Hacker News Reader

Comment by kbenson | Hacker News Reader

What worries me most about a Trump presidency is not local (US) policy, as you rightly point out that he needs legislative support that he doesn't have to make changes (although he can retard progress through veto power, depending on your definition of progress and his inclination), but the absolute murder he will do to the US reputation and standing in the international community (already a complex topic, and I imagine fairly mixed in most circles).

View on HN

What worries me about a Clinton presidency is that she's a threat to world peace. Remember how "Bush lied to invade Iraq"? I see the same thing happening here with the Clinton camp blaming the Russians for the DNC e-mail leak. President Hillary is preparing the American people for a possible WW3 with Russia. She's clearly showing her intentions.

I don't think that's very plausible at all. You really think a career politician who knows that both countries routinely probe and hack each other is going to go to war over this? Anything she says will be to affect Russia's international standing and embarrass them for getting caught, and possibly to maneuver for a better deal somewhere else.

That the US would go to war over the hacking of a non-governmental institution is ridiculous, and whoever is spouting stuff like that should immediately lose quite a bit of credibility with whoever is listening. Only congress can officially start a war, and if the president started getting aggressive with a country such as powerful as Russa over something so small, well, there would be some interesting ramifications to presidential power. Remember, congress has the ability to amend the constitution.

It's only a start. She's preparing the people to be more hostile toward Russia with conspiracy theories such as this. It's not about the hacking; it's the more severe accusation of influencing the election and American politics. The FBI is already starting an investigation. She also wants a no-fly zone over Syria in direct confrontation with Russia, escalating the tensions. I can only see more hostility in the future.

> What worries me most about a Trump presidency is not local (US) policy, as you rightly point out that he needs legislative support that he doesn't have

If a sufficient electoral base exists to elect Trump, a sufficient electoral base exists to get him sufficient legislative support (sooner than new people are elected, perhaps, simply by raising the prospect of electoral danger to present incumbents) to implement his policies.

That assumes everyone actually knows what his objectives are before electing him, or that those objectives stay the same after election. Given how often his views have changed so far, I'm not sure that's a safe assumption to make.

Edit: Also, to be clear, if he does have legislative support because enough people support him to elect representatives with similar agendas, that's not really something for me to be worried about, as that would be no different than any other candidate. If it's the will of the people, so be it (as much as I dislike it).

I feel slightly better about this with the knowledge that the office of the president of the US is primarily a status-quo-preserving institution.

The interest groups that care generally want the status quo preserved.

If Trump is not destined to do this, then I think there is little danger he'll be elected.

Note, the same applies to HRC.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com