Not really. We can rationally decide that Trump is doofus enough to do a lot of things.
Regards,
Shodan
You are probably right.
Probably.
But to say that “Trump plays by the rules” leaves out the fact that he’s been deliberately flaunting rules throughout his campaign, and tiptoeing up to the edge of illegality. That includes social rules, making countless statements that are deliberately beyond the pale. It also includes encouraging people at his rallies who have committed violent crimes, as others have noted. And then there’s his promise to order the military to commit torture, which is flatly illegal and he knows it. (Of course he kind of retracted that promise, then kind of retracted the retraction.)
If Trump is elected, I will not be moving to the US (as my three kids want my wife and me to do). Instead we will stay here as a sanctuary for them.
The scenario of the OP does look like a piece of horror fantasy though, for reasons mentioned above. For example, there are no military units that are segregated either by skin color or ethnic background.
I tend to go by how Trump has always lived his life rather than how he’s campaigning in trying to determine how he’d actually behave in office. I don’t take much of what he says on the stump all that seriously.
I, too, take him as a back-stabbing womanizing blowhard.
It is not “China’s belligerence” that is a factor in its relations with North Korea. Tibet is a part of China, not a neighbor, as much so as Hawaii is a part of the USA, not a neighbor. It is Taiwan, under president Ma Ying-jeou, who takes a decidedly more conciliatory approach, that has brought about steadily improved relations with China, which has for decades tolerated the status quo. Nothing belligerent at all about China’s Taiwan policy, but rather the other way around…
America has made it its business to have more than just two neighbors subject to its belligerence.
The problem with this is that Trump’s lived his entire life inside a protective bubble. He was born into a wealthy family and had his business success handed to him. He’s gotten away with being a loud-mouthed bully because you can do that when you own the company and everyone else has to agree with you or get fired. Even when he’s failed, he just declares bankruptcy and walk away from it. Trump is somebody who’s never had to deal with serious consequences.
Trump has always been the biggest fish in every pond he’s ever been in. And he’s looking at the Presidency and thinking this the biggest fish of all. But he doesn’t understand that he won’t be in the pond anymore. He’ll be swimming in the ocean and he doesn’t understand the difference between how the pond works and how the ocean works.
Seriously? Trump is a master at ripping people off. Admittedly, he stays inside the law to do so. But he’s perfectly willing to lie and cheat and trick and deceive people he’s in business with. To claim that he didn’t rip off vendors because he used bankruptcy court to get out of paying them what he owed them is kind of ridiculous. He ripped them off, period.
Sucks to be them, right? But they knew what they were getting into when they were dealing with Trump, right?
So who are the American people in this scenario? We’re going into business with Donald Trump, and Trump as a very long history of screwing over the people he goes into business with. All legally of course, because they didn’t read the fine print, and assumed that because they were in business with Trump that his interests were aligned with theirs, and he’d use his talent for screwing over people on their behalf.
Now, if we vote for Trump, which side are we going to be on? Is Trump gonna screw over the other guys on our behalf? Or is he gonna screw us over on his own behalf?
The track record for guys who thought Trump was on their side doesn’t seem to be that good.
And several of the hypothetical orders would be illegal under the Posse Comitatus Act, which restricts the use of federal military personnel in domestic enforcement. There are codified exceptions, but none which match the hypotheticals, AFAIK. As recently as 2009, military personnel were found in violation of the Act as a result of MPs being deployed to assist in traffic control and securing a crime scene, so the restrictions are pretty tight.
He is screwing over all the dupes who believed his self-funding scam and that he won’t be beholden to big donors.
The Americans Trump Betrayed by Courting Big-Money Donors
The latest folks on the brink of learning hard lessons at Trump University.
Ah, so despite China pointing well over 1,000 ballistic missiles at Taiwan, repeatedly threatening war if Taiwan doesn’t behave the way Beijing wants, despite recent military exercises aimed a simulating large-scale attacks on Taiwan, despite firing missiles near Taiwan in 1995-1996, despite shelling Taiwanese islands in the 1950s, it’s **Taiwan **that is the aggressor, not peace-loving, democratic, human-rights-honoring China. Got it.
IIRC, if the POTUS ordered a nuclear attack on, say, Ireland or Norway, that actually wouldn’t be illegal, but would never be obeyed.
That gets more into the grey-area thing, but assuming said states hadn’t done anything that rose to the level of provoking retaliation, I would expect the military to refuse such an order.
ETA: Although, come to think of it, retaliating without sufficient provocation would be regarded as a war crime…
Sorry, but he didn’t. I’m sure Trump would have much preferred to continue operating his casino businesses at a profit, like he did for many years before the New Jersey casino business went south. And when the casino business eventually did take a downturn he was left with little choice but to take his companies into bankruptcy. It’s highly unlikely he’d planned to do so all along just to rip off his investors. People with profitable businesses don’t just take them into bankruptcy for the hell of it or to “rip off” investors. They do it when they can’t make a profit and are faced with no other choice.
Plus, I don’t know how sophisticated you are when it comes to Chapter 11 bankruptcies, but they aren’t like the ones most people think off where the creditors get blown off and lose everything. Chapter 11 allows a business’s creditors to take over the business and run it themselves or sell it off if the owner is unable to reorganize and return the business to profitablity. This means the companies’ creditors have a chance to get at least some of their money back, or to get all of it back plus continuing profits if they take over the business and are able to turn it around and operate it profitably.
But apart from that, Trump owns hundreds of businesses and has taken exactly four of them into bankruptcy. Hardly a pattern.
Let me ask this though: do you routinely get into such high dudgeon when a movie studio makes a flop and it’s shareholder value plummets? Or when companies like Yahoo take a dive on their stock price? Or Apple? I’d wager dollars to donuts you don’t, and that your indignation and sympathy for Trump’s bondholders is driven purely by politics.
He has dodged taxes like virtually all rich people in the country (note that he refuses to release his tax returns), he has offered to pay legal fees for followers that beat people he doesn’t like, and at least one of his companies refused to do business with blacks in contradiction of civil rights law (admitted to it and said they wouldn’t do it again, then got under investigation again).
çHe has dodged taxes like virtually all rich people in the country…
[/quote]
By ‘tax dodger’ I assume you mean he pays his taxes according to the requirements of the law rather than arbitrarily throwing his money at the government just because.
I note also that he’s never been charged with any wrongdoing in regard to his taxes. I believe this is the salient point.
No, he’s offered to pay legal fees for a few followers who chose to use force to defend his right to free speech. I’m sure Trump disliked these interlopers also but that wasn’t why he offered to pay his defenders’ legal fees.
I’d have to know more about this to comment, but unless you can tie Trump to any wrongdoing on a personal level I’d say that his decades long record of employing minorities of all stripes far…ahem…trumps whatever happened to be going on in this particular case.
Excellent - we certainly don’t need any more immigrants - legal or otherwise. :rolleyes:
You said ‘dodging taxes,’ not ‘dodging taxes so blatantly and badly that he faced criminal charges from it’. If all you said was that he hadn’t been charged with tax evasion, I wouldn’t disagree, but it’s also a pretty useless statement.
That’s a pretty hilarious spin on him offering to pay his followers legal fees if they beat up a person who even you admit that he dislikes, but even with the spin it remains an example of him being willing to use physical violence against one of his foes.
This article http://www.salon.com/2011/04/28/donald_trump_discrimination_suit/ talks about how a company that Donald Trump was CEO of and submitted documentation to a licensing board stating that he was in charge of all rentals was sued by the justice department for not renting to minorities. The company later settled with a ‘we don’t admit guilt, but we agree to change our procedures to stop discriminating and to give some other people oversight’ plea.
This article has a bunch of other stuff about Trump’s history on race, in addition to that major incident: Donald Trump Was Once Sued By Justice Department For Not Renting To Blacks | HuffPost Latest News .
If you’re CEO of a company, you’re responsible for it’s practices ‘on a personal level’. And the ‘but he doesn’t do documentable, blatantly illegal stuff in his companies’ isn’t really a good defense against racism.