About this Trump thing...

in trump •  3 years ago  (edited)


Image source

There are so many people excited for our new president to take office, but does his presidency truly represent the voice of the people? I am not so sure about this. Donald Trump is a smart businessman, I believe a lot smarter than most people make him out to be. He knows how to sell things to people, and this time, he is selling a better America. The people bought into it, but are we going to get what we paid for (figuratively speaking). Are the people truly his best interest, or is profit his motivation? The answer could of course be both. If he actually steps up and makes positive changes for this country, that could be an indirect road to more profit. The reason why I am so iffy about Trump is that, simply, he is running for president!! I have some major trust issues with presidents! I have seen them lie time and time again to the people of America. They say one thing, but they do another. I see a lot of people, even libertarians, anarchists, and alike, saying things such as, "Trump won! We did it guys!" I thought these groups who wanted radical changes in this world wouldn't be so trusting of a president. To me, this still seems like the same shit-show that happens every four years. Time and time again, people are tired of the way things are, yet they trust someone running for president to make the changes they want in this country. What makes Trump different? He sees what the people want, so he made a bunch of promises based on that to get elected. We will see if he actually makes these changes. I see three possibilities.

Possibility 1: Trump makes America great again


Image source

Trump will start by building a wall on the border. America will use their military superpower abilities to make Mexico pay for it. Mexico's economy will take a huge dive, leaving its citizens even worse off than they already are... Except this time, there is no way they can cross the border into a better life. Meanwhile, America's economy will start to thrive again because of the new job openings from all of the immigrants getting deported, not to mention the millions of more jobs Trump will create.

Trump will legalize drugs, passing the money from the cartel to young entrepreneurs getting started in the new legal drug trafficking business.

Trump will immediately cancel all illegal executive orders. He will start exposing and firing corrupt politicians left and right. He will make sure the FBI will conclude their investigation on Hillary Clinton and throw this witch into a cage where she belongs (unless she jumps on a plane and escapes to that child sex slave island first -- all aboard the Lolita Express!!). He will greatly decrease the size of our government.

He will empower law-abiding gun owners and their right to defend themselves.

He will reform our education system. Children born into poverty will have better choices for where they go to school. Universities will be reformed, keeping college students from becoming debt slaves. More people will have the chance to receive a better education.

Trump will reform the way Americans are taxed in many different ways. We will be able to keep more of our hard earned money while people making under $25,000 annually don't have to pay income taxes at all. He will abolish many of the loopholes rich citizens use to get out of paying taxes.

He will strengthen our military, making us even more of a global superpower. We will police the globe and stop anyone from impending on our freedoms. This includes shutting down ISIS in 30 days or less. Our national anthem will most likely change to "America, Fuck Yeah!"


Image source

Finally, he will construct a statue of himself larger than the Statue of Liberty in Washington D.C.
... And China will pay for it.

Possibility 2: Trump lied to us


Image source

Most of everything Trump said was complete and utter bull-crap. The people in power actually planned this whole election out, and their plan succeeded flawlessly. They placed Trump against the most horrible, lying psychopath they could find and America fell for it. This massive manipulation goes even deeper than we all thought. Obama passes the ball to Trump.

Trump gets into office, and none of the changes that he promised happen. America is in the same position it was four years ago while Trump is making more money because of his foreign policies.


Image source

Possibility 3: Trump gets assassinated

There a few reasons this would happen.

  1. Trump gets shot by a butt-hurt psychopathic Hillary supporter that is almost as crazy as she is.
  2. Other countries view Trump as a threat and decide they need to take action before he completely destroys their economies.
  3. Trump starts trying to do everything that he promised. He starts exposing corruptions in our system, but then he suspiciously dies from something such as a car accident.


Image source


Tell me which one of these predictions you think is most likely to happen. If you think that it will turn out differently, leave a comment too. I'd love to hear from you guys whether you support or hate Trump!


Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE STEEM!
Sort Order:  

Are there enough Americans who are willing to do the jobs that the foreign/illegal workers currently do? I know that in San Diego, there are many foreign/illegal workers performing landscaping because no one else wants to do these jobs at the wages they are getting paid.

The only way to get local workers to do the same jobs is to raise the wage... but if they raise the price, no one is willing to pay.

·

The theory is that if we stem the flow of illegals, there will be less labor available. Less people means that wages will go up for currently low-paying jobs, and if wages go up these jobs will become more desirable.

Also, from what I've read on Trump's transition site, a larger emphasis will be placed on legal immigration and allowing demand for specific skills to dictate who gets in.

·
  ·  3 years ago (edited)

Poe's law strikes again? :p

I will say this one thing. I do not know what will happen in the next few years, but once Donal Trump starts trying to deport millions of people, there will be massive unrest. Not only do immigrants support the farming industry but also do work that most Americans would not do regardless of the jobs being there or not. Would you go out and work hard under the sun all day long for 8 dollars an hour? Chances are you would rather be in an AC office or store then to go do hard labor for such low prices.
Not to mention all the Human Rights organizations that would start putting pressure, boycotting and who knows what else.
Trump may be the President but he still does not have the majority of public support. He lost the popular vote lets keep that in mind.

Hah, we thought things would change with Obama. From an outsiders point of view, it seems like the only thing that has changed is his hair; it turned from black to grey. With Trump in charge, I doubt even his hair style will change ...

·

His hair comes before the country, haha!

Trump should build a 3000 mile long Wal-Mart along the southern border. Shoppers enter from the US side and employees enter from the Mexico side. I bet Mexico would pay for that.

This post has been ranked within the top 25 most undervalued posts in the second half of Nov 11. We estimate that this post is undervalued by $17.52 as compared to a scenario in which every voter had an equal say.

See the full rankings and details in The Daily Tribune: Nov 11 - Part II. You can also read about some of our methodology, data analysis and technical details in our initial post.

If you are the author and would prefer not to receive these comments, simply reply "Stop" to this comment.

This post has been linked to from another place on Steem.

Learn more about and upvote to support linkback bot v0.5. Flag this comment if you don't want the bot to continue posting linkbacks for your posts.

Built by @ontofractal

I still think from watching the shitstorm that is the US election from another country has been somewhat perplexing.

He won the election and most people who use social media are wondering why, Yet very few people on popular social media sites (namely, Facebook and Twitter) have thought to realize that maybe, just maybe, not every voter is on social media, and does not constantly rant on about the election, sharing photos and stories with no source, sharing articles from sites such as Buzzfeed and Huffington post which aren't known for telling the truth, and biased left-wing agenda bullcrap. They haven't stopped to think for a second that the baby boomer generation are still voters, and they don't let the whole world know about their daily lives on social media. Whether or not they make a lot of noise online, they're still Americans, and they're still voters.

I mean I'm not an American. But everything from either left wing or right wing supporters, anything shared about Trump, not one reliable source was him lying about anything.

Still, I find him the lesser of two evils. I wish that the democratic system has a third vote option to select 'neither candidate, bring in a third'

·
  ·  3 years ago (edited)

Still, I find him the lesser of two evils. I wish that the democratic system has a third vote option to select 'neither candidate, bring in a third

This. A true democracy needs safeguards; the election results should be void if too many people chose not to vote, and it should never be wrong to vote for a third candidate C even though it seems obvious that he won't be the president. With the current US voting algorithm if one thinks C is the best candidate and A is the very worst, one has to vote for B to prevent A from becoming the president. That's pretty sad.

One way to do it is to require that the winning candidate should have more than 50% of the votes - for example, if there are three candidates A, B and C getting 40%, 30% and 20% (and perhaps a long tail of other candidates getting 10%), then there will be a new round of voting with only candidates A and B - thus, a vote for C is not lost, the voters for C will get a second chance to voice their opinion. A cheaper way to solve it would be that C is allowed to divert his votes to B if C doesn't want A to become the president; then people believing A would be the worst president can still vote for C. Yet another variant, that people list up candidates in a prioritized order on the voting slip.

I believe the theory is sound, but obviously there also needs to be more safeguards in place. Russia is a good example, theoretically they have a very good voting algorithm, with reelection between A and B if A didn't get past the 50%-threshold in the first attempt, and also the election result will be void and the process has to start all over again if there is too few voters showing up - though in practice something has gone horribly wrong over there ...

Another thing, a good constitution should have some workarounds against the winner-takes-all-problem. If A won the election with a 50.01% margin, it means that the opinion of 49.99% of the population is deemed worthless - in reality such an election result probably means a compromise between A and B is the Right path forward.

I could go on ... democracy is no simple thing, obviously ...

·
·

Sounds like you are over-complicating it... People vote for A and B mostly because the media hypes them up. Changing the voting system wouldn't change much, just make it more complicated (and probably easier to manipulate for that matter). One vote or everyone is fair. If every vote was equal, that would be more fair, but it's not going to change anytime soon. The problem that really needs to be addressed is how the media only hypes two candidates, then leaves the rest to fend for themselves. The news can pretty much choose who everyone votes for. If people would actually do their research, they could find a better candidate than the one they hate the least...

·
·
·

I think you're quite wrong about that; in a vote where the president can get elected with less than 50% of the votes there is a big pressure towards a de-facto two-candidate election. If you really don't want A to become president, then it's madness not to vote for B. That you actually like candidate C doesn't matter anymore, what matters is your dislike for A.

I'm generally not paying much attention to the US elections, but I think there has been real incidents in the US where a third candidate C actually paved the road for A to become president - if those who voted for C would have voted for B, B would have become president. I think it sounds pretty bad.

·
·
·
·

The thing is, people shouldn't change their vote just because they don't think their candidate has a chance. With this mindset, any third candidate never has a chance. This is ridiculous because people are then voting on who they hate the least instead of who they like the best. That's why only the hyped up candidates win. People just need to change their state of mind and vote for who they want. If everyone thought this way, we might get a better president...

And on the priority list of candidates you suggested... That would just be a more complicated way of recalculating the vote over and over again... It doesn't really make sense... Maybe a better way would to be to have several rounds, and eliminate the candidate with the least amount of votes every round... That still though sounds like a more complicated way to get just about the same results...

·
·
·
·
·

For me, as an outsider, the US president election is a quite much of a farce. The entertainment level is certainly bigger than for the Russian election, where it's blatantly obvious that the election is rigged, but anyway ... those claiming the US is the worlds biggest democracy they haven't read up what "democracy" actually means.

I believe tactical voting is a problem that can't be solved merely by insisting that people should vote for the candidate they believe is the best. I heard it before and just checked it up again at Wikipedia - it actually says that "(...) Arrow's impossibility theorem and Gibbard–Satterthwaite theorem prove that any useful single-winner voting system based on preference ranking is prone to some kind of manipulation", meaning all voting systems are prone to tactical voting - but some is worse than others, and I strongly believe the US system in itself excludes the possibility of a third candidate getting significant amount of votes. People being in favor of the third candidate pretty much has to vote tactically, or their vote for sure will be worthless.

I mentioned two alternatives - two-round systems are used in quite many presidental elections world-wide (including Russia - theoretically), as well as more local elections. Instant run-off is also popular, used in Australia and many other places.

Condorcet methods can also be either instant, with the voters ranking the candidates on one voting slip, or done as several voting rounds - the algorithms are supposedly better at finding a "compromise candidate" than the runoff-voting, but still there is room for tactical voting.

·
·
·
·

Voting in "rounds" would be so much better, but the US government doesn't really care too much about being fair... Moral of the story: US elections suck. Trump is our president...