Countdown to Extinction: The 2016 Presidential Election

[Pat B]

The idea is that we are to build the wall, and Mexico will pay for it. Fat luck trying to collect.

The plan, apparently, is to that they will pay for it out of their trade surplus. If there has been a battier proposal from some presidential campaign, I can't think of it.

[Karl Henning]

And if Sanders would get the nod, would the scenario of Trump winning be any less likely?

Well, I do not know.  I've seen the odd piece suggesting so, but not yet from what I should consider an impartial source.

Anyway, the whole "superdelegate" rannygazoo has the process front-loaded for Hillary.  And if she really does wind up the object of a Justice Department inquiry (I may be alarmist, but I almost think you need to be a Clinton partisan to believe that she is just going to breeze past this issue), her chances sink yet further.

[Florestan]

What is the worst scenario in case Trump wins? WWIII?

[(poco) Sforzando]

Is there any possibvility that he might really get elected?

Unfortunately, a very real one.

[Pat B]

As easily as one could view Trump as the logical conclusion of Republican anti-government bias, one could also view his candidacy as the logical outcome in a society that exalts celebrity, news cycles that rely on meaningless sound-bites and false or manipulated crises and controversies, and has an electorate more enamored of new cell phones than politics.

Right. I should have said anti-governing instead of anti-government.

And the irony here is that for all the hand-wringing over Citizens United and his wealth, Trump has spent less than some of his rivals.

Way, way less. And that's a campaign message for him.

Sometimes I wonder if he has a camera crew following him around, filming the behind the scenes activity, for some post-election reality TV special, to air shortly after a loss, or after his Presidency ends.

Excellent idea! But why wait so long to air it? I'd expect its value to be highest sometime before the election.

[Todd]

Excellent idea! But why wait so long to air it? I'd expect its value to be highest sometime before the election.

Extra post-election/presidency income.

What is the worst scenario in case Trump wins? WWIII?

Nah.  Trump likes Putin.

[Todd]

And if she really does wind up the object of a Justice Department inquiry (I may be alarmist, but I almost think you need to be a Clinton partisan to believe that she is just going to breeze past this issue), her chances sink yet further.

Imagine this scenario: Trump gets the Republican nod and Hillary gets the Democratic nod in July, then Hillary gets indicted sometime before the election.  That this is plausible is simultaneously funny and disheartening.

[Jo498]

What is the worst scenario in case Trump wins? WWIII?

The American Conservative website rated the candidates for hawkishness in foreign policy and Trump came out as the least hawkish after Sanders.

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/a-2016-foreign-policy-report-card/

[Florestan]

Nah.  Trump likes Putin.

The American Conservative website rated the candidates for hawkishness in foreign policy and Trump came out as the least hawkish after Sanders.

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/a-2016-foreign-policy-report-card/

So, at least when it comes to foreign policy Trump is more likely to be guided by realism and pragmatism than other Republican candidates. Then I don´t get the panic.  Can he really single-handedly do such harm to domestic economy and society as to bring USA to the brink of extinction?

[Todd]

Can he really single-handedly do such harm to domestic economy and society as to bring USA to the brink of extinction?

No.

[Karl Henning]

Imagine this scenario: Trump gets the Republican nod and Hillary gets the Democratic nod in July, then Hillary gets indicted sometime before the election.  That this is plausible is simultaneously funny and disheartening.

Aye.

[Florestan]

No.

Then what´s all the fuss about?

[Todd]

Then what´s all the fuss about?

I thought you fancied yourself knowledgeable about American politics.

[Florestan]

I thought you fancied yourself knowledgeable about American politics.

You were wrong. I never pretended that.

[Todd]

You were wrong. I never pretended that.

Oh, then you should probably read up on it a bit and then come back to this thread.

[Florestan]

Oh, then you should probably read up on it a bit and then come back to this thread.

Frankly, I´m not that interested in the topic as to do an in depth study. I just thought the problem could be stated in a few sentences but apparently I was wrong.

[Karl Henning]

Robin Quivers, Stern's sidekick, then asked Trump whether he would choose to sleep with Anderson or Whoopi Goldberg.

"You know, right now, I have to go with Whoopi," replied Trump. "Look, it's a terrible thing. It's a sad thing. You know, it's a terrible thing."

[Archaic Torso of Apollo]

The American Conservative website rated the candidates for hawkishness in foreign policy and Trump came out as the least hawkish after Sanders.

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/a-2016-foreign-policy-report-card/

That is useful, and tracks with my current understanding of the situation. As things currently stand, if it's Trump v. Sanders, I vote Sanders. If it's Trump v. Clinton, I vote Trump. Why? Because of these 3 candidates, Hillary is the one most likely to start World War III. Every other issue sort of pales in comparison.

[Todd]

Because of these 3 candidates, Hillary is the one most likely to start World War III. Every other issue sort of pales in comparison.

Single issue voters . . .

[Florestan]

Is there a candidate that can be safely voted for his own qualities and ideas and not just because the alternative is worse?