If Trump Wins Re-Election - Will It Be The End Of America?

[numberthirty]

Trump is trying to finish what Reagan started. The impoverishment of working people and the complete control of the Oligarchy.

He's still taking a distant second to Bill Clinton.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

But I don't think it's going to be the end of America as we know it if he wins because the ultimate left wing backlash will be even more extreme when it comes.

I am not so sure about that. The historical precedent is rather the opposite given the two party system.

After the Civil War, and Reconstruction, and the government doing a lot to get Civil Rights done and so on, suppressing the Klan and other radical white terrorists in the South...the Republican Party started splitting and lost interest in enforcing Reconsturction and then in 1876 made the corrupt bargain that led to Jim Crow and the end of the Golden Age of the party's history (which it has never reclaimed since). Closer to our time, Ronald Reagan's landslides in the '80s, followed by H.W. led to 12 years of Republicans in the WH and that led to the Democrats to sell out whatever's left of its New Deal history and go yuppie under Bill Clinton which led to the major crime bills and so on.

If Trump were to take the election again, you might see calls for moderation or going to the center and so on. There were similar calls after 2016 but luckily the opposite happened but even then Biden getting the nomination was partly a result of caution on the part of Dem voters who didn't want to role the dice with Bernie against Trump when Obama's second-in-command was there in the wings. For the left, winning 2020 is quite important to prevent that.

[PwrdOn]

I don't think another Trump victory would be the end of America as we know it so much as a terrifying revelation that this was what America was beneath the surface all along.

I think it is more accurate to say that the Trump presidency and what we are seeing from the Republicans is the last hurrah of an America that needs to die.

In spite of Conservative insistence that they are not racist, there is a fear I see among white conservatives that white people will soon no longer have a huger population than all other races put together and that greatly feeds into Trump's success.

From what I've been told, the Republican party was looking to change it's image specifically to deal with realities like increasing non-white populations and the increasing diversity of religious beliefs (and lack of religious beliefs) among many other things such as Republicans more and more being science deniers as scientific knowledge increases and being perceived as bigots as more groups become socially accepted. Then along comes Trump, playing on White fear, the most ignorant aspects of a religion he doesn't actually believe at all, as well as playing to the scientific and social ignorance of a core group of people increasingly relegated to and becoming part of the past. But enough of them are still alive to have that last hurrah and glory in the worst aspects of the past. Suddenly the Republican party is trapped into the Dinosaur brigade that follows Trump. They kind of have little choice. The long term disaster to their party is irrelevant to them because they will not get elected NOW if they go against him. Well, now being 2016. We may see rats abandoning a sinking ship if he loses.

But I don't think it's going to be the end of America as we know it if he wins because the ultimate left wing backlash will be even more extreme when it comes. That is not to say Trump can't cause horrible damage in the meantime.

I just hope he has lost enough of the swing vote that he loses. If there is only one good thing about the pandemic, it is that his abysmal and self-serving handling of it will be the thing that causes him to lose. Oh, I know that sounds like a horrible thing to say considering the deaths but consider how much worse it can get with four more years of his not dealing with it and making decisions purely for political gain.

In the long run, the Trump era may ultimately end up being good for the country because it has woken people up from the comforting lie that America's problems have mostly been fixed and that we can all go eat brunch without having to worry about anything. Positions about race, gender, sexuality, economics, the environment, health care, and a range of other issues that would have been dismissed as Marxist lunacy just a decade ago are now largely mainstream among the general public, if not so much the upper echelons of power, and regardless of the outcome of the election we need to continue pushing for reforms because a return to normalcy just isn't possible when America was never normal to begin with.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

In the long run, the Trump era may ultimately end up being good for the country because it has woken people up from the comforting lie that America's problems have mostly been fixed and that we can all go eat brunch without having to worry about anything. Positions about race, gender, sexuality, economics, the environment, health care, and a range of other issues that would have been dismissed as Marxist lunacy just a decade ago are now largely mainstream among the general public, if not so much the upper echelons of power, and regardless of the outcome of the election we need to continue pushing for reforms because a return to normalcy just isn't possible when America was never normal to begin with.

It's a natural tendency to want to make a silver lining and so on...that somehow this kind of misrule might create a better world and so on...but we shouldn't fall into that kind of trap.

People said in the '70s that Nixon was good for Democracy because the public outcry about his administration and so on made people less trusting of the Presidency...but then 10 years later you had Ronald Reagan whose administration had more criminal indictments than Nixon did and where Nixon resigned over Watergate, Reagan presided after Iran-Contra...and Reagan walked out of the WH and got a successful post-presidency with high approval ratings, every inch the bad guy who won.

What I mean is that it's too early to tell or decide what's gonna happen Post-Trump. The right wing in America has historically doubled or tripled down or quadrupled down when faced with rejection, rebuke, defeat and so on. It's very much "the guy who can't accept no". It doesn't have a lot of history in terms of backing down.

[Scott Taylor]

Trump is trying to finish what Reagan started. The impoverishment of working people and the complete control of the Oligarchy.

Has that oligarchy ever really been challenged by any president, though? I mean, its not like it disappeared or was really challenged under Obama.

[Jack Dracula]

Oh for Pete's sake, of course America will be okay.

Trump's been in office for almost 4 years and with the exception of COVID and it's affect on the economy, we still have the same problems we've always had.

The reason liberals hate Trump is because he's not pandering to their causes. If you live in Texas, like I do, most people are happier than they've been since Reagan was in office.

Let the name-calling begin.

The goal is to lessen “the same problems we’ve always had” which is why social conservatism is a failed philosophy. It seeks to maintain the status quo or to some extent reverse social progression. The latter is where Trump seems to have a natural talent.

[DrNewGod]

Much depends on the Senate races. If Trump wins, the probability of another impeachment is very high, as is the likelihood that he will try more vigorously than ever to rip the guts from any curb on his power.

If he loses, the institution will jettison him from office, no matter what Erik Prince's mercenaries attempt. However, that will be the opening gun of the far-right militias' next campaign in their war on civilization.

[Kirby101]

Has that oligarchy ever really been challenged by any president, though? I mean, its not like it disappeared or was really challenged under Obama.

He did, but only to a small extent. But there is a big difference between not challenging them enough and giving over the Government and Treasury to them.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

Obama's administration oversaw Dodd-Frank and the Consumer Protection Bureau (aka Elizabeth Warren's ticket to national fame). An action which put him on the s--t list of America's oligarchs, as did the ACA. Obama did more against the oligarchs than any Prez since LBJ, and his Presidency was considerably more left wing than Bill Clinton's and he took the party to the left, he took Biden to the left.

I will say that people expecting the oligarchy to reform on the Presidential ballot don't really understand how politics work...you can only do that at the party level, at the state level, and so on. To be honest, the real way is for the left to become the oligarchy in turn, but that's a separate thing.

A President, Obama was elected on a moderate platform but gradually moved left throughout his Presidency. President Obama in 2016 probably would not have been impressed by Candidate Barack'08, feeling he was too moderate.

[PwrdOn]

It's a natural tendency to want to make a silver lining and so on...that somehow this kind of misrule might create a better world and so on...but we shouldn't fall into that kind of trap.

People said in the '70s that Nixon was good for Democracy because the public outcry about his administration and so on made people less trusting of the Presidency...but then 10 years later you had Ronald Reagan whose administration had more criminal indictments than Nixon did and where Nixon resigned over Watergate, Reagan presided after Iran-Contra...and Reagan walked out of the WH and got a successful post-presidency with high approval ratings, every inch the bad guy who won.

What I mean is that it's too early to tell or decide what's gonna happen Post-Trump. The right wing in America has historically doubled or tripled down or quadrupled down when faced with rejection, rebuke, defeat and so on. It's very much "the guy who can't accept no". It doesn't have a lot of history in terms of backing down.

If we look at the 80s in hindsight though, it wasn't so much America being made great again as it was an illusory decade of faux prosperity, with the irresponsible fiscal policies necessary to engineer that unsustainable growth having terrible long term ramifications that we continue to feel to this day. And as hard as the GOP wants to be able to replicate that feat with the same policies nowadays, I don't think they'll be able to pull it off, because the perfect storm of favorable circumstances that made the 80s boom possible are certainly not the conditions we face now.

[Scott Taylor]

Obama's administration oversaw Dodd-Frank and the Consumer Protection Bureau (aka Elizabeth Warren's ticket to national fame). An action which put him on the s--t list of America's oligarchs, as did the ACA. Obama did more against the oligarchs than any Prez since LBJ, and his Presidency was considerably more left wing than Bill Clinton's and he took the party to the left, he took Biden to the left.

I will say that people expecting the oligarchy to reform on the Presidential ballot don't really understand how politics work...you can only do that at the party level, at the state level, and so on. To be honest, the real way is for the left to become the oligarchy in turn, but that's a separate thing.

A President, Obama was elected on a moderate platform but gradually moved left throughout his Presidency. President Obama in 2016 probably would not have been impressed by Candidate Barack'08, feeling he was too moderate.

Yah I agree with you on that, about fighting the oligarchy versus becoming the oligarchy. The problem with any president who actually tackles the issue is that there are growing pains in the process. Obama had to walk a fine line to prevent people from turning against him en masse, because growing pains look an awful lot like failure. Hence - moderation.

[numberthirty]

He did, but only to a small extent. But there is a big difference between not challenging them enough and giving over the Government and Treasury to them.

You can't "Give..." someone something that they have already owned for years.

[Kirby101]

You can't "Give..." someone something that they have already owned for years.

Yes you can and he did. The massive tax cut was a give away, the placement of corporate cronies in Government was a givemeant for small businesses away. Giving all that PPE money to large corporations and the wealthy without accountability was a give away. Please don't try to say Obama was the same.

[OopsIdiditagain]

1 civil war, 1 cold war, a few proxy wars, 1 great depression, a couple of recessions and it's still here. No, I think they'll be fine.

[numberthirty]

Yes you can and he did. The massive tax cut was a give away, the placement of corporate cronies in Government was a givemeant for small businesses away. Giving all that PPE money to large corporations and the wealthy without accountability was a give away. Please don't try to say Obama was the same.

No.

He actually just handed them the cash in a bailout.

Things have been bought and paid for going on "Decades..." now. While the degree to which a President actually pulls the curtain back on that might vary, that they have all been stooges for the same boss doesn't change.