Trump's Presidency IV: Stupefaction Jackson

If Obama acts then without GOP approval, we aren't where we are now. We are probably in a far worse position because in that hypothetical, a bigger share of the population would believe it would be even more justified for Trump to become even more authoritarian. He would have pulled all of his current antics, and then some and probably be polling at 45-55 approval rather than 39. He would have more political capital to burn and the GOP would have a much longer leash on healthcare and election tactics veiled as countermeasures to "maintain the integrity of our elections". The investigation into Russia may have been impeded somewhat before he even took office and trump would be in better position to ax the investigators. In an alternate universe, today we would be where we might be on our current path in another 12-18 months in something close to a worst case scenario.

 

Civil wars don't have to be between regions - it can be neighbor against neighbor. That said, I don't think Americans have the appetite for such things. I think a slide into totalitarianism is the likeliest scenario (and we have already started), with a breakup (the West Coast taking the lead) or a return to normalcy both very unlikely but still possible.

 

Why, these illegals are making sure your produce is cost effective.

 

I'm sorry, but it think you misread what you are responding to, and the wording was actually rather carefully constructed,,,

 

Ignorant thinking. First, it will never be zero. Second, to bring it down substantially from its current very low level, it would cost much more than the savings from removal. Both financially and in terms of civil liberties.

A high end estimate of the drain, net of taxes paid, is roughly 1.5% of taxes paid at all levels of government. Let's say we could get that down to 0.5%, but to do so we would need to pay an extra 1% annually to keep it there. We'd also need to tie up those extra resources when they could be used in more economically productive endeavors and concede some level of personal freedom/privacy. Is that really worth it for something with zero net benefit before factoring in the latter?

 

But there has to be some notion as to how a divided nation would be reorganized. Unless you think the Republicans think they are going to be controlling and running Washington or Boston or Los Angeles as though they were Birmingham or Phoenix or Dallas... that they are going to take over the whole schmear and send us all into those FEMA camps...

 

Why are you engaging with Jaime Bemore on a substantive basis? What more does he have to do to prove to you that he's a trolling dupe?

 

A) - of course

B) - what about it? all political violence is wrong

C) - Because its a pattern that is concerning and the MSM refuses to address it seriously. Trump supporters getting beat up outside of rallies, liberal celebrities endorsing violence, Democrat politicians demonizing Trump and his supporters, and conservative speakers (only) not allowed to exercise their freedom of speech because of threats of violence. The Alexandria shooter was a massive red flag and what has happened since? Democrat politicians saying the Republicans want to kill people with the new proposed healthcare plan, Liberal pundits like Joy Reid practically justifying what happened to Scalise while he laid in critical condition in a hospital and Johnny Depp "joking" about killing Trump. Seems to be pretty one sided here. I don't remember the tea party going to these extremes.

 

Not saying it will ever get to .00001 %. However, this country has immigration laws for a reason. Just because some don't agree with them, doesn't mean we ignore them.

Try telling American citizens who are carpenters, painters and construction workers if there is zero net benefit to enforcing immigration laws.

 

It does? What was the reason given at the time they were first enacted? Educate yourself...

 

http://www.newsweek.com/homegrown-terrorism-rising-threat-right-wing-extremism-619724

https://www.google.com/amp/www.news...reat-america-isis-jihadists-422743.html?amp=1

Two news week articles citing FBI stats on how much more dangerous the right is. We had Protesters punched in the face at Trump rallies and Trump saying he will cover legal fees of people that beat up protesters. We have the guy who said Hillary should be shot, sitting in the second row of a white house event. Your guy as candidate saying the 2nd amendment was needed to stop HRC. During his campaign you have the attack on Jewish Cemetaries and the thwarting of an attempt to blow up a mosque. You then have the Army guy killed in Maryland, The guy that drove up to NYC to start a race war but settled for killing the first black guy he saw, the killing of Indian programmer in Kansas.

If you claim to go to the same sites as us, you couldn't miss this unless you choose too.

 

Is the Yellow Peril back??

 

I am calling him out on his talking points trolling. Soccernutter has hope of a real debate with him, for some reason.

 

I think a low-grade civil war is certainly possible.

 

You're asking Jamie BM this question!

Surely the answer is....all of them.

 

And that was basically the response!

 

OH.MY.GOD!!!!

Jamie is actually Sara!!!

 

So incredibly clueless

 

Yes, there have been a few instances on the right, but the list doesn't even compare to what the left have been doing.

In creating the list, TheDCNF reviewed numerous articles detailing attacks and violent threats against conservatives and Trump supporters. While there are examples of anonymous threats, TheDCNF chose to include only those that resulted in the cancelling of events and two to members of Congress deemed credible. Some instances of violence between rival protestors were not included as it was difficult to ascertain who initiated the event.

http://dailycaller.com/2017/06/16/this-list-of-attacks-against-conservatives-is-mind-blowing/

 

Ok, what are your news sources then?

Ok, what are your news sources then?

 

In order: CNN, New York Times, BBC, France24, Otago Daily Times (New Zealand)

 

I go to middle of the road Newsweek. Ignoring Media matters and every left wing site for you to refer me to the Daily Caller. Funny how you say you go to the same sites we go to but obviously you don't. You go to every right wing site with their talking points. Currently the number of violent acts based on your own definition that have garnered national attention are more on the right than left! ********ing killings are isolated incidents? Why can't I call the actions of the right having more numbers and clearly worse. My source is think Progressive, that work for you.

And stop asking people what their sources are when you won't be truthful about yours!! Tell you commander that you are engaged with high level debaters and you need better sources and argument to sound convincing or have a higher ranked troll take over you account.

 

Yeah, the "where we are now, now" tripped me up. Sorry about that. You're arguing that by sounding the alarm, we would have adjusted the chronology and essentially accelerated the timeline. Definitely, but it would probably be even worse than that because we would increase the probability of the worst case scenario by providing more political capital for Trump to use en route to whatever bad case you have in mind (civil war, a group of BS posters sharing a gulag in Nebraska, merely unambiguously failed democracy, etc.).

Illustrative example using hypothetical numbers: assume when Trump took office in our current timeline, there were 4 hurdles to cross to get to worst case, each one with a 50% chance of occurring. The penultimate hurdle is constitutional crisis and the final is stuff cementing democratic failure. This means there would be a 1 in 16 chance of worst case the day he won. Let's say we've crossed the first hurdle and now we're at 1 in 8 chance of bad, bad stuff.

If Obama discloses, the clock starts ticking earlier, giving him more time to hit the hurdles. The bigger issue is that Trump would also be more likely to pass each hurdle along the way too because he has a lot more goodwill to burn. The hurdles become shorter. Maybe that 50% probability at each hurdle becomes 70%. That changes things dramatically. Before he even wins, there'd already be at 1 in 4 odds for the worst case. So if O said something, at that point (depending upon how much goodwill that would generate for Trump) we could have been in a position equal to being one hurdle down the road from where we now are in our current timeline right now.