If Trump Wins

[JCTarheel82]

Not trying to be Debbie Downer, but feeling more than uneasy about this country right about now. I think there’s a good chance that Trump wins... but also I can’t see how we ever pull back from the crazy that has been unleashed. The guns, the hatred, the roll back of abortion and other rights on the horizon. Is this even a place I want to raise my kids? My husband and I have all four parents still alive and in their 70s, so that’s a big anchor… but I’m to the point that I’m lightly researching other options.

In the exact same boat. Moving elsewhere would be a monumental undertaking though. It feels overwhelming and hopeless at times.

 

[mpaer]

You seem to be agreeing that the criminalization of drugs is a failed experiment, but you also state that Oregon's experiment with legalization was also a failure. So which is it?

The "war on drugs" has wiped out entire neighborhoods of Males (prison records) It is a failure
Increase use in drugs is easily not a good policy
thats all I got

 

[aGDevil2k]

Here's my question:

If Trump wins, what would he have to do to start to lose his support?

1. Use the military on citizens/cities, resulting in people dying.
2. Leave NATO
3. Imprison political opponents
4. Execute political opponents
5. Shut down broadcast networks (ie CBS)
6. Eliminate elections
7. Signed treaty with Russia
8. Executing Americans who disagree or protest him
9. Jail media folks who disagree with him
10. National Credit downgrade + inflation returning
11. Anything else?

Is there anything that could potentially happen that would be "a bridge too far" and for those folks who think "eh he is just full of hot air...he wont do this stuff" what would happen to open their eyes (disclaimer: this isn't losing ALL his support....a good 25% would support him absolutely no matter what...he could do all this list and then some and they would be ok with it. He could kill their own families and they would say "yes sir please")

 

[CFordUNC]

Literally nothing, and I do quite literally mean, literally nothing. There is absolutely, positively, unequivocally nothing that Trump could do under any circumstance to lose the support of anyone who votes for him in the year 2024. Absolutely nothing. Anyone who is going to be repulsed or turned off by anything about Donald Trump did what I did after 2016. Nobody voting for him in 2024 is going to think that he can ever do anything disqualifying.

 

[hedge]

He could walk into a town hall in a deeply Maga community and shoot one of the participants on film and in front of the rest of the community and nobody but the local community would believe it and maybe even some of them wouldn't. The community may believe it but the rest of his supporters would say it's fake and if that community tried to tell what happened they would be ostracized from greater Maga for lying about it or else they'd claim they were liberal plants, etc., etc. Greater Maga would definitely find some way to claim and really believe it didn't happen...

 

[ChapelHillSooner]

Literally nothing, and I do quite literally mean, literally nothing. There is absolutely, positively, unequivocally nothing that Trump could do under any circumstance to lose the support of anyone who votes for him in the year 2024. Absolutely nothing. Anyone who is going to be repulsed or turned off by anything about Donald Trump did what I did after 2016. Nobody voting for him in 2024 is going to think that he can ever do anything disqualifying.

I disagree. If he started attacking churches that would do him in.

But there is nothing Trump would possibly do that would cause him to lose support including the things on the list above. As long as his supporters believe the right people are being attacked they will build a narrative to justify it all.

 

[mynameisbond]

I disagree. If he started attacking churches that would do him in.

But there is nothing Trump would possibly do that would cause him to lose support including the things on the list above. As long as his supporters believe the right people are being attacked they will build a narrative to justify it all.

You could easily replace the red hats with brown shirts and swastika armbands. That's how far his supporters have gone to the extreme right. Blind loyalty.

 

[nycfan]

 

[nycfan]

 

[CallMeTyler]

These people are absolute morons.

 

[nycfan]

 

[Awinisawin]

Sadly, I have no plan I’m confident in. Because this whole thing is so deranged, the one confidence I do have is that every aspect of every persons life will be impacted - and eventually impacted negatively. The things they have said against social security, education, disaster relief, taxes, ecology, etc are so broad and negative that each and everyone of us will be affected negatively in some way. This whole thing is a Putin wet dream. We won’t any longer be able have a decent economy, forget the dollar being a world market anchor. Everything will go to hell. I mean, this is based on the projections they have made, and the very predictable outcomes. The calamity that will ensure, peoples lives and nest eggs will evaporate. Four more years of Trump will result in something none of us can live with.

Want to move out of the country, easy enough to just seize your monies and prevent that access. I mean everyone can and likely will be affected. It’s beyond sad, it’s scary

 

[ZenMode]

This came to mind while I was editing an earlier post...

At the time that the electoral college was created, there were no TVs, no evening news, no Internet or smart phones. Many people were essentially excluded from world of information.
The electoral college exists for a number of reasons. One of them, it has been said, is to prevent the uninformed masses from electing a truly unscrupulous and dangerous person.

Has anyone here ever seen Trump as the type of person that the EC was meant to stop?

 

[finesse]

This came to mind while I was editing an earlier post...

At the time that the electoral college was created, there were no TVs, no evening news, no Internet or smart phones. Many people were essentially excluded from world of information.
The electoral college exists for a number of reasons. One of them, it has been said, is to prevent the uninformed masses from electing a truly unscrupulous and dangerous person.

Has anyone here ever seen Trump as the type of person that the EC was meant to stop?

Almost all of us. Have you ever seen him act like a decent human being?

 

[rodoheel]

This came to mind while I was editing an earlier post...

At the time that the electoral college was created, there were no TVs, no evening news, no Internet or smart phones. Many people were essentially excluded from world of information.
The electoral college exists for a number of reasons. One of them, it has been said, is to prevent the uninformed masses from electing a truly unscrupulous and dangerous person.

Has anyone here ever seen Trump as the type of person that the EC was meant to stop?

if we still had the EC as many originally conceived of it - a group of informed people who would themselves pick the president - then yes, Trump would be the kind of person we'd expect them to stop. But it's been like 200 years since any state selected electors by any means other than the popular vote in their state.

I am confident that the Framers would be shocked at the fact that we allow voting by every single citizen over 18, regardless of race, gender, or landowning status. Something like that certainly would have been inconceivable in the 18th century.

 

[finesse]

I'm not so sure they would be. You got to remember that the Constitution was a do over itself. The Articles of Confederation was a flop. Then they had to both compromise over slavery and negotiate the Bill of Rights to get this one through. They still left a path to further amend it. That pretty much indicates to me that they didn't think they had created a perfect document. They did pretty good and the fact that they left a way to amend it indicates that they expected change and didn't know what direction they would take. Hell, they just went from good English citizen to rebels to the forefathers of a new nation. Jefferson and Franklin both were also cognizant of the effects of the Industrial Revolution and how that was accelerating.

 

[grimes70]

I'm not so sure they would be. You got to remember that the Constitution was a do over itself. The Articles of Confederation was a flop. Then they had to both compromise over slavery and negotiate the Bill of Rights to get this one through. They still left a path to further amend it. That pretty much indicates to me that they didn't think they had created a perfect document. They did pretty good and the fact that they left a way to amend it indicates that they expected change and didn't know what direction they would take. Hell, they just went from good English citizen to rebels to the forefathers of a new nation. Jefferson and Franklin both were also cognizant of the effects of the Industrial Revolution and how that was accelerating.

Jefferson thought the Constitution should be amended or rewritten every 20 years by a new generation. Too bad this was never given much considerstion let alone enacted. Might have made for more incremental changes, less chaos, than the current amendment law.

 

[ZenMode]

if we still had the EC as many originally conceived of it - a group of informed people who would themselves pick the president - then yes, Trump would be the kind of person we'd expect them to stop. But it's been like 200 years since any state selected electors by any means other than the popular vote in their state.

I am confident that the Framers would be shocked at the fact that we allow voting by every single citizen over 18, regardless of race, gender, or landowning status. Something like that certainly would have been inconceivable in the 18th century.

I tend to agree with your second paragraph. "Back in the day", voting was done more at a household level, presumably ultimately decided by the head of the household, and was only allowed by those who had skin in the game, i.e. landowners.

 

[superrific]

was only allowed by those who had skin in the game, i.e. landowners.

If you think that only landowners had "skin in the game" as far as the direction of the country . . . well, not only are you bad at political theory, but you don't understand much economics either. We knew that of course.

 

[superrific]

The electoral college exists for a number of reasons. One of them, it has been said, is to prevent the uninformed masses from electing a truly unscrupulous and dangerous person.

Has anyone here ever seen Trump as the type of person that the EC was meant to stop?

No, that's not why the electoral college exists. It's not at all why the electoral college exists. Here's how you know that: when the EC was created, no state used any EC-type structure in their own politics. None went to an EC structure after ratification. There was every bit as much danger of the uninformed masses electing dangerous people in state government, and state government was a much bigger % of government at the time.

The EC was just a negotiation between states who were scared of each other, over several issues including but not limited to slavery. And the motivating factor was distrust between states, which is why they all wanted a seat at the table. There were 13 states back then. If we could go back in time and show the Framers our presidential elections today, where a couple of states decide election after election, and those states' votes are determined largely by uninformed or low info voters, they would not have designed the EC the way they did. And no jokes please about the time travel paradox because that's just boring.