# Question For Republicans: If Trump is elected... **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [July 20, 2016, 2:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-republicans-if-trump-is-elected/760420 "2016-07-20T14:23:24Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2016, 7:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-republicans-if-trump-is-elected/760420/61 "2016-07-22T07:39:03Z")
Video of Trump’s speech, fact checked on crime. 1 minute, 46 seconds. Bottom of page. > **[Donald Trump doesn’t want to make America great. He wants to make it afraid.](https://www.vox.com/2016/7/21/12253638/republican-convention-trump-speech)** > > This was a scary speech, by a scary man, who needs a scared electorate. As for the article, Ezra Klein says: [INDENT][INDENT] Perhaps the night’s ugliest moment came when he spoke of Sarah Root, a college student killed by a drunk driver who was also an unauthorized immigrant. “I’ve met Sarah’s beautiful family,” Trump said. “But to this administration, their amazing daughter was just one more American life that wasn’t worth protecting. One more child to sacrifice on the altar of open borders.” For the record, almost 10,000 people were killed in America by drunk drivers in 2010 — the overwhelming majority of them by American citizens. Trump had neither answers for nor interest in their deaths. And it is when you tug on these threads that Trump’s speech unspools and its grossness, and uselessness, becomes clear. There are many ways in which Americans are actually not safe. More than 600,000 Americans died of heart disease in 2015, many of them unnecessarily. More than 130,000 Americans died in accidents. More than 40,000 died by suicide. There were a record number of drug overdoses in 2014, and gun deaths in America are far beyond those in any developed country. These tragedies can be ameliorated by policy. Cigarettes can be taxed, alcohol regulated, addicts treated, guns made less accessible. But Trump wasn’t interested in making Americans safer, and so he did not mention any of these policies. He was interested in making Americans more afraid, and so he focused on the dangers that scare us, as opposed to the ones that truly threaten us.[/INDENT][/INDENT] ---
**Author:** ![Leaper](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/4bbf92/32.png) [@Leaper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leaper)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2016, 7:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-republicans-if-trump-is-elected/760420/62 "2016-07-22T07:45:11Z")
> [@Bullitt](#): > > Did you see or hear the speech? So you believe the parts that you personally think reveal brilliance are facially apparent? I assume **Merneith** wants you to humor him/her and be specific anyway. ---
**Author:** ![Bullitt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bullitt/32/5725_2.png) [@Bullitt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bullitt)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2016, 8:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-republicans-if-trump-is-elected/760420/63 "2016-07-22T08:00:40Z")
> [@Leaper](#): > > So you believe the parts that you personally think reveal brilliance are facially apparent? No. > [@Leaper](#): > > I assume **Merneith** wants you to humor him/her and be specific anyway. Really. See post 37. ---
**Author:** ![Merneith](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/57b2e6/32.png) [@Merneith](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Merneith)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2016, 9:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-republicans-if-trump-is-elected/760420/64 "2016-07-22T09:08:07Z")
It’s not about humoring me. I just wondered if you were able to articulate the part that seemed to predict brilliance. Guess not. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2016, 11:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-republicans-if-trump-is-elected/760420/65 "2016-07-22T11:25:26Z")
> [@Bullitt](#): > > Did you see or hear the speech? Yes. What parts did you think were brilliant? ---
**Author:** ![SmartAlecCat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/67e7ee/32.png) [@SmartAlecCat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SmartAlecCat)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2016, 11:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-republicans-if-trump-is-elected/760420/66 "2016-07-22T11:38:06Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > What parts did you think were brilliant? In particular, which policies that he is planning to advance are more likely to succeed in their goals compared to the Clinton proposed policies, and why? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2016, 2:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-republicans-if-trump-is-elected/760420/67 "2016-07-22T14:44:32Z")
Why is it acceptable to dodge the question about what specific executive order might cause chaos by saying, “Pretty much any of them?” (BigT post 51) And why is it acceptable to dodge the question about what specific parts of the speech were supposedly brilliant? (Bullitt posts 60 and 63) I am very curious to hear the brilliant parts of the speech. I saw the whole speech, and at best discerned parts that might serve as effective rhetoric as long as they are not examined closely. But perhaps I missed some nuance. I am also very interested in the potential for destructive executive orders. What, specifically, might they be? ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2016, 3:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-republicans-if-trump-is-elected/760420/68 "2016-07-22T15:20:39Z")
I grant that a President that is determined to do evil and harm to the country could do so in spectacular ways. I do not think that Trump would be that type of President. There is no indication that Trump would be effective in his presidency in any magnitude greater than past presidents, and lots of evidence that he’d be less effective. Those that argue some kind of doomsday scenario with Trump are effectively arguing that Trump will actually be a really effective leader. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2016, 3:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-republicans-if-trump-is-elected/760420/69 "2016-07-22T15:25:12Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > I grant that a President that is determined to do evil and harm to the country could do so in spectacular ways. I do not think that Trump would be that type of President. > > There is no indication that Trump would be effective in his presidency in any magnitude greater than past presidents, and lots of evidence that he’d be less effective. Those that argue some kind of doomsday scenario with Trump are effectively arguing that Trump will actually be a really effective leader. And you keep arguing without evidence that he would have to be “effective”(without defining what you mean) to be destructive. That’s like saying a bull in a china shop poses no danger because it has no knowledge of porcelain. ---
**Author:** ![Jack\_Batty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jack_batty/32/3201_2.png) [@Jack\_Batty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jack_Batty)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2016, 3:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-republicans-if-trump-is-elected/760420/70 "2016-07-22T15:44:01Z")
Wasn’t it the GOP pissing and moaning about Obama and his “unprecedented use of executive orders.” Now,apparently, I’m told that a president’s executive orders are down right toothless … benign even. So Bone … think you can get the rest of your buddies on the right on the same page? Or does it not count when Obama does it? ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2016, 3:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-republicans-if-trump-is-elected/760420/71 "2016-07-22T15:50:23Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > And you keep arguing without evidence that he would have to be “effective”(without defining what you mean) to be destructive. That’s like saying a bull in a china shop poses no danger because it has no knowledge of porcelain. That’s a spectacularly bad analogy and here is why. A bull would be destructive by its very being - its size and dexterity in the environment of a china shop would cause damage to the product making it unusable for its intended purpose. But a Trump presidency does not have these qualities - at least none that have been demonstrated. His very being would not automatically be destructive - he’d have to actually do something. And to get things done, he’d have to be effective. And as a correction - I did define what I meant by saying effective in my second post to this thread #33. And that was, _“where effectiveness is measured by the ability to enact one’s agenda?”_ You asked in post #45 why I think he’d be ineffective and I responded in post #46. I also asked you what specifically will make him so damn effective and supposedly powerful in post #46 - do you have a response? ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2016, 3:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-republicans-if-trump-is-elected/760420/72 "2016-07-22T15:56:36Z")
> [@Jack\_Batty](#): > > Wasn’t it the GOP pissing and moaning about Obama and his “unprecedented use of executive orders.” Now,apparently, I’m told that a president’s executive orders are down right toothless … benign even. So Bone … think you can get the rest of your buddies on the right on the same page? Or does it not count when Obama does it? I’m not a member of the GOP. In any event, yes Republicans complained about Obama’s EOs. Democrats also complained about GWB’s EOs. In similar news, bears shit in the woods and the Pope is catholic. No one is saying that EOs are toothless - they are what they are, direction given to members of the executive branch. If EOs are being held out as a way to push evil and nefarious things, it needs to be demonstrated why that is the case. Simply saying that a Trump presidency will be able to issue EOs is not sufficient to support a doomsday scenario - an actual example of an EO would have to provided that could cause such chaos. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2016, 4:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-republicans-if-trump-is-elected/760420/73 "2016-07-22T16:02:16Z")
But he doesn’t _have_ to be “effective” as you define it to be dangerous-he just has to react without thought and/or care of the consequences of his actions. Just because he enacts a plan that is not well-thought out does _not_ automatically render that plan harmless. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2016, 4:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-republicans-if-trump-is-elected/760420/74 "2016-07-22T16:16:25Z")
Let’s say President Trump starts ending bills to Mexico for his stupid wall and bills to other countries to pay for rebuilding our military(as per last night’s rant). Not very effective, and not very well-thought out…but _certainly_ not harmless when it comes to our standing in the word community. ---
**Author:** ![Bullitt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bullitt/32/5725_2.png) [@Bullitt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bullitt)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2016, 7:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-republicans-if-trump-is-elected/760420/75 "2016-07-22T19:07:56Z")
There are other ways, aren’t there? He can deduct the cost of the wall from moneys we already send there, that’s one way. ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2016, 7:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-republicans-if-trump-is-elected/760420/76 "2016-07-22T19:44:28Z")
> [@sleestak](#): > > I don’t like Trump but I suspect that he has a strategy that freaks people out. I believe Trump starts out thinking of everything as a negotiation and his opening position is way beyond what he wants. Then later asks for something reasonable and he is more likely to get it. This is basically the Scott Adams theory of Trump policies. The problem with it is that, based on his record as a businessman, it’s _exactly the opposite_ of his usual strategy, which is to promise someone X, then renege later and use the power of wealth and legal effort to avoid paying. Trump’s typical negotiation - despite what he, or his ghostwriters, tell you - is to offer incredibly good terms, and then say “nah” when it comes time to pay up. Witness after witness reports being promised money, concessions, a piece of the action or what have you, and then after the fact Trump will suddenly decide he’s only going to pay twenty percent of what he said he would. The other party, weaker by dint of having less money to maintain operations or hire lawyers, is forced to accept what they can get. [QUOTE=Bullitt] There are other ways, aren’t there? He can deduct the cost of the wall from moneys we already send there, that’s one way. [/QUOTE] U.S. aid to Mexico is a tiny fraction of what the Trump Wall could cost, and of course it’s not a pure handout; a lot of it is conducive to U.S. interests. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2016, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-republicans-if-trump-is-elected/760420/77 "2016-07-22T20:31:00Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > But he doesn’t _have_ to be “effective” as you define it to be dangerous-he just has to react without thought and/or care of the consequences of his actions. Just because he enacts a plan that is not well-thought out does _not_ automatically render that plan harmless. It doesn’t render a plan harmless, nor does it mean that it is harmful. It’s an empty nothing without specifics. Like your criticism. Thus far the only thing that resembles substance of your criticism is that while in office Trump will attempt to bolster his brand. Oh the horror. > [@Czarcasm](#): > > Let’s say President Trump starts ending bills to Mexico for his stupid wall and bills to other countries to pay for rebuilding our military(as per last night’s rant). Not very effective, and not very well-thought out…but _certainly_ not harmless when it comes to our standing in the word community. This at least is something substantive. Ok, so President Trump starts sending bills to Mexico - even though that’s specifically not how he’s suggested to compel payment for the wall, what of it? That’s the big harm? An international faux pas that leaves us in the same status quo? I agree that would not be helpful to the US standing in the world community, but I also don’t think that type of bill sending will matter all that much. And you have to also determine what the probability of that actually coming to pass will be. IMO I think it’s highly unlikely. This is what Trump said about rebuilding our military in his recent speech: > [@](#): > > We will completely rebuild our depleted military, and the countries that we protect, at a massive cost to us, will be asked to pay their fair share. This is what you find objectionable and what would be so devastating from a Trump presidency? This is both a nothing burger and [a familiar talking point](http://money.cnn.com/2016/04/15/news/nato-spending-countries/) from folks other than Trump: > [@](#): > > **Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton both used the Democratic presidential debate Thursday to call on other NATO members to spend more on defense.** Donald Trump has gone even further, saying the U.S. should rethink its involvement in the military alliance because it costs too much money. > Many European members – including big economies like France and Germany – spend less than the amount called for by NATO guidelines. > The U.S. shells out far more money on defense than any other nation on the planet. > According to NATO statistics, the U.S. spent an estimated $650 billion on defense last year. That’s more than double the amount all the other 27 NATO countries spent between them, even though their combined GDP tops that of the U.S. [And from 2012](http://www.cnn.com/2012/02/03/opinion/preble-military-budget/): > [@](#): > > Our fiscal crisis has created an opportunity to revisit our commitments abroad. **We should focus American power on our core interests, and call on other countries to take responsibility for their own defense.** > Intuitively, that exercise should satisfy both liberal demands that “everyone pay their fair share” and conservative demands that our government “live within its means.” But given the rhetoric we have heard so far, it is doubtful that this election cycle will produce a leader who will seriously contemplate how we can most prudently provide for our common defense. (my bold in both of the above) Nothing to extraordinary there. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2016, 9:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-republicans-if-trump-is-elected/760420/78 "2016-07-22T21:02:42Z")
> [@](#): > > SANGER: My point here is, Can the members of NATO, including the new members in the Baltics, count on the United States to come to their military aid if they were attacked by Russia? And count on us fulfilling our obligations —— > > TRUMP: Have they fulfilled their obligations to us? If they fulfill their obligations to us, the answer is yes. There was nothing extraordinary about your quotes, Bone, but Trump’s position certainly is. And as head of the armed forces, he could easily abandon NATO obligations based on past due bills. ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_Ace](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/6bbea6/32.png) [@Johnny\_Ace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_Ace)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2016, 5:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-republicans-if-trump-is-elected/760420/79 "2016-07-23T05:37:10Z")
So wait…let me get this straight…the US spends so much more money on defense than anyone else **because NATO**? That $650 billion budget is the **total US defense spending** figure. The fact is that the US spends just about **half a billion dollars annually** on NATO. Chicken feed. Petty cash. Pocket change. [https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/03/30/trumps-claim-that-the-u-s-pays-the-lions-share-for-nato/](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/03/30/trumps-claim-that-the-u-s-pays-the-lions-share-for-nato/) > [@](#): > > Here’s the full breakdown for the 2016-2017 budget period. (NSIP, one of three elements listed, refers to the NATO Security Investment Program). In 2012, the Congressional Research Service produced a report that looked at direct funding in detail. Despite Trump’s claim that the United States is spending “billions and billions” on NATO, Defense Department budget documents show the annual direct contribution is under $500 million a year. The ‘indirect funding’ thing is BS. We don’t spend 2/3 of a trillion dollars on defense because NATO requires us to. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2016, 7:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-republicans-if-trump-is-elected/760420/80 "2016-07-23T07:34:15Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I am also very interested in the potential for destructive executive orders. What, specifically, might they be? See post 55. Examples could be ordering torture of Americans, ordering wiretapping of politicians, ordering wiretapping of anybody, suspending civil service rules to award contracts to Trump enterprises, etc. But the key point is that you hire sycophants and pardon those who break the law. Rinse and repeat. It’s a bug exploit. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-republicans-if-trump-is-elected/760420.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-republicans-if-trump-is-elected/760420.md?page=5)