Discussion»Questions»Politics» What kinds of politically-related questions would be getting posted here had Donald Trump NOT won the presidential election?
>>I honestly don't follow what you are saying << Must be the subtleties of the differences in our languages. >>or how that relates to her insane desire for the no-fly zone.<< I never mentioned or referred to that.
>>I don't trust or want to get cozy with Putin's Russia,<< Phew, that's good to hear!! >>however pushing them and creating a war with them over some hell hole that has none of our own interest in it is pretty damn stupid too. << Hell hole? Now it's my turn not to understand? Do you mean Europe? If so then it isn't Europe per se I think it's that the concern that weakening Europe or starting wars with Europe would mean that a) Russia will become stronger and b) Europe won't be able to come to America's defence and fight as allies if they've already been destroyed by Russia.. and EU is still part of Nato and America are obligated to help defend as the reverse is true.. >>It is just warhawk interventionism. The same warhawk interventionism that has made a mess out of the region to begin with.,<< Sorry you totally lost me there.. who's a war hawk?? Me? Hilary? How about Trump and his severely pissing off China and nearly starting a war with them? He's pissed quite a few others off too -probably none that are powerful enough to take on America but you wouldnt want to tangle with China really..
Hillary was/is a dyed in the wool NeoCon warhawk. Always has been. Pissing off compared to calling for a direct military action that will draw a war with our biggest nuclear foe is a tad different. Look, I'm not saying Trump is good, but to say Hillary was really any better? BS.
No not Europe. You must not pay much attention to what was going. It was over Syria. She was dead set on us getting involved in Syria and the consensus from every advisor and strategy expert was it meant a promise of going to war with Russia. that means you go to war with Russia. All of NATO goes to war with Russia. That means the Saudi's and Israel get involved and bring more of the Middle East into drawing sides. That means North Korea and China likely side with the Russians and go to war. That means she was the most likely to start WW3 and she didn't care.
Sure the chance of Trump starting a major conflict is way to high for comfort, but to say we had an option that wasn't? Not true. The whole election was a catch-22. It's in the past though and it doesn't matter anyways. What ifs are by default worthless to talk about.
This post was edited by Benedict Arnold at February 19, 2017 12:28 PM MST
After all the election polemics, I think we would all welcome the news of hillary getting elected. except possibly for a few tin-hat Tea patyers who would try to keep the debate open, and who would mostly get ignored.
Miss the threads from banned version of this question. I dont get why it was pulled. It was no attack, or violating TOS to my best knowledge, it was asked in a banter kind of way,which made it more light-hearted than this revised version. Censorship is taking overhand. I guess politics, and people asking those questions are more protected than rest of us. I've seen no questions pulled that were aimed about other more specific kind of questions. Meh.
Equally or even better doesn't really matter, at least not more than for an academic discussion. Fact (true) is that USA and the world is facing the current president, and to judge by his first period of time he seems not to care much for the constitution, among the jurisdiction, free speech and free press. Minor detail will be his obsessed ways around alternative facts aka lies. As for the alternative, we'll never know if it would be worse, equal, or better than now.
There'd be the same type of questions. A bunch about "crooked Hillary" and the "bitch in chief". If people think the political questions would clear up, they're morons. It would be the same type of one-sided political vitriol that occurs because Trump won. Once both sides realize they are exactly the same, we could potentially move past it.
I respectfully disagree, Nevan B. The biggest majority, probably around 99.99% of the political questions here are asked by Trump haters. I believe had Hillary won, the questions would still mostly be about Trump, only in a gloating manner that he lost.
Then we'll have to agree to disagree. We'll never know what would actually have occurred, since Hillary did not win. I posted on many other sites during Obama's presidency and in some political circles, 99% of the questions were anti-Obama. Yes, Rosie would probably be quieter, but I think the majority of the political posts here would be anti-Hillary had she won.
Ok, I agree to disagree :) We really don't know what would happen. I don't like Hillary, and I don't like Trump. I'm just taking it one day at a time at this point.
I didn't like Hillary much either. I voted for her because I thought she would be marginally better than Trump. But like a lot of fellow young "lefties", we were disappointed with the primary and were not enthusiastic about Hillary. I think this election was bound to bring out a lot of anger, no matter the result.
Nevan, Karen, my opinion is that there may have been some Trump-based posts in the first couple of weeks or first couple of months after the election, but it would diminish vastly after that point. AM would be agog with traffic concerning it.
The only thing that would have extended it further would be triggered by Trump's own reactionism at having lost the election. He would have introduced lawsuits and viscous anti-H. Clinton and anti-Democrat protestations, and some people here on AM would have eaten it all up.
The Hillary haters would no doubt be out in force, griping and sniping, just the same. I voted third party, in protest of the poor choices. One thing is apparent: the losing side of this election are bigger babies than the side that lost the last one.
Benedict Arnold 