Americans... how would you react if?

[Str8Shooter]

Donald Trump is voted in as the next President of the United States?

Right now he's the leading candidate among Republicans by many polls. So it stands to reason he at least might get a shot. As ridiculous as that sounds.

Let's say he wins and becomes President Trump. What do you do?

[Everlong]

I can't envision any possible scenario in which Trump wins the election, and I still give him next to no chance of being the Republican nominee.

But let's say this nightmare scenario actually occurs... I don't know whether I'd laugh or cry. I love this country a lot, but at that point I'd just have to throw up my hands and admit that the majority of voters in this country are fucking morons.

[Circled Square]

I'm warming up to him. He's kinda like Andrew Jackson, in his America first attitude.

Fuck Mexico
Fuck China
Fuck the way the government spends the tax money
Fuck the spineless, bought out career politicans

I know he's a meme candidate, but I'd be lying if I said I didn't agree with him on a lot of things, even though he still hasn't said what his views are 100%.



I don't think he'd be a bad president. Remember, he can't just drive the car straight into the wall, he's got the SC to deal with. Liberals are scared of Trump, not because he's some genius, but because people are tired of overly politically correct fuckboi's who flip flop all the time and backpedal every statement. Trump doesn't back pedal. Part of his image is being the alpha male of the conservatives. I prefer him over Hillary or Bernie "Free Stuff" Sanders. Don't even get me going on Jeb, or Scott "I'm literally retarded" Walker.

But tbh the whole thing with Trump is the entertainment value. IF he comes prepared to that debate he'll blow everybody the fuck out.

[The Legend]

I'd love if Trump wins the Republican nomination. I'd run to Canada if he actually wins the election.

[Circled Square]

I'd love if Trump wins the Republican nomination. I'd run to Canada if he actually wins the election.

Either way you're getting fucked by the Chinese.

[GNR]

Fuck Donald Trump.

[Everlong]

He's kinda like Andrew Jackson,

Plenty of reason to stay the fuck away from him, then.

[Circled Square]

He's kinda like Andrew Jackson,

Plenty of reason to stay the fuck away from him, then.

He's kinda like Andrew Jackson,

Plenty of reason to stay the fuck away from him, then.

You do realize that he was against the federal reserve which is what's been fucking us over for a long time now, right? Unless this is about dead Natives. If you're pro central banks, you're cancer.

Andrew Jackson was against the banks controlling the U.S so he'll always be a hero to me.

[Everlong]

Yeah, I mean, I tend to not be excited about people who can be easily compared to someone who spearheaded one of the worst genocides in the history of mankind and the face of the manifestdestiny philosophy.

He also openly defied the Supreme Court, believing that he as the President held higher authority than the highest court in the land. And while I don't really have an issue with Jackson's desire to decentralize the banks, the way he tried to go about it played a large role in causing the Panic of 1837 which in turn led to one of the worst financial depressions in the history of the country.

Andrew Jackson is one of the five or six worst presidents in the history of the United States, and was a bigot and murderer to boot, so yeah, if we're comparing Trump to him then I'm completely fine saying thanks but no thanks.

[Circled Square]

You know that Trump wouldn't lead a damn genocide. It's just like Hitler & National Socialism, there's plenty of good in some of the things they did as a government, but it's muddied by a terrible genocide on the Jews. Jackson is the kinda guy who'd get shot, then beat the guy who shot him with a cane. If you want to look at a shitty president, look at the man who sold us out, Woodrow Wilson. That depression caused by Jackson eliminating the debt(!) lasted for 5-6 years if I remember correctly.

By the way, I hate the emotional aspect of genocides, or people killing people throughout history in general. Why did they kill the Natives to take over the land? Because they can. That's human nature. It will change forms, but the heart of it will never change.

[Everlong]

ou know that Trump wouldn't lead a damn genocide

Of course not, but he's already demonstrated himself to be an unabashed racist, so I have no interest in having him representing the United States as our president.

y the way, I hate the emotional aspect of genocides, or people killing people throughout history in general.

Yes, heaven forbid we have any sympathy or empathy for those who were mercilessly slaughtered by people who wanted to steal their land and believed them to be less than human.

[Circled Square]

ou know that Trump wouldn't lead a damn genocide

Of course not, but he's already demonstrated himself to be an unabashed racist, so I have no interest in having him representing the United States as our president.

y the way, I hate the emotional aspect of genocides, or people killing people throughout history in general.

Yes, heaven forbid we have any sympathy or empathy for those who were mercilessly slaughtered by people who wanted to steal their land and believed them to be less than human.

Let me guess, you bought the media's twist on Trump's speech about Mexico & rapists?

And if you got THAT out of what I said at the end, let me explain.

Conquest and takeover, genocides, they happen because people want power. They took it from them, because they can. They have better weapons. Better this, better that. It's human nature.

Also, I can't be the only one who has racism at the bottom of their lists when it comes to government? I care much more about foreign policy & economics. These social issues like trans, Gay rights, #BlackLivesMatter, seem like one big distraction. Much like the blaze it 420 crowd who only vote for people because they support marijuana.

[GNR]

No shit people commit genocide for power? That doesn't excuse it or make it not as big of a deal. Genocide is bad. Very bad.

[Everlong]

Also, I can't be the only one who has racism at the bottom of their lists when it comes to government? I care much more about foreign policy & economics. These social issues like trans, Gay rights, #BlackLivesMatter, seem like one big distraction.

I have a big problem with this twist on things. This is the sort of thing someone who says "I'm a social liberal but a fiscal conservative" would say.

Social issues are very much intertwined with foreign policy and fiscal issues. The way a person feels and acts on social issues is a pretty good indicator of how they'll feel and act on foreign policy and fiscal issues, and vice versa.

You can't separate social issues from other issues. They're inseparable. They feed into each other.

Learning to have empathy with people who are underrepresented and underserved in society can directly translate to the kind of solutions we present in terms of economics, education, infrastructure, foreign policies and more. You can't talk about how to solve racism and segregation of city neighborhoods, for example, without talking about how we fund education, how we fund and lay out infrastructure and stuff like that.

In the end, economic issues ARE social issues. If racism is at the bottom of your list when it comes to government, then 1) you fail to see the intersectionality of social and fiscal issues and 2) you're contributing to the problem of inequality in this country.

[Circled Square]

Also, I can't be the only one who has racism at the bottom of their lists when it comes to government? I care much more about foreign policy & economics. These social issues like trans, Gay rights, #BlackLivesMatter, seem like one big distraction.

I have a big problem with this twist on things. This is the sort of thing someone who says "I'm a social liberal but a fiscal conservative" would say.

Social issues are very much intertwined with foreign policy and fiscal issues. The way a person feels and acts on social issues is a pretty good indicator of how they'll feel and act on foreign policy and fiscal issues, and vice versa.

You can't separate social issues from other issues. They're inseparable. They feed into each other.

Learning to have empathy with people who are underrepresented and underserved in society can directly translate to the kind of solutions we present in terms of economics, education, infrastructure, foreign policies and more. You can't talk about how to solve racism and segregation of city neighborhoods, for example, without talking about how we fund education, how we fund and lay out infrastructure and stuff like that.

In the end, economic issues ARE social issues. If racism is at the bottom of your list when it comes to government, then 1) you fail to see the intersectionality of social and fiscal issues and 2) you're contributing to the problem of inequality in this country.

Not at all. What if my views are how to improve the country as a whole, not necessarily about social issues. Getting the best out of our allies like Israel, not getting ripped off by the Chinese, choking the life out of American production. ^This isn't about inequality, that's JUST A MEME. Do you not see how parties use these things to run, yet rob you blind as they dangle buzzwords infront of your face? Tea party fuckers are the same way. Pander to the Latino's, try to win them over, yet fail to mention how they fuck over the middle class. That's my issue with social issues. I don't believe they're intertwined to such a point one way of thinking means I automatically think the same way about another issue. That to me is bull plop.

A lot of people who focus on social issues are the dreaded "One Issue Voter" who is a cancer to political opinions.

Don't tell me just because I don't hold this inequality bullshit in the highest regard that I m contributing to the problem. That's insane.

[Everlong]

What if my views are how to improve the country as a whole, not necessarily about social issues.

I mean, social issues play a role in that, don't they? You can't say "I want to improve this country" and then say "social issues are a distraction." That's a contradiction.

What if my views are how to improve the country as a whole, not necessarily about social issues. Getting the best out of our allies like Israel, not getting ripped off by the Chinese, choking the life out of American production. ^This isn't about inequality, that's JUST A MEME.

If you're concerned with improving our country, then you need to look at domestic issues at least as much as foreign issues. While foreign issues don't necessarily all intersect with social policies (though some do), all domestic issues certainly do. So while "not getting ripped off by the Chinese" isn't necessarily about inequality, you're only focusing on a couple cherry picked issues. If you're concerned with improving the country as a whole, you have to be concerned with inequality. Period.

I don't believe they're intertwined to such a point one way of thinking means I automatically think the same way about another issue. That to me is bull plop.

I'm not sure you entirely understand what I'm saying here, but if you don't think social and fiscal issues are intertwined, then you just haven't thought through them enough.

I already gave the example about trying to solve racism. What about poverty? How can we expect to resolve homelessness or improve the lives of the poor without considering how we fund social programs, how we adjust taxes, and more?

A lot of people who focus on social issues are the dreaded "One Issue Voter" who is a cancer to political opinions.

I agree that one issue voters are lame, but that's not what we're talking about here.

Don't tell me just because I don't hold this inequality bullshit in the highest regard that I m contributing to the problem. That's insane.

If you don't even consider how inequality and social justice issues are related to fiscal issues, then yeah, you're part of the problem. Sorry if you think that's insane, but it's the facts.

[Circled Square]

I'm happily fine with being a part of the problem then. I do think they are intertwined, fiscal & foreign policies intertwine with social issues. I don't deny that. But it's not necessarily about say, helping minorities. It should be about helping the middle class. Equality is a lie, what it really about is poor people vs. rich people. We are slaves to money. Now you can't fix that by taxing the rich people to death, because they'll move, and pull their business ventures out of America. You need balance. I don't put "equality" very high up on the list - the best economic policies that raise the quality of life in the U.S >>>>> the inequality meme. Stronger middle class = less poor people = better parents = better future.

[Everlong]

But it's not necessarily about say, helping minorities. It should be about helping the middle class.

Why can't it be both? Also, again, you're not really considering how race and class issues intersect.

Equality is a lie, what it really about is poor people vs. rich people. We are slaves to money. Now you can't fix that by taxing the rich people to death, because they'll move, and pull their business ventures out of America.

...so if it's about poor people vs. rich people, it IS about inequality then, is it not? A lot of the problems in this country can be traced to the unbelievable disparity of wealth and income. And where do you get this idea that raising taxes on rich people will cause them to move?

The top .01 percent in this country control nearly 12 percent of the country's wealth, the highest amount in the history of the country and a number that has been increasing rapidly every year. But that's not all--the amount of people near the poverty line is swelling, and the middle class is shrinking.

If you really care about fixing the middle class, then you need to care about shrinking poverty, which yes, means taxing rich people more or taking other action to redistribute income. Because the larger the piece of pie grows for the richest several thousand people in this country, the smaller of a cut hudnreds of millions of other people get, and the worse off we're going to be. And if you don't believe social issues have any relation to that at all, then we're at an impasse.

[Circled Square]

Not the way people want to fix it, by turning the country into a welfare state. That might work until we run out of other people's money. As I said, I agree with you SOMEWHAT on the rich vs. poor dynamic. It's not about taxing the rich to death - it's having the rich produce their goods in the U.S, instead of China. Jobs for the low class to climb to the middle class.

[Hanley!]

Liberals are scared of Trump, not because he's some genius, but because people are tired of overly politically correct fuckboi's who flip flop all the time and backpedal every statement. Trump doesn't back pedal.

Ah, come on now! Who has flip flopped more than Trump? The guy was a registered Democrat up until recently. He's donated money to the Clintons and John Kerry in the past. He was outspoken about immigration reform a couple of years ago, and now he's completely turned the corner on that issue.

Seems to me that he does plenty of back-pedalling too. Like claiming that he never said that John McCain wasn't a war hero. When you run your mouth as often as Trump does, back-pedalling is always going to be necessary.

I can understand that some people want to get away from voting for politicians who talk out of both sides of their mouth and have no connection to citizens they're governing. I get that. It's human nature. I don't really want to vote for those guys either. But anyone who wants a straight-talking man of the people in office and then votes for Donald Trump is a fucking idiot.

You recently gave Hillary Clinton a hard time for flip flopping on gay marriage. You posted a quote from a decade ago and presented it as a reason that she couldn't be trusted in office. I'd argue that a whole freaking lot of people have genuinely changed their minds about gay marriage in the last decade due to being better educated about the issue, but lets put that aside. If Clinton can't be trusted because she holds different views now than she held a few years ago, then Trump sure as hell can't be trusted given he's changed his stance on just about everything in the same period.

By the way, I hate the emotional aspect of genocides, or people killing people throughout history in general. Why did they kill the Natives to take over the land? Because they can. That's human nature. It will change forms, but the heart of it will never change.

If we can't get emotional about mass freaking murder, then what good is human emotion at all?

I want anyone I vote for to care about bettering civilisation. Sure, mankind have done all kinds of dickish things over the course of our history, just because we could. But we're getting better. We're starting to teach ourselves that mass murder is bad, that war should be avoided if possible. We realise the value in including people, and we're starting to do what we can to combat discrimination.

A lot of these social issues are - arguably - the biggest political issues of this generation. These are the things that matter to much of our society. And if the people care about these issues, then politicians should care about them too. That's how a good system of government should work.

And sure, I can't deny that economic policy is damn important, but more often than not I'll vote based on social issues first. Because if I can see that a politician is trying to make the world a better place for the people living in it, then I can take a lot of the other stuff on faith. At least I'll know they have their priorities in order.