U.S. Presidential debate

[kandrathe]

But on the other hand, I find it hard to believe that Trump could do more damage to the world than GW Bush did.

I agree to a point. Trump's err may be in being too hands off, letting things in the world boil over, when we could be helping to turn down the heat. He wants the US to exit South Korea, Japan, and scale back our global hegemony. Scary, but not the propagandized rhetoric of launching nukes, or proliferation. His Reaganesque poser on nukes is rhetorical. If you are unwilling to use nukes, why risk having them. In fact, it is US policy to retaliate, if attacked. Why is it assumed, with Reagan, or now Trump, that he's talking about first strike? If he were conversely in favor of eliminating the US possession of nukes, another large faction of Americans would be fearful of being disarmed.

It is easy to see this as a completely new thing in politics but as said before don't forget also Reagan and GWBush were elected. The damage those two brought to the world Trump can only dream of doing.

In retrospect, Reagan's tough stance on the Soviets brought down the wall, led to detente, nuclear arms talk, and demilitarization. The only "wars" we participated in barring Grenada, were the ongoing typical US cold war black ops interventionism via 3rd world proxy (Iraq v. Iran, Afghanistan v. Soviets, South American right wing dictators v. Socialist/Leftist revolutionaries, etc.) This was an existing pattern for American interventionist policy since we had to pull our heads out of the sand and get sucked into WWII. There was down side blow back from our participation in some of those conflicts, but it is hard to calculate the alternatives in the what-if-scenario generator of my imagination. The Contras did lose, Grenada remains a democracy freed from the coup by PRG, Afghans were not defeated by the Soviets, Iran and Iraq are still rivals, although due to the GWI, II, the majority Shia participate more fully in their government. I'd say Saddams ability, and willingness to use chemical, and biological weapons is directly related to cozy clandestine relations with the US, France, Japan, Germany, and some others.

But yes, about your internal politics, I learned not to care. It is already frustrating enough that uneducated redneck hordes from the US through voting seem to have more to say about things in my country than myself. If you people think it is fine to shoot each other that is not my problem. If you think it is normal the government decides if you can have an abortion or want euthanasia go for it. If you think taxes are bad but it is ok your government tells you what to do regarding social issues....if it makes you happy.

I'm careful to not throw about the elitist slur of "uneducated". We do have 10-12 years of government mandated compulsory free education. The quality is sometimes contested, but rubrics are nationalized and standardized, albeit lower than what most want. In my state, we set the standards higher, and have our own testing regime to ensure teaching/learning quality. Whether or not a person chooses to be a redneck, and act like a fool is by choice, and not due to the existence of prejudicial movie stereotypes like "Deliverance". However, driving through parts of the rural Ozarks, and Allegheny regions will give you pause ( if not paws).

What is he likely to do? I think;

• Reform immigration
• Review/repeal regulation hurting business growth
• Opt out of treaties and trade deals where he feels the US is hurt
• Stay out of international conflicts
• Ignore the UN
• Reform a top heavy federal bureaucracy
• Push more governance back to states
• Appoint 3 or 4 members to the Supreme court
  

Some others, but again, in the US, the Congress writes the laws, he just gets to veto the bad ones. None of the above list will be as bad as people fear, nor as extreme as the fringes may want. Our process of law making is pretty good at cooking up a lukewarm middle of the road concoction objectionable to almost everyone.

Since he'll want to govern with the help of the Republicans, he'll want to negotiate to stay in their good graces. The Democrats will become the opposition party, whose responsibility is now to fight hard to moderate and stop legislation objectionable to their constituencies. In the Senate, many things require 2/3 majority to pass. They will get a voice.

Trump is a populist but he is not an extreme republican.....half of that party were into the lie of the war on Iraq.....that now caused complete chaos in the whole world......again, I just don't see Trump being able to do that same kind of damage.

I'm hopeful he will be more moderate and disciplined in governing. Words have power too. His blunt "bigoted" rhetoric is emboldening the bigoted fringe. As I've said before, I don't think Trump is a full-on racist, but, if you are a racist, Trump is your guy. He is clearly guilty in the campaign of some dubious statements and positions on immigrants from the Islamic world, and across our southern border. These things embolden the small group of full-on racists and bigots to writhe out of the manure pile to spew their vileness. In a free society, it's an opportunity to expose them to the sun light of truth, and allow us to educate them better. e.g. Some friends in Tennessee are mounting a furious boycott campaign to to little restaurant owned by the local "Make America White Again" guy running for congress. Speech is free, but you also get to live with the consequences of what you say.

I fully understand your frustration though.....just thinking about people that vote ''against the elite'' for a super rich tax evading guy that literally will do anything to protect his own interests, and honestly think he will do something for them...

I didn't vote for him for a multitude of reasons, but my list starts with character and integrity, then I get to a history of wise moral decision making, and finally experience preparing them for the position. Neither Trump, or Clinton passed step one, for me.

Donald Trump is moving to the White House, and liberals put him there -- Guardian Article or Jonathan Pie if you like...

He was the wrong man, with a message that resonated with enough people who clamored for change. The kind Obama vaguely promised but failed to deliver. Our recovery in the US over the past 8 years has been focused at the top 1 to 5% of household incomes. In 2008-09, we all lost much, (or everything for some). Only the top wealthiest people got it all back.

The desire unmet was to "SMASH THE MACHINE." and "DRAIN THE SWAMP."