What If Trump Loses The Election?

originally posted by: Olivine
a reply to: butcherguy

Have you ever confronted those fellows driving the pick-ups, hiring the day labor? What about contacting your local elected officials requesting a crack down?

I sat on a Federal Strike Force Grand Jury dealing with this exact problem. I was able to question ICE agents about why there are not more prosecutions for hiring illegals. After learning things from that experience, I don't bother with confronting anyone or calling anyone. It is all just a big joke.

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
a reply to: intrptr

He was a Philosopher,and a damn funny comedian,but like all things on media, a 2 dimensional idea.
NOT a mentor.
Unless you want to entertain people of course...

That spot is the pinnacle of the belief system of the anti establishment from my era. It is wholly accurate, and thank god, funny.

But I hear the circus barker calling, better hurry along, you'll miss the show.

I really don't think there is much difference between the two candidates. Both War Hawks, Both Pro Wall Street and Pro corporations over average citizens. The rhetoric is a bit different but that's pandering to their bases, Hillary is a very conservative Liberal and Trump is a very Liberal Conservative. I think Trump will do just as much as Hillary will for the environment and other liberal causes. I don't think those two are very far apart in Immigration reform or TPP or any of it.

So really nothing will change and we won't die as a country with either one. It's just suck a little bit with either one as president.

If Trump loses, which is likely, I start prepping to defend myself from widespread terrorist attacks all across Europe, the refusal of our govt to BREXIT (emboldened by the establishment victory), and the onset of WWIII. A nice farm somewhere with no neighbours I think, 25 years supply of food and a shotgun.

originally posted by: UKTruth
If Trump loses, which is likely, I start prepping to defend myself from widespread terrorist attacks all across Europe,

Explain to me how Trump could prevent that? Especially since he has yet to propose any anti-terrorism strategy that isn't already in place.

originally posted by: UKTruth the refusal of our govt to BREXIT (emboldened by the establishment victory)

By "our" government do you mean the U.K.? What effect could Trump or Clinton have on the internal politics of the U.K. regarding BREXIT?

originally posted by: DelMarvel

originally posted by: UKTruth
If Trump loses, which is likely, I start prepping to defend myself from widespread terrorist attacks all across Europe,

Explain to me how Trump could prevent that? Especially since he has yet to propose any anti-terrorism strategy that isn't already in place.

originally posted by: UKTruth the refusal of our govt to BREXIT (emboldened by the establishment victory)

By "our" government do you mean the U.K.? What effect could Trump or Clinton have on the internal politics of the U.K. regarding BREXIT?

Regarding your first question...as an American I would say that Trump would not be the Muslim sympathiser that Obama is and would take American lives, safety and value before foreign interests. We can't say the same of Obama. Just as a single example. Obama has decided to risk American lives in order to let refugees into our country without appropriate vetting. Kind of like what is happening in Germany, France, etc. I would NEVER risk a single American life as President for any number of refugees, especially when ISIS has said they have and will infiltrate those groups.

In short...Obama's actions are not in American's best interest. If I didn't know better, I would say is goal is to damage America and Americans based upon his decisions. So yes...Trump would be better.

a reply to: Painterz

civil, not criminal. By your logic, the lawsuit for Benghazi against Clinton makes her a criminal.

a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

Actually, I judge these things on whether they are funny or not... regardless of target. Sorry reality doesn't fit with your assumptions

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: Painterz

civil, not criminal. By your logic, the lawsuit for Benghazi against Clinton makes her a criminal.

Here is how it works. You are innocent until proven guilty by the law. You can also be considered guilty by witnesses that actually saw the event happen and by those who believe before a trial that the event and/or facts of the event happened. If you are proven guilty, you WERE a criminal prior to the conviction. Therefore...Hillary is a criminal to those who believe she will be found guilty and to those that believe she is guilty.

So...Hillary is a criminal. We are just awaiting someone with the balls to prosecute and prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.

originally posted by: Blazemore2000
a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

Actually, I judge these things on whether they are funny or not... regardless of target. Sorry reality doesn't fit with your assumptions

No problem. I appreciate the correction. I personally find them both funny but I'm a really dark person with a questionable sense of humor.

Magic Negro

originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE

originally posted by: DelMarvel

originally posted by: UKTruth
If Trump loses, which is likely, I start prepping to defend myself from widespread terrorist attacks all across Europe,

Explain to me how Trump could prevent that? Especially since he has yet to propose any anti-terrorism strategy that isn't already in place.

originally posted by: UKTruth the refusal of our govt to BREXIT (emboldened by the establishment victory)

By "our" government do you mean the U.K.? What effect could Trump or Clinton have on the internal politics of the U.K. regarding BREXIT?

Regarding your first question...as an American I would say that Trump would not be the Muslim sympathiser that Obama is and would take American lives, safety and value before foreign interests. We can't say the same of Obama. Just as a single example. Obama has decided to risk American lives in order to let refugees into our country without appropriate vetting. Kind of like what is happening in Germany, France, etc. I would NEVER risk a single American life as President for any number of refugees, especially when ISIS has said they have and will infiltrate those groups.

In short...Obama's actions are not in American's best interest. If I didn't know better, I would say is goal is to damage America and Americans based upon his decisions. So yes...Trump would be better.

None of that answered either of my questions.

a reply to: DelMarvel

Your question:
Explain to me how Trump could prevent that? Especially since he has yet to propose any anti-terrorism strategy that isn't already in place.

My answer rephrased and shortened:
How Trump could prevent that at least better than Obama because Trump actually cares about the lives of Americans while Obama does not. He would have no choice but to do better at preventing terror because he cares. It is human nature to do something better when you care about the outcome, than when you don't give a crap about the outcome or want an outcome that is NOT in the interest of the people.

For example: Trump wants to temporarily ban people from entering the USA if they come from terrorist areas of the world. Obama wants to allow them entry. Trump will therefore do a better job at preventing terrorism.

originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE
a reply to: DelMarvel

Your question:
Explain to me how Trump could prevent that? Especially since he has yet to propose any anti-terrorism strategy that isn't already in place.

And my question was in response to this post from UKTruth:

originally posted by: UKTruth
If Trump loses, which is likely, I start prepping to defend myself from widespread terrorist attacks all across Europe

Neither you nor UKTruth have explained how Trump is going to prevent terrorist attacks in Europe. As for the claim that Trump "actually cares about the lives of Americans"--absent any details about new policy he is proposing that's just meaningless rhetoric and, once again, does not address what might happen in Europe.

And neither of you has offered any answer about how Trump (or Clinton for that matter) would have any control over what happens with BREXIT.

a reply to: intrptr

So far the crappy security of the DNC is the only circus a THINKING man COULD see, WHAT the hell do YOU think you are talking about?
Hillary's epic failures in handling NATIONAL security, rendering her a felon by written laws or the Clintons thievery, OR the loud mouth on the right?

a reply to: TerminalVelocity

Normally I respond to posts in reverse order, as I work my way back from the last post. I'm making an exception in your case because I love your avatar.

Just to be clear, I am not advocating for Clinton, she is not who I would want as President. My long term goal is to break up the two party system by encouraging people in "solid colored states" to vote for a third party candidate of their choice. This would mean that their "stop Trump/stop Hillary" candidate will still win, but that the Libertarians and Greens might get enough traction to be invited to the debates in future. (Ultimately, I would like to see movement towards proportional representation, ie; a parliamentary system, with voting being done in a more efficient manner, based on rankings rather than a single up or down vote.)

a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

So let me get this right before I answer your questions. You posted this thread for only one reason, to insult and make fun of not only Trump, but also people here that support him? I mean...it is apparent from every one of your responses that you for some reason, have to throw in a dig against either the candidate, or the poster.

Wrong, I started this to give Trump supporters an opportunity to express themselves in a supportive environment. Anti-Trumpists do indeed have fears that a Trump defeat can lead to rioting and violence. I am extremely pleased that most of the responses have shown that that fear is unjustified. You seem to be reading a different thread. Can you provide an example of a post where I throw in a dig against a member in this thread?

Regardless. No...there will be no riot if Trump is not elected. The vast majority of Trump supporters don't fall into the rioters and looters demographic. That would be a different group like...lets say BLM.

No comment.

But if Trump does not win and there is no reason to question the polls, most of his supporters will do little more than redirect our attention to other races and events to promote our values and agenda.

Good.

But depending upon the details of the voting process, there could be issues. If we see fraud or dead people voting, or anyone voting that isn't legally allowed, etc. If that is the case, we would follow the legal process as I'm sure Trump would also to expose these issues and have the law look into them. Kinda like Gore did after he was done crying about losing to Bush.

Good.

As far as Trump himself...I'm assuming from what I know about the man, that he will be saddened and angered.

I have seen Trump angry, but I have never seen him sad. I hope he does what is right for the country, instead of what makes Trump feel better.

Does that answer your questions? And, of course, feel free to continue the digs and insults. No reason to change your agenda over my little post.

Thank you for your honesty. Have a star.

Well if trump loses? Oh nothing but someone is gonna die i am quite sure.(people die every second so do not even go there about it being anything but a fact)

originally posted by: DelMarvel

originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE
a reply to: DelMarvel

Your question:
Explain to me how Trump could prevent that? Especially since he has yet to propose any anti-terrorism strategy that isn't already in place.

And my question was in response to this post from UKTruth:

originally posted by: UKTruth
If Trump loses, which is likely, I start prepping to defend myself from widespread terrorist attacks all across Europe

Neither you nor UKTruth have explained how Trump is going to prevent terrorist attacks in Europe. As for the claim that Trump "actually cares about the lives of Americans"--absent any details about new policy he is proposing that's just meaningless rhetoric and, once again, does not address what might happen in Europe.

And neither of you has offered any answer about how Trump (or Clinton for that matter) would have any control over what happens with BREXIT.

In case you hadn't noticed ISIS are striking all across Europe. A complete focus on their destruction is Trumps' pledge. Obama has made the situation worse and I can't see any reason that Hillary will clean the mess up... after all she left the whole region in turmoil with her terrible judgement wrt Libya. Therefore Trump represents some hope that ISIS will be restricted and allow people to stop worrying about getting shot or blown up. Add the fact that Trump has called for safe zones to be protected by US and coalition troops in the ME to shelter those under threat. This means less refugees and less chance a terrorist is sneaking into the country to murder innocent people.

It should not really need explaining that US policy affects the entire world.


.. to add, as I noticed your comment about BREXIT and what influence the US could have. Well, if you knew anything about the Anglo-American relationship you would understand that tremendous influence is applied to Westminster from Washington. Remember Bush/Blair? That little cosy relationship led to the British people being lied to and the country taken to war to murder hundreds of thousands of innocent people. I rather think that Hillary and Theresa will be 'chatting' quite often and I certainly don't believe Hillary will want to break up part of the global structure she so loves to advocate.

American influence, unfortunately, spreads way beyond her borders and has spent the last 50+ years screwing up the planet.

a reply to: UKTruth

A complete focus on their destruction is Trumps' pledge.

What evidence do you have that Trump keeps his pledges? No, never mind, that is not the topic of this thread. Instead, tell us what you would do, were you an American citizen, if Trump were to lose?

a reply to: UKTruth

Double post.