if donald trump is elected, would he start World War 3?

[brianmanahan]

i am honestly afriad that he would make a lot of countries mad and start WW3 and then we have a nuclear winter

 

[MagickMan]

Could he? Sure, any president could. I don't see how he'd be more likely to cause it than anymore else, though.

 

[brianmanahan]

sorry i meant would

woulda, coulda

 

[feralkid]

He"ll be a great Thermonuclear War President.

He'll destroy all of his enemies and make THEM pay for it, and they"ll be happy to.

 

[brycejones]

How about a Trump sub-forum?

 

[Zor Prime]

Trump is partially an isolationist. See: Crimea, "not our problem."

I'm unsure how he plans to tackle religious fanaticism though.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

Could he? Sure, any president could. I don't see how he'd be more likely to cause it than anymore else, though.

Even with various fail-safe measures, the likelihood (a probability concept) that Trump would cost the country even more than the administration of 2001-2008 is greater.

I do not understand why people don't see the "Apprentice" celebrity for what he is -- with his character flaws.

If you somehow still disagree about the administration that took office in 2001, you cannot ignore the costs. Assuming that a garrison with continued presence in IRaq would have averted what has happened recently is fantasy. We may be the only country in the world with significant projections of military presence around the world. It is costly; adding another in a place like Iraq would just be a bigger black hole for money and lives.

In business, there's such a thing as "sunk-cost." You invested millions or billions in an enterprise; it continues to lose money year after year. Continuing to invest in that business will likely just be a total loss -- a waste. So -- you cut loose and move on, selling off the capital and equipment, liquidating the enterprise.

For unilateral (or less-than multilateral) military adventure, whether based on a distortion, lie or even sound judgment, and especially if an underlying factor is economic -- securing scarce resources -- there should be no difference in this view of "sunk cost." But since lives are lost in addition to lots of money, the public doesn't want to face the fact that it was all a mistake.

How was it a mistake? Even if the Wolfowitz/Bush faction wanted to finish the job started by Bush 41, there was no reason to consume the expense with a second war when we were already fighting another in Afghanistan. One could say cynically that it's a matter of stocks and flows. And to a reasonable extent -- it probably is just such a problem. It is, unless you choose to use war powers sparingly.

The oil-men may have wondered. How long will Saddam's leaky spigot and sanctions last? But it shouldn't have been their decision; or they shouldn't have been able to influence the decision.

Consider the other major powers. You can count the number of military adventures of either Russia or China since 1947. You can count the number of "outposts" (like the short-lived Cuba presence) which USSR may have had in the world. You can "compare and contrast."

What would Trump do? You cannot count on his doing anything he says he will do.

 

[SlickSnake]

i am honestly afriad that he would make a lot of countries mad and start WW3 and then we have a nuclear winter

(sarcasm on)

With global warming being such a HUGE problem a nuclear winter would balance it all out then, right? 😵

And after the war, we will have a lot less useless eaters like all the illegal aliens and #blacklivesmatter rioters that taxpayers are currently forced to support and clean up after, so there's that added bonus, too.

(sarcasm off)

So... WTH are you smoking now, Brian? It must be pretty damn good if this ridiculous concern about Trump and WW3 is at the top of your worry list. 🙄

 

[SlickSnake]

Even with various fail-safe measures, the likelihood (a probability concept) that Trump would cost the country even more than the administration of 2001-2008 is greater.

Based on what? The fact you obviously don't like Trump? That's not a very compelling argument. The comparison is not valid, because you have absolutely nothing to base it on, since he's got no political history at all to even begin to make any assumptions about his possible administration at this point.

I do not understand why people don't see the "Apprentice" celebrity for what he is -- with his character flaws.

Either you are oblivious to the fact that all politicians have character flaws (and many of them pretty severe flaws which resemble some type of brain injuries or retardation, at that) or you are just willfully disingenuous for the point of argument here, and I am not sure which it is.

If you somehow still disagree about the administration that took office in 2001, you cannot ignore the costs. Assuming that a garrison with continued presence in IRaq would have averted what has happened recently is fantasy. We may be the only country in the world with significant projections of military presence around the world. It is costly; adding another in a place like Iraq would just be a bigger black hole for money and lives.

In business, there's such a thing as "sunk-cost." You invested millions or billions in an enterprise; it continues to lose money year after year. Continuing to invest in that business will likely just be a total loss -- a waste. So -- you cut loose and move on, selling off the capital and equipment, liquidating the enterprise.

And since he's clearly a business man first, and a politician second, this "sunk -cost" you speak of, is it a bad or good thing then?

For unilateral (or less-than multilateral) military adventure, whether based on a distortion, lie or even sound judgment, and especially if an underlying factor is economic -- securing scarce resources -- there should be no difference in this view of "sunk cost." But since lives are lost in addition to lots of money, the public doesn't want to face the fact that it was all a mistake.

How was it a mistake? Even if the Wolfowitz/Bush faction wanted to finish the job started by Bush 41, there was no reason to consume the expense with a second war when we were already fighting another in Afghanistan. One could say cynically that it's a matter of stocks and flows. And to a reasonable extent -- it probably is just such a problem. It is, unless you choose to use war powers sparingly.

The oil-men may have wondered. How long will Saddam's leaky spigot and sanctions last? But it shouldn't have been their decision; or they shouldn't have been able to influence the decision.

Clearly, the historic line between business influence and politics is now blurred beyond belief in this country, with the actual voters concerns about government affairs now being a secondary or even a nonexistent concern when laws and policies are dictated to the population from a business perspective already.

Consider the other major powers. You can count the number of military adventures of either Russia or China since 1947. You can count the number of "outposts" (like the short-lived Cuba presence) which USSR may have had in the world. You can "compare and contrast."

What would Trump do? You cannot count on his doing anything he says he will do.

All your assumptions sounds like typical politics as usual in the USA now. And how is Trump as a president somehow going to make it all worse, when he is already calling out all the hypocrisy and shady deals going on in government now as it relates to lawmaking and big business?

And in the real world, where the rest of us live, can you ever count on a single politician to actually do what they say they are going to do once they get elected? Obviously not. Regardless, all these broad assumptions you make are pretty much based on nothing concerning Trump, since you pretty much have no political basis to judge him on at this point what so ever.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Donalkd trump would only start wwIII if you are still posting when he gets elected....

 

[bradley]

I'm just loving The Donald troll the trolls. Entertainingly magnificent job. Those who call him irrelevant are the ones most helping to propagate the legend.

Donald Trump continues getting stronger by the day. Even little kids seem to know him by name now. If he's still this strong in late September, better look out haters. choo-choo. 🙂

 

[SlickSnake]

I'm just loving The Donald troll the trolls. Entertainingly magnificent job. Those who call him irrelevant are the ones most helping to propagate the legend.

Donald Trump continues getting stronger by the day. Even little kids seem to know him by name now. If he's still this strong in late September, better look out haters. choo-choo. 🙂

It's hard to tell over the TV if he's an older soul, or a younger soul. He seems to usually handle himself rather eloquently in front of a crowd like a somewhat older soul would, but some of the thoughtless stuff he says at times makes me think he's a younger soul. The problem is, people who are heavily driven by self worth and materialism can get easily overwhelmed by their success and they tend to mostly ignore deeper spiritual development, at least in this reincarnation cycle.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

Based on what? The fact you obviously don't like Trump? That's not a very compelling argument. The comparison is not valid, because you have absolutely nothing to base it on, since he's got no political history at all to even begin to make any assumptions about his possible administration at this point.

Of course he has a "political" history. He's inserted himself into the dialogue for years. And one can probably count on the whimsical reversals of positions he's made over a longer period of media history.

But if I "don't like Trump," I have multiple bases for my dislikes.

These sorts of leaders -- you can categorize them as narcissists or demagogues -- are littered all across history.

They may be fine for reality-TV, but reality-TV as a recent phenomenon has never shown the best of anyone spot-lighted by it, and it doesn't speak to the better natures of people obsessed with it.

If I don't like people with a bullying nature or a propensity to talk about themselves with every successive statement, I'm comfortable with not liking Trump.

But he's definitely a magnet for a lot of prospective voters. Unfortunately, the cohort of those supporting Trump right now couldn't be the basis for a very strong grass-roots movement to address the problems you cite with the two-party duopoly.

Of course, you can roll the dice and see what happens after the primaries are over.

Either you are oblivious to the fact that all politicians have character flaws (and many of them pretty severe flaws which resemble some type of brain injuries or retardation, at that) or you are just willfully disingenuous for the point of argument here, and I am not sure which it is.

But that's just it. I've recognized that for a long time.

There's an old screen-play written by John Steinbeck, in which the very real leader and folk-hero portrayed says much the same thing: "You're leaders are just men [PC = "people"] such as yourselves."

Let's suppose I myself toyed with the idea of running for office. I wouldn't. Features of my earlier life -- mild by comparison to Trump's -- would make it either unpleasant or unhappy. I'm smart enough to know that. I'm smart enough to know that I don't have a "presidential temperament."

So you can ask yourself whether Trump "the Great Leader" had the presence of mind to anticipate being blind-sided more than once on national TV.

And since he's clearly a business man first, and a politician second, this "sunk -cost" you speak of, is it a bad or good thing then?



Clearly, the historic line between business influence and politics is now blurred beyond belief in this country, with the actual voters concerns about government affairs now being a secondary or even a nonexistent concern when laws and policies are dictated to the population from a business perspective already.

A "business perspective" but definitely not sound "business principles." What you're talking about is a culture of crony capitalism, concentrated industries with big players who keep politicians in their pockets, who imagine spending everyone else's money with some fantasy about getting their own money back through some misadventure.

All your assumptions sounds like typical politics as usual in the USA now. And how is Trump as a president somehow going to make it all worse, when he is already calling out all the hypocrisy and shady deals going on in government now as it relates to lawmaking and big business?

And in the real world, where the rest of us live, can you ever count on a single politician to actually do what they say they are going to do once they get elected? Obviously not. Regardless, all these broad assumptions you make are pretty much based on nothing concerning Trump, since you pretty much have no political basis to judge him on at this point what so ever.

You can't count on any elected official getting done what they said they'd do earlier for a whole handful of reasons, least of which might be an unrealistic gamble in staking out a policy position that's either untenable or cynical. But the country is so divided these days that "divided government" hasn't been much of a help, now, has it?

 

[z1ggy]

Trump is partially an isolationist. See: Crimea, "not our problem."

I'm unsure how he plans to tackle religious fanaticism though.

That doesn't found very Republican of him...

 

[flexy]

So... WTH are you smoking now, Brian? It must be pretty damn good if this ridiculous concern about Trump and WW3 is at the top of your worry list. 🙄

Wow...being worried about WW3 a "ridiculous concern"? Wondering what YOU smoke?

 

[flexy]

He"ll be a great Thermonuclear War President.

He'll destroy all of his enemies and make THEM pay for it, and they"ll be happy to.

He'll destroy all of his (note the "HIS" there) enemies. It obviously already sank into the American subconsciousness that this is a personal "game-sort-of-thing" there where it's about him, not so much about 300M people 🙂

There's a just a minor problem...8000 nuclear warheads targeting the US and other nations...and the 8000 warheads might fly whether Moscow or Tehran are in ruins or not, doesn't really matter.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

How about a Trump sub-forum?

Great idea!!

 

[1prophet]

Bush already was president when world war 3 was started and the United States is going to lose

The day before terrorists attacked New York and Washington, a fifth-grader in a Dallas suburb told his teacher World War III would begin the next day, school officials have told the FBI.
The boy was absent from school the day of the attacks, Sept. 11, and the following day, but has been at school since then, said Rhonda Lucich, a director of elementary education for the Garland Independent School District.

Lucich said the boy approached his teacher on the afternoon of Sept. 10 and casually told her:

"Tomorrow, World War III will begin. It will begin in the United States, and the United States will lose."



Lucich said the child's statements were passed along to the FBI. She said she did not know whether the agency had acted on the tip. An FBI spokesman could not be reached for comment.



Lucich said school officials are concerned, but not alarmed.
"It is one of those things I sincerely want to believe was coincidental," Lucich said.



Lucich declined to name the elementary school involved. She said she was told about the boy's comment by his teacher and the school's principal two days after the Sept. 11 attacks.



She said the boy is multiracial but that she does not believe his ethnicity includes a Middle Eastern background.



U.S. officials believe Middle Eastern terrorists linked to Saudi Arabian exile Osama bin Laden are responsible for last week's attacks on the World Trade Center towers and the Pentagon.

Talking fish says end is near, thanks to Bush


http://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/mar/16/usa.theobserver

'It said "Tzaruch shemirah" and "Hasof bah",' he told the New York Times, 'which essentially means that everyone needs to account for themselves because the end is near.'

 

[michal1980]

this fear mongering is ok right? Because the left is doing it.

 

[sm625]

Until he wises up about Snowden, there is always that possibility.

 

[piasabird]

Rich people did not become rich because they were aggressive, but because they learned to use the system of business to their favor. Most good business people create customers by treated people well.

I look at people like Snowden the Hillary Clinton and immediately realize it is Hillary that is the greater threat to a free democracy.

 

[Sonikku]

Unlikely. The threat of constant war is profitable, but actual nuclear all out war between super powers is not. The instant this became a genuine possibility you can be sure the ruling class would phone up their subordinates in Washington and order them to make a compromise.

"You can't make war with China, I have factories and sweatshops there! Shops that pay YOUR superpac!!" :biggrin:

 

[werepossum]

You gotta love the left.

1. Conservatives have defective fear-based brains!
2. Conservatives will start World War 3!

 

[BoberFett]

I hope he does, but only if it's televised and he says "You're fired" as he pushes the button.

The ultimate one-liner of all time.

 

[Moonbeam]

You gotta love the left.

1. Conservatives have defective fear-based brains!
2. Conservatives will start World War 3!

You gotta love brain defectives. They can't see that 1 leads to 2.

We always create what we fear.