[zogrodea]

Would you mind explaining what the negative practical consequences would be in the event of a Trump nomination?

The worst thing I remember from him (an action which was truly horrible) was related to ICE separating children from their families.

In my country (the UK), I don't see a huge personal difference in my daily life when either one of the two mainstream parties is elected. So I'm interested in where your comment comes from.

I do have my own views of course, but neither seems significantly more dystopian to me than the other.

[AdamN]

You didn't notice Brexit - a distinctly Tory-enabled change that wouldn't have happened if the Lib Dems or Labour had been in charge?

[mike_hearn]

There's nothing distinctly Tory about Brexit.

1. The Lib Dems also made a promise on an in/out referendum and it was in their 2010 manifesto. You may not recall this because in 2008 Jo Swinson said “the Liberal Democrats would like to have a referendum on the major issue of whether we are in or out of Europe” but by 2016 she was saying she can't forgive Cameron for allowing a vote.

2. Cameron only conceded on allowing a vote due to losing voters to UKIP, a different political party. He clearly didn't want to do it but his hand was forced by the voters.

3. Labour of course committed to and held the original in/out referendum in 1975. They also committed to holding a referendum on the EU Constitution, a promise they backpedalled on after similar referendums were lost in the Netherlands and France. Their 2015 manifesto promised an automatic referendum on any further transfer of powers to the EU.

So all the major UK parties other than the SNP have a history of either promising or holding referendums on the EU. That isn't a surprise because the EU was a major source of constitutional stress and voter unhappiness on all sides of the political spectrum.

[zogrodea]

That's a legitimate point. The referendum was 8 years ago and I was 18 back then so there might be some myopia on my part.

[tocs3]

The thing that sticks with me is:

https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-zte-order-after-china-...

Maybe it was completely reasonable but it looks a lot like foreign influence.

His overall tone is not constructive. His rhetoric is divisive and we (as a nation) do not really need much more dividing. Finding working middle ground is a direction we need to go.

[verdverm]

See the recent US Supreme Court decisions, Trump put 3 of them on there

- Roe v Wade

- Chevron Deference

- Presidential Immunity (which went above and beyond to say evidence from official acts can no longer be used in other trials)

It's worth noting that a second Trump term is likely to be very different from the first one. Good people tried to help the first time, most walked away or were fired for lack of loyalty. Trump also learned this the first time, and with Mike Pence, learned he needs to pick for loyalty above all else.

There is also Project 2025, which grew out of the first term failures (Trump did not deliver much of anything he said he would), and is a concerning, concentrated effort to "drain the swamp" (by replacing it with an exclusive golf course)

The Russian invasion of Ukraine, Trump's comments on NATO, and Chinese soldiers on the Poland-Belarus border have a lot of people worried outside of America.

[iJohnDoe]

I wish the world would pay attention to the points you made. It should provide a picture of what direction we’re heading in if Trump is elected again. It’s very concerning.

[kyrra]

Chevron deference being upended will likely hamper anything Trump wants to do.

Immunity: the courts still get a say as to what is an official act.

Project 2025 is actually a conservative agenda. With the pick of JD Vance, I wouldn't expect much of that out of his administration.

[bryanlarsen]

Google for "Project 2025". Hundreds of negative practical consequences proudly laid out for all to see.

[jauntywundrkind]

Dismantling Schedule F and making most government jobs political appointments - where people can be fired at whim - seems particularly madcap. A return to spoils of war system; anyone who doesn't totally fall in line can be axed.

John Oliver covered Project 2025 & got to Schedule F specifically, https://youtu.be/gYwqpx6lp_s#t=12m40s

[kyrra]

Did Trump or his staff write it? You realize he's disavowed it?

Yes, it's from many former staffers, but they are former staffers, not active. There has been very little policy debate this election cycle, so I honestly have no clue what Trump or Biden actually want to do with their second terms.

[piva00]

> In my country (the UK), I don't see a huge personal difference in my daily life when either one of the two mainstream parties is elected.

For how long were you an adult when the UK had a Labour government?

Also, the impact the Tories had is quite disproportional depending if you live in an affluent city, and has a white-collar job vs the rest of the UK.

[janice1999]

By their own admission OP was 12 last time Labour left office.

[benterix]

For Europe, this might be bad news as Trump made a few quite strong remarks as to what he will do to NATO when he gets to power again. In the worst case, it might mean Europe will surrender to Russia and Putin's troops will arrive to the border with Poland, Romania and Bulgaria, pushing the territory of his empire further to the West. It would be a sad time for all Europe, not just for Ukrainians.

[TheLoafOfBread]

That would be just repeat on Munich 1938. Putin won't stop, just consolidate and push further to the West. Moldova next. Then Baltic states. Then Poland. Does it sound insane? Well Ukraine-Russian war sound insane in the fall of 2021 when intelligence agencies were sending warnings what is about to happen.

[falcolas]

> Would you mind explaining what the negative practical consequences would be in the event of a Trump nomination?

Simply put, Trump and the current conservative majority would like to make the health and welfare of people I love illegal. It's in both Agenda 47 and Project 2025. Laws that continue this trend are being passed in most states where the conservative majority is in power.

Their health care would be banned.

Their lifestyle would be made illegal.

Their freedoms would be curtailed.

Those are the practical consequences that I care about most right now. There are more, but this is the top of my list.

[b0sk]

Sunak gracefully handed over the Prime Ministership to Starmer with zero hiccups.

You know what happened here? Trump tried to force Pence to not certify the election (VP certifies all the votes from the electors) and even appointed fake electors. And obviously the January 6th shenanighans.

And to top it off, his current VP pick JD Vance has publicly said that if he were in Pence's position, he wouldn't have certified the election results. So 2028 will be interesting if these guys lose.

[anthony_d]

Trump can’t run in 2028. This will be his second term.

[kmos17]

Besides the excellent points outlining the awfulness of Trump’s first term in other responses to your question, the most important factor making him unfit for office is his complete refusal to accept any election he loses and the peaceful transfer of power. He is directly attacking the democratic process itself, as many authoritarian dictators have in the past.

Many of his supporters are fully cognizant of this, as much as they will publicly claim this is just pearl clutching by the left, they actually believe this is the best course of action, because the political discourse has been so deeply poisoned they do not think democracy is the best way forward. This has happened many times before in various countries with always horrific consequences.

[techostritch]

Admittedly I think it’s really hard to piece apart all of the different conservative coalitions.

There are vocal Republican influencers who talk about ending no fault divorce, ending the department of education banning abortion, ending social security, Medicare and Medicaid, more conservatives on the Supreme Court so certainly it could be bad if certain coalitions got their way.

And yet, I think power is distributed enough in America I don’t think too much of it can be dismantled. I think too many billionaires benefit from big government for the billionaires who benefit from small government to dismantle.

But I do think Republicans will deregulate the economy in a way that will put us on a crash course to another financial crisis. And the people who will really suffer will be the poor not the rich.

The other point I will make about a Republican presidency is that 1: people deify Trump and 2: Trump has made lots of promises to people who fundamentally disagree with each other. So there’s going to be lots of conflict in a Trump presidency, what will the people whose promises were broke do, especially those people who see Trump as a god? Will Trump turn on his working class MAGA base to make the billionaires who donated to him happy? I think he just might.

[troyvit]

> I think too many billionaires benefit from big government for the billionaires who benefit from small government to dismantle.

America's system of checks and balances in action.

[zogrodea]

Thanks for the reply. I suppose I have a hard time seeing much happening that will be too bad for ordinary citizens either way. I recall people panicking about a Trump presidency in 2016, but I never saw or heard many negative outcomes (for individuals) about his presidency so I don't quite understand it and have a hard time measuring how justified people's panic is.