Will the world be more or less dangerous under a Trump Presidency?

[Irag8er]

. I see a potential move towards establishing Christianity as the national religion, which is an absolute violation of the First Amendment and the last thing the framers of the Constitution would have wanted.

I don’t see even an attempt being made at this. There may be talk, but it would be constitutionally impossible, so what would be gained by even an attempt at this.

 

[Torch]

Okay, just got back home at 22:00 after leaving the house at 06:30, so it's been a very long day for me. I'll try to make this make sense. Understand this is my personal opinion and assessment, not a prediction or official DWS analysis. This is also based on Trump following through on his campaign promises, so obviously there's a margin for error if he doesn't.

I think with Trump in office, the southern border will become more secure, which we do need. I have no problem whatsoever with immigration, but it needs to be legal immigration. Streamlining that immigration process to make it easier and less time-consuming is a different conversation.

I also think the promise of no American troops fighting on foreign soil is a good one. We didn't need to spend 20 years in Afghanistan, and the only reason we did is because DOD contractors were getting fucking rich from it. The one fly in that ointment is Ukraine. Technically, the United States entered into a contractual obligation with Ukraine to guarantee the security of their borders if they gave up their nuclear weapons, and then we threw them to the wolves when Russia invaded in 2014, and again in 2022. I have a problem with not honoring that agreement, and it's not because it's "big bad Russia" needing to be stopped. It's because we gave Ukraine our word, and they surrendered their nuclear weapons based on that word, and now they're in deep trouble because we reneged and they don't have nuclear weapons to defend themselves. That being said, if he pulls all support for Ukraine, the odds of a US/Russia nuclear conflict drop significantly.

He might also give Israel the green light to completely light up Iran, which might force Iran to back off if they don't want bombed into the Stone Age. Not sure I agree with the means, but it might accomplish the goal. It could also backfire, but we'd just have to let that one play out to know.

Those are the few of the scenarios where I see things becoming more stable under a Trump administration. With a Harris administration, I think aid to Ukraine would have, at minimum, remained the same, if not increased, increasing the odds of an eventual NATO/Russia nuclear exchange. I think Harris would have put a very short leash on Israel, emboldening Iran to continue its crap, potentially getting us involved in a land war in Asia. Hell, we're already seeing indications of US military escalation in the Middle East as it is. And our border problem would not be resolved whatsoever under Harris.

Now, the areas where I think a Trump administration will be more dangerous and destabilizing:
His Tariff plan. Shooting wars have started over high tariffs in the past, and I see that hurting the US economy, not helping it. Prices will skyrocket and/or demand will far exceed supply. I don't agree with this strategy at all.

I see an increased risk for domestic terrorism with Trump in office, but this would have been the case with Harris as well, so that's an even wash.

I have some serious problems with Project 2025, or Project 47, or whatever they're calling it now. I think there are a lot of Constitutional violations incorporated into this plan and nothing will be done about it. I see a potential move towards establishing Christianity as the national religion, which is an absolute violation of the First Amendment and the last thing the framers of the Constitution would have wanted.

Finally, I think it's dangerous in general for one party to control every branch of government. We need checks and balances, and with Republicans controlling the White House, Congress, and SCOTUS, I see opportunity for abuse of process because those checks and balances aren't there any more.

With Harris in office, no tariff changes would have been made, the ultra-right conservative agenda mixing politics and religion would have been set back, and a Democrat-controlled White House would have put a check and balance on a Republican Congress and SCOTUS, forcing both sides to work out compromises if they wanted to get something done.

So, I guess, in short:
Trump - More stable and less dangerous globally, but more dangerous and less stable domestically.
Harris - More stable and less dangerous domestically, but more dangerous and less stable globally.

Again, Trump has to follow through on promises made for my assessment to be accurate, but I think I'm being reasonable with this.

I'm open to discussion on what I've said as a hypothetical because of all the variables that are in play, but I'm not looking to argue with anyone. I'm waaayyyy too tired for that.

That was a read. Very persuasive and info. I wish we enforced the Budapest Memorandum. For good or ill.

 

[Publius]

Okay, just got back home at 22:00 after leaving the house at 06:30, so it's been a very long day for me. I'll try to make this make sense. Understand this is my personal opinion and assessment, not a prediction or official DWS analysis. This is also based on Trump following through on his campaign promises, so obviously there's a margin for error if he doesn't.

I think with Trump in office, the southern border will become more secure, which we do need. I have no problem whatsoever with immigration, but it needs to be legal immigration. Streamlining that immigration process to make it easier and less time-consuming is a different conversation.

I also think the promise of no American troops fighting on foreign soil is a good one. We didn't need to spend 20 years in Afghanistan, and the only reason we did is because DOD contractors were getting fucking rich from it. The one fly in that ointment is Ukraine. Technically, the United States entered into a contractual obligation with Ukraine to guarantee the security of their borders if they gave up their nuclear weapons, and then we threw them to the wolves when Russia invaded in 2014, and again in 2022. I have a problem with not honoring that agreement, and it's not because it's "big bad Russia" needing to be stopped. It's because we gave Ukraine our word, and they surrendered their nuclear weapons based on that word, and now they're in deep trouble because we reneged and they don't have nuclear weapons to defend themselves. That being said, if he pulls all support for Ukraine, the odds of a US/Russia nuclear conflict drop significantly.

He might also give Israel the green light to completely light up Iran, which might force Iran to back off if they don't want bombed into the Stone Age. Not sure I agree with the means, but it might accomplish the goal. It could also backfire, but we'd just have to let that one play out to know.

Those are the few of the scenarios where I see things becoming more stable under a Trump administration. With a Harris administration, I think aid to Ukraine would have, at minimum, remained the same, if not increased, increasing the odds of an eventual NATO/Russia nuclear exchange. I think Harris would have put a very short leash on Israel, emboldening Iran to continue its crap, potentially getting us involved in a land war in Asia. Hell, we're already seeing indications of US military escalation in the Middle East as it is. And our border problem would not be resolved whatsoever under Harris.

Now, the areas where I think a Trump administration will be more dangerous and destabilizing:
His Tariff plan. Shooting wars have started over high tariffs in the past, and I see that hurting the US economy, not helping it. Prices will skyrocket and/or demand will far exceed supply. I don't agree with this strategy at all.

I see an increased risk for domestic terrorism with Trump in office, but this would have been the case with Harris as well, so that's an even wash.

I have some serious problems with Project 2025, or Project 47, or whatever they're calling it now. I think there are a lot of Constitutional violations incorporated into this plan and nothing will be done about it. I see a potential move towards establishing Christianity as the national religion, which is an absolute violation of the First Amendment and the last thing the framers of the Constitution would have wanted.

Finally, I think it's dangerous in general for one party to control every branch of government. We need checks and balances, and with Republicans controlling the White House, Congress, and SCOTUS, I see opportunity for abuse of process because those checks and balances aren't there any more.

With Harris in office, no tariff changes would have been made, the ultra-right conservative agenda mixing politics and religion would have been set back, and a Democrat-controlled White House would have put a check and balance on a Republican Congress and SCOTUS, forcing both sides to work out compromises if they wanted to get something done.

So, I guess, in short:
Trump - More stable and less dangerous globally, but more dangerous and less stable domestically.
Harris - More stable and less dangerous domestically, but more dangerous and less stable globally.

Again, Trump has to follow through on promises made for my assessment to be accurate, but I think I'm being reasonable with this.

I'm open to discussion on what I've said as a hypothetical because of all the variables that are in play, but I'm not looking to argue with anyone. I'm waaayyyy too tired for that.

Only thing I would take issue with are tariffs. Copied a link to investopedia below in it your will see that the US in 2919 had one of the highest ratings for free trade.

Which Countries Have the Highest Tariffs?

Find out which countries have the most restrictive import tariffs on international products, based on data collected by the World Bank and WTO.

www.investopedia.com

Tariffs should be used judiciously. I won’t argue that because they can limit free trade and growth.

But the old justifications for tariffs have changed with the explosion of global trade and production the last 1/2 century.
When you’re having a foreign nation luring manufacturing or production plants because of major gov tax breaks, relaxed labor laws or outright subsidies. Then I do not see an issue telling that manufacturers if they leave the country then what they build overseas is going to have tariffs slapped on those products when they try and import them back here.
There is nothing wrong with practical protectionist practices when used to protect American jobs. Or more importantly R&D manufacturing or military secrets.
The issue with tariffs regarding nations like China. China doesn’t really have conducive foreign import regulations.
They have jacked around almost every major manufacturing enterprises that have tried to do business there.
They also have a fairly well accepted practice or industrial espionage and patient infringement.
So what exactly are we to do? Let them keep dry humping our leg while telling us we just need to get our thinking correct?

Saying we support free trade and not using tariffs does not adequate offer a viable solution to product dumping, espionage or copyright theft.

Also what shooting war started over tariffs. Whole bunch of trade wars but can’t place any actual shooting war. I

 

[Publius]

I don’t see even an attempt being made at this. There may be talk, but it would be constitutionally impossible, so what would be gained by even an attempt at this.

Heritage 2925 is being used as a boogie man for all kinds of whacky accusations. Sorry RR a national religion is not one of those things.
It a proposal to go thru all of the executive agencies and clear the chaff, blow the cobwebs out.
Primarly with the intention of making the e executive agency “actually” subject an answerable to the elected leader of the executive branch.

It is not the privilege or job of the bureaucrats to wag the dog who was elected president. It’s their job to implement the president policies and directives within law. NOT However past regulatory or policies stipulations.
Massive undertaking if it is implemented.

 

[RiffRaff]

I don’t see even an attempt being made at this. There may be talk, but it would be constitutionally impossible, so what would be gained by even an attempt at this.

Jim Crow laws in the 1960s were unconstitutional as well, but they got away with it for years due to the government supporting them. They might not be able to "officially" declare it, but a de facto theocratic state is absolutely possible.

Again, not a prediction. Call it more of a concern.

 

[Gargolu]

How do you think a 2nd Trump presidency will affect world when it comes to dangerous conflicts?

Trump will be exactly the leader we need to protect this country and do what's right for it and the people! and at the same time to stop countries that are terroristic. i'm really happy that hes now the president of america there is no way in hell things would have gone right with cackling harris and creepy tim walz damn what a joke!

 

[NuclearID]

It a proposal to go thru all of the executive agencies and clear the chaff, blow the cobwebs out.
Primarly with the intention of making the e executive agency “actually” subject an answerable to the elected leader of the executive branch.

It is not the privilege or job of the bureaucrats to wag the dog who was elected president. It’s their job to implement the president policies and directives within law. NOT However past regulatory or policies stipulations.
Massive undertaking if it is implemented.

So we now have a President who will strip the country of its democratic institutions, under guise of cost cutting federal govt services. Insane.

 

[DEFCON Warning System]

So we now have a President who will strip the country of its democratic institutions

So what "democratic institution" is being stripped? Please give a specific example and detail exactly how it is being stripped.

 

[Publius]

Jim Crow laws in the 1960s were unconstitutional as well, but they got away with it for years due to the government supporting them. They might not be able to "officially" declare it, but a de facto theocratic state is absolutely possible.

Again, not a prediction. Call it more of a concern.

Most all these efforts were confined to at state and local levels with different degrees of severity.
They weren’t necessarily national policy implemented by president. Except of course for Woodrow Wilson’s screening of Birth of a Nation possibly indicating a little institutional biase at the national level

In less

 

[Publius]

Heritage 2925 is being used as a boogie man for all kinds of whacky accusations. Sorry RR a national religion is not one of those things.
It a proposal to go thru all of the executive agencies and clear the chaff, blow the cobwebs out.
Primarly with the intention of making the e executive agency “actually” subject an answerable to the elected leader of the executive branch.

It is not the privilege or job of the bureaucrats to wag the dog who was elected president. It’s their job to implement the president policies and directives within law. NOT However past regulatory or policies stipulations.
Massive undertaking if it is implemented.

A fact check on 2025 by PBS.
It’s not comprehensive.

Saying 2025 is going to force Christian education as a policy or destroy “our democratic institutions” or abolish OT pay, or my favorite cut SS and Medicaid payments is all not accurate or even implied.

Fact-checking warnings from Democrats about Project 2025 and Donald Trump

Vice President Kamala Harris, the Democratic presidential nominee, has warned Americans about "Trump’s Project 2025" agenda — even though former President Donald Trump doesn’t claim the conservative presidential transition document.

www.pbs.org

 

[Publius]

This is a bit tongue in cheek and they cannot all be attributed to Trumps re-election. But it should honestly make you pause and think, “that's strange”.

The Trump effect—just 48 hours since his election win:1. Appoints the first-ever woman as chief of staff.2. The Taliban signals a wish to be removed from the terrorist list.3. Putin announces the West is no longer viewed as an enemy.4. Mexico discourages large caravans from heading to the U.S. border.5. New York halts food vouchers for illegal immigrants.6. China expresses a desire for peaceful coexistence with America.7. European Union leaders announce plans to prioritize American gas over Russian supplies.8. Hamas calls for an end to the war.9. Bitcoin hits an all-time high.10. The stock market soars to new records.
and of course trumps call with Zelinski

It will never be what everyone hopes for. But it’s not the end of democracy or Armageddon either

 

[Cilvilt_beredskap]

I seldom agree with much of what GW Bush has to say anymore. Although I think he’d be fun to hang out with.

What this election proved was still as yet our constitutional government work’s.
Half the voting public did not like the direction Obama and Biden took the country. And about the same didn’t like the direction Trump took it.
Well surprise surprise surprise.

Tensions were and still are high.
He’s not going to be anymore of an autocrat than Obama or Biden was. This is just politics.
But it seems bigger than that because it does affect life directly and sometimes dramatically.
Imagine trying to have a town hall with 340000000 people in one building and trying to decide the fate of the nation.
It’s a free for all.

Now I’m quite sanguine with the current state of affairs. I believe we are swinging back politically in a saner direction. But I’m not naive enough to think the pendulum won’t swing the other way again.
Many are the polar opposite right now.

Try not to become to animated and pessimistic, it will swing the other way again. In reality major political and societal swings in both directions are a good thing for a nation.
It shows that it is healthy enough to introduce new ideas and fight hard over them and then come out the other side still one nation.
I would point to the issue of homosexual right to employment and marriage. That was a minor cultural shift for the nation 3 decades ago. And now pretty much is accepted as an adults right to choose.
Don’t let the latest fad in social Justice or moral limitations become a hill to die on. If it is the direction the nation is going, then it will go there organically.

No woman or any minority has lost the right to vote or any other rights based upon this election.
Equal rights is still the law of the land. Citizens of color are not going to be rounded up and deported.
Abortion laws are argued at the state level where they should be. And no woman has lost the right to vote over her body. And as we have seen the issues saw many abortion laws voted on In states this week and many returned positive prochoice results.

Remember it took two amendments to the constitution to end slavery nation wide after the war.
It is just who we are it is what has allowed a nation of this size diversity to continue to grow and prosper.

Both sides need to reject questions of race or diversity and simply treat people as people. As Morgan Freeman said how do you end racism “stop talking about it”. Both sides need to simply let it go.

It didn't happen the previous electoral cycle, but I think more repressive measures are at least more likely to happen during this one. There seems to be a common theme that when either left or right leaning parties win, their attitudes and others on their more extreme ends could suddenly be viewed as more "acceptable" because of the party in power. Eg, the democratic institutions will be tested much more in this cycle than in the previous one during Trump's first term, a lot more policymakers on the more extreme end of the spectrum in congress will try to get more repressive laws through. Things can only get more sane if those are repeatedly condemned and/or voted down by their colleages in the party, which might not always be the case, especially if the bills are intentionally vaugely worded and not "too" far-reaching in a tactic to slow-drip radical desiscions in a way to get more moderate politicians to agree to several of them. When a good couple of bills from the same person with a specific goal in mind are accepted and implemented, all of them put together could lead to Christian Nationalist policies being "sleepwalked" into unless other GOP politicians see what the actual intent is and vote them down.

 

[Cilvilt_beredskap]

A fact check on 2025 by PBS.
It’s not comprehensive.

Saying 2025 is going to force Christian education as a policy or destroy “our democratic institutions” or abolish OT pay, or my favorite cut SS and Medicaid payments is all not accurate or even implied.

Fact-checking warnings from Democrats about Project 2025 and Donald Trump

Vice President Kamala Harris, the Democratic presidential nominee, has warned Americans about "Trump’s Project 2025" agenda — even though former President Donald Trump doesn’t claim the conservative presidential transition document.

www.pbs.org

If the comstock act is used liberally it could block surgical equipment from being mailed (although I wonder how it could be proven that it would be explicitly used for abortions, so that's an argument against it), but the major part here is that it can be used to block mailing of abortion and day-after-pills even in blue states that voted to enshrine that right in their constitutions. So those votes could effectively be nullified by a federal law severely limiting access to abortion methods before fetal viability even though the states themselves put that right in their constitution.

Could it happen? Depends on how risk-taking and moderate they want to be. The nightmare scenario for me is an admin and a GOP that significantly turns to the alt-right and the evangelical right (that it has shown signs of doing at least in some respects), but a scenario where at least I'd be happy would be if they look at their new voter demographics and try to be more "big tent".

 

[NCDinosFan]

This is a bit tongue in cheek and they cannot all be attributed to Trumps re-election. But it should honestly make you pause and think, “that's strange”.

The Trump effect—just 48 hours since his election win:1. Appoints the first-ever woman as chief of staff.2. The Taliban signals a wish to be removed from the terrorist list.3. Putin announces the West is no longer viewed as an enemy.4. Mexico discourages large caravans from heading to the U.S. border.5. New York halts food vouchers for illegal immigrants.6. China expresses a desire for peaceful coexistence with America.7. European Union leaders announce plans to prioritize American gas over Russian supplies.8. Hamas calls for an end to the war.9. Bitcoin hits an all-time high.10. The stock market soars to new records.
and of course trumps call with Zelinski

It will never be what everyone hopes for. But it’s not the end of democracy or Armageddon either

The bitcoin was due to his policy regarding it; though, we'll likely see retractions in the price before the fed implements anything with it. The gov doesn't like to buy "stock and value holders" at face value.

 

[Publius]

If the comstock act is used liberally it could block surgical equipment from being mailed (although I wonder how it could be proven that it would be explicitly used for abortions, so that's an argument against it), but the major part here is that it can be used to block mailing of abortion and day-after-pills even in blue states that voted to enshrine that right in their constitutions. So those votes could effectively be nullified by a federal law severely limiting access to abortion methods before fetal viability even though the states themselves put that right in their constitution.

Could it happen? Depends on how risk-taking and moderate they want to be. The nightmare scenario for me is an admin and a GOP that significantly turns to the alt-right and the evangelical right (that it has shown signs of doing at least in some respects), but a scenario where at least I'd be happy would be if they look at their new voter demographics and try to be more "big tent".

Maybe try not just assuming the worst.

Civil governance in a representative gov is a back and forth process.
When roe legalized abortion nationwide it was still limited to early term cases.
We have moved to virtually full term procedures and no parent notification on underage.
now we’re talking about intestate delivery of abortion meds that until revelry required doc supervision.

The left pushed too far, the rest over the course of decades, not one election cycle, have pushed back.
You or no one else should be surprised.

Just because you or I claim moral high ground means absolutely nothing in and of its self. The society at large in time will continue to adapt and change.

I’ve stopped arguing the murder argument maybe you might refrain from declaring deprivation of woman’s rights or nefarious alt right Christian nationalist plot to dress young women in handmaiden garb.

But that’s not going to happen is it

 

[RiffRaff]

Most all these efforts were confined to at state and local levels with different degrees of severity.

Um, no, not really. That was considered the norm throughout the southern states and a lot of rural areas throughout the rest of the country. Up until 1966, African-Americans who traveled had to rely on "The Negro Motorist Green Book," which essentially told them where it was safe for them to travel in the US and where it wasn't. One of the most famous lynching photos from the 1930s was taken right here in Indiana. So, no, it was absolutely NOT "confined." It was widespread and accepted.

They weren’t necessarily national policy implemented by president.

No, they weren't. Officially. But they were certainly tolerated by the American government until the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s.

Systemic racism is a huge part of American history. It's also part of China's. And Japan's. And India's. And a lot of other countries.

Americans didn't invent racism. Didn't do much about it, either.

 

[Publius]

Um, no, not really. That was considered the norm throughout the southern states and a lot of rural areas throughout the rest of the country. Up until 1966, African-Americans who traveled had to rely on "The Negro Motorist Green Book," which essentially told them where it was safe for them to travel in the US and where it wasn't. One of the most famous lynching photos from the 1930s was taken right here in Indiana. So, no, it was absolutely NOT "confined." It was widespread and accepted.


No, they weren't. Officially. But they were certainly tolerated by the American government until the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s.

Systemic racism is a huge part of American history. It's also part of China's. And Japan's. And India's. And a lot of other countries.

Americans didn't invent racism. Didn't do much about it, either.

As I clarified it was not a national policy. It was a local state and regional problem.

There are always opportunities for actions that are immoral or unjust when the republic model is followed.

As many like to point out being that their is no supreme being, there is therefor no absolute moral authority.
Consequently what if deemed to be abjectly immoral or unjust is left to a consensus. Like laws they are debated on as to what they should be or what it categorically an absolute wrong. What used to be called a sin or immoral.

I am not naive enough to claim some states or local regions might try and pass laws that are subject to the federal constitution and court opinions. It’s kinda part of the natural social evolutionary process. I am confident that the executive and courts will be able to properly adjudicate and rule on there legalities.

I’m only saying that currently,as yet, our system is resilient enough to deal with situations like this.

What we will not see I believe is some nefarious national effort to make sweeping changes.
DIA, medical transition of minors, creating positive laws to “educate” people in novel and unproven social theories is no different than gov sponsoring any given religion.

If we cannot let the ghost of racism die and simply treat people as people. Then we will continue to live with its exacerbated effects on into the future.

I will remind everyone it was a Republican who was voted on the issue of slavery. It was Eisenhower who first sent troops to enforce desegregation. It was a Republican Congress who moved many of the civil right laws thru. It was the democrats who created the Jim Crow laws and protected them for decades.

So while your correct that race legacies have persisted on its not some nefarious systemic plot, it’s stupid human tendencies and fear.
We will have successes and failures but we have an opportunity's to adjust the tenor and direction of what the nation collectively deems as moral and just.
After all if I can’t apply my moral religious precepts to claim moral authority. Nor can anyone else use what ever moral compass they have as an absolute authority.

Welcome to the hoi polloi!

 

[Peter Griffin]

So what "democratic institution" is being stripped? Please give a specific example and detail exactly how it is being stripped.

Well, here's an example from my state in which Ryan Walters has agreed to Trump's plan to axe USDE. And seeing as we are already ranked 48th in education, I'm reallyyyy having a hard time seeing how they can justify this. If anyone here actually believes what he is claiming is happening, then I would be more than glad to give MY insight as someone who has gone through the public Oklahoma school system, and seen how time and time again the GOP have put private schools for the Elite who run our state government, far before the working class people that rely on Public schools. I've seen families put themselves in debt to pay for private school, because there are now literally no longer schools in their district. When I was in elementary school, we had textbooks from 1985... in 2008. The GOP has absolutely destroyed our state education and continue to prioritize their political and religious beliefs at the expense of the people actually having to go through those consequences they rarely speak about.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1854907061244481566

 

[RiffRaff]

So while your correct that race legacies have persisted on its not some nefarious systemic plot, it’s stupid human tendencies and fear.

We agree on your second statement, but your first is not even close to the real history of this country, I'm sorry. Research the origins of the 13th Amendment and why it's worded the way it is. Research the origins of criminal penalties for "crack" cocaine - a drug used largely by the black population - versus powder cocaine - a drug used primarily by whites. Research the origins of convicted felons losing their right to vote for life, even after being released.

I could go on, but I don't want to overwhelm you. Research those three things - with an open mind - and then come back and tell me there has been no deliberate, systemic racism in America.

 

[Publius]

Well, here's an example from my state in which Ryan Walters has agreed to Trump's plan to axe USDE.

Your mistake is in regarding this as a democratic institution.

It’s a program that was created and has always been subject to congress and the executive.

You have an elected representative and executive admin considering cutting a federal program.

There is nothing un-democratic about that in the least.
It’s just something you disagree with which is absolutely ok. And you can lobby and support campaigns to prevent or undo it.
That is the democratic process.

I personally regard many federal programs and agencies as damaging and not wholly supported by the constitution. I campaigned and supported candidates who might reel some of that in. Am I acting un-democratically by doing this?

Agencies and programs of the executive branch are not sacrosanct and protected into perpetuity by the constitution. They are manifestations of the current democratic process.