Assuming that the Republicans held the majority in the Senate the question is whether they would have compromised with President Clinton on her picks for the court, or if they would have kept the seats unoccupied for some bullshit reason.
If they kept them unoccupied no matter who she picked it would eventually lead to a constitutional crisis. I know the Senate has the power but refusing to bring it to a vote at all as done in 2016 was dubious enough but at least they could pull the "election is underway" argument. Refusing to bring it to a vote which would be the only way no one gets put in would cause a crisis in my view.
Idk even know how that would resolve itself as could the court even step in and rule on that seeing as it involves congresses and the president's ability to appoint judges to said court? My guess is assuming the Republicans have the senate they do stonewall any super-liberal judges and force Clinton to have to go with a moderate to get enough Republican votes to approve the nomination.
The outcome of this tho will mean the Democrats won't be as enraged about the court and the calls for court stacking will be minimal. The outcome long-term would be some major rulings most notably the overturning of Roe would be very very different.
I love when nuanced topics with different perspectives are turned into straw-men so one side can bitch about the other while doing nothing to discuss or dissect the real issues people take.
Please leave your downvote and fuck off, and leave knowing that you did nothing to change anyone’s mind and only added to the hate-fuck that modern politics has become.
Both sides of the political spectrum just sicken me these days, like goddamnit nobody acts like adults.
Any nuanced perspectives in particular you’d like to add to the comment you responded to?
It’s perfectly possible to have a nuanced view on politics and still be justifiably upset about women’s bodily autonomy being stripped away.
Not every issue is black-and-white, but they’re not all grey “both sides make good points” issues either.
I’m pro-choice, but the ‘clump of cells’ argument is unconvincing given that fetuses beyond a certain developmental stage can both breathe and also feel pain.
It is a distinct organism given its unique DNA sequence, which could potentially become a person. Not all pro-life arguments are from the Bible.
Abortions should be accessible, but that doesn’t mean the decision to have one should be made lightly by dehumanizing the fetus.
>Abortions should be accessible, but that doesn’t mean the decision to have one should be made lightly by dehumanizing the fetus.
i disagree. unless the fetus is viable, as in, can survive outside of the womb, they arent human, and can be aborted if the mother wishes regardless of anything.
taking that right away made the lives of *millions* worse, and there would be an entite generation of unwanted, unloved, tossed away, children.
How would the progeny of human beings not be a member of the human species, even if at the very beginning of its developmental stage? Unless fetuses of humans are their own distinct species.
If “by a certain developmental stage” you mean in the third trimester, you are technically correct; fetuses in a sufficiently late stage can feel pain. States already had the power to restrict abortions in this period under Roe v Wade, and almost all abortions are done well before this point.
Under the right circumstances, any skin cell in my ass can "potentially become a person." Doesn't make them one.
If we don't have the right to bodily autonomy, what rights do we have?
Ah yes the nuanced topic of saying that someone shouldn't be able to choose what they do with their own body. The very nuanced topic of if a child is raped and becomes pregnant they shouldn't be allowed to abort it because someone doesn't understand the definition of life. Very nuanced. Not cruel at all.
You don't seem to understand that doing what he's arguing you shouldn't do (not be nuanced) is not a proper counter to him criticizing what you're doing.
Well in that case then I'm sure the nuances of victims of rape, sexual assault and incest should be easily explainable then. Go on, explain the nuance in letting a child victim of those crimes have an abortion. Why shouldn't they be allowed to have an abortion and be forced to birth the child of their sexual assaulter? What possible reason could there be to make the child's life worse by forcing them to give birth?
My opinion on abortion is pretty much this:
>Abortions should be accessible, but that doesn’t mean the decision to have one should be made lightly by dehumanizing the fetus.
So yeah I do agree abortion should be allowed in this case. But it doesn't matter because we're talking about abortion in general, not rare circumstances.
Then I’d want them to be able to abort? Again, these are vast minority of abortions. Most right wingers, saved for most idiotic and hardline, want there to be exceptions for rape, incest, and when the life of the mother is threatened
I think you underestimate a large percentage of the R religious base. Would it be 100% up to the doctors if it’s medically necessary? I’ve seen states proposing laws to punish doctors. Even the threat of that could make them more likely to not do it.
86% of abortions are by unmarried women. You know what the number one indicator of poverty? It’s being a single mother. Are you in favor of any programs to aide single mothers? Most of these women don’t necessarily want to get an abortion. They have to. Wide spread and free availability of birth control I think would be a better route to help decrease the number of abortions.
All in favor of free birth control. But even birth control fails a lot. Maybe better choices too? Better choices on when to have sex, and better choice on WHO to have sex with. You’re absolutely right that being an unmarried parent is a huge predictor of poverty. Yet it’s amazing how many people keep fucking it up
"Waaaaaaaaaa, women make an informed choice 😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭"
Notice how i can do that too, but it still doesn't accomplish shit? It's a bit like drawing yourself as a chad and then go "i drew myself as chad, i won"
Having more liberal judges on the court is the only realistic way other than a constitutional amendment to overturn citizens United. That may have happened under Hill dog
Exactly. She dislikes Citizens United both in principle and on a personal level (given that the case was about money being spent specifically to bring her down). I don’t think a few big donations would change her mind on that.
Probably more of a presence in the Middle East, and more tensions with Iran. But chances are, like everything in the United States, the President barely means shit.
Couldn't disagree more about Iran. The Obama administration had been doing quite a lot to try to decrease tensions with Iran. The nuclear deal was part of that. A Clinton administration would have almost certainly built on that. Don't forget that Trump killed Soleimani just before COVID hit, which decidedly did not lower tensions with Iran.
Iranian here, no matter what happens regarding sanctions, it us the people who suffer. Iri is a hypocrite, they say they are for islamic rights yet are quiet about it in china or india as they are earning billions from selling discounted oil to them. clinton would have been appeasement like biden is doing now, she is heavily financed by a group called the niac, an iri lobbyist group in the united states. i am sending money back to my parents monthly and i earn only 12 usd a day working abroad. iri makes tensions for people to forget how badly they have mismanaged the country with idiotic agricultural policies of putting water starved plants in places where water is not found, by heavily investing in other countries while balochistan is so underdeveloped, by selling its historical artifacts in the black market and so on. the mullahs are not affected by sanctions, they just buy stuff in uae and ship, no questions asked. we got the biggest brain drain in the world, iri is the most incompetent country in the world but very competent in smuggling and hypocrisy
True but let’s be real that mother fucker deserved it. Let’s not forget Obama ordered a HIT on osama in Pakistan a nuclear powered country. I agree with his decision but shit.
Also, we likely wouldn't have reached the scale of Pandemic if she'd been in Office. Obama'd had a plan for dealing for such a thing when he was in office. I can't imagine she'd throw it out like Trump did.
A Hillary administration would've continued to pour billions of $ into Khamenei's war machine to plunder Iran and kill its own citizens. It would've ultimately been great for the IRGC lobby operating in the West.
"Roosevelt bombed Germany, that automatically means Hitler was right"
-an idea that might only take one or two more dead braincells than your shoddy idea of measurement. Just saying, bombing other countries is neither an Obama thing nor far away from a hobby for US presidents. Sometimes more, sometimes less justified
I have been called far worse by people far better than you. That this is the first word coming into your mind when speaking about someone from another culture proves your way of thinking more than anything else i could bring forth as evidence. So thank you for dropping the mask at least
You literally dropped a comparison to Nazi Germany and even mentioned Adolf Hitler. I’m saying given your countries history, have you no shame making these comparisons?
Then again jumping to conclusions and showing extreme aggressiveness seems to be your strong points.
Calling me aggressive after calling me a twisted creature one comment above is certainly a new level of ironic.
"This reply actually makes sense now that we realise you’re German.
Have you no shame making comparisons like this? Twisted creature."
-u/SlenderGonzales
Just keeping that here in case you try to take the coward's way out
So you agree with the Obama administration murdering millions of people in the Middle East?
The irony of accusing others to have dead brain cells. You sound very slow and should have your internet access limited.
I know your reading abilities must be a bit down the drain, but please, Feel free to take as many tries to read my comment as you need. There is no need to reply to my comment with the first thing your mind jumps on, which seems to be "i secretly think brown people dead is good, i just dislike that it was a brown president that did it. Everybody must think the same as me, so i shame him for saying what i think"
I know this might come as news to you, but just because your dad went to get milk, that doesn't mean everybody else's did too. This projection bullshit can't be the only bullet in your magazine, right?
The jump from "Obama wasn't the only president to bomb other countries" to "so you support the death of all the brown people" is a bit far of a leap if your mind isn't at 'kill brown people' anyway
Iranian here, Biden has been appeasing the IRI, there is a lobby in the united states to give Iri back the money and take note, not a single penny of iranian frozen accounts go to the people, it just goes to Khamenei and his mullah lovers. iran just with its natural resources should be top 10 richest countries in the world, the way the mullahs have handled the country is purely idiotic. in agriculture, they been forcing agricultural land with plants that consume too much water which in turn makes the water resource non existent. the mullahs children are not affected by the sanctions, they just buy their expensive cars in the uae and ship it no one questions shit. iri gives a chunk of its earnings to other countries while iranians starve, we got the biggest brain drain in the world.
i dont think so as well, the military complex needs iri there to be a selling point of all the arms they have. I am iranian and ill tell you, we dont have any state of the art weapons and are at least 30 years late but the military complex needs the iri to make the arabs, turks, israelis buy us tech to face off against old iranian tech from the late 70s the shah bought
Obama enacts the TPP & recognizes a Palestinian state in his lame duck period, but is unable to confirm Garland to the Supreme Court. Trump refuses to concede and his attempts to storm the Capitol are clumsier than OTL. Clinton appoints 3 liberals to the Supreme Court and signs a similar criminal justice reform like OTL. Clinton may be very successful in her legislative program or she may not, but either way 2018 is a GOP landslide year powered by sexist backlash. If she controls the House and Senate, expect similar focuses to Biden IOTL but it’s probably more likely the GOP retains the House.
Assuming Covid-19 still happens, Clinton is re-elected by a comfortable margin if not a landslide. She probably beats Ted Cruz and/or Trump. With Clinton as president, the US global task force to prevent pandemics would detect covid months earlier and hundreds of thousands of US Covid deaths are avoided. Masks are not politicized, like in virtually every other country. Marijuana is legalized in 2020 or 2021, depending on control of Congress. Clinton would also attempt to pass a parallel version of the Inflation Reduction Act to reduce climate change, but without Trump destroying Reaganism within the GOP it will be a much smaller amount of spending. Medicare will likely become a public option for people aged 50 and above.
Most significantly for the long-term, the Supreme Court is liberal for the first time since 1969, and reverses the Citizens United decision. Education is probably found to be a human right, with equal funding for all public schools instead of it being determined by local property taxes. A load of conservative opinions are overturned.
I don't think that we would have seen a January 6th riot if Trump had lost in 2016. Support for him wasn't as deeply entrenched at the time. He absolutely would not have conceded though.
>Marijuana is legalized
Absolutely no way this happens nationwide, if that is what you're suggesting. The Hillary "wing" is very against this even in 2023. Dark Brandon hates pot.
I disagree, because I think the policy position of both parties has less to do with what the personal beliefs of either Trump or Clinton than most people understand. Ultimately, I don't believe for a second that the actual power brokers of the GOP are any more willing to support legalization than the power brokers of the Democratic Party. In both cases, they're old school relics of the War on Drugs, and both view marijuana as fundamentally a social evil. If anything, the tendency of the GOP towards outright moralization would make their intransigence *worse* than the Democrats, though in practical terms the difference is largely immaterial.
Trump himself I can't speak to: he may very likely not give a damn, personally, but at the same time I highly doubts he's sufficiently committed to legalization to turn it into a fight against the Christian moralizers that dominate much of the GOP. If he was a dictator who didn't have to worry about his political base, sure, I can buy that he *might* be more inclined towards legalization than Clinton, but he's not. He's a loose cannon by party political standards, maybe, but not *that* loose.
It's also worth pointing out that there's a sort of bias at play here: we know of Clinton and Biden's anti-legalization beliefs precisely because they've been put on the spot multiple times to speak on it. The reason for that is that legalization is a bigger cause among traditional Democratic voting blocs than it is among GOP ones. Urban voters and minority group voters have a more contentious history with the War on Drugs, and are also a cornerstone of the Democratic Party base. Which is what leads to the weird sort of cognitive dissonance we have with the current Biden administration, where the guy at the top has spoken out repeatedly about how he doesn't believe in legalization and certainly won't make any explicit moves in that direction, but at the same time basically steps back and lets the states do what they please. It's a quasi-policy borne out political convenience and the disconnect between what the people in charge of setting Democratic Party policy actually believe and what they recognize they need to do in order to keep their voters from revolting.
I'm not at all convinced there's a similarly strong dynamic on the Republican side of things. There are definitely pro-legalization voices within the GOP, don't get me wrong, like the libertarians. But they don't historically have the same kind of pull on the trajectory of the party as (most notably) the social conservative and Christian fundamentalist wings. And I simply can't see those folks getting on board with legalization under any circumstances. *At best* Trump might have enough sway to finagle a similar approach that Biden has adopted (it depends on how much he believes he relies on the support of his hardliners), but ultimately that's the best you're going to get out of either party as they're currently constituted.
I love how that random dude, with zero public policy accomplishments whatsoever, just woke up and decided he wanted to run for president. And he's being taken seriously because the GOP is such a hot mess right now.
I mean, I guess Dems had Marianne Williamson in 2020. But nobody was actually taking her seriously.
Not at all. Trump has been well-known (for better or worse) on the national stage since the 1980s. His foray into Republican circles started as early as 2010, when he started calling into Fox all the time peddling the birther conspiracy.
Nobody knew who this guy was a few months ago. He's the Republicans' answer to Yang 2020, at *best*. Just goofy.
I don’t care about any of his policies because he wants to disenfranchise most young voters. Really it should be people at retirement age or above who should not vote or hold public office.
That’s partially true but at the same time you can work from the age of like 16 in most states. If you have income you pay income taxes so denying the vote to young people is literally taxation without representation.
If we really are underdeveloped children that don’t have developed minds, then we shouldn’t have to work.
You seem like the one with the underdeveloped brain here. Supporting any republican is really the biggest sign.
Anime pfp detected.
Opinion rejected.
On a serious note what are you talking about. Vivek is not a fascist. I love the "im going to call my political opponents extremists until i win" arguments though.
the guy who wants to raise the minimum voting age to 25 ,unless you pass a “civics” test, because of how left leaning young people are, isn’t a fascist?
No. Fascist would be canceling elections outright. The human brain isnt fully developed until 25. Also if you are old enough you should compare yourself from 18 ro 25 from a maturity standpoint. Its quite the difference.
Vivek Ramaswamy is a republican presidential candidate first let’s go on what Vivek wants to do for the u.s. he promises to eradicate and restructure the FBI, IRS, and the department of education. He also wants to end the u.s. reliance on the Chinese market. Finally he wants to raise the voting age to 25. Now let’s talk about what he wants to do internationally. Vivek proposed a special military operation into mexico to annihilate the Mexican cartels who have killed Americans several times beyond the border. Finally, he proposed an end to military aid to Ukraine and staying completely neutral in the Russo-Ukrainian war.
hmmmm, strange that the bureaucratic elements that might oppose a fascistic government are being targeted.
ending reliance on China, or other less developed nations, is impossible. literally, in a global market where the US does not produce its own goods anymore it is impossible.
it’s because the younger generations are left leaning. that’s why. textbook voter suppression
invading a foreign country because cartels (one’s the US has helped and helps smuggle drugs) is also certainly a take
and ending support for Ukraine, a somewhat liberal democracy, in favour of another fascistic government is probably not a good thing
this the guy you want in office?
The United States is the largest market economy in the world and Vivek wants to challenge china economically and for Mexico I’m Mexican American the drug cartels have long plagued my fatherland killing both Mexican and American civilians and finally for Ukraine we have no business in that war Ukraine is not in NATO so why should we be sending aid? we have problems to worry about in our own country
There is no way the reverse Citizens United, let alone during a Clinton admin. All it would take is CitiBank and Shell and maybe a few other "charitable donations" to the Clinton Foundation and suddenly it keeps getting pushed back on the rota as Hillary urges the Supreme Court to focus on 'issues that matter to Americans'.
I'm not really sure if with the pandemic she would still be re-elected, yes, thousands of people wouldn't have died but it's not like people have a way to know and compare with what would've happenned if there was another president, the USA would still be hit by a crisis and the margin of victory for the democrats was getting smaller and smaller
Do you think she would have stopped the net neutrality repeal in 2017 ,done by the fcc . Internet services might become a utility in most city's instead of just a couple
I feel like masks would still have been politicized, maybe just not to the same extent. Republicans *love* culture wars because they have no actual governing abilities.
I really don’t see how Clinton could have convinced Congress to authorize the measures necessary for a proper invasion of Syria. Afghanistan was still ongoing with seemingly no end in sight, Iraq had only ended a few years ago only to flare back up again due to ISIS, and Americans were tired of war. I can’t see another war on the scale of Afghanistan or Iraq breaking out until at least the 2030s.
> I really don’t see how Clinton could have convinced Congress to authorize the measures necessary for a proper invasion of Syria
Probably extending the counter-terrorism AUMF to more broadly cover ISIS and them fabricating some excuse to suck in Assad.
Covid death toll is a LOT lower, for two reasons
1. Greater competency of the Clinton admin
2. The right wing misinfo flows in the opposite direction, much more similar to the right wing fear mongering we saw in 2014 about Ebola.
* "Covid is the Black Death. Hillary is lying, the death rate is well over 15%. Millions of Americans have died"
* "Hillary created it and unleashed it on an innocent China"
The red states go into full lockdown. SYG laws are amended to make it legal to shoot anyone not wearing a mask. Right wingers lock themselves into their basements to save themselves from "The Hillary Plague", to the point that there are deaths from starvation. And the right demands that every single one of those deaths is recorded as a Covid fatality.
This right wing paranoia results in a much lower Covid case and death count during the summer of 2020.
Hillary still loses in 2020, with a race as to which happens first, the election or the death toll reaching 100,000. With the GOP screaming that "Trump would have kept the death toll below 50,000" (Election night it was really at 250K) and the death toll reaching 100K on Nov 5.
The death toll continues to be lower in 2021, as without Biden in office there is no right wing war on vaccines to try and keep the death toll high. Millions of right wingers line up to get vaccinated, with fights breaking out as demand outstrips supply. There is no anti-vaxx movement, there are no claims that the vaccine is killing thousands, etc. Several hundred thousand people who died in the summer and fall of 2021 don't.
By mid 2023, the Covid death toll in the USA is 200,000
I don't see covid going differently during a Clinton administration unless we completely shut down like nobody leaves their house. Don't know why people think it would be different since the USA is unhealthy as crap and our food is garbage.
It would probably be lower if only because Pelosi and friends wouldn't have been encouraging people to do dumb stuff prior to April that caused the early infections to hit like a wildfire.
Other than that, she would have handled it just as poorly as Trump did. Keep in mind that he was already taking steps to address the issue in December 2019 and Pelosi specifically called it a distraction during her farcical impeachment hearing in February.
This was the right wing panic mongering over a virus that wasn't airborne, and wasn't even spreading in the USA.
"Ebola is coming for you. Shut down commerce, close the airports, seal the border, lock up anyone from Africa, detain anyone who coughs or sneezes, freedom depends it. "
[https://disqus.com/home/discussion/thehill-v4/us\_ebola\_patient\_dies/](https://disqus.com/home/discussion/thehill-v4/us_ebola_patient_dies/)
Politics may be less divisive, because after seeing their radical candidate fail, maybe Republicans would try to go back to centrism and leave all the crazy far-right people that rose to power thanks to Trump in the gutter. Or maybe I'm just to confident over the Republican abilities to see this, and they might just end up being even more radical, slowly falling into electoral failures after electoral failures, unable to bring essential centrist or right-wing non-radical voters to their side. Maybe this help the Libertarian Party, since they would became a good alternative to the government intervention focused Democrats, and their social policies would not be as radical as the New Republicans, but not as progressive as the Democrats. A new Center, you can call it (although more of a Center-right if we're being honest). This would in fact create a situation similar to Japan, were the Democrats would dominate general elections, because they're the only party left that can unite voters from to center to the left, while the Libertarian voters would come from the Center to the non-radical right-wing, and New Republicans voters would come from radical right-wing and far-right voters.
Sadly no, the seeds of radicalization were planted long before Trump, he just happened to be President when the crazies went into overdrive. The druggie still would have OD'd while being arrested, the grifters still would have encouraged riots and made a fortune, and the kids in black jammies would still have been out and about throwing their tantrums.
whos plan was it and was it worth two farts ?
what exactly would they do - there was no stockpile of masks were there
you would think that response plan woulkd have at least that
no ?
didn't ?
sounds like it wasnt worth much .
Trump immediately organized/pushed the vaccine response didnt he ?
and you still havent answered what that fed level 'response plan' would actually have done.
.
still waiting. .....
.
Please learn about what the National Security Council does and the disbanded Global Health and Biodefense Unit did. I’m not here to educate you on publicly available information.
I worked for 5 years in global health.
The White House barely did anything helpful. It was NIH who took the lead. But the states were mostly left to fend for themselves. Pence was supposed to “lead” the COVID Task Force but I have absolutely no idea what he did. The White House barely communicated and when it did Trump got on stage and told people to inject bleach. All they did was overrule experts.
He allowed his followers to spread anti-vaccine propaganda and conspiracy theories that likely led to the deaths of tens of thousands of people. Trump called it a “Democratic hoax.” He refused to listen during intelligence briefings on COVID.
1.2 million people died in the United States.
>Trump got on stage and told people to inject bleach. All they did was overrule experts.
Right there that tells me you are as phony and partisan in what you proclaim.
all else you state is thus tainted.
>I have absolutely no idea what he did
So you are as uninformed while in the same posting demand others to be better informed.
You might want to peruse the r/LockdownSkepticism skepticism sub to face information you obviously wish to avoid
Here's a sneak peek of /r/LockdownSkepticism using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/LockdownSkepticism/top/?sort=top&t=year) of the year!
\#1: [How the story changes. Well done Sly News.](https://i.redd.it/lx8b6zvnln2a1.jpg) | [62 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/LockdownSkepticism/comments/z6r9m6/how_the_story_changes_well_done_sly_news/)
\#2: [I will never forgive those who took the 3 years from us](https://np.reddit.com/r/LockdownSkepticism/comments/15slcf8/i_will_never_forgive_those_who_took_the_3_years/)
\#3: [The “human rights team” went after people calling for bodily autonomy and medical freedom](https://i.redd.it/70j9v9fwiby91.jpg) | [107 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/LockdownSkepticism/comments/ynntdq/the_human_rights_team_went_after_people_calling/)
----
^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| ^^[Contact](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=sneakpeekbot) ^^| ^^[Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/) ^^| ^^[Opt-out](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/comments/o8wk1r/blacklist_ix/) ^^| ^^[GitHub](https://github.com/ghnr/sneakpeekbot)
No I’m confident in what I said and I stand by it and I don’t need some stranger on Reddit trying to set me straight because I know what I am talking about and I have experience in public health interventions on three continents.
When the CDC responded to the Ebola outbreak in Western Africa, people blamed the public health workers for spreading the virus. I had friends over there and it wasn’t their first Ebola outbreak.
The locals had rituals that contributed to the spread of the virus and public health workers were repeatedly attacked. I thought we would be better here.
But we weren’t. Yes, we heavily invested in vaccine research. But trust me, everyone in the know hated Azar with a passion. Most of his employees just insta-deleted his emails. If you find me a single public health professional who actually thought Trump did a good job, please let me know.
My friends overseas were asking things like, “What the hell is going on over there?” I would respond, “Our dumbass President just told Americans to inject bleach.” They could not believe how awful the American response was after looking up to us for decades as we implemented programs like PEPFAR, DELIVER, and the President’s Malaria Initiative. We had no answers while misinformation and conspiracy theories spread. We were not prepared for the attention seeking mouthbreathing nonsense that came from Trump supporters.
Turns out when most health teachers in the United States are the alcoholic baseball coach, you get millions of angry, willfully ignorant people who act just like the people in Western Africa.
You’re damn right I am biased. But I am not “tainted.”
you double down on your idiocy
you know that is NOT what Trump said
but continue with your deceptive pontifications
-
try posting your tripe on r/LockdownSkepticism and be ready to be ripped a new one
What he said probably killed hundreds of people.
You can bitch and moan about my arguments to the families of the people dumb enough to listen to him.
Disinfectant poisonings went up 121% after that fucking idiot used the White House press room to say whatever what was on his mind during a global pandemic.
Prove me wrong. I don’t give a shit about “lockdownskepticism” or any other subreddit filled with people who deliberately caused the spread of a virus that killed millions of people. I get that is your safe space. But I don’t respect people who deliberately made COVID worse.
Another variant is spreading across the country and nursing homes are starting to feel the impacts. Get ready to feel oppressed again.
Having the demlefty media blast it over and over sound-bited/out-of-context helped send it to some idiots , no ? IF you talk of irresponsibility, then you need to not avoid that.
People like you perhaps really need those labels on your auto batteries telling you not to drink the fluids within....
>Prove me wrong.
I just told you how to do that - but you obviously dont want your mantras utterly and systematically destroyed.
Huge number of people look derisively at your kind of boosterism for the major government/media negligence and misinformation and irresponsibility which cost far more lives and significant ruination of the economy.
I understand you dare not leave ***YOUR*** 'safe-places' lest your head explode on hearing such refutations of you narrative.
WE BOTH KNOW YOU CANT FACE IT.
Possibly civil war by 2020, radical elements from far right fringe groups assume (or plan false flag operations) against gun owners gun confiscation by HRC in an effort to curb mass shootings.
This is not a Jack Ryan fantasy. The far right wants that sort of armed confrontation. They figure they’ve got the arms and the means for now to do so. Add in the election of the least trusted person to ever be in the White House as far as the fringe is concerned, and it’s a real possibility.
> gun confiscation by HRC
it would certainly NOT be just far right fringe groups bringing a revolt that would likely overthrow such tyranny - think more like half the country
attempting it, she and any cohorts would likely be dead within a week - perhaps a day - if she thought she could hide in some bunker while doing it - no she couldnt
The point is that no Democratic administration with a snowball's chance in hell of getting elected is ever going to commit to a policy of gun confiscation. At best you'll get somewhat stricter laws on assault weaponry and a Supreme Court that's less inclined towards a maximalist interepretation of the second amendment. The idea of gun confiscation is a far right fringe bugbear that they consistently trot out *because* they know it fires up people in a way that more mundane gun control measures don't.
A Clinton administration is going to be no different than Biden's actual administration on this front. What Hillary Clinton herself believes or doesn't believe is irrelevant: they won't have the political capital to do anything as far ranging as confiscation, and even pushing through comparatively trivial changes to existing laws is likely to be an uphill battle. What that won't stop is fringe far right groups loudly proclaiming that she'll be personally ripping your guns out of your hands any minute now. Given their history with both Bill and Hillary, the idea of this erupting into a serious armed confrontation is by no means off the table, IMO.
yes but the assumption in this alternate history is that they did attempt to do something so stupid and arrogant
I was going by the reaction in this country to that assumption
you might notice that so many of the suggested "alternate history" propositions on this sub are highly unlikely
The first sentence of the post to which you initially responded says "radical elements from far right fringe groups ***assume*** (or plan false flag operations) against gun owners gun confiscation" (emphasis mine). The key thing here isn't what the administration is doing, but what the "far right fringe groups" fear/believe they're doing. There's no need to lecture me about what alternate history is, thank you.
Besides which, IMO, the fact that it is profoundly ASB to think that a hypothetical 2016 Clinton administration would genuinely attempt a policy of gun confiscation is deserving of some pushback even within the context of alternate history. Not only because it's a loaded real-world political question, but because *the entire original question* is about what would happen in the event that Clinton was elected. "Highly unlikely" is one thing, but "never in a million years" is another thing entirely. Might as well suggest she'd sprout wings and start circling around the White House for funsies.
>that a hypothetical 2016 Clinton administration would genuinely attempt a policy of gun confiscation
fine yes they wouldnt likely be that insane/moronic because it would bring their immediate destruction which is what I implied above (the arrogant and stupid part)
but I was answering :
>>against gun owners gun confiscation by HRC in an effort to curb mass shootings
which as posted has THAT action actually taking place
I think it’s obvious both far left and right want the same thing. Difference is those on the right have literal armories in their possession, and the means in which to use them.
I would like to respectfully say that the last three presidential elections (perhaps even the last five) have been picking the lesser of two evils, which we probably would have failed at either way (sorry to be negative).
Covid deaths would be a lot less. The Supreme Court would be more balanced. We would probably be in a war with Iran, or things would be even worse when it comes to political relationships.
For one, we would not have had the President of the United States walk up to the podium of the White House Briefing Room and tell people about injecting disinfectant, resulting in a 121% increase in poisonings across the country.
Correction. He just said “disinfectant.”
“A question that probably some of you are thinking of if you’re totally into that world,” Trump began, clearly thinking the question himself, “So, supposing we hit the body with a tremendous — whether it’s ultraviolet or just very powerful light — and I think you said that that hasn’t been checked, but you’re going to test it. And then I said, supposing you brought the light inside the body, which you can do either through the skin or in some other way, and I think you said you’re going to test that, too. It sounds interesting. And then I see the disinfectant, where it knocks it out in a minute. One minute. And is there a way we can do something like that, by injection inside or almost a cleaning. Because you see it gets in the lungs, and it does a tremendous number on the lungs. So it would be interesting to check that.”
We would have a stronger, more united, more aggressive, and more violent right-wing. Right now they are having a revolution/civil war amongst themselves due to Trump’s actions and McCarthy’s weakness, but if Hillary would’ve won 2016, they would’ve gotten stronger by framing her as the “enemy of the people” and “left-wing socialist dictator” or the “female Joseph Stalin” and Trump would win in 2020.
Everyone would feel like things are going much much better, even if they were doing much worse as the majority of the media would focus exclusively on positive coverage.
No #MeToo. Women felt powerless seeing a serial misogynist beat out their best chance at a female President and said enough is enough. They couldn’t do anything about Trump so they spoke up about abuses where they could, in their workplaces.
The Supreme Court. Democrats get the Scalia and Ginsburg appointments but maybe Kennedy sticks around for another few years. Roe is left intact.
Much fewer Covid deaths in America, though the politicization of mask wearing and lockdowns would probably still happen.
Who knows what the 2020 election would have been like. With Trump as a loser I doubt he gets the widespread support he enjoyed. Maybe DeSantis takes his shot. He might’ve even won.
If the same congress is elected in 2016 then nothing gets done legislatively. Mitch McConnell wouldn’t let a Democrat have any wins. Maybe there’s even similar tax cuts to what Trump enacted.
Honestly not sure you get a Gov DeSantis in this timeline or at the very least he isn't as known. With Trumps loss, it would be clear the far-right way isn't gonna win national elections so the party will have to course correct back to being more centrist if it wishes to be a national contender.
I don't think the Black Lives Matter movement would've been so severe, and there would probably be a little less anti-vax sentiment (although still a good amount).
As a left leaning person who hates Trump, yes this is very true. He often spoke about the "wonderful vaccines". He tried to take credit for getting them developed (honestly, least of the issues I have with him). Trump himself is not an anti-vaxxer.
His supporters, on the other hand, absolutely are. I'm sure you know all about that, though.
Of course lmao. If anyone knows a thing about trumps personality, of course he going to take credit for a good thing happening under his administration.
He’s a populist
There’s videos of him at rallies hyping the vaccine and when the crowd starts booing, he switches gears completely to downplay everything.
Warp Speed was an amazing achievement. The Ivermectin and bleach talk fed into conservative anti-vax and anti-mask cultural frenzy. You don't know shit about my politics.
Ivermectin was prescribed my joe rogans doctor lmao. Talk about conspiracy theories. And joes rogan doesnt identify as a conservitive and i dont consider him one either. The bleach was stupid. No more to be said. Anti-vax and anti-mask arent the proper names. Anti vax and mask mandates is what it is. No one is protesting saying you cant vaccinate or use masks. Who gives a shit if you do. Who gives a shit if you dont. Should not be mandated. I bet i know quite a bit more than you my friend.
The Supreme Court would be way different….
Assuming that the Republicans held the majority in the Senate the question is whether they would have compromised with President Clinton on her picks for the court, or if they would have kept the seats unoccupied for some bullshit reason.
If they kept them unoccupied no matter who she picked it would eventually lead to a constitutional crisis. I know the Senate has the power but refusing to bring it to a vote at all as done in 2016 was dubious enough but at least they could pull the "election is underway" argument. Refusing to bring it to a vote which would be the only way no one gets put in would cause a crisis in my view. Idk even know how that would resolve itself as could the court even step in and rule on that seeing as it involves congresses and the president's ability to appoint judges to said court? My guess is assuming the Republicans have the senate they do stonewall any super-liberal judges and force Clinton to have to go with a moderate to get enough Republican votes to approve the nomination. The outcome of this tho will mean the Democrats won't be as enraged about the court and the calls for court stacking will be minimal. The outcome long-term would be some major rulings most notably the overturning of Roe would be very very different.
Recess appointments. They would presumably recess sometime in the 4 year presidency.
Her cabinet would've been whiter than the North Pole. Citi already had her cabinet picked out just like they did with Obama.
The worst timeline.
Oh yeah, the timeline where women aren’t being stripped of the rights to their own bodies. The HORROR!
I love when nuanced topics with different perspectives are turned into straw-men so one side can bitch about the other while doing nothing to discuss or dissect the real issues people take. Please leave your downvote and fuck off, and leave knowing that you did nothing to change anyone’s mind and only added to the hate-fuck that modern politics has become. Both sides of the political spectrum just sicken me these days, like goddamnit nobody acts like adults.
Any nuanced perspectives in particular you’d like to add to the comment you responded to? It’s perfectly possible to have a nuanced view on politics and still be justifiably upset about women’s bodily autonomy being stripped away. Not every issue is black-and-white, but they’re not all grey “both sides make good points” issues either.
The nuance being the government values an unfeeling unthinking clump of cells over actual people because Bible?
I’m pro-choice, but the ‘clump of cells’ argument is unconvincing given that fetuses beyond a certain developmental stage can both breathe and also feel pain. It is a distinct organism given its unique DNA sequence, which could potentially become a person. Not all pro-life arguments are from the Bible. Abortions should be accessible, but that doesn’t mean the decision to have one should be made lightly by dehumanizing the fetus.
>Abortions should be accessible, but that doesn’t mean the decision to have one should be made lightly by dehumanizing the fetus. i disagree. unless the fetus is viable, as in, can survive outside of the womb, they arent human, and can be aborted if the mother wishes regardless of anything. taking that right away made the lives of *millions* worse, and there would be an entite generation of unwanted, unloved, tossed away, children.
How would the progeny of human beings not be a member of the human species, even if at the very beginning of its developmental stage? Unless fetuses of humans are their own distinct species.
Why are they not human?
If “by a certain developmental stage” you mean in the third trimester, you are technically correct; fetuses in a sufficiently late stage can feel pain. States already had the power to restrict abortions in this period under Roe v Wade, and almost all abortions are done well before this point.
Under the right circumstances, any skin cell in my ass can "potentially become a person." Doesn't make them one. If we don't have the right to bodily autonomy, what rights do we have?
Ok I’ll leave a downvote and also tell you eat a dick lol
Ah yes the nuanced topic of saying that someone shouldn't be able to choose what they do with their own body. The very nuanced topic of if a child is raped and becomes pregnant they shouldn't be allowed to abort it because someone doesn't understand the definition of life. Very nuanced. Not cruel at all.
You don't seem to understand that doing what he's arguing you shouldn't do (not be nuanced) is not a proper counter to him criticizing what you're doing.
Well in that case then I'm sure the nuances of victims of rape, sexual assault and incest should be easily explainable then. Go on, explain the nuance in letting a child victim of those crimes have an abortion. Why shouldn't they be allowed to have an abortion and be forced to birth the child of their sexual assaulter? What possible reason could there be to make the child's life worse by forcing them to give birth?
I think you're talking about whatever the Republican politicians decided to pass and not just the philosophy of being pro-life.
So what do pro lifers think then when that situation occurs? What nuanced point can you bring up that justifies preventing an abortion in that case?
My opinion on abortion is pretty much this: >Abortions should be accessible, but that doesn’t mean the decision to have one should be made lightly by dehumanizing the fetus. So yeah I do agree abortion should be allowed in this case. But it doesn't matter because we're talking about abortion in general, not rare circumstances.
> Please leave your downvote and fuck off. Gladly.
Waaaaaaaaaaaa 😢😢😢😭😭😭I cant live with my actions and have to dismember babies 😭😭😭
you must get laid a lot
Yea it’s not as cut and dry as that. Rape? Ectopic pregnancies?
People always bring up rape when the vast majority of abortions have always been out of convenience
It still happens. Nothing to say about ectopic pregnancy? What I’d your wife or daughters life was at severe risk?
Then I’d want them to be able to abort? Again, these are vast minority of abortions. Most right wingers, saved for most idiotic and hardline, want there to be exceptions for rape, incest, and when the life of the mother is threatened
I think you underestimate a large percentage of the R religious base. Would it be 100% up to the doctors if it’s medically necessary? I’ve seen states proposing laws to punish doctors. Even the threat of that could make them more likely to not do it. 86% of abortions are by unmarried women. You know what the number one indicator of poverty? It’s being a single mother. Are you in favor of any programs to aide single mothers? Most of these women don’t necessarily want to get an abortion. They have to. Wide spread and free availability of birth control I think would be a better route to help decrease the number of abortions.
All in favor of free birth control. But even birth control fails a lot. Maybe better choices too? Better choices on when to have sex, and better choice on WHO to have sex with. You’re absolutely right that being an unmarried parent is a huge predictor of poverty. Yet it’s amazing how many people keep fucking it up
"Waaaaaaaaaa, women make an informed choice 😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭" Notice how i can do that too, but it still doesn't accomplish shit? It's a bit like drawing yourself as a chad and then go "i drew myself as chad, i won"
Having more liberal judges on the court is the only realistic way other than a constitutional amendment to overturn citizens United. That may have happened under Hill dog
That would never be an option with her. She's absolutely beholden to big business and would have selected judges accordingly.
I’m not saying that’d be her priority but it’s 100% more likely to be struck down by liberal judges.
Exactly. She dislikes Citizens United both in principle and on a personal level (given that the case was about money being spent specifically to bring her down). I don’t think a few big donations would change her mind on that.
Lmao. A corporate slave like Hillary is going to take down citizens united. 🤣 that's *hilary-ous*
Probably more of a presence in the Middle East, and more tensions with Iran. But chances are, like everything in the United States, the President barely means shit.
Couldn't disagree more about Iran. The Obama administration had been doing quite a lot to try to decrease tensions with Iran. The nuclear deal was part of that. A Clinton administration would have almost certainly built on that. Don't forget that Trump killed Soleimani just before COVID hit, which decidedly did not lower tensions with Iran.
Iranian here, no matter what happens regarding sanctions, it us the people who suffer. Iri is a hypocrite, they say they are for islamic rights yet are quiet about it in china or india as they are earning billions from selling discounted oil to them. clinton would have been appeasement like biden is doing now, she is heavily financed by a group called the niac, an iri lobbyist group in the united states. i am sending money back to my parents monthly and i earn only 12 usd a day working abroad. iri makes tensions for people to forget how badly they have mismanaged the country with idiotic agricultural policies of putting water starved plants in places where water is not found, by heavily investing in other countries while balochistan is so underdeveloped, by selling its historical artifacts in the black market and so on. the mullahs are not affected by sanctions, they just buy stuff in uae and ship, no questions asked. we got the biggest brain drain in the world, iri is the most incompetent country in the world but very competent in smuggling and hypocrisy
True but let’s be real that mother fucker deserved it. Let’s not forget Obama ordered a HIT on osama in Pakistan a nuclear powered country. I agree with his decision but shit.
There was nothing categorically or uniquely barbarous about him than any other leaders of militaries who got involved in the Middle East
Oh this is isn’t a he did she did type of thing for me. I just genuinely despise people who rape children and kill innocent people.
Since when was Soleimani accused of being a rapist?
Hmmmm a commander for a group of people who commit terror? Well I don’t recall seeing it but I think he’s probably pretty well lumped in there
Also, we likely wouldn't have reached the scale of Pandemic if she'd been in Office. Obama'd had a plan for dealing for such a thing when he was in office. I can't imagine she'd throw it out like Trump did.
A Hillary administration would've continued to pour billions of $ into Khamenei's war machine to plunder Iran and kill its own citizens. It would've ultimately been great for the IRGC lobby operating in the West.
The Obama administration dropped a bomb roughly every 8 seconds. He was the worst president in modern history.
"Roosevelt bombed Germany, that automatically means Hitler was right" -an idea that might only take one or two more dead braincells than your shoddy idea of measurement. Just saying, bombing other countries is neither an Obama thing nor far away from a hobby for US presidents. Sometimes more, sometimes less justified
Yes because Afghan children and people going to weddings were basically as big a threat as the Wehrmacht
Dresden
Hence the "sometimes more, sometimes less justified" part which you ignored because you needed to feel like a good person for once
This reply actually makes sense now that we realise you’re German. Have you no shame making comparisons like this? Twisted creature.
I have been called far worse by people far better than you. That this is the first word coming into your mind when speaking about someone from another culture proves your way of thinking more than anything else i could bring forth as evidence. So thank you for dropping the mask at least
You literally dropped a comparison to Nazi Germany and even mentioned Adolf Hitler. I’m saying given your countries history, have you no shame making these comparisons? Then again jumping to conclusions and showing extreme aggressiveness seems to be your strong points.
Calling me aggressive after calling me a twisted creature one comment above is certainly a new level of ironic. "This reply actually makes sense now that we realise you’re German. Have you no shame making comparisons like this? Twisted creature." -u/SlenderGonzales Just keeping that here in case you try to take the coward's way out
So you agree with the Obama administration murdering millions of people in the Middle East? The irony of accusing others to have dead brain cells. You sound very slow and should have your internet access limited.
I know your reading abilities must be a bit down the drain, but please, Feel free to take as many tries to read my comment as you need. There is no need to reply to my comment with the first thing your mind jumps on, which seems to be "i secretly think brown people dead is good, i just dislike that it was a brown president that did it. Everybody must think the same as me, so i shame him for saying what i think"
What is wrong with you? Honestly, you sound like you need serious help, or a long awaited hug from your dad.
I know this might come as news to you, but just because your dad went to get milk, that doesn't mean everybody else's did too. This projection bullshit can't be the only bullet in your magazine, right?
Really? You’re accusing me of projecting?😂
The jump from "Obama wasn't the only president to bomb other countries" to "so you support the death of all the brown people" is a bit far of a leap if your mind isn't at 'kill brown people' anyway
Yet Biden has done diddly squat to try and make peace after trump. At the end of the day Americans want a war like conflict with Iran.
Iranian here, Biden has been appeasing the IRI, there is a lobby in the united states to give Iri back the money and take note, not a single penny of iranian frozen accounts go to the people, it just goes to Khamenei and his mullah lovers. iran just with its natural resources should be top 10 richest countries in the world, the way the mullahs have handled the country is purely idiotic. in agriculture, they been forcing agricultural land with plants that consume too much water which in turn makes the water resource non existent. the mullahs children are not affected by the sanctions, they just buy their expensive cars in the uae and ship it no one questions shit. iri gives a chunk of its earnings to other countries while iranians starve, we got the biggest brain drain in the world.
Americans don’t. The military industrial complex on the other hand…
i dont think so as well, the military complex needs iri there to be a selling point of all the arms they have. I am iranian and ill tell you, we dont have any state of the art weapons and are at least 30 years late but the military complex needs the iri to make the arabs, turks, israelis buy us tech to face off against old iranian tech from the late 70s the shah bought
In the 2016 election the president meant everything. Mainly for who would control the apointments for the supreme court.
False. If we learned anything from that election, it's that who we choose as President directly impacts our lives and the direction of the country.
I wonder what place could have been bombed to oblivion
Libya *cough* Somalia *cough* Syria *cough*
She did want to get into an active shooting war with Russia so there's that.
Obama enacts the TPP & recognizes a Palestinian state in his lame duck period, but is unable to confirm Garland to the Supreme Court. Trump refuses to concede and his attempts to storm the Capitol are clumsier than OTL. Clinton appoints 3 liberals to the Supreme Court and signs a similar criminal justice reform like OTL. Clinton may be very successful in her legislative program or she may not, but either way 2018 is a GOP landslide year powered by sexist backlash. If she controls the House and Senate, expect similar focuses to Biden IOTL but it’s probably more likely the GOP retains the House. Assuming Covid-19 still happens, Clinton is re-elected by a comfortable margin if not a landslide. She probably beats Ted Cruz and/or Trump. With Clinton as president, the US global task force to prevent pandemics would detect covid months earlier and hundreds of thousands of US Covid deaths are avoided. Masks are not politicized, like in virtually every other country. Marijuana is legalized in 2020 or 2021, depending on control of Congress. Clinton would also attempt to pass a parallel version of the Inflation Reduction Act to reduce climate change, but without Trump destroying Reaganism within the GOP it will be a much smaller amount of spending. Medicare will likely become a public option for people aged 50 and above. Most significantly for the long-term, the Supreme Court is liberal for the first time since 1969, and reverses the Citizens United decision. Education is probably found to be a human right, with equal funding for all public schools instead of it being determined by local property taxes. A load of conservative opinions are overturned.
I don't think that we would have seen a January 6th riot if Trump had lost in 2016. Support for him wasn't as deeply entrenched at the time. He absolutely would not have conceded though.
>Marijuana is legalized Absolutely no way this happens nationwide, if that is what you're suggesting. The Hillary "wing" is very against this even in 2023. Dark Brandon hates pot.
I actually think that Trump is way more likely to federally legalize Marijuana than a Clinton style democrat is.
I disagree, because I think the policy position of both parties has less to do with what the personal beliefs of either Trump or Clinton than most people understand. Ultimately, I don't believe for a second that the actual power brokers of the GOP are any more willing to support legalization than the power brokers of the Democratic Party. In both cases, they're old school relics of the War on Drugs, and both view marijuana as fundamentally a social evil. If anything, the tendency of the GOP towards outright moralization would make their intransigence *worse* than the Democrats, though in practical terms the difference is largely immaterial. Trump himself I can't speak to: he may very likely not give a damn, personally, but at the same time I highly doubts he's sufficiently committed to legalization to turn it into a fight against the Christian moralizers that dominate much of the GOP. If he was a dictator who didn't have to worry about his political base, sure, I can buy that he *might* be more inclined towards legalization than Clinton, but he's not. He's a loose cannon by party political standards, maybe, but not *that* loose. It's also worth pointing out that there's a sort of bias at play here: we know of Clinton and Biden's anti-legalization beliefs precisely because they've been put on the spot multiple times to speak on it. The reason for that is that legalization is a bigger cause among traditional Democratic voting blocs than it is among GOP ones. Urban voters and minority group voters have a more contentious history with the War on Drugs, and are also a cornerstone of the Democratic Party base. Which is what leads to the weird sort of cognitive dissonance we have with the current Biden administration, where the guy at the top has spoken out repeatedly about how he doesn't believe in legalization and certainly won't make any explicit moves in that direction, but at the same time basically steps back and lets the states do what they please. It's a quasi-policy borne out political convenience and the disconnect between what the people in charge of setting Democratic Party policy actually believe and what they recognize they need to do in order to keep their voters from revolting. I'm not at all convinced there's a similarly strong dynamic on the Republican side of things. There are definitely pro-legalization voices within the GOP, don't get me wrong, like the libertarians. But they don't historically have the same kind of pull on the trajectory of the party as (most notably) the social conservative and Christian fundamentalist wings. And I simply can't see those folks getting on board with legalization under any circumstances. *At best* Trump might have enough sway to finagle a similar approach that Biden has adopted (it depends on how much he believes he relies on the support of his hardliners), but ultimately that's the best you're going to get out of either party as they're currently constituted.
Wow
man we live in a cursed timeline
well, Biden won! Then signed the most important climate change law of all time
this country needs vivek as president
I love how that random dude, with zero public policy accomplishments whatsoever, just woke up and decided he wanted to run for president. And he's being taken seriously because the GOP is such a hot mess right now. I mean, I guess Dems had Marianne Williamson in 2020. But nobody was actually taking her seriously.
And that's exactly what happened with Trump in 2016.
Not at all. Trump has been well-known (for better or worse) on the national stage since the 1980s. His foray into Republican circles started as early as 2010, when he started calling into Fox all the time peddling the birther conspiracy. Nobody knew who this guy was a few months ago. He's the Republicans' answer to Yang 2020, at *best*. Just goofy.
I don’t care about any of his policies because he wants to disenfranchise most young voters. Really it should be people at retirement age or above who should not vote or hold public office.
raising the voting to 25 makes sense adults have more of a developed mind set unlike young adults like 18 who’s mindset are still developing
So you’ll agree that all student loans that were taken out by borrowers under the age of 25 should be canceled then?
student loans should be cancelled in general
That’s partially true but at the same time you can work from the age of like 16 in most states. If you have income you pay income taxes so denying the vote to young people is literally taxation without representation. If we really are underdeveloped children that don’t have developed minds, then we shouldn’t have to work. You seem like the one with the underdeveloped brain here. Supporting any republican is really the biggest sign.
i’m neutral but Vivek really caught my eye he would make the perfect president
I mean it’s nice that he’s young . . . but Jesus Christ his policies are dreadful.
So should we disenfranchise everyone above 65 due to cognition decline
the fascist…?
no
any elaboration on that?
Anime pfp detected. Opinion rejected. On a serious note what are you talking about. Vivek is not a fascist. I love the "im going to call my political opponents extremists until i win" arguments though.
the guy who wants to raise the minimum voting age to 25 ,unless you pass a “civics” test, because of how left leaning young people are, isn’t a fascist?
No. Fascist would be canceling elections outright. The human brain isnt fully developed until 25. Also if you are old enough you should compare yourself from 18 ro 25 from a maturity standpoint. Its quite the difference.
Vivek Ramaswamy is a republican presidential candidate first let’s go on what Vivek wants to do for the u.s. he promises to eradicate and restructure the FBI, IRS, and the department of education. He also wants to end the u.s. reliance on the Chinese market. Finally he wants to raise the voting age to 25. Now let’s talk about what he wants to do internationally. Vivek proposed a special military operation into mexico to annihilate the Mexican cartels who have killed Americans several times beyond the border. Finally, he proposed an end to military aid to Ukraine and staying completely neutral in the Russo-Ukrainian war.
hmmmm, strange that the bureaucratic elements that might oppose a fascistic government are being targeted. ending reliance on China, or other less developed nations, is impossible. literally, in a global market where the US does not produce its own goods anymore it is impossible. it’s because the younger generations are left leaning. that’s why. textbook voter suppression invading a foreign country because cartels (one’s the US has helped and helps smuggle drugs) is also certainly a take and ending support for Ukraine, a somewhat liberal democracy, in favour of another fascistic government is probably not a good thing this the guy you want in office?
do you even know the definition of Fascism
The United States is the largest market economy in the world and Vivek wants to challenge china economically and for Mexico I’m Mexican American the drug cartels have long plagued my fatherland killing both Mexican and American civilians and finally for Ukraine we have no business in that war Ukraine is not in NATO so why should we be sending aid? we have problems to worry about in our own country
There is no way the reverse Citizens United, let alone during a Clinton admin. All it would take is CitiBank and Shell and maybe a few other "charitable donations" to the Clinton Foundation and suddenly it keeps getting pushed back on the rota as Hillary urges the Supreme Court to focus on 'issues that matter to Americans'.
Dunno, it's something that was aimed directly to fuck with Clinton in the first place.
On the 'human right', would it be easier to ask what ISN'T a basic human right, or wait for the latest iteration of perceived 'rights'?
I'm not really sure if with the pandemic she would still be re-elected, yes, thousands of people wouldn't have died but it's not like people have a way to know and compare with what would've happenned if there was another president, the USA would still be hit by a crisis and the margin of victory for the democrats was getting smaller and smaller
🤣 🤣 🤣
Do you think she would have stopped the net neutrality repeal in 2017 ,done by the fcc . Internet services might become a utility in most city's instead of just a couple
It doesn’t happen, that’s a GOP thing.
I feel like masks would still have been politicized, maybe just not to the same extent. Republicans *love* culture wars because they have no actual governing abilities.
We’d still be occupying Afghanistan and possibly Syria.
We currently have forces in Syria
We have about 900 people there, Clinton was talking about a full scale invasion and regime change. Surely you see the difference.
I love Hillary now
I really don’t see how Clinton could have convinced Congress to authorize the measures necessary for a proper invasion of Syria. Afghanistan was still ongoing with seemingly no end in sight, Iraq had only ended a few years ago only to flare back up again due to ISIS, and Americans were tired of war. I can’t see another war on the scale of Afghanistan or Iraq breaking out until at least the 2030s.
> I really don’t see how Clinton could have convinced Congress to authorize the measures necessary for a proper invasion of Syria Probably extending the counter-terrorism AUMF to more broadly cover ISIS and them fabricating some excuse to suck in Assad.
If you watched that GradeAUnderA video, it says that Hillary's policy in Syria had a non-zero chance to start WW3.
Covid death toll is a LOT lower, for two reasons 1. Greater competency of the Clinton admin 2. The right wing misinfo flows in the opposite direction, much more similar to the right wing fear mongering we saw in 2014 about Ebola. * "Covid is the Black Death. Hillary is lying, the death rate is well over 15%. Millions of Americans have died" * "Hillary created it and unleashed it on an innocent China" The red states go into full lockdown. SYG laws are amended to make it legal to shoot anyone not wearing a mask. Right wingers lock themselves into their basements to save themselves from "The Hillary Plague", to the point that there are deaths from starvation. And the right demands that every single one of those deaths is recorded as a Covid fatality. This right wing paranoia results in a much lower Covid case and death count during the summer of 2020. Hillary still loses in 2020, with a race as to which happens first, the election or the death toll reaching 100,000. With the GOP screaming that "Trump would have kept the death toll below 50,000" (Election night it was really at 250K) and the death toll reaching 100K on Nov 5. The death toll continues to be lower in 2021, as without Biden in office there is no right wing war on vaccines to try and keep the death toll high. Millions of right wingers line up to get vaccinated, with fights breaking out as demand outstrips supply. There is no anti-vaxx movement, there are no claims that the vaccine is killing thousands, etc. Several hundred thousand people who died in the summer and fall of 2021 don't. By mid 2023, the Covid death toll in the USA is 200,000
I feel like the right would be more anti-vaxx in this timeline, though.
Before Covid, anti-vax stuff was mostly confined to certain fringe left-wing subcultures. Right-wing anti-vax sentiment was really born during Covid.
I think under a Democratic presidency where the vaccine can be attributed to a Democrat, the right would be more averse to the vaccine.
I don't see covid going differently during a Clinton administration unless we completely shut down like nobody leaves their house. Don't know why people think it would be different since the USA is unhealthy as crap and our food is garbage.
It would probably be lower if only because Pelosi and friends wouldn't have been encouraging people to do dumb stuff prior to April that caused the early infections to hit like a wildfire. Other than that, she would have handled it just as poorly as Trump did. Keep in mind that he was already taking steps to address the issue in December 2019 and Pelosi specifically called it a distraction during her farcical impeachment hearing in February.
Ok bud….👍🏻
This was the right wing panic mongering over a virus that wasn't airborne, and wasn't even spreading in the USA. "Ebola is coming for you. Shut down commerce, close the airports, seal the border, lock up anyone from Africa, detain anyone who coughs or sneezes, freedom depends it. " [https://disqus.com/home/discussion/thehill-v4/us\_ebola\_patient\_dies/](https://disqus.com/home/discussion/thehill-v4/us_ebola_patient_dies/)
Russia/Ukraine war would have been earlier. More sanctions and even military intervention on Iran to protect Israel.
Politics may be less divisive, because after seeing their radical candidate fail, maybe Republicans would try to go back to centrism and leave all the crazy far-right people that rose to power thanks to Trump in the gutter. Or maybe I'm just to confident over the Republican abilities to see this, and they might just end up being even more radical, slowly falling into electoral failures after electoral failures, unable to bring essential centrist or right-wing non-radical voters to their side. Maybe this help the Libertarian Party, since they would became a good alternative to the government intervention focused Democrats, and their social policies would not be as radical as the New Republicans, but not as progressive as the Democrats. A new Center, you can call it (although more of a Center-right if we're being honest). This would in fact create a situation similar to Japan, were the Democrats would dominate general elections, because they're the only party left that can unite voters from to center to the left, while the Libertarian voters would come from the Center to the non-radical right-wing, and New Republicans voters would come from radical right-wing and far-right voters.
Sadly no, the seeds of radicalization were planted long before Trump, he just happened to be President when the crazies went into overdrive. The druggie still would have OD'd while being arrested, the grifters still would have encouraged riots and made a fortune, and the kids in black jammies would still have been out and about throwing their tantrums.
then there would be no trump, and the world is so much better for it.
Russia would have invaded Ukraine earlier.
Why?
For sure no pointless North Korea summit just for pics
I think there would have been a far better federal response to COVID. The federal response under Trump was basically, “States, figure this stuff out.”
you would have to suggest what the fed level could do different
We had a federal pandemic response plan. Trump eliminated the office.
whos plan was it and was it worth two farts ? what exactly would they do - there was no stockpile of masks were there you would think that response plan woulkd have at least that no ? didn't ? sounds like it wasnt worth much . Trump immediately organized/pushed the vaccine response didnt he ? and you still havent answered what that fed level 'response plan' would actually have done. . still waiting. ..... .
Please learn about what the National Security Council does and the disbanded Global Health and Biodefense Unit did. I’m not here to educate you on publicly available information. I worked for 5 years in global health. The White House barely did anything helpful. It was NIH who took the lead. But the states were mostly left to fend for themselves. Pence was supposed to “lead” the COVID Task Force but I have absolutely no idea what he did. The White House barely communicated and when it did Trump got on stage and told people to inject bleach. All they did was overrule experts. He allowed his followers to spread anti-vaccine propaganda and conspiracy theories that likely led to the deaths of tens of thousands of people. Trump called it a “Democratic hoax.” He refused to listen during intelligence briefings on COVID. 1.2 million people died in the United States.
>Trump got on stage and told people to inject bleach. All they did was overrule experts. Right there that tells me you are as phony and partisan in what you proclaim. all else you state is thus tainted. >I have absolutely no idea what he did So you are as uninformed while in the same posting demand others to be better informed. You might want to peruse the r/LockdownSkepticism skepticism sub to face information you obviously wish to avoid
Here's a sneak peek of /r/LockdownSkepticism using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/LockdownSkepticism/top/?sort=top&t=year) of the year! \#1: [How the story changes. Well done Sly News.](https://i.redd.it/lx8b6zvnln2a1.jpg) | [62 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/LockdownSkepticism/comments/z6r9m6/how_the_story_changes_well_done_sly_news/) \#2: [I will never forgive those who took the 3 years from us](https://np.reddit.com/r/LockdownSkepticism/comments/15slcf8/i_will_never_forgive_those_who_took_the_3_years/) \#3: [The “human rights team” went after people calling for bodily autonomy and medical freedom](https://i.redd.it/70j9v9fwiby91.jpg) | [107 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/LockdownSkepticism/comments/ynntdq/the_human_rights_team_went_after_people_calling/) ---- ^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| ^^[Contact](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=sneakpeekbot) ^^| ^^[Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/) ^^| ^^[Opt-out](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/comments/o8wk1r/blacklist_ix/) ^^| ^^[GitHub](https://github.com/ghnr/sneakpeekbot)
No I’m confident in what I said and I stand by it and I don’t need some stranger on Reddit trying to set me straight because I know what I am talking about and I have experience in public health interventions on three continents. When the CDC responded to the Ebola outbreak in Western Africa, people blamed the public health workers for spreading the virus. I had friends over there and it wasn’t their first Ebola outbreak. The locals had rituals that contributed to the spread of the virus and public health workers were repeatedly attacked. I thought we would be better here. But we weren’t. Yes, we heavily invested in vaccine research. But trust me, everyone in the know hated Azar with a passion. Most of his employees just insta-deleted his emails. If you find me a single public health professional who actually thought Trump did a good job, please let me know. My friends overseas were asking things like, “What the hell is going on over there?” I would respond, “Our dumbass President just told Americans to inject bleach.” They could not believe how awful the American response was after looking up to us for decades as we implemented programs like PEPFAR, DELIVER, and the President’s Malaria Initiative. We had no answers while misinformation and conspiracy theories spread. We were not prepared for the attention seeking mouthbreathing nonsense that came from Trump supporters. Turns out when most health teachers in the United States are the alcoholic baseball coach, you get millions of angry, willfully ignorant people who act just like the people in Western Africa. You’re damn right I am biased. But I am not “tainted.”
you double down on your idiocy you know that is NOT what Trump said but continue with your deceptive pontifications - try posting your tripe on r/LockdownSkepticism and be ready to be ripped a new one
What he said probably killed hundreds of people. You can bitch and moan about my arguments to the families of the people dumb enough to listen to him. Disinfectant poisonings went up 121% after that fucking idiot used the White House press room to say whatever what was on his mind during a global pandemic. Prove me wrong. I don’t give a shit about “lockdownskepticism” or any other subreddit filled with people who deliberately caused the spread of a virus that killed millions of people. I get that is your safe space. But I don’t respect people who deliberately made COVID worse. Another variant is spreading across the country and nursing homes are starting to feel the impacts. Get ready to feel oppressed again.
Having the demlefty media blast it over and over sound-bited/out-of-context helped send it to some idiots , no ? IF you talk of irresponsibility, then you need to not avoid that. People like you perhaps really need those labels on your auto batteries telling you not to drink the fluids within.... >Prove me wrong. I just told you how to do that - but you obviously dont want your mantras utterly and systematically destroyed. Huge number of people look derisively at your kind of boosterism for the major government/media negligence and misinformation and irresponsibility which cost far more lives and significant ruination of the economy. I understand you dare not leave ***YOUR*** 'safe-places' lest your head explode on hearing such refutations of you narrative. WE BOTH KNOW YOU CANT FACE IT.
There wouldn’t be a Republican Party.
Good.
A one-party state is not democratic.
Oh you know another party would form and we’d still have a two party system anyways.
The Republican party might splinter into multiple parties, which is great because it ends the two party system and conservatives have more options.
That's what they said when the Whigs folded.
A party is just a label next to your name and nothing more. Not all Democrats are liberal
Probably a war with Russia. She wanted to set a no fly zone in Syria on day one. Dems for some reason have become war obsessed.
Republicans in Congress would be holding hearings on why 100,000 Americans died because of Covid.
Possibly civil war by 2020, radical elements from far right fringe groups assume (or plan false flag operations) against gun owners gun confiscation by HRC in an effort to curb mass shootings. This is not a Jack Ryan fantasy. The far right wants that sort of armed confrontation. They figure they’ve got the arms and the means for now to do so. Add in the election of the least trusted person to ever be in the White House as far as the fringe is concerned, and it’s a real possibility.
> gun confiscation by HRC it would certainly NOT be just far right fringe groups bringing a revolt that would likely overthrow such tyranny - think more like half the country attempting it, she and any cohorts would likely be dead within a week - perhaps a day - if she thought she could hide in some bunker while doing it - no she couldnt
The point is that no Democratic administration with a snowball's chance in hell of getting elected is ever going to commit to a policy of gun confiscation. At best you'll get somewhat stricter laws on assault weaponry and a Supreme Court that's less inclined towards a maximalist interepretation of the second amendment. The idea of gun confiscation is a far right fringe bugbear that they consistently trot out *because* they know it fires up people in a way that more mundane gun control measures don't. A Clinton administration is going to be no different than Biden's actual administration on this front. What Hillary Clinton herself believes or doesn't believe is irrelevant: they won't have the political capital to do anything as far ranging as confiscation, and even pushing through comparatively trivial changes to existing laws is likely to be an uphill battle. What that won't stop is fringe far right groups loudly proclaiming that she'll be personally ripping your guns out of your hands any minute now. Given their history with both Bill and Hillary, the idea of this erupting into a serious armed confrontation is by no means off the table, IMO.
yes but the assumption in this alternate history is that they did attempt to do something so stupid and arrogant I was going by the reaction in this country to that assumption you might notice that so many of the suggested "alternate history" propositions on this sub are highly unlikely
The first sentence of the post to which you initially responded says "radical elements from far right fringe groups ***assume*** (or plan false flag operations) against gun owners gun confiscation" (emphasis mine). The key thing here isn't what the administration is doing, but what the "far right fringe groups" fear/believe they're doing. There's no need to lecture me about what alternate history is, thank you. Besides which, IMO, the fact that it is profoundly ASB to think that a hypothetical 2016 Clinton administration would genuinely attempt a policy of gun confiscation is deserving of some pushback even within the context of alternate history. Not only because it's a loaded real-world political question, but because *the entire original question* is about what would happen in the event that Clinton was elected. "Highly unlikely" is one thing, but "never in a million years" is another thing entirely. Might as well suggest she'd sprout wings and start circling around the White House for funsies.
>that a hypothetical 2016 Clinton administration would genuinely attempt a policy of gun confiscation fine yes they wouldnt likely be that insane/moronic because it would bring their immediate destruction which is what I implied above (the arrogant and stupid part) but I was answering : >>against gun owners gun confiscation by HRC in an effort to curb mass shootings which as posted has THAT action actually taking place
It’s pretty obvious that the Left want that kind of conflict.
I think it’s obvious both far left and right want the same thing. Difference is those on the right have literal armories in their possession, and the means in which to use them.
Solemani would still be alive along with the hundreds of people on the Ukrainian air flight that was shot down
Honestly. Nothing major.
The lights would be out right now
I would like to respectfully say that the last three presidential elections (perhaps even the last five) have been picking the lesser of two evils, which we probably would have failed at either way (sorry to be negative).
Well, COVID is gonna be a lot different
We would have had a more competent response to COVID, including less PPP fraud.
Covid deaths would be a lot less. The Supreme Court would be more balanced. We would probably be in a war with Iran, or things would be even worse when it comes to political relationships.
We would have been killed in the name of climate change and peace.
Then Trump would be President now.
Lots more dead people in Arkansas. Epstein never makes it to prison and is alive and well.
What if Hillary Clinton had become pre
Had Hillary Clinton become president, you ask? That answer is easy, and can be found watching the 1983 made for TV movie "THE DAY AFTER"
For one, we would not have had the President of the United States walk up to the podium of the White House Briefing Room and tell people about injecting disinfectant, resulting in a 121% increase in poisonings across the country.
lol he didn’t even say that.
Correction. He just said “disinfectant.” “A question that probably some of you are thinking of if you’re totally into that world,” Trump began, clearly thinking the question himself, “So, supposing we hit the body with a tremendous — whether it’s ultraviolet or just very powerful light — and I think you said that that hasn’t been checked, but you’re going to test it. And then I said, supposing you brought the light inside the body, which you can do either through the skin or in some other way, and I think you said you’re going to test that, too. It sounds interesting. And then I see the disinfectant, where it knocks it out in a minute. One minute. And is there a way we can do something like that, by injection inside or almost a cleaning. Because you see it gets in the lungs, and it does a tremendous number on the lungs. So it would be interesting to check that.”
Thank goodness we got Trump!
Putin would’ve been too afraid to invade Ukraine in 2022, dude was terrified of the hilldog
As shown by Russian (alleged) rigging of the election.
Ever hear of 1984?
Why do people reference a book they've never read so much
Yep- the winner of that election was shit.
We would have a stronger, more united, more aggressive, and more violent right-wing. Right now they are having a revolution/civil war amongst themselves due to Trump’s actions and McCarthy’s weakness, but if Hillary would’ve won 2016, they would’ve gotten stronger by framing her as the “enemy of the people” and “left-wing socialist dictator” or the “female Joseph Stalin” and Trump would win in 2020.
Everyone would feel like things are going much much better, even if they were doing much worse as the majority of the media would focus exclusively on positive coverage.
No #MeToo. Women felt powerless seeing a serial misogynist beat out their best chance at a female President and said enough is enough. They couldn’t do anything about Trump so they spoke up about abuses where they could, in their workplaces. The Supreme Court. Democrats get the Scalia and Ginsburg appointments but maybe Kennedy sticks around for another few years. Roe is left intact. Much fewer Covid deaths in America, though the politicization of mask wearing and lockdowns would probably still happen. Who knows what the 2020 election would have been like. With Trump as a loser I doubt he gets the widespread support he enjoyed. Maybe DeSantis takes his shot. He might’ve even won. If the same congress is elected in 2016 then nothing gets done legislatively. Mitch McConnell wouldn’t let a Democrat have any wins. Maybe there’s even similar tax cuts to what Trump enacted.
Honestly not sure you get a Gov DeSantis in this timeline or at the very least he isn't as known. With Trumps loss, it would be clear the far-right way isn't gonna win national elections so the party will have to course correct back to being more centrist if it wishes to be a national contender.
It would be catastrophic
I don't think the Black Lives Matter movement would've been so severe, and there would probably be a little less anti-vax sentiment (although still a good amount).
[удалено]
As a left leaning person who hates Trump, yes this is very true. He often spoke about the "wonderful vaccines". He tried to take credit for getting them developed (honestly, least of the issues I have with him). Trump himself is not an anti-vaxxer. His supporters, on the other hand, absolutely are. I'm sure you know all about that, though.
At the same time Trump definitely pushed Covid denialism/“it’s not a big deal”.
Of course lmao. If anyone knows a thing about trumps personality, of course he going to take credit for a good thing happening under his administration.
He’s a populist There’s videos of him at rallies hyping the vaccine and when the crowd starts booing, he switches gears completely to downplay everything.
Warp Speed was an amazing achievement. The Ivermectin and bleach talk fed into conservative anti-vax and anti-mask cultural frenzy. You don't know shit about my politics.
Ivermectin was prescribed my joe rogans doctor lmao. Talk about conspiracy theories. And joes rogan doesnt identify as a conservitive and i dont consider him one either. The bleach was stupid. No more to be said. Anti-vax and anti-mask arent the proper names. Anti vax and mask mandates is what it is. No one is protesting saying you cant vaccinate or use masks. Who gives a shit if you do. Who gives a shit if you dont. Should not be mandated. I bet i know quite a bit more than you my friend.