What If Trump Loses The Election?

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: UKTruth

You are welcome to start a parallel thread asking specific questions of Clinton supporters what they would do if she loses the election. It would be hard to come up with these questions because she has placed no expectations on the electorate beyond voting for her. You might ask what her supporters would do if she faced criminal charges, but that would depend upon the outcome and there is nothing her supporters could do to change it.

As for my Anti-Trump bias, I own it proudly. The intent is not to make Trump look bad; he does that himself. The intent is to allow Trump supporters to express their level of commitment without reflexively bashing the other opponent (whom I do not support either).

As I have said, my overarching intent is to get people to think about their positions and to vote for third party candidates in states that will not carry the candidate they like least. If the Libertarians and Greens poll above 15% in Blue and Red states respectively, it would mark a positive evolution in American politics.

Now, instead of attacking me, why don't you engage in some dialogue? If you were an American, would you support Donald Trump? How strongly?

Your overarching intent is to attack Trump and his supporters. You are not fooling anyone.
As I already told you I have already responded.

a reply to: Baldryck

Thank you, have a star. Your attitude is very practical.

a reply to: UKTruth

Your overarching attempt is to attack Trump and his supporters. You are not fooling anyone.

Neither are you. I have been completely honest in expressing my Anti-Trump bias. Why are you trying to cast doubt on the sincerity of my attempt at dialogue? That question is rhetorical. Please stop your transparent attempts to drag the thread off topic.

a reply to: Delts95

Thank you for responding civilly. Have a star.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: UKTruth

Your overarching attempt is to attack Trump and his supporters. You are not fooling anyone.

Neither are you. I have been completely honest in expressing my Anti-Trump bias. Why are you trying to cast doubt on the sincerity of my attempt at dialogue? That question is rhetorical. Please stop your transparent attempts to drag the thread off topic.

What dialogue?
So now you have a answers on what Trump supporters will do if he loses.... to which you have responded with a series of anti-Trump comments. That's not dialogue. It's called creating talking points that you can use to create negativity.

a reply to: DAVID64

I honestly hope I'm wrong, but if an overwhelming percentage of the people wanting Trump and Clinton wins.....There may be trouble.

Thank you for your honesty. Certainly liberals share this fear; I am glad that Trump supporters are also aware of this possibility. This thread has reassured me that most Trump supporters are behind him simply because he offers an alternative to Clinton, who has a spotty record. The attempts at disrupting this thread are what give me pause. They are very insistent and vocal, but they appear to be a minority who keep repeating themselves to create the illusion of numbers. Not surprisingly, most of them are ill mannered and take the form of an attack on Clinton or myself. This mirrors Trump's behavior; that is simply an observation, not a put down.

a reply to: UKTruth

What dialogue?
So now you have a answers on what Trump supporters will do if he loses.... to which you have responded with a series of anti-Trump comments. That's not dialogue. It's called creating talking points that you can use to create negativity.

Do you understand what dialogue is? I am engaging in dialogue with you now, albeit off topic. Whenever someone expresses themselves on topic, I thank them. Sometimes I point out points of agreement or disagreement. I do not challenge them because that would be divisive.

a reply to: UKTruth

As I already told you I have already responded.

I have been working my way backwards through the thread. I could ask you why you believe Trump would be effective against terrorism in Europe... but that would be off topic. I get that you believe Trump would be good for Britain, and Clinton bad. You can expand on your reasons if you want... it may be a bit off topic, but if you want me to engage in dialogue with you that is not about one another, it would be a good place to start.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: UKTruth

As I already told you I have already responded.

I have been working my way backwards through the thread. I could ask you why you believe Trump would be effective against terrorism in Europe... but that would be off topic. I get that you believe Trump would be good for Britain, and Clinton bad. You can expand on your reasons if you want... it may be a bit off topic, but if you want me to engage in dialogue with you that is not about one another, it would be a good place to start.

I already answered the question when responding to another poster regarding both Terrorism and my point about BREXIT.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: UKTruth

As I already told you I have already responded.

I have been working my way backwards through the thread. I could ask you why you believe Trump would be effective against terrorism in Europe... but that would be off topic. I get that you believe Trump would be good for Britain, and Clinton bad. You can expand on your reasons if you want... it may be a bit off topic, but if you want me to engage in dialogue with you that is not about one another, it would be a good place to start.

I already answered the question when responding to another poster regarding both Terrorism and my point about BREXIT.

Yes, and thank you for that.

I agree about generating talking points to attack Trump supporters with, but I'm gonna honestly participate anyway.

In the nineties the only politicians that proved to be right about the future of America were Pat Buchanan and Ross Perot, Buchanan on culture and Perot on economics. The damage done to the GOP by Trump and the folks supporting him is a beautiful thing to behold. The people that the GOP relied on to have any chance of building a winning coalition see that the elites in the GOP really despise them now. Conservatism is a total and abject failure in conserving anything and the elites have shown themselves to care more about what the left and their own globalist corporate masters think about them than actually winning on the issues they use to maintain their coalition. After a Trump loss or even a win, it is my job to remind any and everyone that the Bill Krystols, Ben Shapiros, David French's, Mitt Romney's, and other GOP elites cannot be trusted to stick by an ally. Even less so than a Communist or Nazi, they at least wait until victory before turning their knives on allies.

I'm not particularly inclined this cycle to do like I did with both Obama wins, and say "It sucks, it's how our system works, vote in the midterms so the damage is mitigated by a divided government." I've been willing to not focus on my conservative and libertarian values in order to have at least the chance that one of the largest human migrations in history (Post 1965 US immigration law) does not destroy America. Out of 16 GOP candidates and 2 Democrats, Trump was the only one who represented any chance of addressing that. That does not change with a Trump loss. Trump's recent fundraising from small donors represents a movement at least equal to what Sanders was able to accomplish without large interests funding it. I plan on participating in any legacy movements and to remind everyone who supported Trump to not give up and band with like minded people to affect change. The people supporting Trump make up a large part of the go to work everyday, keep the wheels turning, keep the lights on base that make any economy or nation work. The more pissed off they are the more likely they are to actually find out the businesses and people that defeated their chosen (if admitedly far from perfect) candidate and punish them economically by closing up their wallets when it comes to spending money with those people. A pissed of person who feels cheated and betrayed is much more likely to be able to chose to endure economic and other hardships than someone who just lost an election but still has their seat at the table of the elites like the GOP establishment.

It's a paradigm changing election cycle. If Trump loses I really hope the media,the left and and the rest of the HRC coalition rubs it in as much as possible as that will ensure that the anger that drove it stays hot enough to keep it going.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

Regarding my comment of your intent to insult the candidate or the poster...these are just from the first two pages and they are quoted directly from your responses.

Yes, responses. Of course, it is necessary to place them out of context to make them appear trollish insults, when most of them are merely observations or responses to intended trollery.

This does not bode well for the enthusiasm of his supporters.

This is a simple observation. Trump seems to expect that the "Second Amendment People" will rise up in arms if necessary; instead, Trump supporters are no more fanatical than Clinton supporters. The polls indicate a lack of enthusiasm for both candidates, which I do point out.

Perhaps some of Trump's supporters here cannot access websites that describe the American electoral process.

Yes, this is a direct dig at the dozens of Russian shills who frequent this site. Do you believe there are none?

I guess Trump is not nearly as inspiring as he thinks he is.

This is a simple observation. Trump's narcissism is painfully evident. The responses here indicate that no-one has been inspired to take action... not even to the point of observing at the polls.

This blase attitude will probably send Trump over the top.

Again, his supporters' healthy lack of commitment will set him into narcissistic rage. Think about the way he could not let go of Khan's comments.

Be careful, they practice "extreme vetting" there.

Yes, I am mocking Trump, but only in response to someone saying that they would move to North Korea if Clinton wins because there would be more freedom there. In other words, I responded to a troll with what Trump would call "sarcasm."

Posting videos is the laziest form of discourse, but thank you for eventually expressing yourself.

Posting videos instead of expressing your personal opinions is the laziest form of discourse. The poster in question made a series of statements bordering on being off topic, attacked me personally, and then finally expressed himself. The thank you was sincere; in fact, I thank everyone who participates without trying to turn the thread off topic.

Thank you; you have a much better opinion of Trump than most people

See? Once again, a sincere thank you coupled with an objective observation. Polls indicate that most people do not think Trump has much self control.

Enjoy complaining about the world you are creating through your inaction.

This is a response to someone who was proud of his lack of civic engagement, denigrating me for voting and saying: "Have a nice war." He is not a Trump supporter, he seems to be a frustrated anarchist. His personal attacks seemed to be an attempt to draw the thread off topic, rather than to engage it.

I am not surprised that the few Trump supporters who are not trying to derail the thread have only lukewarm support for him.

Again, an observation that only seems negative if you think that fanatical support for Trump is a good thing. The majority of responses on the thread up to that point avoided even mentioning the OP; instead, they reflexively tried to deflect it on to Clinton. This is a simple observation. In fact, every thread that attempts to throw light on Donald Trump's painfully obvious shortcomings gets the same response: attacks on Hillary.

This thread is an attempt to have a thoughtful dialogue about how Trump's supporters actually feel about him, without discussing either candidate's merits. All of the people who answered the questions in the OP can fairly be described as having "lukewarm support" for Trump; I immediately pointed out that exactly the same thing could probably be said about Clinton's supporters.

Now, do you wish to participate in the dialogue, or are you going to continue to try to undermine it?

I haven't said a word to undermine anything. I'm simply pointing out the obvious. Your only objective of this thread was to pose a question simply so you could respond with negative feedback. I understand that you believe you are a smart person. But the keyword is "believe". You have been transparent to most here and I'm sure you are enjoying your little experiment. But lets not deny what the real purpose was and is...to insult and ridicule.

To that extent...you have succeeded.

a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

I haven't said a word to undermine anything.

What do you call this?

Your only objective of this thread was to pose a question simply so you could respond with negative feedback.

That certainly sounded like an attempt to undermine the thread to me.

But lets not deny what the real purpose was and is...to insult and ridicule.

Please explain how thanking people for participating honestly is insulting.

Here is what you and several other members seem to fail to grasp: There is an impression in some quarters that Trump's supporters are violent fanatics, and that Trump intends to use his rhetoric to incite violence should he lose. This thread has provided an opportunity to dispel that impression. I must say that all of those who responded honestly, as opposed to trolling or attempting to disrupt the thread, have given me, at least, a measure of reassurance. None of the earnest respondents has professed violent revolution. They seem to take the same resigned attitude as the rest of the electorate. This "lack of enthusiasm" is a good thing. It means that the system can still heal itself rather than be destroyed. There are forces that would prefer that Liberal Democracy, and especially the United States, will fail. Fortunately, it seems that many Trump supporters do not want it to fail.

a reply to: jefwane

I plan on participating in any legacy movements and to remind everyone who supported Trump to not give up and band with like minded people to affect change. The people supporting Trump make up a large part of the go to work everyday, keep the wheels turning, keep the lights on base that make any economy or nation work. The more pissed off they are the more likely they are to actually find out the businesses and people that defeated their chosen (if admitedly far from perfect) candidate and punish them economically by closing up their wallets when it comes to spending money with those people. A pissed of person who feels cheated and betrayed is much more likely to be able to chose to endure economic and other hardships than someone who just lost an election but still has their seat at the table of the elites like the GOP establishment.

Thank you, I admire your commitment, although I disagree with you on a couple of points. I am clearly more socially liberal than you are but I can respect your opinions in that area. What I most disagree with is that Trump, an alleged billionaire who has profited from the status quo, would have any motivation whatsoever to change it.

On the other hand, you are at least aware of Trump's flaws, and seem to welcome any shake-up that forces the GOP back to its conservative ideological roots, and, although I fear for the transition period, I agree that in the long run that would probably be a good thing.

It's a paradigm changing election cycle. If Trump loses I really hope the media,the left and and the rest of the HRC coalition rubs it in as much as possible as that will ensure that the anger that drove it stays hot enough to keep it going.

I would not want it to go on so far as to create paralysis (or violence!), but yes, I agree in principle. Both parties need to be shaken up, and room created for at least two new parties.

a reply to: DJW001

They are trying to bypass Congress, which I am sure they will do easily. The MPAA, RIAA, and the bankster cartels are massively powerful in this country.

As far as Trump goes, if he really wants to do what he says he will do, he will work toward making us competitive enough to manufacture on American soil again. Who knows. Either way he talks about trade deals often and it seems genuine. I would rather support the unknown as opposed to the sure thing. Hillary will absolutely usher this in.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

I haven't said a word to undermine anything.

What do you call this?

Your only objective of this thread was to pose a question simply so you could respond with negative feedback.

That certainly sounded like an attempt to undermine the thread to me.

But lets not deny what the real purpose was and is...to insult and ridicule.

Please explain how thanking people for participating honestly is insulting.

Here is what you and several other members seem to fail to grasp: There is an impression in some quarters that Trump's supporters are violent fanatics, and that Trump intends to use his rhetoric to incite violence should he lose. This thread has provided an opportunity to dispel that impression. I must say that all of those who responded honestly, as opposed to trolling or attempting to disrupt the thread, have given me, at least, a measure of reassurance. None of the earnest respondents has professed violent revolution. They seem to take the same resigned attitude as the rest of the electorate. This "lack of enthusiasm" is a good thing. It means that the system can still heal itself rather than be destroyed. There are forces that would prefer that Liberal Democracy, and especially the United States, will fail. Fortunately, it seems that many Trump supporters do not want it to fail.

What I call that statement is...the truth. No point of arguing with you, your posts spell it out to anyone with a brain. And besides...your a liberal which means you are also a liar. So what is the point in listening to your false innocence. "Whaaaat? I didn't do anything". Ummmm...yeah.

PS: You said "There are forces that would prefer that Liberal Democracy, and especially the United States, will fail. Fortunately, it seems that many Trump supporters do not want it to fail." You read us wrong (surprise). We would prefer to fix the establishment in the least painful way possible. Elections, votes, getting the right people in the right positions, etc. But don't worry...there are many among us that if these attempts fail will eventually decide that there are other methods to achieve our goal. They don't want to have a...dare I say it...revolution in the classic sense. But that doesn't mean they won't.

People can only be pushed so far, have only so much of their freedom taken away and have a dictator instead of a representative before they decide enough is enough.

a reply to: Winstonian

They are trying to bypass Congress, which I am sure they will do easily. The MPAA, RIAA, and the bankster cartels are massively powerful in this country.

The Founders intended Congress to be the ultimate authority in this country, not the Presidency. The objective should not be to bypass Congress, it should be to make sure that Congress reflects the will of the people, rather than pandering to special interests. That is why a parliamentary system would be superior... or at least a viable multi-party system.

As far as Trump goes, if he really wants to do what he says he will do, he will work toward making us competitive enough to manufacture on American soil again. Who knows.

If Trump were really interested in bringing jobs back to America, he would move his Trump brand manufacturing back from China and Mexico, if only as a symbolic gesture.

Either way he talks about trade deals often and it seems genuine.

The President does not negotiate trade deals, which have to be ratified by Congress. Even if Trump were as brilliant a negotiator as he thinks he is, that would more likely end up serving Trump's needs sooner than America's.

I would rather support the unknown as opposed to the sure thing. Hillary will absolutely usher this in.

Both are known quantities; one is completely unpredictable but has a track record of failure. The other is woefully predictable but knowledgeable. I don't intend to vote for either, but take comfort in the thought that the one who is likely to win will not sell the country out because a demagogue flattered her.

a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

What I call that statement is...the truth. No point of arguing with you, your posts spell it out to anyone with a brain. And besides...your a liberal which means you are also a liar. So what is the point in listening to your false innocence. "Whaaaat? I didn't do anything". Ummmm...yeah.

No prejudice there. Incidentally, that is what sarcasm actually looks like. I;m going to ask that the Mods not delete this post, even though it is a flagrant violation of T&C. This is exactly the type of bullying behavior that Trump supporters are accused of. I didn't make you call me a liar, you called me a liar because I disagreed with your bias.

PS: You said "There are forces that would prefer that Liberal Democracy, and especially the United States, will fail. Fortunately, it seems that many Trump supporters do not want it to fail." You read us wrong (surprise).

Erm, are you saying that many Trump supporters do want the United States to fail?

We would prefer to fix the establishment in the least painful way possible. Elections, votes, getting the right people in the right positions, etc.

That's what I said, and that is why I started this thread. I wanted Trump supporters to affirm that they respect the rule of law, and will accept the democratic process.

But don't worry...there are many among us that if these attempts fail will eventually decide that there are other methods to achieve our goal. They don't want to have a...dare I say it...revolution in the classic sense. But that doesn't mean they won't.

So that was what Trump meant when he appealed to the "Second Amendment People." Nobody thought he was talking about Washington lobbyists.

People can only be pushed so far, have only so much of their freedom taken away and have a dictator instead of a representative before they decide enough is enough.

And if Trump somehow comes to power, you will have the dictator you deserve.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: Winstonian

The President does not negotiate trade deals, which have to be ratified by Congress. Even if Trump were as brilliant a negotiator as he thinks he is, that would more likely end up serving Trump's needs sooner than America's.

The President DOES negotiate trade deals.

From whitehouse.gov in relation to TPP.

That is why President Obama has concluded negotiating the Trans-Pacific Partnership and will now work with Congress to secure its passage into law. The TPP is a trade agreement with 11 other countries in the Asia-Pacific, including Canada and Mexico that will eliminate over 18,000 taxes various countries put on Made-in-America products.

www.whitehouse.gov...

How is it you can so confidently state a falsehood?

a reply to: UKTruth

How is it you can so confidently state a falsehood?

Seriously? Do you think Donald Trump personally built Trump Tower all by himself? (That, too, is what sarcasm actually looks like.) Trade deals are negotiated by career State Department/ Foreign Ministry personnel. Presidents do not negotiate them, they approve them and submit them to Congress. This allows them to brand them with their name.