Hunchman801 wrote:As much as I'm aware of the stupidity of many of Trump's comments, I'm almost relieved that he was elected president.
As a non-American, what matters the most to me is American foreign policy. And God knows how destructive it has been to the world since the Soviet–Afghan War (and possibly much earlier). And in that regard, while Clinton seems to be the continuation of this policy, Trump wants an easing of tensions with Russia, acknowledges that they should never have been to Iraq and that they have destabilized the whole Middle East, and is realistic about al-Assad being bad while not stupidly trying to get rid of him as he knows well that jihadists would take over.
I agree he's flat out better on these issues, he seems to want to take everything a step back and be a little more nuanced, and I can get behind that. Clinton was too much a warhawk and I'm glad we dodged that bullet.
Hunchman801 wrote:Trump is a big mouth. He's not gonna do half the things he said. Hell, he can't even do half the things he said (he's not almighty, neither is the senate, and they don't have to agree with him because they're from the same party). He's a populist, he said things to please, to get elected, but now he's in the office, he will realize (if he hasn't already) that most of the stuff is not doable.
His bombastic ideas won't happen, there's not gonna be a wall, but I think he will get quite a lot done. He'll totally gut the FDA and EPA (food and enviromental agencies), he can give the fossil fuel industries free game, he can elect a very corporatist person as FCC chairman (internet regulation), he'll be best buddies with the NSA who he's even come out and defended/supported a couple times. He'll apply trickledown economics - who's gonna stop him? The republican Senate and House, they overwhelmingly support that system.
Bonus: "No, when I said the TPP is a terrible deal I meant until I amended it to be great! I'm the most pro-TPP person ever! It'll be the best deal, best one in years!"
Hunchman801 wrote:(except for his positions on climate change, I really hope he doesn't fuck this one up).
He wants the gut the EPA and stop the Paris agreement, he doesn't even believe it exists. Leading environmental organizations are going to have to channel themselves more effectively than ever before - devolving our current broken environmental protection in this time period is a worst case scenario.
Adsolution wrote:What I find to be a complete joke is that people who were well-aware of the fact they're both absolutely terrible candidates have become so utterly devastated over Trump winning - and yes, this goes for a number of people from RPC as well, especially when all they can think of at this point are "the rights of women, Muslims, LGBT people and so on", but I'll get back to that - get your shit straight you agonisingly self-absorbed retards. I have sympathy for those directly affected by any of the negative policies he'll actually end up enforcing, but the alternative is living in fear for the safety of the world itself. The last thing the country needs right now is a corrupt, slimy, war-bent politician in office. Just like with Brexit, all I hear people complaining about is how the this will affect them in the most immediate, trivial fashion ("My college/studies funding is going to be dropped, higher shipping taxes, my religion is looked down upon!!"); I'm not American or British, but if I were, I would not have the gall to lie to myself like that.
That's because you're friends are all stupid and dumbhomo, ad.
No but seriously, I think you're completely right. I really have a distaste for the social justice type movement at this point, their whole agenda feels incredible self-serving and like it's turning politics into something fashionable with labels to show off. If you really want a progressive future for the country then this election should upset you because it means there are people without proper healthcare, or that climate change is being ignored, not that this "new americana" movement didn't get validated by the final result - and you should've been just as angeree if Hillary won. Whooptiefuckingdoo, you're not a bigot in 2016.
Not me trying to dismiss the existence of these issues and there's a lot of progress left to be made, but I fail to see why so many people push these specific issues like they're the most pressing matters in politics, as if women's rights was the primary win or lose issue of the election. If anything, I think many of these socio-political issues have already begun to progress to a point where they're inevitably going to be signed into law by someone very soon.
And of course Hillary talked about those issues all the time, she wanted to tap in on that and score minority votes. It was the only thing she really could talk about, because there is no single payer healthcare or breaking up banks in her agenda, and it's a safe discussion topic that by default she has the upperhand on against a conservative. Again, the fact that her whole campaign's thing was "we're not racist!" is pathetic, that shouldn't be the main advertising point of a Democratic candidate in 2016, it should be a given.
Adsolution wrote:- Muslims: Islam is not a race, it's a belief system. Trump's ideas are brash, but to be perfectly honest, I don't really find much morally reprehensible about not allowing people who identify (emphasis on "identify") with a religion that has a tendency to produce radicals from entering the country. It's like closing the borders for the KKK: Why the fuck would you even identify with something founded on violence, bigotry, intolerance and racism if you're neither violent, bigoted, intolerant nor racist?
Trump never addresses the implications of that policy properly. He's never once namedropped the Muslims who have risked their lives opposing radicalism and liberating Syrians from ISIS. It would've been a very different conversation if Trump had come out and acknowledged these people, made some very clear strong points debunking racism accusations, and announced it going "I know it's harsh, I want it lifted the second we confidently feel like there's no longer a threat, and I'm just doing what I feel like is the safe choice here." Making that kind of decision, and then backing it up with "pfuh all those retards who disagree" comments, I mean come the fuck on man.
And even then I think there's an argument to be had about banning some groups rather than flat out all Muslims. That being said, it's an undeniably effective way to combat terrorism.
