Sheikh al-Majaneen wrote:That's not exactly right, though. We know from Clinton's promises that she intended to escalate tensions with Russia over what was happening in Ukraine and Syria, which was starting to look like the Spanish Civil War 2017 Edition. We know from Trump's promises that he intends to cooperate with Russia in Syria, which makes it look a lot less worrying from an existential perspective (I understand most don't see it from my perspective here; so be it), and is also less unilaterally imperialistic--though we should look to his pick for Secretary of State, whenever that's decided, to have some idea of what his foreign policy will actually look like.
Hm. Okay -- it's not entirely clear whether or not the Trump rail will run over the same
twenty people as the Hillary rail. But it will definitely run over at least
twenty people, and -- in all likelihood -- many more.
Either way, I don't think the extremely volatile, vindictive, unpredictably hawkish candidate who's openly advocated war-crimes against Muslims is going to be less
of a destructive force abroad than Clinton.You can talk about how we don't know what he'll do, but that actually makes Clinton voters appear even more reasonable: It's better to deal with a devil we know than one we don't. Especially when the one we don't is playing a high-stakes game of international politics with little to no idea of how this game even works.
I'm also thrown off a little by your argument that his soft position on Russia is overall to the benefit of the world: Russia practices its own caustic brand of imperialism, which Trump seems to support. I'm not saying Clinton's response is ideal, or even good -- but I don't think it's going to matter much to victims of imperialism whether the guns firing at them were made in America or Russia.
Sheikh al-Majaneen wrote:There's still a lot of uncertainty here with regard to X. With regard to Y and Z, if they are issues that can be solved with appeals to multiple people--for example, local government choices and policy--then Trump does not necessarily have to set the tone. Police violence can still be reduced with him in office. War policy is exclusively in his hands.
Saying "If he's hands off, this won't be a problem" doesn't console the people for whom this is a matter of life-and-death, though. We kind of know what Hillary would do about police violence; the best case scenario involves a push for real, useful change. The worst case scenario is that she talks a lot of talk but doesn't do much of anything.
With Trump? Best case: He doesn't get involved. Worst case: He sends the police more tanks.
I get that there's a lot of uncertainty here about how much damage Trump will do; that's kind of the point, though? Maybe a better way to describe this trolley problem, then: Hillary's rail would have killed 20 people. Trump's will kill between 15 and 200.