Does it matter to you if Trump fails?

[Brian Peacock]

What if, say, Trump fails to significantly increase the US labor participation rate, stem the tide of illegal immigration, increase US domestic industry, production and business, raise US GDP rate of increase to more than 3% per year, repeals and replaces Obamacare with an at least marginally better system, and effectively eradicates ISIS....and nothing significantly positive happens otherwise...

Will you consider him a bad President? Or, are the things he talks about doing just, at bottom, things you like, even if he fails at them?

[Scot Dutchy]

He will never achieve any of those because of a simple reason; he is not a politician. He thinks like a business man and a bad one at that.

[Pogue]

It's matters for now, yet eventually after the apocalypse it will not.

[Woodbutcher]

Obviously the only way he could fail is if the press, the muslims and the Democrats conspire and lie about him.

[rainbow]

Obviously the only way he could fail is if the press, the muslims and the Democrats conspire and lie about him.

I suspect a Canadian Conspiracy.

[pErvinalia]

[Forty Two]

What if, say, Trump fails to significantly increase the US labor participation rate, stem the tide of illegal immigration, increase US domestic industry, production and business, raise US GDP rate of increase to more than 3% per year, repeals and replaces Obamacare with an at least marginally better system, and effectively eradicates ISIS....and nothing significantly positive happens otherwise...

Will you consider him a bad President? Or, are the things he talks about doing just, at bottom, things you like, even if he fails at them?

Yes, if he does not increase the US labor participation rate, stem the tide of illegal immigration, increase domestic industry, production and business, raise the GDP rate to more than 3% per year, and repeal/replace Obamacare, then I will consider him a bad President. He has to take meaningful steps in the right direction quickly. He has to have substantial progress in his first term to warrant reelection, IMO.

[Forty Two]

He will never achieve any of those because of a simple reason; he is not a politician. He thinks like a business man and a bad one at that.

Well, then we have nothing to lose, since politicians certainly can't achieve those things.

[pErvinalia]

You have plenty to lose.

[Scot Dutchy]

It is a shame that 42 does not think before he writes.

[Forty Two]

You have plenty to lose.

Not as much as we would if the war hawk, Hillary, had been elected.

[Forty Two]

It is a shame that 42 does not think before he writes.

[tattuchu]

You have plenty to lose.

Not as much as we would if the war hawk, Hillary, had been elected.

Nuclear 'Doomsday Clock' ticks closest to midnight in 64 years

Reuters
By John Clarke
ReutersJanuary 26, 2017
By John Clarke

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Atomic scientists reset their symbolic "Doomsday Clock" to its closest time to midnight in 64 years on Thursday, saying the world was closer to catastrophe due to threats such as nuclear weapons, climate change and Donald Trump's election as U.S. president.

The timepiece, devised by the Chicago-based Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists and displayed on its website, is widely viewed as an indicator of the world's vulnerability to disaster...

https://www.yahoo.com/news/nuclear-doom ... tml?ref=gs

[Forty Two]

WASHINGTON — Hillary Clinton made it abundantly clear Wednesday night that if she defeats Donald J. Trump next month she will enter the White House with the most contentious relationship with Russia of any president in more than three decades, and with a visceral, personal animus toward Vladimir V. Putin, its leader.

“We haven’t seen a you-can’t-trust-these-guys tone like this since the days of Ronald Reagan,” said Stephen Sestanovich, who served in President Bill Clinton’s State Department and is the author of “Maximalist: America in the World from Truman to Obama.” “But even that was more a systemic criticism of the Soviet Union. This is focused on Putin himself.”

In a reversal of political roles, Mrs. Clinton, the Democratic candidate, is the one portraying Mr. Putin as America’s newest archenemy, whose underlings hack into her Brooklyn campaign headquarters, bomb Syrian civilians and threaten Ukraine and NATO allies in Europe. For a woman who presented a big red “reset” button to her Russian counterpart in March 2009 (with the word incorrectly translated into Russian), the change in tone was more striking than ever in her debate with Donald J. Trump.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/21/us/h ... .html?_r=0

[Brian Peacock]

If you think that indulging an oligarchy is a boon to world peace and political stability then you should reread your Paine and Jefferson.