Trump Presidency - End of the World, or the Start of a New One? (Update)

Trump Presidency - End of the World, or the Start of a New One? (Update)

So I'm doing this short myTake just as an update to the other two that i made previously. If you haven't read them, i encourage you to. Part I was about the five main reasons why Donald Trump beat Hillary Clinton, and Part II was about why I today am still firmly anti Trump....and this update is going to reinforce exactly why I feel that electing Trump was a mistake. I'm also doing this update to give people an opportunity to comment on Part I and II, as i didn't allow comments previously.

Now onto business. What has changed in a matter of days? A lot actually. We are now starting to get word on the kinds of people Donald Trump is considering to add to his administration. I'm going to focus on two in particular and show those who care to listen, the level of destruction already being flirted with before he has even taken power. This take is not for people who support Trump, because I know that no matter what i post here, you will likely stand by whatever he does...and so im not looking to change your mind even in the slightest. This take isn't even so much for Hillary supporters either, as I kind of know where you stand already. This update is primarily for observers who are still sort of teetering back and forth on the fence, trying to figure out how they should feel about a Trump presidency. Allow me you out with that.

Who may potentially be the next Treasury Secretary of the USA?

Now this one for me was probably the most surprising. It was surprising because even though I give Trump a lot of shit, I really didn't think he was this clueless. But lets dive in. So a few people, particularly Trump supporters, who read Part I of this series stated that they pretty much agreed with the reasons i stated as to why Trump won. One of those reasons in particular was due to how close Hillary Clinton was to wall street, and the fact that Trump didn't cater to these people like she did. I want to focus on a paragraph from that myTake in particular, and I want you to take special note of the names bolded/italicized:

Since the 21st century began, America has been under the control of Wall Street candidates. Bush was a puppet of wall street, Obama was a puppet of wall street, and undoubtedly, Hillary Clinton was a puppet of Wall Street. When you work for wall street, you basically give up on caring about issues that affect Americans, because these issues aren't aligned with what Wall Street wants. People like Jamie Dimon of JP Morgan, Lloyd Blankfein of Goldman Sachs and the now disgraced CEO of Wells Fargo (thanks to Elizabeth Warren), John Stumpf don't give two shits about the average American.

So, I mentioned these names in particular because anyone who knows anything about anything knows who at least two of these three people are. These names fly off the tongue because they are so often in the news for some new corruption scandal concerning themselves or the banks they oversee. They are the most well known names in wall street because they are the most well known crooks who screw over thousands of people for a living and NEVER get prosecuted for it.

Think of it this way: Hillary Clinton is to corruption on main street as Jamie Dimon is to corruption on Wall Street. So given how much Trump railed against wall street, it would make sense that he would want to keep wall street as far away from controlling the direction of the whole country's money as possible right? Sure, that makes sense. So who is one of the individuals being considered as treasury secretary of the U.S.?

Jamie Dimon.

I shit you not.

Literally one day after I wrote that mytake, I see news articles concerning one of the individuals Trumps administration is thinking about adding to the team. See for yourself here.

From the article:

In the wake of Donald Trump's upset victory, advisors have floated the idea of naming Jamie Dimon as treasury secretary, according to two people familiar with the matter, but one of them added that the JPMorgan chief has said he would not be interested in the role.

It was unclear who within Trump's circle of advisors raised the idea or who else might be under consideration for treasury secretary. Trump campaign finance chief Steven Mnuchin, a former Goldman Sachs official, is reportedly considered to be the front runner.

I lol'd. So even if Dimon doesn't get the job, the frontrunner for the job is a Goldman Sachs operative, and the only reason why Dimon may not get the job is because he apparently has better things to do. Remember what the secretary of the treasury is responsible for. They basically write all of the laws that banks and other institutions/individuals have to follow:

The Secretary of the Treasury is responsible for formulating and recommending domestic and international financial, economic, and tax policy, participating in the formulation of broad fiscal policies that have general significance for the economy, and managing the public debt.


So by putting Wall street in Direct control of the treasury, you're basically giving them free reign to rewrite the rules of the game for their benefit.

You want to know one of the reasons why i supported Hillary? Because despite how in bed she was with wall street, she would never have been so brazen, so bold, to put such an infamous, well known corrupt banker to control the damn Treasury of the United States. At the very least, she would've picked a lesser known, more obscure wall streeter in there, similar to Obama's pick of Timothy Geithner when he won in 2008. But Jamie fucking Dimon? You've got to be kidding me.

Who may potentially be the next Secretary of State for the USA?

So most of us are aware that Hillary Clinton was the previous secretary of state, and she caused a great deal of damage pushing for the overturning of Gadaffi in Libya, and later the destruction of Syria. So we all know the woman is a war monger, and this was another one of the reasons i pointed out in Part I of this series why Trump beat her. Allow me to quote part of what I said, and again, take note of what I've bolded/italicized:

Hillary's incessant need to flip governments that are opposed to America is well known, and all it has caused is chaos and destruction in these regions. Libya was a total failure. The country is now several times worse than it was when Gaddafi was alive. Now Syria is under threat, and Hillary was willing to throw up a no fly zone over all of Syria which would have undoubtedly started a war with Russia. But don't take my word for it.

As i stated before, one of the main reasons Hillary lost (and rightfully so), was because she was a war monger. She's linked to a lot of upheaval in the middle east, and was on the verge of potentially starting a war with Russia itself. She would even come to blame the DNC hacks on the Russians, threatening economic and even military consequences as a result, despite having no tangible proof that the Russians were even responsible. Trump pushed back against this, and promised that he wasn't going to start conflict with Russia. Thats great. Even though I supported Hillary, I liked the fact that Trump didn't appear to be quite as hungry to start shit with Russia as Hillary was...even though i was skeptical over whether Trump actually meant it.

So, given his stance on war with Russia and conflict within the middle east in general, it would make sense for the Trump administration to consider the new Secretary of State to be someone who's basically the opposite of who Hillary Clinton was. Someone who isn't a neocon, and had a cool, level head on Russia, Syria and the potential threats in the middle east...right? Sure, of coarse...of coarse. So who's one of the major candidates being considered for Secretary of State under Trump?

John Bolton. (Source)

Sounds like he came right out of Game of Thrones right? Well given his views on foreign policy, he may as well have. Surely his stance on Syria and Russia differ from Hillary Clintons though, right? Here's his view which he published back in 2012 when was part of Mitt Romney's campaign against Obama:

Significantly, U.S. intervention could not be confined to Syria and would inevitably entail confronting Iran and possibly Russia. This the Obama administration is unwilling to do, although it should. In the case of Russia, such a confrontation would likely break the famous “reset” button beyond repair. As a president waiting for reelection so he can be more “flexible” toward Moscow, Obama is simply incapable of contemplating this step.


Of coarse he was incapable of contemplating this step. You would have to be a complete lunatic like Hillary Clinton was, to contemplate taking on Russia AND Iran militarily for the sake of Syria...

But hey, that was way back in 2012. Surely his views have changed right? Well sort of. He's moved on from Syria. He wants to focus on Iran now:

The former Bush State Department official, U.N. ambassador and champion of the Iraq war is exceptionally good at his hobby. At the moment, the Obama administration is trying to nail down a nuclear agreement with Iran, and hawks in Congress are pushing instead for tougher sanctions. But Bolton, now at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, is leading the charge for a third alternative: immediate bombing.

For the mustachioed man of war, force is the option of first resort. The military option isn’t just on the table — it’s the only thing on the menu.

“The inescapable conclusion is that Iran will not negotiate away its nuclear program,” Bolton wrote last week in a New York Times op-ed. “Nor will sanctions block its building a broad and deep weapons infrastructure. The inconvenient truth is that only military action” like Israel’s previous strikes on reactors in Iraq and Syria “can accomplish what is required.”

On Wednesday, I went over to AEI to hear Bolton expand on his views at a forum asking “Is Iran the new North Korea?” The answer, from Bolton’s perspective, was obvious: Iran should be the next Iraq — a war Bolton evidently is still fighting.


Do you want Iran to be the next Iraq?

Yeah, me neither.

What do these early considerations mean?

I'll make this quick. What's important to focus on here is not the individuals themselves per se, because there are many people being considered for many positions...some of which are even worse than the two people i mentioned here. What's important to think about here is the mindset of Trump administration, towards the kinds of people they want in charge of things. Do you think if Donald Trump was as anti wall street as he claimed, that a person like Jamie Dimon would even be considered for Treasury Secretary?

Do you think if Trump was so anti-war, a Bush era neocon like John Bolton would even be considered as Secretary of State? I didn't even bother going into all of the people being considered right now for Secretary of Defense, because they're literally all neocons who make Clinton look like a pacifist. What these early considerations tell me is that America is planning on going the direction of not only a total wall street takeover, but a foreign policy agenda that will make the trillions of dollars spent on Iraq and Afghanistan look like a rounding error.

For the next four years, Americans have my sympathies.

Trump Presidency - End of the World, or the Start of a New One? (Update)
Add Opinion
4Girl Opinion
12Guy Opinion

Most Helpful Guy

  • JudgmentDay
    I've read part two of this mytake of yours, you mentioned the Petrollar, well I guess it shouldn't be a myth or some sort of conspiracy theory anymore. I watched some videos earlier that brought this up as the real underlying motive and cause as to why things are happening the way they are in the Middle East region. Such as the War in Iraq, because Saddam Hussein had switched the sales of Iraq's oil from the US Dollar to Euros back in September of 2000, and then there were new foreign policies that were implemented and because 9/11 happened, it made things easier to invade Iraq in order to control the oil sales and switch them off from Euros back to the US dollar. I guess we both have an understanding that the dollar used to be backed by gold until President Nixon took it off and turned it into a fiat currency that is entirely debt-based, and instead became backed by petroleum sales from the OPEC nations that had been mandated to always only accept US dollars for their oil transactions. It was brilliant move nonetheless, because oil makes the world go round. Because oil had become integrated into every aspect of civilization: agriculture, transportation, plastics, heating, defense and medicine, and demand just keeps growing and growing. So as long as there was a demand for oil and if oil are only sold in US dollars and not any other currencies then the dollar would always have it's value, but this became challenged by Saddam, Gaddafi, and even Iran since they've all stopped or tried to end using and accepting dollars for their petroleum transactions, which is why they all ended up on America's shitlist. Because if this happens and they're not stopped, it will disrupt the value of the US dollar, the global economy, etc.

    Of course the media and everything else would never openly admit any of this to the public. But it does make me wonder, does Trump anything about this or does he understand any of this? If so does he know that the whole paradigm of the debt-based currency system is terribly flawed because it's just simply Not sustainable as it requires perpetual economic growth on a finite world. it seemed like they didn't think ahead, what if those OPEC nations start to drop the dollar eventually for their oil transactions? They made an example of Iraq and Libya, but how far will this go?

    Do you think someone will eventually figure this out and find a workaround for this greatly flawed system, before the worst that could happen?
    Like 1 Person
    Is this still revelant?
    • Anonymous

      My issue with Trump at the moment is that he's basically on the path of finishing the US economy off from being number one, based on the people he's considering for posts in his administration. You mentioned Iran... well Iran has been on the neoconservative hitlist for a while, but they could never quote get there. Even with Obama, he felt that it was a step too far, which is why he made the Iran deal to begin with. Now he wants to tear it up and hire a guy like John Bolton to start a war with them. This is a TERRIBLE idea, if you actually want to preserve the US dollars status. The problem with Americans is that typically... the worst needs to happen first before they earnestly seek a solution. Likely, the dollar will go into crisis sometime over the next few years, and they will have to reopen the gold convertibility that Nixon closed, but the gold price would have to be raised substantially from where it is now

    • Anonymous

      by the way, have you heard of general Wesley clark? If not, just type his name into YouTube with the words oil and you'll land on a very interesting talk he had with some higher ranked officials in government over Americas foreign policy objectives. Iraq, Iran, Libya and so on have all been part of the plan for some time

    • I am already aware of General Clark's video explain how they were going to topple seven countries over the course of five years. It absolutely had everything to do with the World Currency status of the Dollar. Gosh, I wish they'll figure it out, putting the dollar back onto gold is only a partial solution, still can't full stop the debts from constantly increasing because of the interests. If Trump realizes that the problem has to do with the system and if he can find a way to continue to give the dollar demand and value in case other nations drops their demand for it and stop using it to purchase oil, then maybe these wars would finally stop. Iran had been selling their oil for other means such as gold, euros, etc. for their oil transactions since July 2011, they had been in the process of organizing an independent oil bourse were building their own oil market. But America wasn't able to declare war on Iran using the WMD narrative again, so now they have to use other covert means.

    • Show All

Most Helpful Girl

  • LittleSally
    Best case scenario: since he doesn't have a clue what the job entailed and now he's shocked... and completely unprepared, he'll just accept everything that has been working so far... from president Obama. First example: Obamacare...

    Worst case scenario: the start of Idiocracy.
    Disagree 2 People
    Is this still revelant?
    • Anonymous

      I think he'll likely repeal almost everything Obama has ever done, because it's super easy to do. Just needs a few pen strokes. He may keep Obamacare, but he'll likely butcher it to the point where it's of no use to anyone

    • Make sense.

    • Anonymous

      if i were obama, id find the most progressive person in the country and ram fist them into the supreme court before he's shown the door. His legacy will be erased within a couple years anyways, so he may as well leave republicans with one last fuck you. you know?

    • Show All

Scroll Down to Read Other Opinions

What Girls & Guys Said

  • Idonotgivearatsass
    Guess who he's considering for Secretary of the Interior: Sarah Palin, or the Energy Secretary: Harold G. Hamm, his pick for head of the EPA is a known climate change skeptic: Myron Ebell... it goes on and on... the entire list (with the exception of Rudy Giuliani as Attorney General)
    Like 2 People
    • Anonymous

      oh I know! i could go on and on about the loons he's considering for his administration. You can consider any progress on climate change gone over the next four years, as Trump has no interest in the terms agreed upon at the Paris climate change talks. And Palin, oh Palin... The fact that he's even considering her should disqualify him from the office... but in America, anything goes, haha

  • Saoirse_Nua
    Yes the cabinet picks will be a sign of things to come but the Chief of Staff will be a big early indicator so I never thought I would see the day when I am cheering for Reince Priebus but when Steve Bannon is the alternative (WTF).
    Like 1 Person
  • RetroDreamerXD
    According to Baba Vanga, it's the end of the world as we know it.

    Baba, before she died, predicted that Obama will be the last president. And America will be divided with a war similar to the Civil War. She said China will become a new super power and will take over the US. Because the US would have destroyed itself. She said all of Europe will be destroyed and controlled by terrorists. Nukes will be involved in all. She said 3rd world countries will become 1st world and 1st world will become the 3rd world. The scariest part about all this is that she's known for being 85% accurate about things and if we look at what's happening now, we can guess which is apart of that 85%.

    I'm no believer in everything I read, but because what's happening now is the doorway to what she predicted, I urge everyone to hide their hate and unsatisfactory with current events and against others. Put them away and let's prove Baba wrong on this one.
    Disagree 1 Person
    • Let's get away from a political, racial, and religional point of view, let's work together. Let's save ourselves. You all know what I mean.

    • Anonymous

      well ill tell you this... if the third world gets to become the first world and vice versa, that's a change i will definitely love to see. America has abused its status and power for decades now. China deserves to be number 1

    • @RetroDreamerXD I've actually read a handful of things about her and it seems pretty freaky. Despite her predictions, something seems off. It's almost as if she had inside information that allowed her to be as accurate as she was. She also predicted everything on earth would cease to exist by 3797 so if she is truly a psychic who could see the future that far then the world wouldn't end anytime soon. Plus Obama being the last president hadn't been specified on what it really meant. So far there are missing peices to the puzzle, but then again I don't really believe a lot of this stuff will happen... for now.

    • Show All
  • Gommers
    It's likely more of a return to reality more than a start anew or a means to the end of the world. People are sick of not being allowed to have or express their opinions, and frankly we voted in the guy that is the absolute personification of anti-political correctness. It's a good thing, and now we might see some god honest equality come back to this country socially, between the sexes, and between the races.
    Disagree 1 Person
    • cmale123

      I think we have wrong belief about sexes for him. Stupid media. I hate it so much.

    • So you voted for someone who flip flops on issues within the same sentence, has little to no understanding of foriegn or domestic policy, has the temperament of a 4 year old, and the Ego of a tyrant, because you want to be a little more explicit in your racism and mysogeny? You careless POS.

    • Gommers

      @Nothanks700 It was never about the issues or his presentation of them, and I didn't vote for him. It was always about connecting to the disenfranchised voters that liberals left behind. Frankly I'd given up hope on having a future doing anything that affords me the ability to own my own home since most of my money would be going to taxes and then paid to people who made bad decisions and lived off the state or raised their children on state's money.

      While I didn't vote for him, I'm glad Trump won over hillary because we, as a country, can't afford to keep cleaning up after the shit of American citizens and them turning around and paying to continue living their shitty ways.

  • RegularTK421
    Here's the problem with all of this, none of it is confirmed. In every article you listed, it's nothing but speculation.

    From your article concerning Jamie Dimon.

    "It was unclear who within Trump's circle of advisors raised the idea or who else might be under consideration for treasury secretary. Trump campaign finance chief Steven Mnuchin, a former Goldman Sachs official, is reportedly considered to be the front runner."

    That means no one. Not a single name of an advisor is actually listed. It's all baseless. Also, the foreign policy article, about naming the secretary of state, has no sources for where these "names" popped up from. It's just a speculative article. Let's wait to see what happens and who he actually considers appointing, before jumping to conclusions.
    Like 1 Person
    • Anonymous

      As I said in my conclusion... the takeaway here is not about focusing on which one individual may or may not get the job. The takeaway here is to observe the mindset of the Trump administration in terms of what vision they have for each post. For instance, if trump is considering 5 people for secretary of defense, you have no idea which of the five will get the job... but if all five are neoconservative, then you get a pretty good sense on the kind of person trump wants in there.

      By this time 8 years ago, it was already obvious to most close observers what kind of president Obama would be simply by reading the names of the people being considered for each post, and the common thread between them. His short lists at the time foretold a pro wall street, middle of the road foreign policy president... and that's exactly what we got. So far with Trump, its basically foretelling a wall street bonanza, and a war thirsty foreign policy

    • @Negrodamuss No one from the Trump administration has actually mentioned that these were their candidates. There is not one advisor from the Trump camp that can be named in all of these. It's completely baseless to begin with. Articles are not always concrete.

  • OrdinaryGentleman
    Considering that he has gone ahead and denied climate change it is without a doubt he will add spark to speed up global warming. I don't think anything crazy will happen, but there will be a massive plunge in the economy and perhaps a spark of war but as far as everything going out of whack completely? well i doubt it.

  • jacquesvol
    We survived Truman, Nixon, Ford, we survived the peanut king, Reagan, 2 generations Bush... we'll survived this one too, if he doesn't start nuking countries...
    But this one too will cost us a lot.
  • Paris13
    End of Obama's Prediction of a New World Order," where as Senator, He Had once Said, "As President, I will Fundamentally Transform America."
    He tried, and if Killary had gotten into that Hot Seat, Another Defeat, which Obama and his Minions didn't Anticipate.
    This Potus Puppet Made Many Lousy Decisions in the Middle of the Nite under you Nose and Mine, and even Going over Congress' Head, Celly in one Hand and Dick Bic in Another Underhanded Hand, but Now... It's Over, Rover, let a New Dog in Town in Barry's Doghouse, do More in Store, Starting with Cleaning out the White House and Draining the Suck Swamp.
    End of the World is Strictly in the bible. When Jesus Comes, hun, He will Do a Bit of Cleaning First. However First, Murder and Mayhem someday, so get Ready, Eddy, for by then, when You will Have to Run for your Life and Protect what is Yours, Everyone will be Flocking together who has Not taken the Mark, Out and About Outdoors. xx
    LikeDisagree 2 People
  • JohnDoeJr
    Neither. He'll just change a few laws in favor of republicans and the pendulum will swing to a liberal president again.
  • RationalMale
    Oh, it's simple. Even if Trump turns out to be just like Bush... then we at least went for the best option, over corrupt politicians like Cruz or Clinton, or mexican wannabes like Jeb Bush.

    It's the dawn of a new day in Western Civilization. You know those people gleefully predicting whites would become a minority in the USA and such? Weeelll white people took notice and decided they have to act in their own interests. Like every single other racial group alive has done. The Left gloated with things like

    And the majority responded with a
    LikeDisagree 3 People
  • TheHunter90
    If it was Mike Pence, a clone of Ted Cruz, yes it will be the end of the year
  • Fathoms77
    Thank you for enabling comments this time. :)
    Like 1 Person
    • Anonymous

      No problem!

  • Belgie
    It will be same old, same old.
  • Adigelunar