President Trump - The First 100 days.

[Monoriu]

I have a horrible feeling we may find out exactly what kind of damage a Trump Presidency may do.

The current parade of Trump gaffes and insane or idiotic statements - while the race remains more or less neck and neck - makes me wonder what it would take to get his current supporters to not vote for him. 

I think there is only one way.  When they find out that even if Trump is elected president, their lives won't improve.  That's when they'll stop voting for him. 

[DGuller]

I think there is only one way.  When they find out that even if Trump is elected president, their lives won't improve.  That's when they'll stop voting for him.

Yes, because American voters are really good at figuring out cause and effect.

[Razgovory]

I have a horrible feeling we may find out exactly what kind of damage a Trump Presidency may do.

The current parade of Trump gaffes and insane or idiotic statements - while the race remains more or less neck and neck - makes me wonder what it would take to get his current supporters to not vote for him. 

I think there is only one way.  When they find out that even if Trump is elected president, their lives won't improve.  That's when they'll stop voting for him.

He can only run twice.  I have a sinking feeling that most of the people voting for Trump just want to stick to Muslims and Hispanics.  Quite a few wouldn't be that bothered if gave blacks a hard time, and some would be fine with seeing the Jews harmed.  That's really all they want.

[alfred russel]

I somewhat doubt the worst of the Trump predictions would come true.

To me, the saddest thing about a Trump win is that he is so obviously a buffoon, I won't be able to take the US government seriously anymore and I don't think I'll be "proud to be an american" overseas.

[Zanza]

The kinds of risks that a Trump presidency involve would include:
+ breaking/abrogating treaties
+ panicking markets with antics like exploring debt writedowns
+ causing allies to finlandize to russia/china due to perceived unreliability of US security guarantees
+ ignoring unfavorable WTO panel rulings/imposing illegal tariffs which if done often enough could undermine the multi-lateral trade system
+ do lots of unconstitutional things and then engage in brutal rhetorical attacks on the Supreme Court - further politicizing the Court and generating mini-constitutional crises
+ further to the above, appointing nutbars to the Court and/or trying to pack it ("FDR did it")

That's not end of the world bad stuff but it's pretty bad.

The stuff you listed would basically give up 75 years of American foreign policy.

[sbr]

The kinds of risks that a Trump presidency involve would include:
+ breaking/abrogating treaties
+ panicking markets with antics like exploring debt writedowns
+ causing allies to finlandize to russia/china due to perceived unreliability of US security guarantees
+ ignoring unfavorable WTO panel rulings/imposing illegal tariffs which if done often enough could undermine the multi-lateral trade system
+ do lots of unconstitutional things and then engage in brutal rhetorical attacks on the Supreme Court - further politicizing the Court and generating mini-constitutional crises
+ further to the above, appointing nutbars to the Court and/or trying to pack it ("FDR did it")

That's not end of the world bad stuff but it's pretty bad.

The stuff you listed would basically give up 75 years of American foreign policy.

The people who would vote for trump (or not hillary) think that would be a good thing.

[Zanza]

The kinds of risks that a Trump presidency involve would include:
+ breaking/abrogating treaties
+ panicking markets with antics like exploring debt writedowns
+ causing allies to finlandize to russia/china due to perceived unreliability of US security guarantees
+ ignoring unfavorable WTO panel rulings/imposing illegal tariffs which if done often enough could undermine the multi-lateral trade system
+ do lots of unconstitutional things and then engage in brutal rhetorical attacks on the Supreme Court - further politicizing the Court and generating mini-constitutional crises
+ further to the above, appointing nutbars to the Court and/or trying to pack it ("FDR did it")

That's not end of the world bad stuff but it's pretty bad.

The stuff you listed would basically give up 75 years of American foreign policy.

The people who would vote for trump (or not hillary) think that would be a good thing.

I know. Funny how they probably consider themselves "conservatives" when their candidate promises this radical change in policy. It basically upends the postwar world order that relies on America's hegemony, committment and reliability. 

[The Minsky Moment]

If the primaries taught us anything, they taught that conservatism is not a commonly held political philosophy among the American electorate.

[Sheilbh]

The kinds of risks that a Trump presidency involve would include:
+ breaking/abrogating treaties
+ panicking markets with antics like exploring debt writedowns
+ causing allies to finlandize to russia/china due to perceived unreliability of US security guarantees
+ ignoring unfavorable WTO panel rulings/imposing illegal tariffs which if done often enough could undermine the multi-lateral trade system
+ do lots of unconstitutional things and then engage in brutal rhetorical attacks on the Supreme Court - further politicizing the Court and generating mini-constitutional crises
+ further to the above, appointing nutbars to the Court and/or trying to pack it ("FDR did it")

That's not end of the world bad stuff but it's pretty bad.

The stuff you listed would basically give up 75 years of American foreign policy.

Yep. I'm not as relaxed about the US' checks and balances but even if they were effective at neutralising Trump I don't think the liberal, Western, rules based post-war world would survive. The US may be able to survive a want to be strongman, but I'm not sure the Western system could survive that from its leader.

And I think people can be a bit over-relaxed about these things. History is full of enduring systems collapsing because in themselves they don't matter if there's not the will to maintain them. Given Trump's comments today about a stolen, rigged election I'd already worry about the ability of the US system to endure. After all, Presidential systems generally end in an authoritarian regime or a coup. Though I imagine the lame duck Congress and Obama would rapidly dismantle the 'imperial Presidency' and I wouldn't be entirely surprised if they found a compromise SCOTUS candidate if that's allowed.

I've no idea what his first 100 days would be like. I think it's impossible to even guess because he's so far from any norms.

[frunk]

I wouldn't be entirely surprised if they found a compromise SCOTUS candidate if that's allowed.

I would be entirely surprised.  Obama nominated a very good compromise SCOTUS candidate the Republicans refuse to consider, and one of the few arguments that rational Republicans are buying is the "we can't let Hillary nominate 1 or 2 people to the bench".  If the Republicans were scared of Trump's nominees they'd take Obama's offer.

[Sheilbh]

Similarly I think Obama's a decent man with a sense of responsibility. I'm sure if the GOP Senators came to him and said, look we can't now accept Garland, please could you nominate one of x sane (non-Trumpian) conservatives he probably would.

[alfred russel]

I wouldn't be entirely surprised if they found a compromise SCOTUS candidate if that's allowed.

I would be entirely surprised.  Obama nominated a very good compromise SCOTUS candidate the Republicans refuse to consider, and one of the few arguments that rational Republicans are buying is the "we can't let Hillary nominate 1 or 2 people to the bench".  If the Republicans were scared of Trump's nominees they'd take Obama's offer.

The Republican senators aren't blocking Garland because they are excited about a potential trump pick and bullish on a trump win. They are blocking garland because they are scared of republican primary voters and supporting an Obama nominee no matter how reasonable may earn them a damnable reputation: a moderate.

[alfred russel]

Similarly I think Obama's a decent man with a sense of responsibility. I'm sure if the GOP Senators came to him and said, look we can't now accept Garland, please could you nominate one of x sane (non-Trumpian) conservatives he probably would.

He already nominated a moderate that was being referenced by Orrin Hatch as the kind of compromise guy that should be nominated but wouldn't be. What more do you want from him?

[frunk]

The Republican senators aren't blocking Garland because they are excited about a potential trump pick and bullish on a trump win. They are blocking garland because they are scared of republican primary voters and supporting an Obama nominee no matter how reasonable may earn them a damnable reputation: a moderate.

Does that fear meaningfully change when it is the general instead of the primaries?  They'll be just as vulnerable to such accusations.

[Hamilcar]

Clinton should nominate Obama to the Supreme Court.