Canada if Trump wins?

[Scanzian Freehold]

I'm going to build a bunker shaped like a concrete wall section, and sit in it for the next four years. I'll put a sign out front; something like "Therein Lies the Rub," with an arrow pointing straight down to the wall base. It'll be a performance art protest.

[Charellia]

Maybe we should build a wall.

And make Trump pay for it. Cause he's really rich, not in a bragging way.

We have no choice. I know these Americans claim they're not Trump supporters, but we can't risk any sneaking in with them.

[Tmutarakhan]

People considering fleeing away from USA in the case of a victory of Trump?
It doesn't seems a serious thing, just a joke.
I would say I'm sure that Trump will never win, and I'm sure, okay.
But however, even in the very unlikely case that Trump would win, it isn't just a little exaggerated?

He is not running for President. He is running for Fuehrer. He demonstrated at the debate that he does not grasp the concept of issuing orders and not having them be obeyed, and has demonstrated at his rallies that he is eager to egg his followers on to violence to get his way. Meanwhile, cooler heads in the military and intelligence communities are indicating they will defy him. This is a recipe for civil strife, in the most heavily armed country in the world.

[Tmutarakhan]

Utterly meaningless comparison. This is a different candidate, disliked for different reasons, in a different year.

Your point makes no sense. Yes, different candidate, but strongly disliked by some - and the different year doesn't influence anything at all. My point is that people in 2008 and 2012 declared that if Obama was elected/reelected then they would move, and the vast majority, I assume, did not actually follow through with this. It's a perfectly fair comparison, but I guess if you hate Trump this much then logic is completely out of the picture.

The difference is quite vital, because Republicans were wanting to move to a country that is less socialistic than the US, of which there aren't any, except for impoverished countries that are distinctly non-white ("white" being an unexpressed but crucial trait of the imaginary country they wanted to move to).
I looked seriously into emigrating to Canada after the 2004 election (2000 was hard to take but I felt it my duty to stay and fight; 2004 was harder for me), but found that Canada prefers younger immigrants, or if older, more economically set. It isn't entirely up to you whether you can move to another country, even if you can really face the considerable hardships involved in pulling up stakes. This time I have an option in Europe, and if Trump wins I am gone. I am from a family that came here in 1630, I have lived all my life here, and yet I have seldom felt like I was treated as a citizen at all, and I am frightened by the direction so many of my neighbors seem to have chosen.

[Novorobo]

is it any more fair for them to be dragged down by others' decision to vote Trump?

Remember who's asking you this. Note the things I myself pointed out in the OP. But I do find reasoning like this in particular rather hollow.

I'm not necessarily saying that they shouldn't be allowed entrance to Canada. I never actually commented on that in particular.

What I'm saying is that they shouldn't be allowed to come back to the US later if a candidate they favor is elected once Trumps term(s) are over. Because in that case, they'd be reaping the benefits of others' decisions to vote for someone.

But this is implying people will be willing to move between different countries, and deal with the hassle, cost, and confusion that entails not once, but twice in the period of a single decade.

Hell, my family only moved across America, not even dealing with the problems of cultural and national differences, and it took us almost 8 years to be fully "settled."

Suppose someone voted Obama in 2012, left if Trump was elected in 2016, (ie. left after the election result but before he was sworn in) and returned after someone saner was elected in 2020. Does that mean they reaped the benefits of others' voting in 2020; but also that others reaped the benefits of their votes in 2012?

And suppose someone is of a racial or cultural minority when Trump is elected? If they fled Trump, would you still judge them for wanting to come back after someone more sane had been elected?

[Drawkland]

I'm not necessarily saying that they shouldn't be allowed entrance to Canada. I never actually commented on that in particular.

What I'm saying is that they shouldn't be allowed to come back to the US later if a candidate they favor is elected once Trumps term(s) are over. Because in that case, they'd be reaping the benefits of others' decisions to vote for someone.

But this is implying people will be willing to move between different countries, and deal with the hassle, cost, and confusion that entails not once, but twice in the period of a single decade.

Hell, my family only moved across America, not even dealing with the problems of cultural and national differences, and it took us almost 8 years to be fully "settled."

Suppose someone voted Obama in 2012, left if Trump was elected in 2016, (ie. left after the election result but before he was sworn in) and returned after someone saner was elected in 2020. Does that mean they reaped the benefits of others' voting in 2020; but also that others reaped the benefits of their votes in 2012?

This is assuming that people left the country following Bush's election and then returned under Obama's reign, under my intended statement. Is that what you meant?

And suppose someone is of a racial or cultural minority when Trump is elected? If they fled Trump, would you still judge them for wanting to come back after someone more sane had been elected?

Theoretically, since Trump is threatening to deport certain minorities (I'm assuming those are the ones you refer to), it would still be the same result, them exiting the country, albeit for different reasons. In this situation, they could get back in on grounds of "I was deported because of a stupid policy," which would makes sense if the policy were repealed. At least they toughed it out and stayed as long as they could, which is noble and respectable.

And this is a sort of aside, but leaving the country on campaign promises is also sort of shortsighted. One of the most common complaints about politicians are how they never follow through on what they say they'll do in their campaign, and yet everyone ignites firestorms whenever Trump opens his mouth. I just think it's a little silly for people to actually consider leaving the country before Trump has ever even done anything in any office.

And again, this is assuming people will legitimately leave the country if he's elected. As others have stated, the number of people who will leave is likely extremely small.

[Novorobo]

This is assuming that people left the country following Bush's election and then returned under Obama's reign, under my intended statement. Is that what you meant?

I thought you were referring strictly to the same thing I was referring to since the OP; the idea of moving to Canada if Trump wins. Why would I mean anything different?

Theoretically, since Trump is threatening to deport certain minorities (I'm assuming those are the ones you refer to), it would still be the same result, them exiting the country, albeit for different reasons.

Not just those. Black people, who he's been relatively less racist against, (at least in his rhetoric anyway) have nonetheless faced violence at Trump rallies, and they have every reason to be afraid should Trump get into office with the votes of such brutish supporters.

In this situation, they could get back in on grounds of "I was deported because of a stupid policy," which would makes sense if the policy were repealed. At least they toughed it out and stayed as long as they could, which is noble and respectable.

Seems a rather symbolic gesture, when staying accomplishes nothing.

And this is a sort of aside, but leaving the country on campaign promises is also sort of shortsighted. One of the most common complaints about politicians are how they never follow through on what they say they'll do in their campaign, and yet everyone ignites firestorms whenever Trump opens his mouth.

There's at least some level of predictability to other politicians' lies; a certain level of spending promises that aren't realistic in light of given promised tax cuts or the like, though granted there's a difference between "the numbers don't add up" promises and "we're counting on certain assumptions about how people will behave when given these tax cuts or social programs" type promises.

But either could be clearly identified and called out by rivals. With Trump's promises, there's nothing coherent to call out. A mess of backtracking and habitual vagueness leaves no rhyme or reason to what Trump might do. And with a support base clearly willing to resort to promises, he might just have to follow through on whichever ones are most thoroughly embraced by his most angry backers...

I just think it's a little silly for people to actually consider leaving the country before Trump has ever even done anything in any office.

And given the unprecedented insanity of the guy, I just think it's a little silly for people to take a chance on finding out what he'll do when they could leave for a more predictable country.

And again, this is assuming people will legitimately leave the country if he's elected. As others have stated, the number of people who will leave is likely extremely small.

Maybe, maybe not. Either he'll lose, or we'll find out.

[Tmutarakhan]

I'm not necessarily saying that they shouldn't be allowed entrance to Canada. I never actually commented on that in particular.

What I'm saying is that they shouldn't be allowed to come back to the US later if a candidate they favor is elected once Trumps term(s) are over. Because in that case, they'd be reaping the benefits of others' decisions to vote for someone.

But this is implying people will be willing to move between different countries, and deal with the hassle, cost, and confusion that entails not once, but twice in the period of a single decade.

Hell, my family only moved across America, not even dealing with the problems of cultural and national differences, and it took us almost 8 years to be fully "settled."

Suppose someone voted Obama in 2012, left if Trump was elected in 2016, (ie. left after the election result but before he was sworn in) and returned after someone saner was elected in 2020. Does that mean they reaped the benefits of others' voting in 2020; but also that others reaped the benefits of their votes in 2012?

And suppose someone is of a racial or cultural minority when Trump is elected? If they fled Trump, would you still judge them for wanting to come back after someone more sane had been elected?

Moving to a different country is a very difficult thing to do. Some who emigrate speak wistfully about going back, but moving a second time is something that very few do.

[Zoice]

As a Canadian, I'm terrified by the idea of Americans flooding the gates. They're the kind of hyperreligious backwards culture that likes Drumpf, we can't trust any of them. Before you know it, there'll be mass rapes by Americans in the middle of the streets of Toronto! Close the gates, build a wall, deport them all!

[East Catalina]

Trump should be elected. He's what America and democracy needs right now. The moving to Canada thing completely astounds me.

An authoritarian, populist president is what democracy needs.
Well, we're bound to get more mockery but... gotta keep those fast-breeding, regressive savages out of our territory, don't we? PRAGMATISMUS VULT!

As a Canadian, I'm terrified by the idea of Americans flooding the gates. They're the kind of hyperreligious backwards culture that likes Drumpf, we can't trust any of them. Before you know it, there'll be mass rapes by Americans in the middle of the streets of Toronto! Close the gates, build a wall, deport them all!

Not all of us are like that! I beg you, we're not just job-shoppers, we're actually refugees from the disaster of Trump!

[East Catalina]

People considering fleeing away from USA in the case of a victory of Trump?
It doesn't seems a serious thing, just a joke.
I would say I'm sure that Trump will never win, and I'm sure, okay.
But however, even in the very unlikely case that Trump would win, it isn't just a little exaggerated?

He is not running for President. He is running for Fuehrer. He demonstrated at the debate that he does not grasp the concept of issuing orders and not having them be obeyed, and has demonstrated at his rallies that he is eager to egg his followers on to violence to get his way. Meanwhile, cooler heads in the military and intelligence communities are indicating they will defy him. This is a recipe for civil strife, in the most heavily armed country in the world.

Someone better tell my family this, before the blood actually does run.

[Zoice]

Drumpf should be elected. He's what America and democracy needs right now. The moving to Canada thing completely astounds me.

An authoritarian, populist president is what democracy needs.
Well, we're bound to get more mockery but... gotta keep those fast-breeding, regressive savages out of our territory, don't we? PRAGMATISMUS VULT!

As a Canadian, I'm terrified by the idea of Americans flooding the gates. They're the kind of hyperreligious backwards culture that likes Drumpf, we can't trust any of them. Before you know it, there'll be mass rapes by Americans in the middle of the streets of Toronto! Close the gates, build a wall, deport them all!

Not all of us are like that! I beg you, we're not just job-shoppers, we're actually refugees from the disaster of Drumpf!

Oh, sure. . . but 80% of the so called refugees are young, orange men, they're just here to steal our cheeto dust and rape our women! Send 'em all back!

[East Catalina]

An authoritarian, populist president is what democracy needs.
Well, we're bound to get more mockery but... gotta keep those fast-breeding, regressive savages out of our territory, don't we? PRAGMATISMUS VULT!

Not all of us are like that! I beg you, we're not just job-shoppers, we're actually refugees from the disaster of Drumpf!

Oh, sure. . . but 80% of the so called refugees are young, orange men, they're just here to steal our cheeto dust and rape our women! Send 'em all back!

There are people dying in the streets at the hands of Führer Trump! He's ordered executions! He's killed every protester and their families! And the women and children are too afraid to flee! Our people are being loaded into actual WalMarts FEMA death camps! I beg you, on the behalf of the millions yearning to breathe free...Canada must either overthrow the Führer or let his victims escape to safety!

[Campfire Road]

And I'm not sure Canada is far enough away to flee Trump's effects; if he wrecks the US economy like both the Democratic and Republican establishments are warning, then that's going to mean Americans can no longer afford to buy as many Canadian goods as they used to, which is going to have an impact on our economy too.

Hell, given the guy's foreign policy ideas that fly in the face of what experts have to say on just about any given topic, I'm not sure anywhere is safe from Trump's potential effects on the world.
.

What you're saying assumes that Trump's plans will actually come into fruition. Trump has to navigate through Congress and the Supreme Court. As every president before him has proven, that's a task that is easier said than done. More likely, this lack of ability to persuade will result in Trump having difficulties.

Historically, Trump has been able to get anything at Trump Corporation faster than a snap. That's the beauty of being a one person government. Now, he has to go through 535 people, and can still get shot down by 9 others. Will he be as effective with these barriers? That's what I doubt.

[Drawkland]

This is assuming that people left the country following Bush's election and then returned under Obama's reign, under my intended statement. Is that what you meant?

I thought you were referring strictly to the same thing I was referring to since the OP; the idea of moving to Canada if Trump wins. Why would I mean anything different?

You said:

Suppose someone voted Obama in 2012, left if Trump was elected in 2016, (ie. left after the election result but before he was sworn in) and returned after someone saner was elected in 2020. Does that mean they reaped the benefits of others' voting in 2020; but also that others reaped the benefits of their votes in 2012?

In response to my comment about a non-Trump candidate being elected and Trump expats returning to the US to "reap the benefits" of the regular American citizens who stayed and voted for someone else. What you said doesn't apply to the Trump situation because you referred to people reaping 2012 votes, which would imply that people left under Bush and returned under Obama to reap, under what I specified.

So I don't understand why you're saying I'm the one who diverged from the Trump moving situation.

Theoretically, since Trump is threatening to deport certain minorities (I'm assuming those are the ones you refer to), it would still be the same result, them exiting the country, albeit for different reasons.

Not just those. Black people, who he's been relatively less racist against, (at least in his rhetoric anyway) have nonetheless faced violence at Trump rallies, and they have every reason to be afraid should Trump get into office with the votes of such brutish supporters.

I heard recently of people (anti-Trump) who got rather attacked by some Trump supporters at a rally. While that's really brutish of the Trump supporters, it's really the fault of the anti-Trump people for going there in the first place. It says they were holding up signs, which evidently were anti-Trump. The point is, if they wanted to make an anti-Trump statement, the wrong place to do that is at a Trump rally, especially because the people have a reputation for being insane.
Sure, it was the fault of the insane rallyers, but if the people didn't want to get hurt, they shouldn't have gone, and especially not gone and brought signs with them.

In this situation, they could get back in on grounds of "I was deported because of a stupid policy," which would makes sense if the policy were repealed. At least they toughed it out and stayed as long as they could, which is noble and respectable.

Seems a rather symbolic gesture, when staying accomplishes nothing.

How so? What could be "more accomplished" by leaving early? Suppose Trump never actually does deport any minorities. Those people have just wasted lots of money and resources on something that never even occurred (hypothetically). It's a preemptive measure which doesn't seems to actually be more hurtful if the measure proves useless. Again, moving to another country is difficult and consumes lots of time and money.

And this is a sort of aside, but leaving the country on campaign promises is also sort of shortsighted. One of the most common complaints about politicians are how they never follow through on what they say they'll do in their campaign, and yet everyone ignites firestorms whenever Trump opens his mouth.

There's at least some level of predictability to other politicians' lies; a certain level of spending promises that aren't realistic in light of given promised tax cuts or the like, though granted there's a difference between "the numbers don't add up" promises and "we're counting on certain assumptions about how people will behave when given these tax cuts or social programs" type promises.

But either could be clearly identified and called out by rivals. With Trump's promises, there's nothing coherent to call out. A mess of backtracking and habitual vagueness leaves no rhyme or reason to what Trump might do. And with a support base clearly willing to resort to promises, he might just have to follow through on whichever ones are most thoroughly embraced by his most angry backers...

I just think it's a little silly for people to actually consider leaving the country before Trump has ever even done anything in any office.

And given the unprecedented insanity of the guy, I just think it's a little silly for people to take a chance on finding out what he'll do when they could leave for a more predictable country.

And again, this is assuming people will legitimately leave the country if he's elected. As others have stated, the number of people who will leave is likely extremely small.

Maybe, maybe not. Either he'll lose, or we'll find out.

As others have stated, plenty of people claimed they'd leave if Obama was elected with the same ferocity, and yet, not many people followed through with that.

And another thing, it's not as easy as saying "okay let's move." Not only do you have to tie up loose ends around your home (closing accounts, selling houses, quitting jobs), but you also have to go through the intensive immigration process. And even then, you have to establish not only a new place to take residence, but then you also have to find a new job. And from what I know, it's not exactly easy to just find a new job, especially one that pays good enough to support a new family (or couple or whatever) that has just spent lots of resources of moving to a new country. And then getting used to the new culture and laws and conventions of a totally new country (or even a new language if you moved into eastern Canada) is also a major issue.

This all to say, that moving to a new country is a daunting task, especially as a "preemptive strike" to policies you've only heard vague promises of and never seen in action yet. Really, the vagueness of the promises he makes are more testament to staying rather than leaving. Moving to another country on a "gut feeling" isn't exactly the smartest move financially or logically.

[Ghuraba Al-Khorusani]

British Colombia is breath taking in beauty

[Drawkland]

What you're saying assumes that Trump's plans will actually come into fruition. Trump has to navigate through Congress and the Supreme Court. As every president before him has proven, that's a task that is easier said than done. More likely, this lack of ability to persuade will result in Trump having difficulties.

Historically, Trump has been able to get anything at Trump Corporation faster than a snap. That's the beauty of being a one person government. Now, he has to go through 535 people, and can still get shot down by 9 others. Will he be as effective with these barriers? That's what I doubt.

This is also a good point. This applies to my "people are making unbased assumptions on vague promises" point. People are assuming that Trump, once in office, will be able to immediately pass his agenda, which is simply untrue.

Obama didn't immediately pass all of his intended legislation once in office.
Okay well there was the Stimulus Package, but that was an economic thing and there was a Democratic majority. Trump's feared promises (such as the deportations and racist agendas) are still unlikely to pass as fast as the SP did, if at all. Yes there's a Republican majority, but judging by the current anti-Trump trend coming from even the Republican party itself, it's unlikely that all of Trump's policies would pass.

A lot of the Trump hate is based on fear-mongering and lack of understanding of the governmental system.

Let me stress this: Trump isn't my main choice for president, but I'm not about all this fear over Trump when he himself hasn't actually done anything yet. He should prove his actions before we make a complete decision on how much of a piece of trash he may or may not be.

[Republic of Coldwater]

To be honest, Trump isn't as bad as many make him out to be. His campaign isn't bought out by billionaires, corporations and Super-PACs, he has some sound policy in regard to immigration and the domestic economy, his plan to reform free trade by leveling the playing field isn't necessarily a bad idea, and changing the corporation-Super PAC model of the election would be revolutionary with a political system known for being bought out and controlled by corrupt lobbyists and billionaires.

[The Realm of Lordaeron]

Trump should be elected. He's what America and democracy needs right now. The moving to Canada thing completely astounds me.

Yeah, because we need Donald Trump to save us from the evil Mexicans and migrant terrorist refugee babies who are fleeing the war in Syria.

[Zoice]

To be honest, Drumpf isn't as bad as many make him out to be. His campaign isn't bought out by billionaires, corporations and Super-PACs, he has some sound policy in regard to immigration and the domestic economy, his plan to reform free trade by leveling the playing field isn't necessarily a bad idea, and changing the corporation-Super PAC model of the election would be revolutionary with a political system known for being bought out and controlled by corrupt lobbyists and billionaires.

Bullshit from start to finish.

[Big Jim P]

Trump should be elected. He's what America and democracy needs right now. The moving to Canada thing completely astounds me.

Yeah, because we need Donald Trump to save us from the evil Mexicans and migrant terrorist refugee babies who are fleeing the war in Syria.

Illegal Mexican immigrants and the refugees who are mostly fighting age men you mean?

[The Salian Realm]

To be honest, Trump isn't as bad as many make him out to be. His campaign isn't bought out by billionaires, corporations and Super-PACs, he has some sound policy in regard to immigration and the domestic economy, his plan to reform free trade by leveling the playing field isn't necessarily a bad idea, and changing the corporation-Super PAC model of the election would be revolutionary with a political system known for being bought out and controlled by corrupt lobbyists and billionaires.

Now elections'll be bought out by "self-made" reality show billionaires instead. It'll be like the fuckin House of Commons before they had salaries. #KanyeWest2020
Is his policy on the domestic economy "give to the pure, toss out the impure"? Certainly would appeal to his voters.

[The Salian Realm]

Yeah, because we need Donald Trump to save us from the evil Mexicans and migrant terrorist refugee babies who are fleeing the war in Syria.

Illegal Mexican immigrants and the refugees who are mostly fighting age men you mean?

Fast-breeding regressive savages, all of 'em.

[The Realm of Lordaeron]

Yeah, because we need Donald Trump to save us from the evil Mexicans and migrant terrorist refugee babies who are fleeing the war in Syria.

Illegal Mexican immigrants and the refugees who are mostly fighting age men you mean?

Yes, they're illegal but just here to work, most of them.


Not all the refugees are fighting age men

[Republic of Coldwater]

To be honest, Trump isn't as bad as many make him out to be. His campaign isn't bought out by billionaires, corporations and Super-PACs, he has some sound policy in regard to immigration and the domestic economy, his plan to reform free trade by leveling the playing field isn't necessarily a bad idea, and changing the corporation-Super PAC model of the election would be revolutionary with a political system known for being bought out and controlled by corrupt lobbyists and billionaires.

Now elections'll be bought out by "self-made" reality show billionaires instead. It'll be like the fuckin House of Commons before they had salaries. #KanyeWest2020
Is his policy on the domestic economy "give to the pure, toss out the impure"? Certainly would appeal to his voters.

At least the billionaire wouldn't be influenced by anyone but themselves, and the people who vote for them.

He does support deregulation to quite an extent, and reduction in corporate and individual tax rates, all of which would definitely aid the US economy.