Possible US President Trump, what possible consequences?

[Aurielius]

A lot has been said by both sides about the suitability or lack of suitability that their opponent's candidate possess.

I have a simpler criterion...suppose we are in the future let us say 24 months from now and there is a serious incident either by the Chinese in the South China Sea or a Russian one in Eastern European NATO territory.....whom do you want sitting in the War Room...Hilary or Trump?

[HeyYou]

Let me get this straight, you think the other candidates are bought out by billionaires... So you want to elect one of the billionaires themselves.

Not what I said. Special interests. You know, like the MANY large corporations that have huge staffs of lobbyists. Or the enviro-nazis, etc.

[Beriallord]

Let me get this straight, you think the other candidates are bought out by billionaires... So you want to elect one of the billionaires themselves.

 

A lot of Trump's positions are against the positions of the rich neoconservative donor class. The donor class wants to keep shipping US jobs overseas to keep themselves rich. Because they'd rather pay someone in Hong Kong living in a dog cage than someone in the US who has reasonable living standards. The donor class also prefers the status quo with regards to immigration so they have access to cheap illegal immigrant labor.

 

Bringing up the idea that some of these countries should have to pay us for maintaining bases in their country is also against the neocon donor classes' foreign policy agenda. But his biggest transgression foreign policy wise was his expressed desire to "work with Putin". To the neocons, Putin may as well be Sauron. I don't think he's a bad leader. And he's certainly not planning some sort of Communist resurgence in Russia. The situation in Ukraine was provoked by the USA, and the conflict there is ongoing only due to US involvement.

 

http://e5.pudelek.pl/f53927101783b3e2ac243dd87ee74c73317ba797.jpg

Edited May 31, 2016 by Beriallord

[Beriallord]

A lot has been said by both sides about the suitability or lack of suitability that their opponent's candidate possess.

I have a simpler criterion...suppose we are in the future let us say 24 months from now and there is a serious incident either by the Chinese in the South China Sea or a Russian one in Eastern European NATO territory.....whom do you want sitting in the War Room...Hilary or Trump?

 

We got no business shoring up the Ukrainian regime and its "nazis". And when I say nazis I mean exactly that. This is who the US is currently offering training and assistance to in Ukraine.

 

http://i.imgur.com/J46bExr.jpg

[MajKrAzAm]

It's amusing and pretty disturbing to see how much Trump is getting inside these people's heads. The left cannot stop talking, writing and (probably) thinking about how much they hate Trump, and how everyone who supports him is a stupid proletarian, etc etc.

I think some of Trump's most loudmouthed detractors -- who are also some of the most ardent members of the volunteer thought police -- understand that this election is a sort of referendum on political correctness. What happens when Trump wins and people stop listening to them? They have nothing. What are these freaks going to do when their hall monitoring doesn't work anymore?

[Signette]

This topic grown very interesting lately.

 

If any of the current Republicans win then I am moving to Canada. If it is Donald Trump who wins then I am moving all the way back to England. Then, on bended knees, before the Queen Herself, I will beg forgiveness and apologize for that little 1776 misunderstanding.

 

And this all coming from a Native American.

 

 

The Rabbit

Can you... um, elaborate on this? Because, as far as I know, England along with biggest part of Europe owes one big apology to real american natives, heh.

 

A lot has been said by both sides about the suitability or lack of suitability that their opponent's candidate possess.

I have a simpler criterion...suppose we are in the future let us say 24 months from now and there is a serious incident either by the Chinese in the South China Sea or a Russian one in Eastern European NATO territory.....whom do you want sitting in the War Room...Hilary or Trump?

1. Scenario is in "wildest fantasy" category as far as I can judge, because RF practically "bought" by US, same as PRC with a notion that I simply have no idea how this country still stands.

2. What difference would it make?...

 

 

We got no business shoring up the Ukrainian regime and its "nazis". And when I say nazis I mean exactly that. This is who the US is currently offering training and assistance to in Ukraine.

It's not that simple... Do you think this "war" is profitable only for the US? Who supplies these "nazis"? What gains US and RF from this conflict? Too much interests at stake here I'm afraid. Very lucrative tradoff by any accounts.

[Aurielius]

This topic grown very interesting lately.

A lot has been said by both sides about the suitability or lack of suitability that their opponent's candidate possess.

I have a simpler criterion...suppose we are in the future let us say 24 months from now and there is a serious incident either by the Chinese in the South China Sea or a Russian one in Eastern European NATO territory.....whom do you want sitting in the War Room...Hilary or Trump?

1. Scenario is in "wildest fantasy" category as far as I can judge, because RF practically "bought" by US, same as PRC with a notion that I simply have no idea how this country still stands.

2. What difference would it make?...

The Chinese are building artificial islands in the South China Sea in contested waters, then militarizing them. The concept of Freedom of the Seas is one that we have gone to war over before.

 

Russian territorial expansion has never been in the interests of NATO or the US. In point of fact NATO was designed to halt just that. Whether it was prudent to admit eastern European countries is now moot, they are allies for better or worse. NATO treaty obligations are quite clear and are diametrically opposed to the RF current foreign policy objectives...and you can see no possibility of a shooting war? It doesn't take all that much for an incident to get out of control.

 

What difference does competent command make? Usually it's the difference between disaster and success.

[HeyYou]

And the Russians and Chinese are already pushing the envelope with their fly-by's, and 'intercepts'...... China at least suspects that they can get away with quite a bit, as a significant percentage of american manufacturing is now IN China, or, territory they control. (or could control, in very short order) We have some financial ties to Russia, but NOTHING like we have with China. Granted, China does a fair bit of trade with the US, but, they actually do more with Europe. Losing the american market would hurt, but, it would be recoverable. Depending, of course, on how the war went...... Might become a non-issue.... (no one left to trade, or trade with....)

 

Russians don't really have that ace-in-the-hole...... War with Russia would be just that. War. If we could avoid the use of nukes, it would look a lot like WWII.

[Aurielius]

http://i.imgur.com/Tmb4sti.jpg

[Signette]

 

This topic grown very interesting lately.

A lot has been said by both sides about the suitability or lack of suitability that their opponent's candidate possess.

I have a simpler criterion...suppose we are in the future let us say 24 months from now and there is a serious incident either by the Chinese in the South China Sea or a Russian one in Eastern European NATO territory.....whom do you want sitting in the War Room...Hilary or Trump?

1. Scenario is in "wildest fantasy" category as far as I can judge, because RF practically "bought" by US, same as PRC with a notion that I simply have no idea how this country still stands.

2. What difference would it make?...

The Chinese are building artificial islands in the South China Sea in contested waters, then militarizing them. The concept of Freedom of the Seas is one that we have gone to war over before.

 

Russian territorial expansion has never been in the interests of NATO or the US. In point of fact NATO was designed to halt just that. Whether it was prudent to admit eastern European countries is now moot, they are allies for better or worse. NATO treaty obligations are quite clear and are diametrically opposed to the RF current foreign policy objectives...and you can see no possibility of a shooting war? It doesn't take all that much for an incident to get out of control.

 

What difference does competent command make? Usually it's the difference between disaster and success.

 

I seriously don't think someone would go to war over an island, especially with China and in 21st century... I'd go so far even to say that US basically holds PRC by the balls with Tibet and Taiwan. Few years back there were some "independence uprisings" in Tibetian territories, when China went on new currency talks with trade partners IIRC, which conveniently failed. That's not even considering, how US can pull licences on production from China, so they won't be able produce good as they can today and go to global market, and in that scenario, I'd say EU and US will be hit hard, but will recover, though I have no idea how China could recover from that. And as a sidenote: currently banks of PRC hold more $ currency than US does, which means US have all possibilities to pull their strings, so why would anyone even consider war in this case?

 

Regarding RF, can you please elaborate on their current foreign policies? No sarcasm implied, I'm seriously curious for some info on that, because I fail to imagine how exactly does Russia expand, I mean there are NATO Missile Defence systems basically standing on RF borders, and RF has... how many military bases over the world now?

 

Considering command, I might be very wrong, but in case of serious disaster, I don't think either Trump or Clinton would be capable of making such decisions, I think Pentagon would take over and Presidents' role would be only nominal.

 

And no, I don't think simple air/ground war would be possible, because of the fact that no country in the world has enough power to stand against fullscale NATO invasion, so that would be nukes or certain defeat, not many options, aye?