If Trump Loses, Do You Plan on Leaving the USA/Western World?

Slam

Woodpecker
The Black Knight said:
The only place that looks like it would be decent as a relocation spot in LA is Santiago, Chile. But that's on paper. In reality, it still would be a tough move given the language/cultural barriers.
Chile was on my radar-- on paper-- for awhile until I went there. It is totally oversold, if anything. The main thing it has going is that it has the most developed economy in LatAm and decent land / property values, but the rest was a big let down.

I would bet any man with experience in Colombia or Brazil would not stay long in Chile (unless he were investing $)... But you're right, this might need to be another thread. ; )
 
How likely is he to lose? Yes, I am reading all the polls but as I'm in Britain I'm finding it difficult to put my finger on the pulse as it were.
 

Suits

 
Monolithic said:
How likely is he to lose? Yes, I am reading all the polls but as I'm in Britain I'm finding it difficult to put my finger on the pulse as it were.
Barring any surprises, he's going to win. The last two weeks have made that clear.
 

redpillage

Ostrich
Gold Member
Slam said:
The Black Knight said:
The only place that looks like it would be decent as a relocation spot in LA is Santiago, Chile. But that's on paper. In reality, it still would be a tough move given the language/cultural barriers.
Chile was on my radar-- on paper-- for awhile until I went there. It is totally oversold, if anything. The main thing it has going is that it has the most developed economy in LatAm and decent land / property values, but the rest was a big let down.

I would bet any man with experience in Colombia or Brazil would not stay long in Chile (unless he were investing $)... But you're right, this might need to be another thread. ; )
I considered Chile for a year or two until I started reading this forum:

http://www.allchile.net/chileforum/

Once you dig into some of those exchanges you quickly realize how depressing a place Chile can be. Forget about it being some SA jewel. The economy may be better than in the rest of SA but the people are pretty stoic, women across the board are below average, getting anything shipped to Chile is a nightmare, pollution is horrible in Santiago de Chile, etc.

However if you really want to 'get out' and escape modern civilization then Chile may be a good call. One could easily live pretty reasonably somewhere in the Los Lagos region and wait out whatever chaos may descend on the West. It's still a last resort option for me if push comes to shove.
 

Suits

 
Monolithic said:
Thanks Suits. I was looking at FiveThiryEight and it didn't look good. What polling sources would you recommend?
Look at them all. It's fairly even between Trump and Shrillary in most polls, although it goes up and down from day to day.

Then consider the fact that Shrillary is too terrified to do press conferences anymore and just think of what that means for the debates.

Trump is the king of debates. His performance in the Republican primary debates took him from just another candidate to a leading candidate given serious consideration and the presidential debates will be no exception.

He is going to hammer her and it's going to put him in the lead and he is going to win.

Also consider the ridiculous lengths that the media is going to to make Shrillary look like a viable candidate. She's clearly not winning this.
 
Don't forget that the media buzz is almost over from DNC

Time only hurts Hillary. If she isn't up huge right now, debates and more world terror attacks are inevitable, and only help Trump

Lots of time is a huge problem for Clinton ... 3 months in a country where the attention span is short?

The media means much less than anyone thinks --- in this election. Because Trump has exposed them far more than anyone else has, and the timing is right
 

hydrogonian

Ostrich
Gold Member
redpillage said:
Slam said:
The Black Knight said:
The only place that looks like it would be decent as a relocation spot in LA is Santiago, Chile. But that's on paper. In reality, it still would be a tough move given the language/cultural barriers.
Chile was on my radar-- on paper-- for awhile until I went there. It is totally oversold, if anything. The main thing it has going is that it has the most developed economy in LatAm and decent land / property values, but the rest was a big let down.

I would bet any man with experience in Colombia or Brazil would not stay long in Chile (unless he were investing $)... But you're right, this might need to be another thread. ; )
I considered Chile for a year or two until I started reading this forum:

http://www.allchile.net/chileforum/

Once you dig into some of those exchanges you quickly realize how depressing a place Chile can be. Forget about it being some SA jewel. The economy may be better than in the rest of SA but the people are pretty stoic, women across the board are below average, getting anything shipped to Chile is a nightmare, pollution is horrible in Santiago de Chile, etc.

However if you really want to 'get out' and escape modern civilization then Chile may be a good call. One could easily live pretty reasonably somewhere in the Los Lagos region and wait out whatever chaos may descend on the West. It's still a last resort option for me if push comes to shove.
I've found that the best way to cut through the tourism propaganda on any one location, short of going there, is to go to google maps street view and take a virtual tour around anywhere that you are considering. Doing so tends puts its relative development into perspective.
 

Easy_C

Crow
We had the first edition of this book when I was growing up. Skousen knows his stuff.

What I am linking here is a video interview with Alex Jones, but I recommend the book. Some of his recommendations are heavily assumption dependent (e.g. I'm not worried about China invading New Zealand....too little effort for the reward), but his information about where to hunker down inside the United States is great. He writes down a lot of strategic considerations that most people are likely to miss such as what happens when the bobos start fleeing the cities.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jzjm9MJFSA8
 

Valentine

Kingfisher
Gold Member
At what level of terrorism would you consider leaving?

I live in a city where there have been terrorist attacks (fortunately the last major one was more than 10 years ago) and have been considering worst case scenarios. What would it take for me to leave?

Personally if I saw there was a major terrorist attack leaving 100+ dead, or 2 in a span of 3 months leaving 100+ total dead then at that point I'd be making plans to move to the countryside. Do any of you guys have plans for these sorts of worst case scenarios?
 

Sherman

Ostrich
I left America before Obama was elected. I have found that you can live better in another country, once you settle in and meet the right people and get the right housing. But it can be rough when you are starting out and don't know what you are doing.
 

TravelerKai

Peacock
Gold Member
Valentine said:
At what level of terrorism would you consider leaving?

I live in a city where there have been terrorist attacks (fortunately the last major one was more than 10 years ago) and have been considering worst case scenarios. What would it take for me to leave?

Personally if I saw there was a major terrorist attack leaving 100+ dead, or 2 in a span of 3 months leaving 100+ total dead then at that point I'd be making plans to move to the countryside. Do any of you guys have plans for these sorts of worst case scenarios?
Terrorism doesn't scare me. Living in Texas, I see guys with pistols with IWB holsters under their shirts almost everyday. I can see the pistol outline and I am sure they see mine. We would fight back if they bothered to pull what they have been pulling in other states. Even liberals from out of state were shocked at just how many liberal folks in Austin were openly carrying pistols at the SXSW music festival last year.

Any terrorist trying to kill many of us out in the open in a public area are pretty likely to get shot themselves. The Fort Hood shooting happened on a base that is supposed to be a "gun free zone". I like our chances better than other places. If I could not live in Texas, I probably would not live in the US at all.

Gun grabbers, like Hillary, are far, far worse. She is insane enough to try and take our guns unlike Obama.
 

Space Cowboy

Woodpecker
Suits said:
Monolithic said:
How likely is he to lose? Yes, I am reading all the polls but as I'm in Britain I'm finding it difficult to put my finger on the pulse as it were.
Barring any surprises, he's going to win. The last two weeks have made that clear.
I'll have that. My money is on Clinton, loser buys the beer the next time we meet.
 

Suits

 
Space Cowboy said:
Suits said:
Monolithic said:
How likely is he to lose? Yes, I am reading all the polls but as I'm in Britain I'm finding it difficult to put my finger on the pulse as it were.
Barring any surprises, he's going to win. The last two weeks have made that clear.
I'll have that. My money is on Clinton, loser buys the beer the next time we meet.
OK, but I'm buying you a lousy Chinese made beer if he loses, because if he does lose, we'd better get used to drinking Chinese global dominance with a smile on our faces.
 

Laner

Hummingbird
Gold Member
I have tried to leave the west a couple of times, but I end up back here in Vancouver every time.

Nearly all the immigrant friends I have already left their home countries and come here due to the reasons we talk about on here every day. Vancouver is many of the elites from China, Russia, Iran's "bug out city".

If my mom gets on it she can get her US citizenship, then that opens that up to me as well. I want it, as I have some rural spots in Eastern Oregon and Montana on my dream list.

If I had to leave, I would probably go to Japan as my son has a passport there and some family to help us out. Realistically though Japan is more likely to get into conflict before Canada/USA.

No, if shit goes truly declines I would head up to the Yukon. My family has enough land up there to rival Switzerland's area. My Indian roots would see me adjust to the diet and shitty living conditions of the Canadian north but at least my bloodline would have a better chance of survival. Family has already talked about this, and this is our extended large families "bug out plan". The hardest part would be getting up there, Skagway is a long sail away, and the Nahanni is no easy walk from there.
 

eradicator

Peacock
Gold Member
Clinton is way ahead in all the polls. I wish I understood some of the optimism around here but right now this election is turning out to be one of the biggest landslides since 1984.

Trump is losing big in all of the polls after falling apart the past week especially in the swing states. People on here are talking like Trump is way up in all the polls when it's the opposite. He is spending nothing on his campaign and it shows.



my plan is to teach English either in the Ukraine probably Kiev or maybe Moscow.
 

Suits

 
I've predicted earlier on this thread that no one who wasn't already going to leave isn't going to leave even if Clinton wins.

However, if you'd like to prove me wrong, I'd be very open to helping a group of ideal candidates who want to create a tribe in China.

I'm in Beijing, but as my business develops from service based to product based, I might be more flexible and there is already a good group in Shenzhen, so either of these cities could be discussed.

I honestly don't think anyone is actually going to buy a plane ticket just because Hillary comes out on top, but I'd be more than happy to aid in your departure.
 

iop890

Crow
Gold Member
Suits said:
I've predicted earlier on this thread that no one who wasn't already going to leave isn't going to leave even if Clinton wins.
Pretty much, yeah. For the most part people were either already going to leave or they never will.

I'm leaving in January regardless of who wins, barring any major unforeseen fuckups.

If it's Hillary I'll just be a lot more snarky and loud about it.
 

Libertas

Crow
Gold Member
Since it's looking more and more like this will happen, I want to share a few things. Hillary winning isn't the apocalypse. Let me explain.

Hillary isn't like Obama. She's not persuasive. And she's incompetent. Even though the media mostly leans heavily Democrat, she won't be able to finesse the media the way her husband or Obama did. She's also going to walk into a minefield from day one.

Here's where we try not to get too hung up on definitions and see things in a new way.

http://theweek.com/articles/640676/antiestablishment-case-hillary-clinton

The 2016 presidential election is almost a pure choice between the establishment and an anti-establishment candidate.

Hillary Clinton is the establishment. She's the candidate of think-tankers, wonks, and the established style of governance that has dominated the Western world since the end of the Cold War. She represents the standard managed capitalist vision at home. She's for big free-trade deals. And she is hawkish on defense issues in the Washington way, embracing the use of air power and proxies abroad to "shape" outcomes in America's favor. She sides with liberals in the culture war, but in a way that seems cautious and calculating. She is pious about gay rights now, but she was not pioneering then. She is politically correct, but not politically courageous. She says all the right things, once the left has made it compulsory for her to do so. The press is openly rooting for her in a way that is unprecedented in modern American politics.

That's because Donald Trump is the candidate running against almost all of the above. He pits himself against "globalism" — which is the populist word for what the establishment calls "internationalism." He opposes trade deals. He seriously questions the ever-freer movement of capital, goods, and people. He criticizes (sometimes hypocritically) America's post-Cold War foreign policy. He questions the utility of the NATO alliance. Hardly any think-tankers or policy experts work with his campaign. And Trump doesn't just question whether mass immigration is good for America. He questions whether the immigrants are really up to snuff as humans. For him, Mexicans are rapists and Middle Eastern refugees are terrorists in waiting. For his supporters, Trump's crudity is part of his broader assault on "political correctness," one that will pull down all the establishment's taboos and allow Americans to finally say what they really think again.

So it would seem to be straightforward. If you want to blow up the status quo and the system, vote for Trump. If you think the existing order and the existing direction of that order is worth defending, vote for Clinton.

But it's not that simple.

The intensity of populist attachment to Trump's candidacy is aided by his wealth, celebrity, and ability to dominate a news cycle. He seems to be the one populist who has a real shot to loosen the establishment's grip on both parties and cut a path to the White House. Many populists think Trump is their one shot.

But the better shot for the anti-establishment crowd may come if Hillary Clinton wins and torches whatever last shreds of credibility the establishment has left.

The post-Cold War political establishment is officially loyal to Clinton and hostile to Trump. But at the same time, the establishment must confront its own vices in Clinton: its fundamental clubbiness, its self-seeking, its overwhelming priority to "do well" while doing good, its habit of doing what is technically legal but obviously unethical. And at the same time, the establishment sees its virtues when it opposes Trump: its respect for facts, its liberality and graciousness. In other words, the establishment seems to be demoralized by having Clinton represent it. Correspondingly, it is re-moralized when it gets to oppose Trump. And its behavior in this election — siding overwhelmingly with Clinton in an election that is a referendum on the establishment itself — means that they will own the outcomes of her presidency.

Clinton seems positioned to fail spectacularly if elected. She does not have the ability to charm and quiet the press or the public the way Obama or Bill Clinton did. Her one political trick is trying to outwork her problems, and to show the public she is putting in lots of effort. But America may soon face another recession. Obama bequeaths to her America's involvement in four civil wars across the Middle East. America's involvement in Syria, Iraq, Libya, and Yemen has no actual support from the American public beyond its indifference. Another bomb or riot that turns into American casualties, and already her presidency is put on the defensive.

Clinton is experienced at failing. She failed to get health-care reform in the 1990s. She failed to win the Democratic nomination in 2008 when the process wasn't tilted entirely in her favor. The one piece of policy entrepreneurship she brought to the State Department was her advocacy for intervening in Libya's civil war, an ongoing disaster.

A vote for Clinton is a vote for a status quo that, when left to itself, can barely hide its exhaustion, self-hatred, and incompetence much longer. H.L. Mencken said that "democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard." The establishment deserves Clinton as its tribune. She reveals its competence as mere cleverness rather than wisdom. She is its idealism turned into a cold glare. She is the promise of revolution turned into a shoddy grift and a mirthless job.

Who will be left to defend the establishment when she's had her turn with it?
Another on her incompetence, and a warning:

http://theweek.com/articles/638440/new-nationalism-rising-dont-let-donald-trump-destroy

Across the Western world, post-Cold War politics have long been characterized by an orthodoxy of free trade, nurturing the service economy, neoliberal trading arrangements, and liberalized immigration policies. But now, in many of these countries, there is a broad nativist revolt against such politics.

This revolt is the politics of the provinces against the capital cities. These nativists are trying to reassert their cultural and economic interests, which they believe have been denigrated by a political settlement that enriches the elite and provides opportunity to foreigners at the expense of the old industrial and rural heartlands. Let's call the phenomenon "the new nationalism."

In America, of course, the new nationalism is best seen in the ascendancy of GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump.

The new nationalism challenges our post-1989 political orthodoxies. It questions whether Western governments should continue to facilitate the ever-freer movement of capital, goods, and people. In America, it questions whether the U.S. should continue as an unchallengeable global hegemon, promising to defend the integrity of Estonia's borders against Russian invasion the same way it would Oregon's.

If the new nationalism is going to achieve real political power and influence in America, it will be a major paradigm change in our politics. And that's exactly why it is so dangerous for new nationalists to support such an obvious incompetent and charlatan as Donald Trump.

There is a strong and real case for the new nationalism. Don't let Trump destroy it.

Even if you could somehow swallow the ways in which Trump has made the pitch for American nationalism narrower, more exclusively white, and vastly more hostile to American minorities than necessary, there is the towering problem of Trump's sheer boobishness and incompetence. If anything, the bar for performance should be raised for leaders who promise to upend a generation of political certainties. A bunch of time-servers and idiots can make a well-established, existing system work reasonably well. They have the incumbent interests, the rentier classes, and the people who make their livelihoods off the old system to keep them in check. But a man leading a revolution should be able to reassure us with his discipline, his gravity, and even his caution. Trump has none of these.

Consider the interview he gave to The New York Times the week of his nomination, in which he casually put into doubt America's security guarantees for Eastern Europe. This was plainly dangerous. An American president who judged that the 1990s expansion of NATO left the United States with too much security risk and liability would have to begin untangling or reforming this alliance with great care. Putting the whole damn thing into doubt in a news clipping, without any warning or consultation, is an invitation to either Russian escalation or Baltic panic. Both of these increase the chance of catastrophic diplomatic or military miscalculation.

Like a lot of famous rich people, Trump is subject to many lawsuits. The problem is that these lawsuits aren't frivolous money-sniffing lotto tickets from the plaintiffs. Instead they are for the kind of fraud and abuse associated with late-night infomercial grifters. See the Trump University scam, where instructors were taught how to push customers into upping their credit limits to go deeper into debt for Trump. For a supposed billionaire, Trump lends his name and likeness to a lot of scummy businesses. His campaign is stuffed with people who think it is a good idea to share memes from racist Twitter accounts, or that you can win votes from Latinos by sending out a picture of a Trump Tower Taco Bowl.

If you support new nationalist ideas — like regulated immigration, renegotiated trade, and a more hands-off foreign policy — aren't you a little worried that Trump will do to these ideas what he did to Atlantic City? Champion them for a little while, try to build up his brand, and then leave a gaping disaster behind him?

Hillary Clinton is the candidate of big trade deals, liberalized immigration, and using America's military to manage civil wars and conflicts across the global. She, too, is incompetent. She chooses the wrong battles: See her intervention in Libya that has blown up in everyone's faces. She responded to queries about whether her email servers were "wiped" with the lame retort, "With a cloth?" Her homebrew email server was likely hacked by foreign intelligence.

If you're at all sympathetic to the new nationalism, wouldn't you prefer the incompetent Hillary Clinton discrediting her beliefs than the incompetent Donald Trump discrediting yours?
We all know Hillary is incompetent. She has proven that every day of her public life. She also, again, can't work the media or appear favorable to the public to save her life. Even George W. Bush had this loveable loser air about him.

What I'm hoping, and what seems very possible (likely, even), is that Hillary Clinton, if she wins, is so incompetent, unlikable, out of touch, and swamped by events that she detonates the Democratic Party the same way George W. Bush did with the GOP. Very, very possible. See it in that light and all isn't lost. It'll be bad, for sure, but your life should never depend on politicians anyway.

I also had the fear that SJWism would get much worse with her, but keep in mind that the only thing the Clintons care about is greasing their own pockets. They don't care about SJW's and "transformative justice" the way Obama did. She'll do something for political expediency, but may not throw her weight behind it when her focus is on skimming funds from the public teat.

Look for scandals to plague her corrupt and incompetent administration as well.

Like I said, it will be bad, but your plans shouldn't depend on politics anyway. I probably won't even pay as much attention because I can't stand listening to her. So that's more time devoted to more important projects (for me personally, that is).

Read Gorilla Mindset, and reframe your self-talk.
 

Dantes

Pelican
Gold Member
I see Hillary being more moderate than Obama. She worked well with a few Republicans in the Senate.

I had a recent conversation with a Forum member in which we agreed that Hillary is akin to a moderate republican 20 years ago.
 
Top