having more parties involved.
Also, thanks for the list of more democracies with less land per capita with overall smaller populations.

That doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Why would there be more voter turn out in an election with 2 unpopular candidates, where third parties were not a real viable option.

Too partisan. Sure, I get that you still vote for people within those parties.
We have 2 major parties, but even then we make a big deal as far as who represents them.

This is one of those instances where you are making assumptions with no basis in facts, unless you take a top to bottom look at the Canadian system and tell me how it is more partisan then the American one, then you are just making baseless assumptions which you just tried to ream me for.

I think this election was the most engaging one yet. I've laid out the flaws time & time again.
The major actually related to the election system gripe has been the DNC (since they were pretty much Sony). Hopefully, they've learned their lesson through how the country decided to sway.

If you don't think the tone Trump set for this election is not a problem, then I think you are allowing partisan concerns blind you to the problems on the GOP side.

The Dems are guilty of running a dull, unimpressive, somewhat shady, establishment candidate, but I don't think she created the nasty tone.

Trump is a big reason why this election was mean spirited and divisive. If Rubio was the guy running for the GOP, this whole election would not have been this nasty.

Trump was not just mean spirited to Hillary Clinton, he was mean spirited to everyone. He suggested Ted Cruz's dad helped kill JFK and that his wife is ugly, how is that acceptable behavior for a random person, let alone the President of the US? If I acted like this in my daily life, everyone would think I was a jerk.

Surely there is a line between being politically incorrect and just being an huge jerk?

You've seen the news. If 25-30% can get this riled up over him not yet even taken office, I can't wait to find out how that leads to genuinely meaningful discourse.

I don't think he cares about that, I don't think he is very responsible.

Yeah, I'm far more concerned with the Democrats, atm. We've had a GOP majority to keep Barack in check and Trump isn't suddenly a Republican over this election cycle.

The Dems?! The Dems control nothing, if you are worried about them at this point, you may as well be afraid of kidnapped by goblins. The republicans control almost everything, if they fail, they can't blame the Dems for their failures. I think you are really being partisan, if you think the Dems are still a problem, they are going to have rebuild their party from the ground up for 4 years. At this point the Republicans succeed or fail due to their own merits, the Dems are out of the picture for the moment.

And if the Republicans nominated some non ideological narcissist who has no loyalty to anyone, that is on them.

Could care less about the soundbites. What he remained consistent on even in the vaguest sense, he got around to specifying. Now, we wait for January 20.

So okay, how is he going to build the wall and make Mexico pay for that?

That is just, the most obvious pipe dream promise he made during the campaign, how feasible is his platform?

If Trump can just make outlandish promises, with little in the way details and people have to elect him too say whether he can deliver them or not, that is not a good to choose a leader.

I can come up with a platform in a hour, if it has no details, execution or basis in reality.

I've implied the exact opposite. It's not quite a daily ritual, since the president has other roles to play simultaneously. I brought up the government shutdown as the most extreme scenario of how much the president has to debate with Congress. Just another opinion - you make the PM answering House questions sound quite trivial.

Those are not comparable situations, Obama has no obligation to be in Congress everyday to defend his polices.

And how is the Canadian system more partisan, if the House of Commons never decided to play chicken and try to shut down the government, just to snub the Prime Minster? The US system is way more partisan, something like the government shut down has never happened in Canada.

Then, insist you hold the people who cover this election accountable because that's what this mostly boils down.

The media was part of problem, but not the only problem.

I'm implying it's less democratic.

And what research did you do to come to that opinion, because this just seems like a baseless assumption. Its a double standard to suggest I am ignorant and just come with baseless assumptions with things you are not familiar with. This just seems like hubris.

You haven't even provided a proper rationale for your EC opinion, just more appeals to emotion and vague claims.

I thought you said that should be discussed in the EC thread?

But fine, how about these problems:

https://www.minnpost.com/eric-black-ink/2012/10/10-reasons-why-electoral-college-problem

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...u-s-keep-or-get-rid-of-the-electoral-college/

Okay, so lets here your counter argument, why is the EC so great?

Frankly if you thought this election was just fine or the problems were only with the Dems and the media, well then you can take ownership of everything Trump has said or done, not only things he said during the campaign (race baiting and boasting about sexual assault), but other scandals the media barely reported:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/donald-trump-dealt-with-a-series-of-people-who-had-mob-ties-1472736922

https://www.thestar.com/news/world/...ndraising-by-ny-attorney-generals-office.html


If you think he was a better choice then Clinton, but still flawed, fine, I don't agree, but I understand the sentiment, but don't expect the world from him then.

But going back to good things, I like the term limits and I hope he goes forward with an infrastructure plan and even if you don't agree with all the arguments I have made against the American system, I hope others will want to change in the future, because of this.

 

[AndrewGilkison]

I don't ever see elections being shortened. No one with any power has anything to gain from shorter elections. The networks make more money (higher ratings) from a long election. Both parties make more money from fundraising when they have elections. What incentive is there for anyone to shorten them?

 

[The Overlord]

I don't ever see elections being shortened. No one with any power has anything to gain from shorter elections. The networks make more money (higher ratings) from a long election. Both parties make more money from fundraising when they have elections. What incentive is there for anyone to shorten them?

You are right, I just think it make the process better in terms of being less toxic, frustrating and frankly I think the electorate would find a shorter election season more engaging. I don't think many regular citizens have been engaged by this longer election season, I think people got sick of this election season pretty quick.

But I think the vested interests you mentioned do not want things to change, so they will not change.

 

[2kt09]

That doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Why would there be more voter turnout in an election with 2 unpopular candidates, where third parties were not a real viable option.

Why? These two were so unpopular that more people felt the need to actually vote. In 2012, 3rd parties received around half a million votes and this year they received 12x as much. That's a significant amount of attention for those parties. That greater spotlight means more funding, more registered voters, and more candidates for federal right down to municipal elections. Heck, even just more of the 2 major parties taking a hint and adopting their beliefs.

This is one of those instances where you are making assumptions with no basis in facts, unless you take a top to bottom look at the Canadian system and tell me how it is more partisan then the American one, then you are just making baseless assumptions which you just tried to ream me for.

Correct me if I'm wrong, ofc. Canada's democracy as it pertains to those 3 basic branches starts and ends with the congressional election. The leader of the nation is decided by the majority party. I get the whole it's more "democratic" because your "winner takes all" system gets 2 more parties to represent the people because they've won some seats.

If you don't think the tone Trump set for this election is not a problem, then I think you are allowing partisan concerns blind you to the problems of the GOP side.

The GOP problems are as follows as I've been told by libs and cons:
They're out of touch with the vast majority and have a hard time attracting people outside their standard constituency.
Trump came in and flipped that because he had so much support from libs before exponentially gaining support from cons.
The GOP did what they could to sabotage his candidacy after he won - had an "independent" run against him, several neocons backed his opponent, kept threatening to stop funding him, etc.

And yet, none of that comes close to what the Dems got away with / what they were peddling.

The Dems are guilty of running a dull, unimpressive, somewhat shady, establishment candidate, but I don't think she created the nasty tone.

She used the same stupid tactics on our current president back when he first campaigned. The Obamas absolutely hated her, as far as 2008 was concerned. Anywho, saliently related to the point because this "nasty tone" is a Dem trademark. They cry wolf through the various -isms and make sure any number of those stick. Trump comes along and he's playing right in to their hands, yet people outside (and even inside) of the Dem circle have been so burned out by it (that much more concerned with their economic burdens) that they simply stopped humoring them.
More importantly, the DNC got hacked and...that was enlightening.

Trump was not just mean spirited to Hillary Clinton, he was mean spirited to everyone. He suggested Ted Cruz's dad helped kill JFK and that his wife is ugly, how is that acceptable behavior for a random person, let alone the President of the US?

Because...Obama made a predator drone 'dad' joke, joked about auditing his political opponents (which he did), and Hillary made a Bobby Kennedy reference toward how she could possibly beat Obama.

If I acted like this in my daily life, everyone would think I was a jerk.
Surely there is a line between being politically incorrect and just being an huge jerk?

You're certainly no typically brash New Yorker. We're brutally honest, latch on to extremes, and never not say things we intend as jokes OR will immediately regret.

I think you are really being partisan, if you think the Dems are still a problem, they are going to have rebuild their party from the ground up for 4 years. At this point the Republicans succeed or fail due to their own merits, the Dems are out of the picture for the moment.

That's what I meant. Probably more if they don't realize how far-leaning and "regressive" their progressive constituents have become. I've never noticed the left being this authoritarian and it seems to be a growing Western phenomena.

And if the Republicans nominated some non ideological narcissist who has no loyalty to anyone, that is on them.

I'll take the narcissist over an idealogue. The jury's still out on his loyalty.

So okay, how is he going to build the wall and make Mexico pay for that?

That is just, the most obvious pipe dream promise he made during the campaign, how feasible is his platform?

There's a pdf on his website detailing how. Plus, the supposed fact that this wall would cost as much as a year of NASA's budget, which each American paid 1/2 a tax penny to fund.

If Trump can just make outlandish promises, with little in the way details and people have to elect him too say whether he can deliver them or not, that is not good to choose a leader.

The intent is to get the message across in the most animated and simplest way possible, which is why the average American is more likely to know Trump's policies than...well any other candidate running, except Bernie ofc. The details have been made and you can google them and find the respective speeches/text if they're not yet on his websites.

The media was part of problem, but not the only problem.

It played the most important role. Traditional and social outlets had every opportunity to media blackout Trump, the way they have done so before with other candidates regardless of the massive popularity they garnered. Yet, we pretty much do nothing more than switch the channel or close out the page because of how bad it's gotten.

Frankly if you thought this election was just fine or the problems were only with the Dems and the media, well then you can take ownership of everything Trump has said or done, not only things he said during the campaign (race baiting and boasting about sexual assault), but other scandals the media barely reported

Absolutes aren't my thing, so sure whatever.

But going back to good things, I like the term limits and I hope he goes forward with an infrastructure plan and even if you don't agree with all the arguments I have made against the American system, I hope others will want to change in the future, because of this.

He's also extending the lobbying ban to 5 years.

 

[CaptainWagner]

The one potential positive outcome I see is if Trump actually does follow through on taking on corporations and Wall Street, which Sanders has pledged to work alongside him on if it actually happens. Which is coincidentally one of the few decent qualities for Sessions, who is also critical of those groups.

 

[Hotwire]

I finally thought of one positive thing that could come out of Trump's term. Maybe, just maybe, he starts a trend of presidents turning down the annual salary.

 

[Greenians]

My 2 cents. He'll work with Putin to destroy ISIS, and because I've seen first hand the horror ISIS brings to people then Trump has my support.

 

[Kyle]

My 2 cents. He'll work with Putin to destroy ISIS, and because I've seen first hand the horror ISIS brings to people then Trump has my support.

We're looking at a new enemy from yesteryear (extremist fascists) around the world, who (according to Homeland of Defense) out number ISIS. This new enemy is going to make ISIS look like a cakewalk. In the end, that just means trading one enemy with more roots and are in greater number.

 

[Greenians]

We're looking at a new enemy from yesteryear (extremist fascists) around the world, who (according to Homeland of Defense) out number ISIS. This new enemy is going to make ISIS look like a cakewalk. In the end, that just means trading one enemy with more roots and are in greater number.

And who created this 'new enemy'? Yip, the USA. Keep supplying the weapons to Saudia Arabia and the carnage will follow.

 

[SV Fan]

My 2 cents. He'll work with Putin to destroy ISIS, and because I've seen first hand the horror ISIS brings to people then Trump has my support.

If one feels that sheer force is the way to beat Isis, then you might defeat them but 2 new Islamic Terrorists groups will pop up

 

[Thundercrack85]

My 2 cents. He'll work with Putin to destroy ISIS, and because I've seen first hand the horror ISIS brings to people then Trump has my support.

And Assad will have a free hand in Syria and kill more people than ISIS.

 

[DJ_KiDDvIcIOUs]

Wow, there are either some very willfully ignorant folks in this thread or their worldview is so small and warped they never even had a chance to become educated on geopolitical issues. These days I can't say I'm surprised sadly.

 

[The Endless]

Either way the US was ****ed.

Hillary is a conniving career politician hungry for power. In fact I'd say she is more evil than Trump. There is something really unsettling about her. She'd smile in your face and stab you in the back.

Trump is just like a "dudebro". I don't think he is evil in the way Hillary is... he just has no filter and is beyond ignorant. But with him at least you know where you stand.

Neither of these two people are fit to run a country. But for me, Trump is the lesser of two evils.