**** Elections thread *****

[boost]

You're just assuming he's joking about or otherwise could be convinced of the absurdity of his foreign policy?

How I see it-- Sanders gets gridlocked by congress for four years, and then we get a new(ish) field of candidates. Trump-- well, Trump might invade Venezuela and bomb North Korea.

I'm looking at it less from a "which policies are preferable" and instead from a "which outcome is preferable?"

[wufwugy]

You're just assuming he's joking about or otherwise could be convinced of the absurdity of his foreign policy?

I don't think he's joking. Trade is probably the most solid mainstay between both parties. Even if Trump wholeheartedly believes in those 25% tariffs, I think he would get overruled. Nobody supports that from any aspect of either parties except a small fringe.

How I see it-- Sanders gets gridlocked by congress for four years, and then we get a new(ish) field of candidates. Trump-- well, Trump might invade Venezuela and bomb North Korea.

I get the sentiment. I don't think invasion would be the avenue though. I don't think wielding great military force comes easy to those who are not statesmen. It's probably among the last considerations for people whose lives have been like Trump's, while it is a standard consideration for people who tend to pursue legal power. That's just my guess though.

I think a kind of fuckup that would come by way of Trump would be either major gridlock due to butting heads so much or that he may be extremely narcissistic and make some decisions based on his ego more than the statesman who lives by the party platform.

That said, I don't think he would be a disaster the way the media makes out. Mainstream views are afraid of independent candidates, for whatever reason. You almost don't know what you're gonna get when a candidate is a cult of personality first, party man second. I suspect Trump would be no less ridiculous than a Perot presidency, of which I have no clue how ridiculous (or not) it would have been.