Hey, Trump Voters

[MrMoogle]

If a nuke goes off here and we haven't had calm, regular, and rational public discussion about what kinds of policies would and would not be productive in response, then who knows what kind of craziness might ensue

They are deliberately not public, but I assure you that the American government does have calm, regular, and rational discussions of these threats, how they can be tracked and prevented, their exact consequences (political, economic, environmental, infrastructure), how those consequences can be mitigated or overcome, and what each of those potential responses would cost vs what benefits they might provide.  It's not like you're the first person to worry about this.  We pay lots of very smart people to worry about this.

But there is no benefit to having that discussion in public.  First, it upsets regular citizens who would much rather be worrying about their favorite zombie/dragon tv show.  More importantly, it telegraph our vulnerabilities to people who might exploit them.  Should we just put up a big sign with the top ten ways a terrorist can destroy America?

Nukes are mostly a psychological weapon.  You can level a city with conventional weapons too, but nukes are scarier because then you don't need an air force to do it.  But on the scale of major terrorist vulnerabilities, I honestly don't think nukes rate very highly.  9/11 cost a few thousand dollars in total, for commercial airfare and some box cutters, and it reshaped the global political landscape.  There are a hundred other ways to finesse our carefully balanced civilization into complete anarchy, for pocket change, that are more worrisome than nuclear weapons.  Those are the discussions that I feel aren't getting the attention they deserve, mostly because they require specialized knowledge that isn't common among the agencies tracking these threats.

Like fake news, for example?

Some fake news is profitable, so it's not even pocket change.  The Onion has been doing it for years.  The problem is the newer sites don't have the name recognition as The Onion, so not everyone knows it is fake.

[Malaysia41]

(Answering Metric Mouse's question about pre vs post 9/11 America)

I felt the first long term shift in post 9/11 America while driving up to SF for a meeting. Over the radio, I heard Colin Powell testify to the UN about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. My bullshit alarms went off big time. And it was weird, because of everyone in Bush's cabinet - he seemed one of the more trustworthy. It saddened me. Most of the people in my family and approx half the people at work thought that invading Iraq had to be done. I thought we should leave it to the UN. I was laughed at.

I knew we'd spread ourselves thin and cause havoc. Little did I know to what extent.

Not sure how much later, but maybe within a year or two, I was in product planning meetings with network infrastructure architects and it was an open secret they needed to provision traffic so that the NSA and other agencies could snoop packets. It made me a bit uncomfortable, but I figured they must have been operating within some legal and limited framework. It was working with the guided bomb guys that really creeped me out. Luckily this was a tiny part of our business.

Much later, when Snowden blew the lid off the wire tapping I was surprised that people didn't know this shit was going on. Then I thought, holy shit. How could I have been so complacent about it when I first learned? Of course I'd only seen one viewpoint of it.

The psyche of people had shifted. My comfort with government snooping was proof of it. But it went beyond that.

Sure we had conservative vs liberal before 9/11. But I don't know. Maybe it entrenched people's views and made things a tad more toxic.  All of a sudden there was a new bad monster to fight against.  But the thing was - we created that monster. Yes - the makings of it already existed. But we shaped it into various forms from, hell, Eisenhower onwards. (obviously this is my opinion). The more we fought it, the bigger, scarier and more distorted it grew. People became comfortable with the idea of our government torturing people. Human beings - who hadn't even been tried in a court of law. And people were all of a sudden okay with it. I remember when 'the US doesn't torture' was a major point of pride for a lot of these very same people. 9/11 changed all of that. Yep. Some of our integrity died day. Fear is a mind-altering emotion. This is something that Bin Laden seems to have understood well.

And today - the drone program. It's declined over the past few years - but how many people are totally fine with it? The vast majority. IDK if that would have been the case pre 9/11.

[wenchsenior]

If a nuke goes off here and we haven't had calm, regular, and rational public discussion about what kinds of policies would and would not be productive in response, then who knows what kind of craziness might ensue

They are deliberately not public, but I assure you that the American government does have calm, regular, and rational discussions of these threats, how they can be tracked and prevented, their exact consequences (political, economic, environmental, infrastructure), how those consequences can be mitigated or overcome, and what each of those potential responses would cost vs what benefits they might provide.  It's not like you're the first person to worry about this.  We pay lots of very smart people to worry about this.

But there is no benefit to having that discussion in public.  First, it upsets regular citizens who would much rather be worrying about their favorite zombie/dragon tv show.  More importantly, it telegraph our vulnerabilities to people who might exploit them.  Should we just put up a big sign with the top ten ways a terrorist can destroy America?

Nukes are mostly a psychological weapon.  You can level a city with conventional weapons too, but nukes are scarier because then you don't need an air force to do it.  But on the scale of major terrorist vulnerabilities, I honestly don't think nukes rate very highly.  9/11 cost a few thousand dollars in total, for commercial airfare and some box cutters, and it reshaped the global political landscape.  There are a hundred other ways to finesse our carefully balanced civilization into complete anarchy, for pocket change, that are more worrisome than nuclear weapons.  Those are the discussions that I feel aren't getting the attention they deserve, mostly because they require specialized knowledge that isn't common among the agencies tracking these threats.

I know the government talks to itself about this all the time in private.  And I think there are far more statistically likely threats than nukes (cyber terrorism, for one). But because nukes are so upsetting an idea, I think that's exactly why we should be more matter of fact about discussing them with the citizens than we do. To defuse some of that terror. 

But Americans seem to be a group hostile to calm and rational thought, so maybe it would prove too much for their delicate psyches, as you say.

[Glenstache]

If a nuke goes off here and we haven't had calm, regular, and rational public discussion about what kinds of policies would and would not be productive in response, then who knows what kind of craziness might ensue

They are deliberately not public, but I assure you that the American government does have calm, regular, and rational discussions of these threats, how they can be tracked and prevented, their exact consequences (political, economic, environmental, infrastructure), how those consequences can be mitigated or overcome, and what each of those potential responses would cost vs what benefits they might provide.  It's not like you're the first person to worry about this.  We pay lots of very smart people to worry about this.

But there is no benefit to having that discussion in public.  First, it upsets regular citizens who would much rather be worrying about their favorite zombie/dragon tv show.  More importantly, it telegraph our vulnerabilities to people who might exploit them.  Should we just put up a big sign with the top ten ways a terrorist can destroy America?

Nukes are mostly a psychological weapon.  You can level a city with conventional weapons too, but nukes are scarier because then you don't need an air force to do it.  But on the scale of major terrorist vulnerabilities, I honestly don't think nukes rate very highly.  9/11 cost a few thousand dollars in total, for commercial airfare and some box cutters, and it reshaped the global political landscape.  There are a hundred other ways to finesse our carefully balanced civilization into complete anarchy, for pocket change, that are more worrisome than nuclear weapons.  Those are the discussions that I feel aren't getting the attention they deserve, mostly because they require specialized knowledge that isn't common among the agencies tracking these threats.

Like fake news, for example?

Some fake news is profitable, so it's not even pocket change.  The Onion has been doing it for years.  The problem is the newer sites don't have the name recognition as The Onion, so not everyone knows it is fake.

Except that The Onion is manifestly satire, as opposed to being intentionally misleading. Somewhat on topic for fake news:
http://www.theonion.com/article/longtime-reader-lib-slavesinfo-sick-mainstream-bia-54745
... which is less funny in light of the impacts of fake sites on things like: the recent election, shooting at a pizza parlor (which was clearly a human traffic site), or death threats against Sandy Hook survivors (which was so obviously a false flag op).

[Metric Mouse]

Golden, Malaysia, Kris: Thank you so much for sharing your perspectives and thoughts.

[MrMoogle]

If a nuke goes off here and we haven't had calm, regular, and rational public discussion about what kinds of policies would and would not be productive in response, then who knows what kind of craziness might ensue

They are deliberately not public, but I assure you that the American government does have calm, regular, and rational discussions of these threats, how they can be tracked and prevented, their exact consequences (political, economic, environmental, infrastructure), how those consequences can be mitigated or overcome, and what each of those potential responses would cost vs what benefits they might provide.  It's not like you're the first person to worry about this.  We pay lots of very smart people to worry about this.

But there is no benefit to having that discussion in public.  First, it upsets regular citizens who would much rather be worrying about their favorite zombie/dragon tv show.  More importantly, it telegraph our vulnerabilities to people who might exploit them.  Should we just put up a big sign with the top ten ways a terrorist can destroy America?

Nukes are mostly a psychological weapon.  You can level a city with conventional weapons too, but nukes are scarier because then you don't need an air force to do it.  But on the scale of major terrorist vulnerabilities, I honestly don't think nukes rate very highly.  9/11 cost a few thousand dollars in total, for commercial airfare and some box cutters, and it reshaped the global political landscape.  There are a hundred other ways to finesse our carefully balanced civilization into complete anarchy, for pocket change, that are more worrisome than nuclear weapons.  Those are the discussions that I feel aren't getting the attention they deserve, mostly because they require specialized knowledge that isn't common among the agencies tracking these threats.

Like fake news, for example?

Some fake news is profitable, so it's not even pocket change.  The Onion has been doing it for years.  The problem is the newer sites don't have the name recognition as The Onion, so not everyone knows it is fake.

Except that The Onion is manifestly satire, as opposed to being intentionally misleading. Somewhat on topic for fake news:
http://www.theonion.com/article/longtime-reader-lib-slavesinfo-sick-mainstream-bia-54745
... which is less funny in light of the impacts of fake sites on things like: the recent election, shooting at a pizza parlor (which was clearly a human traffic site), or death threats against Sandy Hook survivors (which was so obviously a false flag op).

Sure, but people still believe The Onion is true.  If we have trouble getting people to recognize obvious satire, it's hard to get people to recognize intentionally misleading articles.

[Glenstache]

Sure, but people still believe The Onion is true.  If we have trouble getting people to recognize obvious satire, it's hard to get people to recognize intentionally misleading articles.

Yep.

[SisterX]

Glenstache - I had to look up the Sandy Hook conspiracy theory. Holy bejeesus, people are messed up if they're threatening the family members of people who've been killed in a mass shooting. I realize it happens all the time, but...those poor parents. I can't imagine what I'd do if my daughter was killed that way, and then having people terrorize you years afterward is just unspeakable.

Metric Mouse - I was eighteen when 9/11 happened and I still remember every detail of what led to me hearing about the terrorist attacks. I remember the pajamas I was wearing (it was my day off and I slept late, until ten, and decided to turn on a movie, something funny because I felt the need to laugh that day, and got a glimpse of the news on before the tape--yes, a tape!--turned on and thought, "Huh, the news isn't usually on at this time of day. ...That means something really bad has happened. Do I really want to know about it yet?" and sat there deliberating for at least two minutes before deciding that, yes, I did want to know and turned back to the TV just in time to see them replaying footage of the planes crashing into the towers). Not only that, but I remember the absolute fear that invaded everything after that. People were scared to go grocery shopping, or step out of their houses, because there was the fear of "what if that's just the first stage in a massive plan to attack us?" My mom was on a business trip on the East Coast (she'd been in New York and D.C. for parts of her trip) and had to drive across the country with several of her coworkers because they couldn't get a flight for at least a week.
After a while, though, it's not like people went back to normal. It's like there was a reset. That baseline of fear became the new normal and people learned to live with it. I think that's why the surveillance stuff became not such a big deal, because there was that constant low-level fear and the surveillance gives people the notion that the government is doing something. What, they can't precisely tell you, but they're doing something and that's what matters the most! It allows people to ignore the fear most of the time. It's still there just below the surface, though. The recession afterwards just cemented in people's minds that things are worse and there's a lot of reason to be afraid these days. And of course, people don't want to examine their fears that closely (human nature) so it's much harder for them to see that, in many ways, they've created the very reasons they're afraid.
What a strange time to be just getting into adulthood. No ability to affect outcomes (I had not been old enough to vote in the previous election) but old enough to have many aspects of my life changed because of those events and the fallout from them.
And I do remember the night I heard on the news that we were going to be invading Iraq. I actually yelled at the TV, "What? No!" Again, I was old enough to see how it would be impacting my generation without being old enough to actually change things. That sucked. When it was (surprise!) revealed that the information we invaded them off of was false I was like, "Of course it was!"
And oh, how quickly people forgot just who the architects of those wars were, and began blaming Obama for all of it. Fickle, stupid people looking for someone to blame for their fears, no matter how illogical.
It's weird that my experience of the world is completely different from yours when I'm not much older. There's, what, maybe 6 years' difference in our ages? We're part of the same generation, I guess, (I'm in the weird 'maybe a Millennial maybe not' cohort) but my perception has been shaped in ways that yours really hasn't.

[Malaysia41]

@SisterX. I didn't really feel much fear til we made the case for invading Iraq. Shock and sadness - absolutely. Bigly. But fear, maybe a trace amount? But I don't even think that.

I actually booked a flight on 9/11 - a few hours after the second plane crashed.  I imagine I was a rare booker on the southwest airline site that day.  Of course I was on the west coast. If I'd been on the east coast my emotions probably would have been different.

Speaking of Bigly, this thread is for Q&A of Trump voters. I ain't part of that tribe, so won't be providing any answers. I'm losing interest in asking more questions - I'm pretty fatigued on the whole thing. So I'll stop there.

[Cannot Wait!]

Sure, but people still believe The Onion is true.  If we have trouble getting people to recognize obvious satire, it's hard to get people to recognize intentionally misleading articles.

Yep.

But this http://www.theonion.com/article/health-experts-recommend-standing-up-at-desk-leavi-37957
was TRUE! 

[MrMoogle]

Sure, but people still believe The Onion is true.  If we have trouble getting people to recognize obvious satire, it's hard to get people to recognize intentionally misleading articles.

Yep.

But this http://www.theonion.com/article/health-experts-recommend-standing-up-at-desk-leavi-37957
was TRUE! 

There is truth in all satire, just usually not facts.  There's probably a better way to say that.

[Cressida]

For all the complaints, many are icky, the only one of actual rape is his wife, and that is during a divorce. 

just ... what? what?

What are you trying to say here? Rape is bad, but it's less bad if it's your wife? Raping your wife is bad, but it's less bad if it's during a divorce?

I can't comprehend the thought process behind writing this sentence.

[Freedom2016]

Metric Mouse,  how old are you? I only ask because if one were a child when 9/11 occurred, one likely wouldn't have much perspective on the blatant and subtle ways it affected America afterward.

Late twenties. So while I have memories of breezing through airport security without considering the shoes I'm wearing, for the most part I have adapted to the overall climate of the country.

I would love to expand my perspective though, if you'd be willing to share.

You didn't specifically ask for my view, but I'll share it anyway :)

I was 27 on 9/11 and living in Washington DC. That morning I was moderating a panel discussion of middle east politics with a US Ambassador sitting on the stage beside me. I was super nervous as this was my first time moderating such a big event. Before it started I heard people mentioning "oh, a plane just hit the WTC" and in the next breath speculate "oh, probably a single engine plane" kind of deal.

So we started the event. A few minutes later, I'll never forget seeing my boss walk down the aisle from the back of the auditorium toward us on stage, telling everyone that two planes had hit the towers, one the Pentagon, and he didn't know much else, but we should stop the event and go back to our homes or offices. We were near Dupont Circle and as we walked back to our office in a daze, we could see black smoke billowing up from the Pentagon crash.

It was surreal and I was in shock - it was impossible to get my head around what we were seeing on the office TV - but I can say I've never experienced mass fear like that before. Nobody knew what the fuck was going on, everybody was freaked out, and pretty soon black hawk helicopters were swooping over our heads and we saw armed soldiers patrolling the streets throughout the city. Everybody walked home from work that day, and my roommates and I huddled in front of the TV. We were suddenly living in a very real police state.

It also turned out that my organization was that very week hosting a group of Iranian scientists in the US - we did citizen exchanges and I ran the program for a couple of years. I had just transitioned off that program and the idiot guy who replaced me was supposed to be chaperoning these Iranians who were literally in Washington DC the day it all happened. When the planes hit, that dolt abandoned them to get home to his newlywed wife. (I had many other issues with the guy so yeah, I'm being hyper critical.) Anyway, imagine how doubly terrified these Iranians must have been, first that their own safety was in jeopardy because of terrorism, and second that their safety might be in jeopardy because their American host has disappeared suddenly, and other Americans might take them for terrorists. Gah.


You might remember that not long after 9/11, mailed anthrax attacks started happening, and I had several friends who worked on the hill who were given a course of Cipro to take after their office had received a powdery envelope in the mail. News outlets were blaring advice to seal up windows and doors because biochemical weapons. It was a scary time, and I remember feeling very powerless and vulnerable.

So I fully agree with others who say 9/11 was a major watershed in this country. It seems quaint and almost a daydream that I used to go to the gate at the airport to meet people coming off, or to wait with them until boarding. Fear catalyzed broad public acceptance of "police state"-like security and surveillance measures. I have thought, with some regularity since 9/11, about whether I might be a casualty of a terrorist attack. The Boston marathon bombings brought that pretty close to home; I was out of town in 2013 but I often watch the marathon, and I ran it back in 2010. Of course the data say that I'm much more likely to be a victim of other events/violence; but my reptilian brain doesn't always respond to rational discourse. :)

[Meowkins]

I haven't followed where the conversation has gone since I posted the original post. But I remember someone being surprised that law-abiding citizens would be concerned in a Trump Presidency. It's hard to understand why that might be, I'm sure, without shared experience. I found that this article was illuminating for me, and it might be for you:


http://www.vox.com/first-person/2016/12/7/13855268/trump-muslims-surveillance

Excerpt:

Why Muslims like me are afraid of the Trump administration

In the weeks since Donald Trump won the presidential election, I’ve realized that most Americans have no idea what I’m afraid of as an American Muslim. The prevailing narrative about our fears is centered on immigration, either in the form of restrictions on refugees or registries for recent immigrants. But like most American Muslims, I’m neither a recent immigrant, nor a refugee. I’m a second-generation Pakistani American living in Washington, DC. I’m frightened by both proposals and deeply concerned for the members of my community and family that will be affected. But I’m equally frightened for my personal safety from law enforcement. I’m genuinely afraid of being reported, interrogated, and arrested on the basis of my religious identity.

My fears are not unfounded; it is not the first time the state and bigots emboldened by it have been mobilized against my community. For most of my adult life, I assumed stories like mine about Bush-era scrutiny of American Muslims were known by those outside our community. After all, it wasn’t a new phenomenon; state surveillance of American Muslims stretched as far back as the FBI’s pursuit of black Muslims during the 1950s. I assumed Americans understood the far-reaching consequences of criminalizing a religious identity: mistrust, fear, loss of civil liberties, loss of livelihood, suppression of civic and religious organizations. I’m afraid I was wrong. I now recognize it’s important to convey exactly what I'm afraid of, so that you might be able help.

I bolded for emphasis in case you guys are skimming. I have met Sameer (the author) before and found both he and his wife to be lovely, eloquent, and thoughtful individuals.

[KBecks]

For all the complaints, many are icky, the only one of actual rape is his wife, and that is during a divorce. 

just ... what? what?

What are you trying to say here? Rape is bad, but it's less bad if it's your wife? Raping your wife is bad, but it's less bad if it's during a divorce?

I can't comprehend the thought process behind writing this sentence.

The accusation of rape comes from a contentious divorce case.  I have no way of knowing if it is true or not, and she later said that he would be a great President.  The article is presented as if all the complaints against Trump were all rapes, so I'm pointing out that there was only one accusation of rape and we don't know what actually happened. 

And Trump is icky.  I agree.  I don't know if he is a rapist.  I don't know how many of those accusations are true, I suspect some of them are true and some of them are not.   

[jrhampt]

I was in my first job fresh out of college when September 11 happened. I was living in Connecticut, same as I am now.  It was terrifying and surreal.    It changed my outlook on the world in many ways, but one of the smaller ways was that I became suddenly terrified of flying and had to drug myself out of my mind for at least a decade before getting on a plane.  I can only compare what I felt on September 11 to what I felt on November 9th this year.

[Cannot Wait!]

I can only compare what I felt on September 11 to what I felt on November 9th this year.

Me too.

[Quidnon?]

But Americans seem to be a group hostile to calm and rational thought, so maybe it would prove too much for their delicate psyches, as you say.

I disagree with this statement.  Generally speaking, the government agencies that are in charge of planning for such worst-case scenarios are talking, it's that the public doesn't really care to listen.  Instead, we have reality-tv shows that highlight (and typically mock via absurdity) an extreme minority of this concerned citizenry.

https://www.ready.gov/are-you-ready-guide

And I point this out, not a fan of government's track record myself.

Also, I just noticed this thread.  Getting back to the original question of the first post, I voted for Trump, but not because I liked Trump or thought him likely to be a good president.  I simply voted against Clinton, because I consider her to be the most corrupt career politician to get anywhere near the presidency since at least Warren Harding.  While Trump may prove to be no better, at least there remains that possibility.  I was unwilling to reward a career of corruption with lifetime immunity from threat of prison; because while a sitting president can be impeached for exactly the kinds of things she has already done, no president or former president can be imprisoned even if convicted.  (Bill cannot be imprisoned, no matter the evidence that may be against him)  So, in the end, I don't expect Democrats to be happy about the outcome, and a bit of concern is probably warranted; but put up a quality candidate in four years and we will see what happens.  I would have voted for Bernie Sanders over Don Trump in a heartbeat, but as we know now, Clinton managed to corrupt that process also.

[Glenstache]

But Americans seem to be a group hostile to calm and rational thought, so maybe it would prove too much for their delicate psyches, as you say.

I disagree with this statement.  Generally speaking, the government agencies that are in charge of planning for such worst-case scenarios are talking, it's that the public doesn't really care to listen.  Instead, we have reality-tv shows that highlight (and typically mock via absurdity) an extreme minority of this concerned citizenry.

https://www.ready.gov/are-you-ready-guide

And I point this out, not a fan of government's track record myself.

Also, I just noticed this thread.  Getting back to the original question of the first post, I voted for Trump, but not because I liked Trump or thought him likely to be a good president.  I simply voted against Clinton, because I consider her to be the most corrupt career politician to get anywhere near the presidency since at least Warren Harding.  While Trump may prove to be no better, at least there remains that possibility.  I was unwilling to reward a career of corruption with lifetime immunity from threat of prison; because while a sitting president can be impeached for exactly the kinds of things she has already done, no president or former president can be imprisoned even if convicted.  (Bill cannot be imprisoned, no matter the evidence that may be against him)  So, in the end, I don't expect Democrats to be happy about the outcome, and a bit of concern is probably warranted; but put up a quality candidate in four years and we will see what happens.  I would have voted for Bernie Sanders over Don Trump in a heartbeat, but as we know now, Clinton managed to corrupt that process also.

I sincerely wish that your principled stand against corruption had been a vote for any other candidate. The level of corruption under trump is likely to be staggering based on his unprecedented mingling of politics and personal/family business within the last month, and the cabinet he had assembled to date.

[KBecks]

I wonder if people who have had strong reactions to Trump would have felt any better if the new President were Walker, Rubio or Bush. 

A concern that I have, but it's a mild concern, is that Rush Limbaugh was very positive about Trump in the primary and throughout the election.  Now, I don't listen every day so I don't have a real sense of how it played out in the primary, but, Limbaugh was very favorable toward Trump.  Part of that is that what conservatives wanted most, was someone who could beat Clinton.  Well, we got that.  Yay!  I was very sad when Trump surpassed Walker in the polls, and Walker did not have enough money / support to continue on.  As for Trump, I can see some of the positives, it is interesting for example how Trump is using Twitter to speak for himself to go to the people directly vs. the traditional news media.  Some of those things are interesting and they are good, politically.  He is re-writing the playbook for how the President works with the media and that's not bad.  Trump's unapologetic style is fresh compared to many old school Republicans.  It is important that we look at Trump and judge him for the work he does and not as a cult of personality.  Of course if you want to criticize him, his personality and flaws will provide a lot of material.  But it is better to see what he actually does as President.

Anyway, like another poster said, I voted against Clinton.  I think most Trump voters were voting against Clinton getting the Presidency and our choice to beat her happened to be Trump. 

[KBecks]

I sincerely wish that your principled stand against corruption had been a vote for any other candidate. The level of corruption under trump is likely to be staggering based on his unprecedented mingling of politics and personal/family business within the last month, and the cabinet he had assembled to date.

The tough thing is that everyone will judge the flaws differently.  Some people think that Clinton's email handling and not following the process is no big deal, others see it as criminal. We've seen a lot of Clinton's behavior and know her fairly well.  With Trump there's a lot of unknown.  Many would gamble on a wild card vs. someone already viewed as untrustworthy. 

[golden1]

While Trump may prove to be no better, at least there remains that possibility.  I was unwilling to reward a career of corruption with lifetime immunity from threat of prison; because while a sitting president can be impeached for exactly the kinds of things she has already done, no president or former president can be imprisoned even if convicted.  (Bill cannot be imprisoned, no matter the evidence that may be against him)  So, in the end, I don't expect Democrats to be happy about the outcome, and a bit of concern is probably warranted; but put up a quality candidate in four years and we will see what happens.  I would have voted for Bernie Sanders over Don Trump in a heartbeat, but as we know now, Clinton managed to corrupt that process also.

The level of corruption that you are going to witness during the Trump administration will make Clinton look like a girl scout.  But hey, Trump has lived a squeaky clean life and never been involved in any sort of legal trouble or fraud, right?  Oh, wait...... 

[jrhampt]

I wonder if people who have had strong reactions to Trump would have felt any better if the new President were Walker, Rubio or Bush

YES

[golden1]

Just going to leave this here....

https://corrupt.af/

[MasterStache]

I was deployed to the Balkans during 9/11. Actually flew out of NYC into theater 2 weeks before the towers went down. Boy did things change. Here and abroad.

[shenlong55]

I sincerely wish that your principled stand against corruption had been a vote for any other candidate. The level of corruption under trump is likely to be staggering based on his unprecedented mingling of politics and personal/family business within the last month, and the cabinet he had assembled to date.

The tough thing is that everyone will judge the flaws differently.  Some people think that Clinton's email handling and not following the process is no big deal, others see it as criminal. We've seen a lot of Clinton's behavior and know her fairly well.  With Trump there's a lot of unknown.  Many would gamble on a wild card vs. someone already viewed as untrustworthy.

You're entitled to your own opinions and perspectives, but not your own definitions.

crim·i·nal
ˈkrimənl/Submit
noun
1.
a person who has committed a crime.

Mishandling email and not following processes are not crimes.  That would be why the FBI recommended no criminal charges be filed against her.

[bananarama]

What's the Trump voter take on the 'thank you' tour? Doesn't it kind of seem... bread and circus-y? What exactly is the purpose of this tour, outside of stroking his own ego?

Also, I'm getting increasingly concerned with the constant tweeting. Seriously, is there no issue more important to Trump than sending catty tweets out about fucking regular politically unimportant people he feels have wronged him?

I mean, he still has a decent number of open positions to fill - finding the right people to dismantle each department from the inside takes time, right? lolz. Wtf is up with his picks for Education/EPA/HUD/Labor/just-fucking-everything. I imagine the destroy everything/burn it down people are happy about this, but I can't see a damn thing to celebrate (could be wrong, not all positions are filled yet, and some I haven't researched).

I wonder if people who have had strong reactions to Trump would have felt any better if the new President were Walker, Rubio or Bush

YES

In regards to alternatives I would accept? I'd have voted for a banana with googly eyes over Trump in a heartbeat. Bananas are a rational and composed people - alternatively I would have excepted basically any republican (minus the fail-to-understand-separation-of-church-and-state-douches ie: Cruz, Santorum, etc ad nauseum). Romney has definitely shown himself to be a principled individual as well.

[wenchsenior]

I wonder if people who have had strong reactions to Trump would have felt any better if the new President were Walker, Rubio or Bush

YES

OMFG YES

Policy wise, I would be extremely unhappy with any of these three candidates (and Ted Cruz even more so, he really scares me in terms of policy beliefs...). I find Walker and Cruz pretty personally off-putting, as well.

However, ALL FOUR of them (esp Bush) are completely qualified to lead the country, and don't make me embarrassed to call myself American on a daily basis. All four are intelligent, serious, policy-focused people (esp Bush and Cruz), who I have no doubt have the country's best interest at heart and understand the grave responsibilities of the job (as much as anyone can prior to tackling it).  Also, they are stable and mature personalities, and predictable enough that I can be confident they will act like proper statesmen in that role.

With them,  I would be upset by most of their policies, but I wouldn't have worries about their basic intelligence (Trump seems cunning about self-promotion, but dumber than a bag of hammers about policy), experience, personal behavior and comportment, statesmanship, or understanding of the constitution.  I worry about ALL of these with Trump on a daily basis.

ETA...I thought W's presidency was a disaster and even with hindsight, I'd vote for him in a hot second over Trump, if I had to pick one.

[Kris]

I wonder if people who have had strong reactions to Trump would have felt any better if the new President were Walker, Rubio or Bush.

I could have lived with Bush. Rubio -- meh, I don't really think he has enough experience, but I would have hoped he'd bring in good people to help him. Walker -- I worked at the University of Wisconsin for fifteen years until I resigned in disgust this past May. I would have been viscerally disgusted if he had won.

None of that comes anywhere near the literal terror and existential angst for our country I feel about Trump.

[wenchsenior]

I wonder if people who have had strong reactions to Trump would have felt any better if the new President were Walker, Rubio or Bush.

I could have lived with Bush. Rubio -- meh, I don't really think he has enough experience, but I would have hoped he'd bring in good people to help him. Walker -- I worked at the University of Wisconsin for fifteen years until I resigned in disgust this past May. I would have been viscerally disgusted if he had won.

None of that comes anywhere near the literal terror and existential angst for our country I feel about Trump.

Yeah...I was kind of underplaying my visceral hatred of Walker and Cruz. Walker is systematically destroying my home state and Cruz is just...revolting. But whatever, if I had to choose between either of them and Trump, and it was one or the other? No contest. 

[TheOldestYoungMan]

Rubio -- meh, I don't really think he has enough experience, but I would have hoped he'd bring in good people to help him.

Rubio was elected to public office prior to HRC.

[Kris]

Rubio -- meh, I don't really think he has enough experience, but I would have hoped he'd bring in good people to help him.

Rubio was elected to public office prior to HRC.

Longevity is not the only criterion.

[Lagom]

Just going to leave this here....

https://corrupt.af/

You made this too easy for the Trumpophiles to ignore. That said, there is some misleading stuff on that site that the brave ones will latch onto as proof that it's propaganda, nevermind the overwhelming evidence on many other examples. They'll ignore this post too (cognitive dissonance is icky!), but let's once again recap the very easily quantified horrible decisions that have already rolled out of the incoming administration, despite protests that we "just don't know" what he'll do (obligatory reminder that I am not a fan of either party):

- Stocking the cabinet with far-right extremists of all types: Islamophobes, climate change deniers, white nationalists/supremacists, creationists, labor-law foes, big time foreign policy hawks, and variety of people that think religion should be codified in national law, constitution be damned. Not to mention, the frightful lack of experience many of them have in the area over which they are to preside.

- Twitter. Anyone who continues to deny the complete inappropriateness, bordering on reckless endangerment of the entire country that is Trump's Twitter practices is willfully delusional.

- Corruption. The list against Trump (above, and more!) is so long that it's pretty laughable some STILL try to claim that we "just don't know" if he's really as terrible as the big bad HRC.

- Sexism. Again, if you still deny this you define "disingenuous." To jog your memory: "grab em by the pussy," sexualizing his very young daughters publicly and repeatedly, dozens of assault allegations, possibly raping his ex wife, etc., etc.

- Race baiting. Ibid.

[SisterX]

I wonder if people who have had strong reactions to Trump would have felt any better if the new President were Walker, Rubio or Bush

YES

OMFG YES

Policy wise, I would be extremely unhappy with any of these three candidates (and Ted Cruz even more so, he really scares me in terms of policy beliefs...). I find Walker and Cruz pretty personally off-putting, as well.

However, ALL FOUR of them (esp Bush) are completely qualified to lead the country, and don't make me embarrassed to call myself American on a daily basis. All four are intelligent, serious, policy-focused people (esp Bush and Cruz), who I have no doubt have the country's best interest at heart and understand the grave responsibilities of the job (as much as anyone can prior to tackling it).  Also, they are stable and mature personalities, and predictable enough that I can be confident they will act like proper statesmen in that role.

With them,  I would be upset by most of their policies, but I wouldn't have worries about their basic intelligence (Trump seems cunning about self-promotion, but dumber than a bag of hammers about policy), experience, personal behavior and comportment, statesmanship, or understanding of the constitution.  I worry about ALL of these with Trump on a daily basis.

ETA...I thought W's presidency was a disaster and even with hindsight, I'd vote for him in a hot second over Trump, if I had to pick one.

Pretty much all of this. No matter how disgusting I find their policies, I'd take any of them over Trump.

[MrMoogle]

Just going to leave this here....

https://corrupt.af/

You made this too easy for the Trumpophiles to ignore. That said, there is some misleading stuff on that site that the brave ones will latch onto as proof that it's propaganda, nevermind the overwhelming evidence on many other examples. Putting a right-wing person in a cabinet position isn't corruption, so yeah, I didn't get far in that website.  But I won't deny he is corrupt.

They'll ignore this post too (cognitive dissonance is icky!), but let's once again recap the very easily quantified horrible decisions that have already rolled out of the incoming administration, despite protests that we "just don't know" what he'll do (obligatory reminder that I am not a fan of either party):

- Stocking the cabinet with far-right extremists of all types: Islamophobes, climate change deniers, white nationalists/supremacists, creationists, labor-law foes, big time foreign policy hawks, and variety of people that think religion should be codified in national law, constitution be damned. Other than the white supremacists, I think many Republicans are fine with the rest, so this shouldn't come as any surprise.

- Twitter. Anyone who continues to deny the complete inappropriateness, bordering on reckless endangerment of the entire country that is Trump's Twitter practices is willfully delusional. I'm not sure it's corruption, but his regard to the freedom of speech (of others) is very worrying from his Tweets and comments

- Corruption. The list against Trump (above, and more!) is so long that it's pretty laughable some STILL try to claim that we "just don't know" if he's really as terrible as the big bad HRC. I know some Republicans have made this argument, but some have accepted his corruption because of his "stance" on policies, aka the fact he is a Republican.  I'm honestly not sure what the independents that voted for him think.

- Sexism. Again, if you still deny this you define "disingenuous." To jog your memory: "grab em by the pussy," sexualizing his very young daughters publicly and repeatedly, dozens of assault allegations, possibly raping his ex wife, etc., etc. Again, I don't think many Republicans were thinking he was a saint, but some have accepted his flaws because of his "stance" on policies, aka the fact he is a Republican.

- Race baiting. Ibid.

My comments in Red.

[Lagom]

Hey MrMoogle, I appreciate the response. To respond in turn:

- I don't think putting right wing people in the cabinet is corruption, nor is his use of Twitter. I was referring entirely to his business dealings, but I can see why my post came across that way. Apologies for the lack of clarity.

- "Many republicans" is still a minority of them (although many more probably shrug off the appointments more than should). These cabinet picks appeal to Tea Party/evangelical extremists and worse (e.g. the "alt-right"). While this is a substantial wing of the Republican base, it's also the least representative of American values as a whole. When directly confronted on the topic, I'm sure a mainstream Republican would prefer not to be associated with that wing of the party. Sure, some of these appointments might have ended up in a more typical Republican cabinet, but it's pretty obvious most of them would not. This is all not to mention that a number of them are millionaires/billionaires playing at politics that have no relevant policy experience. Again, not unprecedented, but the scale of it this time around is alarming.

- Personally, I think the increasingly apparent business conflicts of interest are increasingly worrisome. I hope I'm being hyperbolic, but I can envision a scenario where "worrisome" becomes existential threat if it turns out Trump is as leveraged to foreign investors as some signs indicate.

- I agree most Republicans don't think he's a saint, they are just normalizing/ignoring his behavior because of those "stances." At a minimum, they should own just how despicable of a creature they supported. Instead, most twist themselves into knots trying to prove HRC is somehow just as bad, because they don't want to admit that they chose an odious toad over a perfectly normal (for better or worse) candidate. As others have stated, pretty much any other Republican primary candidate would have been vastly preferable.

[MrMoogle]

I meant, one of the things in corrupt.af was basically saying he put a right wing person in the cabinet, so he's corrupt.  Which is why I didn't make it far on that website.  I did realize like halfway through responding you didn't mean it was all corruption, I had already written the Twitter part, and didn't go back to take the corruption reference.  That was my bad.

I'm not sure how many is "many" which is why I used the ambiguous term.  I definitely think it's a minority of his voters, but that's because he got so many independent votes.  Trump is not the typical Republican, so his voters shouldn't be surprised if his cabinet is not the typical Republican cabinet.  I actually made this argument to a coworker 3 months or so ago.  He was supporting Trump because of "the people surrounding him" even though he disliked Trump as a person.  The same goes with the supreme court nominations, I was worried the list he had provided might not make it when he was actually president.  Those were typical Republican nominees, but he's not a typical Republican.

The point about HRC.  Each side is making some attempts to demonize the other side.  If you believe that other beliefs make you a demon, then it doesn't really matter what HRC's character really is, she is just as bad or worse because of her stances.  I'm not sure how much this came into play.  I know I couldn't vote for her for her stances, but she just seems like the typical politician to me. 

As a conservative, I agree pretty much any other Republican primary candidate would have been a preferable president, but I'm not sure how many would have been able to beat HRC.  So it's conflicting to me.

[sol]

As a conservative, I agree pretty much any other Republican primary candidate would have been a preferable president, but I'm not sure how many would have been able to beat HRC.  So it's conflicting to me.

I suspect every conservative in the country is currently having this same kind of Ender Wiggins moment, and thinking to themselves "It's great that we won, but at what cost?"

Sometimes the price of victory is the loss of self, the abandonment of the principles for which you fought, and your own slowly unfolding self destruction.

[Kris]

As a conservative, I agree pretty much any other Republican primary candidate would have been a preferable president, but I'm not sure how many would have been able to beat HRC.  So it's conflicting to me.

I suspect every thinking conservative in the country is currently having this same kind of Ender Wiggins moment, and thinking to themselves "It's great that we won, but at what cost?"

Sometimes the price of victory is the loss of self, the abandonment of the principles for which you fought, and your own slowly unfolding self destruction.

FTFY.

[jrhampt]

As a conservative, I agree pretty much any other Republican primary candidate would have been a preferable president, but I'm not sure how many would have been able to beat HRC.  So it's conflicting to me.

I suspect every thinking conservative in the country is currently having this same kind of Ender Wiggins moment, and thinking to themselves "It's great that we won, but at what cost?"

Sometimes the price of victory is the loss of self, the abandonment of the principles for which you fought, and your own slowly unfolding self destruction.

FTFY.

Otherwise known as a Pyrrhic victory.  I'd like to think many are realizing this, but I've seen an awful lot of celebrating in some circles.  Including some evangelical churches. 

This sums up my thoughts: http://okgazette.com/2016/11/16/commentary-what-have-we-done/

[Kris]

As a conservative, I agree pretty much any other Republican primary candidate would have been a preferable president, but I'm not sure how many would have been able to beat HRC.  So it's conflicting to me.

I suspect every thinking conservative in the country is currently having this same kind of Ender Wiggins moment, and thinking to themselves "It's great that we won, but at what cost?"

Sometimes the price of victory is the loss of self, the abandonment of the principles for which you fought, and your own slowly unfolding self destruction.

FTFY.

Otherwise known as a Pyrrhic victory.  I'd like to think many are realizing this, but I've seen an awful lot of celebrating in some circles.  Including some evangelical churches. 

This sums up my thoughts: http://okgazette.com/2016/11/16/commentary-what-have-we-done/

Yup. I have used the word "Pyrrhic" more times in the last month than in the rest of my life combined.

[TheOldestYoungMan]

As a conservative, I agree pretty much any other Republican primary candidate would have been a preferable president, but I'm not sure how many would have been able to beat HRC.  So it's conflicting to me.

I suspect every thinking conservative in the country is currently having this same kind of Ender Wiggins moment, and thinking to themselves "It's great that we won, but at what cost?"

Sometimes the price of victory is the loss of self, the abandonment of the principles for which you fought, and your own slowly unfolding self destruction.

FTFY.

About every twenty seconds I cycle through "I can't believe Trump is the president" and "well, I guess it's better than Hillary" then back to "I can't believe Trump is the president."  That is a slight change to how it was before the election "I can't believe it's going to be Trump or Hillary" and "maybe enough people will vote their conscience and go third party, denying a mandate and forcing both parties back to the middle."

Alas, too many supposedly "thinking" folks on the right and left are beholden to their party loyalty, willing to vote for bad people just so they can say they voted for a winner.

[Quidnon?]

Just going to leave this here....

https://corrupt.af/

I saw nothing in there I found particularly damning, yet.  I don't contest that Trump is an SOB, but he doesn't (yet) have a history of graft and foreign company favoritism, at least not that rises to the level that American servicemen and/or diplomats have died.  If I had a better choice, I would have took it.  It wouldn't have mattered, of course, who I personally voted for.  The electoral college doesn't work that way.

I might point out that less than half of the voting age public voted at all, so even if the popular vote was the important part, Hillary wouldn't have more than 25% verifiable support.

[Daleth]

Alas, too many supposedly "thinking" folks on the right and left are beholden to their party loyalty, willing to vote for bad people just so they can say they voted for a winner.

It has nothing to do with party loyalty or wanting to be associated with a winner. It has to do with reality: one of those two people was going to win, and staying home or voting for anyone else was tantamount to helping the person you liked least to win.

It always just makes me shake my head when people express the hope that somehow tens of millions of people will suddenly vote for a third-party candidate. Call me when the third parties get their acts together and start actually working to build real parties--that is, running state and congressional campaigns that they can win, showing up and doing the unglamorous work day after day, etc., instead of just materializing every 4 years to run a doomed, symbolic campaign and complain about how unfair it is that they don't get federal funding, etc.

[Quidnon?]

I sincerely wish that your principled stand against corruption had been a vote for any other candidate. The level of corruption under trump is likely to be staggering based on his unprecedented mingling of politics and personal/family business within the last month, and the cabinet he had assembled to date.

The tough thing is that everyone will judge the flaws differently.  Some people think that Clinton's email handling and not following the process is no big deal, others see it as criminal. We've seen a lot of Clinton's behavior and know her fairly well.  With Trump there's a lot of unknown.  Many would gamble on a wild card vs. someone already viewed as untrustworthy.

You're entitled to your own opinions and perspectives, but not your own definitions.

crim·i·nal
ˈkrimənl/Submit
noun
1.
a person who has committed a crime.

Mishandling email and not following processes are not crimes.  That would be why the FBI recommended no criminal charges be filed against her.

As a sitting officer in the executive branch of government, it actually is, but that is not the criminality I was referring to, myself.  The private email server thing was basically just an attempt to prevent evidence of misbehavior from entering the permanent archive of the Obama admin.  Not even the worst offense, even though Hillary herself opined that a certain general should go to prison for similar activities, but on a much smaller scale.  The email server was more an example of incompetence with secrets than anything.  However, the very real evidence of graft, access & favoritism selling to foreign companies & powers with interests under the preview of the Secretary of State; that I found unforgivable.  We used to call that "treason".

[TheOldestYoungMan]

Alas, too many supposedly "thinking" folks on the right and left are beholden to their party loyalty, willing to vote for bad people just so they can say they voted for a winner.

It has nothing to do with party loyalty or wanting to be associated with a winner. It has to do with reality: one of those two people was going to win, and staying home or voting for anyone else was tantamount to helping the person you liked least to win.

It always just makes me shake my head when people express the hope that somehow tens of millions of people will suddenly vote for a third-party candidate. Call me when the third parties get their acts together and start actually working to build real parties--that is, running state and congressional campaigns that they can win, showing up and doing the unglamorous work day after day, etc., instead of just materializing every 4 years to run a doomed, symbolic campaign and complain about how unfair it is that they don't get federal funding, etc.

And I shake my head every time someone rationalizes voting for a bad candidate by breaking down "wanting to vote for a winner" into the various components that make up what a winner has to be, as though the two main parties wouldn't be equally disorganized if millions of their voters started working for another team.  The libertarian party has won some judgeships and state races.  They keep calling, you're just not listening.

As long as people keep insisting they need to vote one of the two people most likely to win, there will never be a viable third party.  Vote your conscience and you suddenly stop being part of the problem.  When was the last time either party actually had a good candidate?  Was it JFK?  There are bad actors deeply imbedded into the foundations of both parties, on the left its the socialists and on the right its the religious extremists.  Neither side can acknowledge that and the majority of the country is extremely disappointed in the actions of their government, resentful of whichever side they've chosen to believe is at fault, and unwilling to do the only thing that will fix it, which is to stop voting for these asshats.

[Lagom]

As a sitting officer in the executive branch of government, it actually is, but that is not the criminality I was referring to, myself.  The private email server thing was basically just an attempt to prevent evidence of misbehavior from entering the permanent archive of the Obama admin.  Not even the worst offense, even though Hillary herself opined that a certain general should go to prison for similar activities, but on a much smaller scale.  The email server was more an example of incompetence with secrets than anything.  However, the very real evidence of graft, access & favoritism selling to foreign companies & powers with interests under the preview of the Secretary of State; that I found unforgivable.  We used to call that "treason".

Uh...fake news anyone?

[Quidnon?]

As a sitting officer in the executive branch of government, it actually is, but that is not the criminality I was referring to, myself.  The private email server thing was basically just an attempt to prevent evidence of misbehavior from entering the permanent archive of the Obama admin.  Not even the worst offense, even though Hillary herself opined that a certain general should go to prison for similar activities, but on a much smaller scale.  The email server was more an example of incompetence with secrets than anything.  However, the very real evidence of graft, access & favoritism selling to foreign companies & powers with interests under the preview of the Secretary of State; that I found unforgivable.  We used to call that "treason".

Uh...fake news anyone?

If you think that's fake news, there is nothing I could say to move your position.  Nor am I interested in trying.  I simply answered the original question for myself, as best I saw it.  If I was wrong, or deceived, I may yet come to regret it; but I doubt such a revelation is forthcoming any day soon.

[Gin1984]

I sincerely wish that your principled stand against corruption had been a vote for any other candidate. The level of corruption under trump is likely to be staggering based on his unprecedented mingling of politics and personal/family business within the last month, and the cabinet he had assembled to date.

The tough thing is that everyone will judge the flaws differently.  Some people think that Clinton's email handling and not following the process is no big deal, others see it as criminal. We've seen a lot of Clinton's behavior and know her fairly well.  With Trump there's a lot of unknown.  Many would gamble on a wild card vs. someone already viewed as untrustworthy.

You're entitled to your own opinions and perspectives, but not your own definitions.

crim·i·nal
ˈkrimənl/Submit
noun
1.
a person who has committed a crime.

Mishandling email and not following processes are not crimes.  That would be why the FBI recommended no criminal charges be filed against her.

As a sitting officer in the executive branch of government, it actually is, but that is not the criminality I was referring to, myself.  The private email server thing was basically just an attempt to prevent evidence of misbehavior from entering the permanent archive of the Obama admin.  Not even the worst offense, even though Hillary herself opined that a certain general should go to prison for similar activities, but on a much smaller scale.  The email server was more an example of incompetence with secrets than anything.  However, the very real evidence of graft, access & favoritism selling to foreign companies & powers with interests under the preview of the Secretary of State; that I found unforgivable.  We used to call that "treason".

Not according to the FBI nor multiple lawyers.

[Cressida]

I wonder if people who have had strong reactions to Trump would have felt any better if the new President were Walker, Rubio or Bush.

oh for ... are you kidding me? Anyone who can even ask this question clearly doesn't believe that Trump is a uniquely awful human being. I'll let the poster decide whether she's bothered by that.