Trump Is Dangerous VS Republicans Are Dangerous

[poofyhairguy]

For a while now many people have said that Trump was a "threat to our nation" due to his positions and rhetoric, and in the aftermath of his win the internet, TV and newspapers are filled with warnings/hyperbole about what kind of permanent damage Trump can do as president.

Yet one thing I have noticed about many of these warnings is often those making them don't specify what makes more Trump more dangerous than any other Republican candidate. The same criticisms that could apply to a Ted Cruz or even a Rubio get applied to Trump in a way that makes his threat seem unique when really it's just business as usual when a Republican is in the Whitehouse. For example, no matter what Republican won the election the nomination to the Supreme Court spot would go to someone the left wouldn't like, just like the left wouldn't like who any Republican picked at head of the EPA, and just like the left wouldn't like almost any electable Republican's position on climate change or social causes. Overall very few analysts define what is unique about Trumps threat, or why America or certain Americans won't survive Trump like they did W. They just mix it all together in a big bag of "this is bad."

It seems to me that a Trump administration does have the potential to introduce dangers that wouldn't apply to a Cruz or Bush administration- such as the legitimizing of alt-right leaders- and people should know what the unique threats are. Yet all those unique concerns gets mixed in with this big stale Jon Stewart created soup of "Republicans are bad" that makes it hard to take the unique Trump threats seriously (or even define what they are). Add on top the extreme levels of hyperbole about a Trump administration that isn't even possible given our checks and balances (like all the Nazi comparisons) and it creates a situation where any real danger related toi Trump might not be heeded because no one can wade through the partisan politics and storytelling to understand what they should fear.

So I ask the forum- what is uniquely dangerous about Trump that wouldn't apply to almost any other Republican candidate? Thank you in advance.

 

[First]

Problem with Trump is that if he just repeats what he did in his campaign when he's POTUS, the results aren't going to be good. The constant know-nothing statements on policy & history, race-based demonizing, needless Twitter rants and foreign policy saber rattling. He's mostly dangerous because he has the temperament of a kid, so as Commander in Chief he's pretty terrifying if you look at it purely from a military/nuclear POV. All of this will end up being bad for both the country and the Republican party, and we'll all be here in 2 or 4 yrs saying, well, that went about as predicted.

 

[soundforbjt]

His propensity to believe conspiracy theories would be mine to add.

 

[First]

And I guess, technically, because power is so well distributed, decentralized and constrained in some parts of the executive, the best hope of mitigating this manifestly unqualified man child's actions would be the other two branches, Congress and Judiciary. For example, other Repubs turning on him and Dems filibustering in the Senate and perhaps the courts smacking him down if he does something blatantly illegal or creating some constitutional crisis.

 

[vi edit]

From a personality standpoint the guy lacks any and all temperament to run the most powerful country in the free world. From 3AM tweet storms, to the childish insults and interruptions during the debates. He lacks any ability to string together a remotely tangible argument without derailing in thought after a minute or two. He's a guy that is accustomed to having everything he wants and having it done his way when government simply does not work like that. He's an amazing self promoter but once you get past the sell there's simply no thought or planning beyond it.

 

[dank69]

How about the fact that he has absolutely no clue what the fuck he is talking about?

Exhibit A:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...-look-donald-trumps-comments-about-refinanci/

 

[zinfamous]

He's a fear seller--not a leader.

But going purely by the words out of his mouth, the so-called promises he has made, it seems that he has little interest in constitutional law or maintaining the structure of our republic. This is a guy that can't take the simplest little insult, yet he now sits in the single-most insult-targeted position in the world. Not good. His supporters are already crying that people should lay off and leave him alone. Well, too bad. Trump wasn't campaigning to be installed in a an alt-right safe space. That's not to say that he doesn't deserve a chance to do well--he does--but the shit aimed in his direction is just a standard part of the job.

My biggest fear is world security. He has little interest in maintaining important alliances, much less understanding the value that these have despite his naive and wholly ignorant belief that "fairness in contributions" to defense is a simple monetary bargain. He was a threat to this country during the campaign, and even more so now.

Yes, he deserves a chance, but he's yet to show in any public setting that he has the character or fortitude to do this job, much less do it without setting the world on fire.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

He's a Republican that ran on a far less fiscally conservative platform than his Democratic opponent, and built his base by pandering with a "Free shit for everyone" message. Not that Republicans have a good record of actual fiscal conservatism, but at least they put on a show and shut down opposition funding. His personal/business life further shows that he has no ability to control his wallet.

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

Anyone who thinks Trump is just another republican hasn't listened to what he's said and how he's said it. He's childish, a gamer and, a griefer. He gamed his way to the highest office in the land. Now, he's totally out of his league and the only ones left to grief are the American people.

 

[Blackjack200]

So I ask the forum- what is uniquely dangerous about Trump that wouldn't apply to almost any other Republican candidate? Thank you in advance.

Open hostility to the press
Open hostility to the first amendment
Contempt for the truth / No transparency
Scapegoating immigrants and minorities

On the third point, I don't mean like Bush overselling the evidence for the Iraq war or Obama saying that if you like your plan you can keep it. I mean making statements that everyone knows are false, and continuing to make them. I mean simultaneously holding multiple positions so no one can even figure out what your position is.

How about you, OP?
Do you think that any of those four points are not true for Trump, or are true of GOP candidates/presidents in the past? Or do you think they're not important?
Why do you think so many traditionally GOP individuals and institutions broke rank this year? Do you think it was just because Trump was an outsider, or vulgar, or do you think they saw him as a unique threat to our democracy?

 

[HamburgerBoy]

On the third point, I don't mean like Bush overselling the evidence for the Iraq war or Obama saying that if you like your plan you can keep it. I mean making statements that everyone knows are false, and continuing to make them. I mean simultaneously holding multiple positions so no one can even figure out what your position is.

I don't know about you, but if two men are selling me a line of bullshit, I'd rather deal with the one I can smell right away than the one that takes me a few months for it to seep in.

I think the GOP broke with Trump because he threatened their success in 2016 (turns out they were wrong) and because he broke the traditional party ranks, as an outsider to the party.

 

[jackstar7]

A real question: will the military follow his orders? Is there a point where they will not?

 

[Blackjack200]

I don't know about you, but if two men are selling me a line of bullshit, I'd rather deal with the one I can smell right away than the one that takes me a few months for it to seep in.

In what way has any of Trump's bullshit been dealt with?

I think the GOP broke with Trump because he threatened their success in 2016 (turns out they were wrong) and because he broke the traditional party ranks, as an outsider to the party.

So you think the Republicans that broke with Trump did so out of pure political expedience, and not at all out of principle? That's a rather dismal view of the party, far more dismal than mine. I disagree with their platform, but I generally respect their sincerity.

 

[Commodus]

A real question: will the military follow his orders? Is there a point where they will not?

Certain actions will need approval (usually by Congress) no matter what Trump wants, so he might not start a war simply because a leader made fun of his hands. And as scary as it is that a hothead like Trump will have the authority to launch nuclear weapons, it's easy to see subordinates outright refusing to obey the order if it gets that bad.

The bigger concern comes with covert ops. Will he be disciplined enough to avoid sending in special forces and drones to 'fix' situations that are highly volatile? Will he even understand that those situations are volatile? Remember, this is the man whose future administration didn't even know that it had to hire new staff for the entire West Wing of the White House. I'm not counting on Trump being judicious with his surgical strikes.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

In what way has any of Trump's bullshit been dealt with?

So you think the Republicans that broke with Trump did so out of pure political expedience, and not at all out of principle? That's a rather dismal view of the party, far more dismal than mine. I disagree with their platform, but I generally respect their sincerity.

I mean tangible bullshit, the actual laws and programs he tries supporting once he's sworn in. Many of his promises are just unrealistic, which means that for the House and Senate to get behind them, they must either swallow it knowing it will hurt down the road, or they're going to curtail his plans. I think we'll see a mixture of both, but it's ultimately his silly demeanor and lack of experience that will stop him, the heavy BS aura around him. If you had a golly-gee would-love-to-have-a-beer-with Dubya making the same promises as Trump, people would be much more likely to pass the bullshit. The true damage is in the policy itself.

Largely, yes. I think it's why the DNC tried hard to keep Sanders out too. They're both ancient institutions with traditions of working your way up the ranks, paying the proper dues, etc. I think both parties hold certain principles, they're not 100% opportunistic, but even principles are flexible and largely molded around satisfying voters. There's one poll showing that Republican support for free trade went from something like 70% to 20% just over these last four years, for example. The party will have to adapt, policy and ideals always take a second seat to political success, aside from the occasional Sanders, Paul, etc.

 

[poofyhairguy]

How about you, OP?
Do you think that any of those four points are not true for Trump, or are true of GOP candidates/presidents in the past?

Actually I think every point can be tied to modern Republicans before Trump came around. If you don't mind I will take it one at a time:

Open hostility to the press

Every modern Republican is hostile to what they consider the "Liberal Media." Cruz blamed them during the campaign for Trump's rise.

Open hostility to the first amendment

Like not respecting protests? That is very common to many Republicans. Or are you talking not respecting Muslims, because there are plenty of quotes from Republicans pre-Trump after 9/11 that I could dig up.

Heck back during the Bush era the big complaint was how Republicans didn't respect the 5th amendment (like a right to a trial). Trump almost seems like an upgrade on that point.

Contempt for the truth / No transparency

I don't know why that is special. Republicans have spoken in platitudes for years, and on transparency we wouldn't even know about all the many spying programs the Feds have done without whistleblowers like Snowden.

Scapegoating immigrants and minorities

HW Bush and Willie Horton paved that path decades ago. Or good ole Dick Cheney!

"Asked when the Guantanamo Bay prison would be shut down, Cheney said, "I think that that would come with the end of the war on terror." "

On the third point, I don't mean like Bush overselling the evidence for the Iraq war or Obama saying that if you like your plan you can keep it. I mean making statements that everyone knows are false, and continuing to make them. I mean simultaneously holding multiple positions so no one can even figure out what your position is.

So kinda like the king of all Republicans Ronald Reagan?

“In spite of the wildly speculative and false stories of arms for hostages and alleged ransom payments, we did not, repeat, did not, trade weapons or anything else for hostages. Nor will we.” -Ronnie lying about Iran Contra

“There is no evidence to confirm that [US-supported El Salvador] government forces systematically massacred civilians in the [El Mozote] operations zone.” - Thomas Enders, Ronnie's assistant secretary of state

And lets not forget Nixon's lies.

Or do you think they're not important?

I am not trying to minimize or needless equivocate. I am trying to separate the rampant hyperbole from the reality of the situation. To me Trump seems like any other modern Republican except he has a bigger mouth and he refuses to stay within Overton's window (which is far removed from what it was even ten years ago).

Why do you think so many traditionally GOP individuals and institutions broke rank this year? Do you think it was just because Trump was an outsider, or vulgar, or do you think they saw him as a unique threat to our democracy?

I think they broke ranks because:

1. He wasn't Religious enough or outspoken about small government (the Cruz Complaint)

2. He was screwing up the post-2012 plan of how the Republicans would reinvent themselves to latinos (the Rubio complaint)

3. He was not part of the party system and he seemed to want to divide the party (the Mitt complaint)

4. He did not follow the party line on NATO and defense hawkishness (the Kasich complaint)

I honestly don't think that Republicans cared that he was vulgar, or saw him as a unique threat. They didn't care about a wall, as many of them pushed deportation. They didn't care about Muslims, as many loved backed waterboarding Muslims when they could. They cared that they couldn't control him and he didn't check the boxes post-Reagan Republicans were supposed to check.

 

[trenchfoot]

Certain actions will need approval (usually by Congress) no matter what Trump wants, so he might not start a war simply because a leader made fun of his hands. And as scary as it is that a hothead like Trump will have the authority to launch nuclear weapons, it's easy to see subordinates outright refusing to obey the order if it gets that bad.

The bigger concern comes with covert ops. Will he be disciplined enough to avoid sending in special forces and drones to 'fix' situations that are highly volatile? Will he even understand that those situations are volatile? Remember, this is the man whose future administration didn't even know that it had to hire new staff for the entire West Wing of the White House. I'm not counting on Trump being judicious with his surgical strikes.

Agreed.

On a personal level, what I fear most is how much confidence will Trump be able to garner from his Joint Chiefs of Staff. I'm certain those salty flag rank fellas are peering out from under the brims of their saucer caps with a glare and a very suspicious eye right about now, really wondering if they can get behind a guy like Trump.

IMO, if there's going to be any convincing of worth that Trump has to do, it's going to be at that level first and foremost. A lack of confidence is an amazing thing to see in the military when it trickles down through the ranks. It's practically intangible, and if you've been around the bend a few times, no words are necessary, all it takes is a certain look, something that's not said...it spreads faster than lightning, and it's all because a lot of people's lives are one stupid order away from being wasted.

 

[SP33Demon]

His propensity to believe conspiracy theories would be mine to add.

Is it possible that Trump only used them to further his cause (i.e. play the media like a record)? If there is even a possibility, then your argument loses credibility.

 

[SP33Demon]

Open hostility to the press
Open hostility to the first amendment
Contempt for the truth / No transparency
Scapegoating immigrants and minorities

On the third point, I don't mean like Bush overselling the evidence for the Iraq war or Obama saying that if you like your plan you can keep it. I mean making statements that everyone knows are false, and continuing to make them. I mean simultaneously holding multiple positions so no one can even figure out what your position is.

How about you, OP?
Do you think that any of those four points are not true for Trump, or are true of GOP candidates/presidents in the past? Or do you think they're not important?
Why do you think so many traditionally GOP individuals and institutions broke rank this year? Do you think it was just because Trump was an outsider, or vulgar, or do you think they saw him as a unique threat to our democracy?

They saw Trump as a unique threat to their entitlements. Someone you cannot control is someone who is dangerous.

 

[SP33Demon]

Agreed.

On a personal level, what I fear most is how much confidence will Trump be able to garner from his Joint Chiefs of Staff. I'm certain those salty flag rank fellas are peering out from under the brims of their saucer caps with a glare and a very suspicious eye right about now, really wondering if they can get behind a guy like Trump.

IMO, if there's going to be any convincing of worth that Trump has to do, it's going to be at that level first and foremost. A lack of confidence is an amazing thing to see in the military when it trickles down through the ranks. It's practically intangible, and if you've been around the bend a few times, no words are necessary, all it takes is a certain look, something that's not said...it spreads faster than lightning, and it's all because a lot of people's lives are one stupid order away from being wasted.

Trump is pro-veteran so I don't see why not, he also has backing from 200+ generals. Really the only disparaging thing he's said is he knows more than generals but he backed down from that to stating military plans in advance is stupid. He argued that hillary/obama doing that is what demoralizes our troops.

 

[soundforbjt]

Is it possible that Trump only used them to further his cause (i.e. play the media like a record)? If there is even a possibility, then your argument loses credibility.

Naw, he's been a bigly conspiracy fan for decades.

 

[buckshot24]

Naw, he's been a bigly conspiracy fan for decades.

We're going to finally find out what really happened to JFK now.

 

[jackstar7]

Trump is pro-veteran so I don't see why not, he also has backing from 200+ generals. Really the only disparaging thing he's said is he knows more than generals but he backed down from that to stating military plans in advance is stupid. He argued that hillary/obama doing that is what demoralizes our troops.

There are nearly 900 generals. ~1/4 doesn't seem like a mandate from the military any more than his civilian...

Also, they have to follow their code of conduct, but that ends the moment he makes an illegal order. What constitutes an illegal order? Frightening legal gray area.

 

[Commodus]

Is it possible that Trump only used them to further his cause (i.e. play the media like a record)? If there is even a possibility, then your argument loses credibility.

Remember, Trump maintained the birther lie for several years, before a campaign was even a twinkle in his eye and after receiving evidence that proved him wrong. He's the kind who believes whatever suits him, facts be damned.

 

[Blackjack200]

Actually I think every point can be tied to modern Republicans before Trump came around. If you don't mind I will take it one at a time:

Every modern Republican is hostile to what they consider the "Liberal Media." Cruz blamed them during the campaign for Trump's rise.

Critical? Yes. Not hostile. They didn't do stuff like this:
http://fortune.com/2016/11/03/donald-trump-katy-tur/

Look how he attacked Megyn Kelly. Who else has done that?

Like not respecting protests? That is very common to many Republicans. Or are you talking not respecting Muslims, because there are plenty of quotes from Republicans pre-Trump after 9/11 that I could dig up.

Or how about being a libel bully?
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/25/u...p-lawsuits-american-bar-association.html?_r=0

Has any other Republican regularly sued people for defamation?

Heck back during the Bush era the big complaint was how Republicans didn't respect the 5th amendment (like a right to a trial). Trump almost seems like an upgrade on that point.

In what way? He told Clinton he would throw her in jail.

I don't know why that is special. Republicans have spoken in platitudes for years, and on transparency we wouldn't even know about all the many spying programs the Feds have done without whistleblowers like Snowden.

It is special because it's a hallmark of fascist and authoritarian leaders. Speaking in platitudes is not the same thing as saying that you'll ban Muslims, and then when someone asks you tough questions about it, simply denying you ever said it.

Did Obama deny saying the "If you like it you can keep it" bit? No. He defended it, tried to justify it. I believe he eventually apologized for it, but I'm not sure. Point is, what we see from Trump is completely different.

HW Bush and Willie Horton paved that path decades ago. Or good ole Dick Cheney!

"Asked when the Guantanamo Bay prison would be shut down, Cheney said, "I think that that would come with the end of the war on terror." "

Willie Horton was not a racial scapegoat. The incident was used to paint Dukakis as weak on crime, and play on racist attitudes, but the message of that commercial was not "black people are why you don't have jobs".

So kinda like the king of all Republicans Ronald Reagan?

“In spite of the wildly speculative and false stories of arms for hostages and alleged ransom payments, we did not, repeat, did not, trade weapons or anything else for hostages. Nor will we.” -Ronnie lying about Iran Contra

“There is no evidence to confirm that [US-supported El Salvador] government forces systematically massacred civilians in the [El Mozote] operations zone.” - Thomas Enders, Ronnie's assistant secretary of state

Yeah, that was a bright shining lie. And it became a huge scandal, and Reagan had to come out and admit that his statements were false.

And lets not forget Nixon's lies.

That got him impeached? What point are you arguing? Because my point wasn't 'no one else ever lied' it was that Trump flatly denies things even after they have been brought into evidence, and holds multiple positions simultaneously.

I am not trying to minimize or needless equivocate. I am trying to separate the rampant hyperbole from the reality of the situation. To me Trump seems like any other modern Republican except he has a bigger mouth and he refuses to stay within Overton's window (which is far removed from what it was even ten years ago).

So if fascism ever were to come to the United States, what exactly do you think it would look like? There are troubling parallels between the US over the last couple of years, and rise of fascism in Europe in the '20s and '30s. I think it would be terribly foolish to ignore them.

I think they broke ranks because:

1. He wasn't Religious enough or outspoken about small government (the Cruz Complaint)

On his last day of the GOP campaign -- the Indiana primary in early May -- Cruz let loose against Trump, calling the businessman a "serial philanderer," "utterly amoral," and "a narcissist at a level I don't think this country's ever seen.

2. He was screwing up the post-2012 plan of how the Republicans would reinvent themselves to latinos (the Rubio complaint)

In the heat of the Republican presidential primary, Marco Rubio called Donald Trump a “con man.” And he doesn’t take it back.

“I’ve stood by everything I ever said in my campaign,” Rubio told the Miami Herald editorial board Monday.

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/news/pol...arco-rubio/article95752532.html#storylink=cpy
http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/election/article62755997.html

3. He was not part of the party system and he seemed to want to divide the party (the Mitt complaint)

Mitt Romney suggested Friday that Donald Trump's election could legitimize racism and misogyny, ushering in a change in the moral fabric of American society.
The 2012 Republican nominee, who has openly opposed Trump's candidacy, went further than he has before in outlining to CNN's Wolf Blitzer how the country's character would suffer in a Trump White House. Trump's rhetoric has caused even some other Republicans to label him a racist, and Romney said he would not be able to paper over his incendiary remarks.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/10/politics/mitt-romney-donald-trump-racism/

4. He did not follow the party line on NATO and defense hawkishness (the Kasich complaint)

After video surfaced last month of Trump speaking of women in lewd and sexually aggressive terms, Kasich confirmed the New York businessman had lost his vote.

"Donald Trump is a man I cannot and should not support," Kasich said in an Oct. 8 statement. "The actions of the last day are disgusting, but that's not why I reached this decision, it has been an accumulation of his words and actions that many have been warning about. I will not vote for a nominee who has behaved in a manner that reflects so poorly on our country. Our country deserves better."
http://www.cleveland.com/politics/index.ssf/2016/10/john_kasich_follows_through_on.html

I honestly don't think that Republicans cared that he was vulgar, or saw him as a unique threat. They didn't care about a wall, as many of them pushed deportation. They didn't care about Muslims, as many loved backed waterboarding Muslims when they could. They cared that they couldn't control him and he didn't check the boxes post-Reagan Republicans were supposed to check.

Stop trying to normalize this shit. It is not normal. Why did you completely mischaracterize the reasons that Cruz, Rubio, Romney, and Kasich broke with or criticized Trump?