The Money Mustache Community
Other => Off Topic => Topic started by: FIPurpose on November 08, 2016, 09:06:12 AM
-
Well here it is. The final day. How do you think it's going to go down. Polls have been narrowing as they typically do near election time.
The first states well see results for are VA and GA , and I think we'll see them go to Hillary and Trump respectively. The more interesting states near the east coast are OH, MI, PA, NH, NC, FL. Trump wins with PA and Hillary wins with FL. Here's my guess:
Trump: OH, FL
Hillary: PA, MI, NC, NH
Will be updating through the night if race stays tight.
-
If only we could call a mulligan on this entire election.
-
Oh what the hell - might as well play...
(only including the states that are close based on recent polling)
Clinton will win: PA, VA, NC, MI, WI, NH, MN, NV & FL. Total = 322
Trump will win: GA, OH, IN, MO, IW, TX, UT, AZ + ME's 4th electoral vote. Total = 216
NC and FL may both be within 0.5% triggering recounts. - everything else will be >1%. However, even without both NV and FL Clinton will have 278 and enough to make the recount largely symbolic.
-
Clinton
338 340
Trump 200 198
-
Clinton 338
Trump 200
Just trying to figure out the 338 - are you predicting a Clinton win in Georgia?
-
Clinton 338
Trump 200
Just trying to figure out the 338 - are you predicting a Clinton win in Georgia?
Optimistically unrealistic.
-
Clinton 338
Trump 200
Just trying to figure out the 338 - are you predicting a Clinton win in Georgia?
Optimistically unrealistic.
Agreed - so how did you come up with 338?
-
Poor addition - Ohio. Modified
Senate predictions? That seems a tossup
-
McMullin wins UT. Trump & Hillary deadlock @ 266. Decision goes to Congress. Congress compromises with McMullin Pence ticket.
-
Ditka - 538
Clinton - 0
Trump - 0
-
McMullin wins UT. Trump & Hillary deadlock @ 266. Decision goes to Congress. Congress compromises with McMullin Pence ticket.
Yeah, the chances of that are indistinguishable from 0. Three unlikely things would need to happen in succession, each less likely than the previous one.
Ditka - 538
Clinton - 0
Trump - 0
I think I'd prefer the two we have to Ditka.
-
Good morning America.
It's 7:20am here in Sydney, we have all day to watch this horror show.
A few of our reporters have gone over there to introduce your voting queues to the wonders of the humble sausage sizzle. Try one if you can!
-
Good morning America.
It's 7:20am here in Sydney, we have all day to watch this horror show.
A few of our reporters have gone over there to introduce your voting queues to the wonders of the humble sausage sizzle. Try one if you can!
It's just as much a horror show for most Americans as for anyone else.
Our "2-Party system" is terribly broken when, realistically, one of the two horrific candidates (Hillary and Trump) will win.
Still, I refuse to play that game. I voted for Libertarian (3rd Party) candidate Governor Gary Johnson.
Now I'll sit back, butter up some popcorn, and watch this debacle unfold.
And before anyone gives me the "wasted vote" or "you voted for Hillary/Trump by not voting for Trump/Hillary" bull crap, let me state unequivocally that I would NEVER vote for either of the corrupt buffoons, Hillary or Trump- not even if they were the only candidate on the ballot. They are both nightmare candidates.
-
If only we could call a mulligan on this entire election.
Go back 6 months and call it Biden vs. Kasich.
I don't care which one wins.
-
McMullin wins UT. Trump & Hillary deadlock @ 266. Decision goes to Congress. Congress compromises with McMullin Pence ticket.
That is very optimistic for Trump and even moreso for McMullin. Is McMullin your preferred candidate? It sounds like it.
-
If only we could call a mulligan on this entire election.
Go back 6 months and call it Biden vs. Kasich.
I'm not a huge fan of either of them, but at least they are reasonable choices. Trump and Hillary are not.
-
If only we could call a mulligan on this entire election.
Go back 6 months and call it Biden vs. Kasich.
I don't care which one wins.
I don't agree with you on everything, but we can shake hands on this one. Our republic would be in a better place today if these two had been the candidates.
-
Hillary needs to win at least two of the four remaining battleground states by decisive margins. FL, NH, NC, NV.
If she only wins one by a clear majority, and any one of the other three is close, Trump can drag this election out for months by contesting the results. So for example if Hillary wins NV and trump wins NC, and either NH or FL is within half a percent (which seems likely), then he'll contest the election and demand a recount and this thing will be 2000 all over again.
I don't think he can admit defeat graciously in any scenario except a complete blowout. Any result that is kind of close he will take to the courts.
-
My prediction: Clinton prevails, 308 to 230. She wins NH and NV by healthy margins. She wins FL by less then 1% on the strength of the Hispanic turnout, and loses NC by a similar margin due to weakness in the black turnout. No recounts necessary.
-
I live in NV and Latinos are voting in record numbers this year. I really think they did not like being called rapists and murderers. Clinton will win by a wide enough margin that he can't contest it and he will have a big temper tantrum. That's what my crystal ball says:))
-
Yeah, Trump is done in NV. Early voting indicates a Trump loss and he's already filing lawsuits there.
-
McMullin wins UT. Trump & Hillary deadlock @ 266. Decision goes to Congress. Congress compromises with McMullin Pence ticket.
That is very optimistic for Trump and even moreso for McMullin. Is McMullin your preferred candidate? It sounds like it.
It's the only actual chance for someone other than Trump or Clinton... so yeah, I guess so.
-
I live in NV and Latinos are voting in record numbers this year. I really think they did not like being called rapists and murderers. ...
Funny that... :-)
-
I live in NV and Latinos are voting in record numbers this year. I really think they did not like being called rapists and murderers. ...
Funny that... :-)
A few of my Latino and Muslim friends have posted "I voted" selfies with "#itspersonal". I think he may have inadvertently rounded up a bunch of women that way, too.
-
http://heavy.com/news/2016/11/clinton-vs-trump-2016-presidential-polls-latest-today-now-electoral-college-map-tie-what-happens-deadlock-no-one-wins-evan-mcmullin-house-of-representatives-hillary/
Didn't realize there were so many likely possibilities.
used some map calculators. I cant get either one realistically above 310 conversely under 220. Fl is pretty much a must win in any likely scenario I can see.
-
I live in NV and Latinos are voting in record numbers this year. I really think they did not like being called rapists and murderers. ...
Funny that... :-)
A few of my Latino and Muslim friends have posted "I voted" selfies with "#itspersonal". I think he may have inadvertently rounded up a bunch of women that way, too.
My gay friends have been rather lop-sided this election too.
-
let me state unequivocally that I would NEVER vote for... corrupt buffoons... not even if they were the only candidate on the ballot.
I, for one, routinely abstain from most single-candidate races anyway as a matter of principle. In this election, out of the seven races in which the candidate ran unopposed, I left six blank. (I filled in the last one because I actually interact with that candidate occasionally and think she's actually good rather than merely the only choice.)
-
I live in NV and Latinos are voting in record numbers this year. I really think they did not like being called rapists and murderers. ...
Funny that... :-)
A few of my Latino and Muslim friends have posted "I voted" selfies with "#itspersonal". I think he may have inadvertently rounded up a bunch of women that way, too.
My gay friends have been rather lop-sided this election too.
Perplexing.
-
For those talking electoral ties, I think this map would be most likely if a tie were to occur. Requires full Clinton win in Maine and Trump winning NH a most other swing states. McMullin winning Utah optional.
-
let me state unequivocally that I would NEVER vote for... corrupt buffoons... not even if they were the only candidate on the ballot.
I, for one, routinely abstain from most single-candidate races anyway as a matter of principle. In this election, out of the seven races in which the candidate ran unopposed, I left six blank. (I filled in the last one because I actually interact with that candidate occasionally and think she's actually good rather than merely the only choice.)
I was brought up to believe that it's one's duty to vote - my mother used to take me down to the polling station with her when I was a child and tell me I had to vote when I grew up otherwise the suffragettes would be turning in their graves. I remember once having a nightmare about zombie suffragettes coming to get me... :P Anyway, I think people should always turn up at the polling station and if you don't want to vote for anyone you can always spoil your ballot. They take note of how many spoiled ballots there were and if you go and write "ALL THESE CANDIDATES ARE IN HOCK TO THE LIZARD PEOPLE" then all the candidates have to stand around and agree that it is indeed spoiled. Not sure if it's the same in the US, but I worked at the count in the last general election (sadly not the referendum) and I got one person who had written over two sides of their ballot a little essay about why they didn't want to vote for any of the candidates, and they all had to stand around and read it. Makes a point rather than not going and being lumped in with the "don't vote, don't care" people. If you don't tell them, how will they know why you didn't vote? I don't know how your electronic ballot thing works, and maybe you can't spoil that, but you could always send an email to all the candidates explaining why you didn't vote for any of them.
-
let me state unequivocally that I would NEVER vote for... corrupt buffoons... not even if they were the only candidate on the ballot.
I, for one, routinely abstain from most single-candidate races anyway as a matter of principle. In this election, out of the seven races in which the candidate ran unopposed, I left six blank. (I filled in the last one because I actually interact with that candidate occasionally and think she's actually good rather than merely the only choice.)
I was brought up to believe that it's one's duty to vote - my mother used to take me down to the polling station with her when I was a child and tell me I had to vote when I grew up otherwise the suffragettes would be turning in their graves. I remember once having a nightmare about zombie suffragettes coming to get me... :P Anyway, I think people should always turn up at the polling station and if you don't want to vote for anyone you can always spoil your ballot. They take note of how many spoiled ballots there were and if you go and write "ALL THESE CANDIDATES ARE IN HOCK TO THE LIZARD PEOPLE" then all the candidates have to stand around and agree that it is indeed spoiled. Not sure if it's the same in the US, but I worked at the count in the last general election (sadly not the referendum) and I got one person who had written over two sides of their ballot a little essay about why they didn't want to vote for any of the candidates, and they all had to stand around and read it. Makes a point rather than not going and being lumped in with the "don't vote, don't care" people. If you don't tell them, how will they know why you didn't vote? I don't know how your electronic ballot thing works, and maybe you can't spoil that, but you could always send an email to all the candidates explaining why you didn't vote for any of them.
With the electronic ballets you can write in a name but I am sure it is charter length limited and I have zero confidence anyone of any importance would have to read it. The electronic systems may count up five votes for Captain Crunch but those votes will never be reported unless you really really look for them ie they might be recorded on some hard copy back up report in the back of a filling cabinet in the basement of the court house.
-
This election is already over. Clinton won a long time ago.
I was brought up to believe that it's one's duty to vote
Voting isn't a duty. It's a right. The fact that so much of America thinks of voting as some kind of civic duty is frankly very scary to me.
For those talking electoral ties, I think this map would be most likely if a tie were to occur. Requires full Clinton win in Maine and Trump winning NH a most other swing states. McMullin winning Utah optional.
Thanks for posting this, very interesting scenario.
-
I don't think any US States do anything meaningful with a spoiled ballot cast in protest. In my area, I could go to the polling place, spoil a ballot, surrender it, receive a replacement, and eventually cast a valid ballot (I think if I spoil the third ballot I am out of luck). The poll workers retain the spoiled ballot for auditing purposes, but the ballot would not be counted or reviewed by candidates. However, casting a blank ballot would be count as voter turnout without counting towards any of the contests - in significant numbers these could get some attention to the protest vote - not showing up is considered voter apathy, casting a blank ballot is not. You can also vote in some of the contests on a ballot without voting in all of them (my ballot has: president, senate, house of representatives, state senate, state assembly, at least one local official, 17 state propositions, and 2 local measures).
-
10% reporting in VA. Trump is winning. I know it must be the rural Counties reporting, but still surprising.
-
Florida is crazy close.
-
Florida is crazy close.
its gonna be 2000 all over again!!!!!ahhh!!
lol, Fl is 60% in and its within 4k votes...
Va. is 43% and trump still has a 9pt lead...
ohio, only 15% reporting but HRC has 7pt lead.
-
I think Hillary is going to win.
-
Va. is 43% and trump still has a 9pt lead...
I see no votes counted yet for the DC burbs in Va. Once those roll in, Trump's lead will shrink rapidly.
-
I am on the Va election site now, how do you see that?
-
I am on the Va election site now, how do you see that?
By locality: Prince William, Fairfax, etc.
It may not be enough, though.
-
Va is becoming a shock fest.
Ohio is 25% reporting and is nearly as close a Fl now, 1-2%.
better go and turn my malt grains, can't look at this stuff all night.
-
Trump may actually pull it off. A Republican Congress with Trump as President? Wow.
-
I, for one, routinely abstain from most single-candidate races anyway as a matter of principle. In this election, out of the seven races in which the candidate ran unopposed, I left six blank. (I filled in the last one because I actually interact with that candidate occasionally and think she's actually good rather than merely the only choice.)
However, casting a blank ballot would be count as voter turnout without counting towards any of the contests - in significant numbers these could get some attention to the protest vote - not showing up is considered voter apathy, casting a blank ballot is not. You can also vote in some of the contests on a ballot without voting in all of them (my ballot has: president, senate, house of representatives, state senate, state assembly, at least one local official, 17 state propositions, and 2 local measures).
Exactly. If the election rules are progressive enough (Georgia's aren't, AFAIK) such that they would require a majority of votes cast rather than just a plurality, it could even be possible to prevent anyone from being elected if enough people cast blank ballots. All the effectiveness of writing in "Mickey Mouse" with none of the hassle of typing it into the asinine, un-auditable electronic voting machine.
(Not that I'd suggest Mickey Mouse as a candidate anyway; Disney is evil!)
-
I've started drinking heavily. This too-close-to-call thing is bigly ungood.
-
I've started drinking heavily. This too-close-to-call thing is bigly ungood.
Me too! I love being drunk.
-
I expect Clinton will win, and kinda hope this is the case, though I voted for Johnson #feelthejohnson
I'm in CA so my protest vote doesn't really count for much either way.
The wild card I haven't seen discussed much is Social Desirability Bias. Trump is so far over the top that I think many people, especially moderates and/or those in swing states, may vote for him in the secrecy of the voting booth yet deny it in surveys and exit polls.
Really more interested in some of the local races.
-
I'm back, hot pocket and cold beer, what did I miss?
Just kidding, I only drink my beer chilled, never cold, and preferably just cool.
-
If nothing else, entertaining...
http://time.com/4562610/women-topless-protest-donald-trump/
-
I'm back, hot pocket and cold beer, what did I miss?
Just kidding, I only drink my beer chilled, never cold, and preferably just cool.
Enthusiastic, breathless yet inane commentary! Very exciting!
-
If Clinton loses NC, which wasn't supposed to be a battleground state, and doesn't win in FL, her path to victory gets very narrow.
-
I've started drinking heavily. This too-close-to-call thing is bigly ungood.
I started hours ago.
-
Whatever happens, I don't feel like I should have to face it sober.
-
My prediction: I will be hungover and much, much poorer in the morning. Futures markets looking grim.
-W
-
If Clinton loses NC, which wasn't supposed to be a battleground state, and doesn't win in FL, her path to victory gets very narrow.
It's looking that way.
-
If Clinton loses NC, which wasn't supposed to be a battleground state, and doesn't win in FL, her path to victory gets very narrow.
It's looking that way.
I think NH and NV would still do it, even if Trump wins FL and NC.
-
Anyone going to do some rebalancing tomorrow? Betting markets have Trump winning now.
-
If Clinton loses NC, which wasn't supposed to be a battleground state, and doesn't win in FL, her path to victory gets very narrow.
It's looking that way.
I think NH and NV would still do it, even if Trump wins FL and NC.
She's at 253 without NC. NV gives her 6, to 259. IA may go to Clinton, which gives 265.
Add in NH and ME and that would do it but just barely.
-
If he wins and they repeal the ACA it's really gonna fuck up my FIRE plans. I'm not expecting the subsidy but I need to be able to buy insurance and I have pre-existing conditions.
-
its about to be over quick.
NC, Fl, and OH pretty much are trumps.
if he takes Mi it is over.
-
Wayne County is only reporting at 36%. That's worth +150k votes for Clinton.
Yeah, getting rid of the ACA will be one of the first things that Congress does. It'll fuck up my ER plans too.
-
markets did the same thing with Brexit, give it til monday.
she won't take iowa.
ACA; no mandate, and lower susidy(ie. you will have to pay more; maybe some type of adjustment on the level of when it is provided/turns to medicaid) other than that just remember Washington will still have a lot of politicians.
did my 270 map again. she keeps mi and he get nh. 269-269...
a little netflix, ill check in then I am out.
-
Wayne County is only reporting at 36%. That's worth +150k votes for Clinton.
Yeah, getting rid of the ACA will be one of the first things that Congress does. It'll fuck up my ER plans too.
reported, trump won it 54%
-
I'm pretty new to this voting thing...voted today for my first election.
I was hoping for a gridlock with a Clinton win and a Republican house & senate. If Trump were to win, is there a chance for a democratic house/senate?
-
Wayne County is only reporting at 36%. That's worth +150k votes for Clinton.
Yeah, getting rid of the ACA will be one of the first things that Congress does. It'll fuck up my ER plans too.
Or maybe he will actually replace it with something better? That is what he has been saying all along.
-
Wayne County is only reporting at 36%. That's worth +150k votes for Clinton.
Yeah, getting rid of the ACA will be one of the first things that Congress does. It'll fuck up my ER plans too.
Or maybe he will actually replace it with something better? That is what he has been saying all along.
The Republicans have been saying that for years. The country is still waiting.
I still see MI as 48-46. Where are you (hoping2retire35) seeing MI is a Trump win at 54%?
A Democratic House is impossible. A Democratic Senate is nearly impossible. It'll be all Republican until mid-terms when people come to their senses.
-
Drinking is accelerating.
-
Aussie Stock exchange has given its verdict on Trump - down 5% before recovering slightly.
Hong Kong, Shanghai and Tokyo are also down.
Gold is soaring
-
ACA isn't going anywhere.. Once it's in, the govt never gets rid of anything.
-
Wayne County is only reporting at 36%. That's worth +150k votes for Clinton.
Yeah, getting rid of the ACA will be one of the first things that Congress does. It'll fuck up my ER plans too.
Or maybe he will actually replace it with something better? That is what he has been saying all along.
I hope so, but the problem is he wasn't clear on what he was going to do about anything (except build a wall).
-
Wayne County is only reporting at 36%. That's worth +150k votes for Clinton.
Yeah, getting rid of the ACA will be one of the first things that Congress does. It'll fuck up my ER plans too.
Or maybe he will actually replace it with something better? That is what he has been saying all along.
I hope so, but the problem is he wasn't clear on what he was going to do about anything (except build a wall).
He'll make everything GRRRRRREAT! (Or so I'm told)
-
Wayne County is only reporting at 36%. That's worth +150k votes for Clinton.
Yeah, getting rid of the ACA will be one of the first things that Congress does. It'll fuck up my ER plans too.
Or maybe he will actually replace it with something better? That is what he has been saying all along.
We get ACA subsidies...engineered our post FIRE income to get us in the required income sweet spot. Even with the subsidy I don't find it useful because the deductibles are so high. And if we do some side gigs for extra cash it can act as a tax as the subsidy phases out. If our income drops too much we'll be kicked into MediCal (CA's version of Medicaid) which has a even more limited network. Or if I or DW decide to work part time we risk of hitting the so-called ACA Family Glitch if the employer offers coverage.
For us at least it's more of a pain in the ass than anything. What I really want is plain old catastrophic coverage, you know, actual insurance rather than pre-paid healthcare.
If the ACA goes away my hope is that states will start experimenting with their own reforms, which is what should have happened to begin with. I could see CA going to single payer...though there would be a massive fight with the special interests.
-
ACA isn't going anywhere.. Once it's in, the govt never gets rid of anything.
The Republicans have voted more than 60 times to repeal the ACA. It'll go down in February.
-
ACA isn't going anywhere.. Once it's in, the govt never gets rid of anything.
The Republicans have voted more than 60 times to repeal the ACA. It'll go down in February.
And replaced.
-
Wayne County is only reporting at 36%. That's worth +150k votes for Clinton.
Yeah, getting rid of the ACA will be one of the first things that Congress does. It'll fuck up my ER plans too.
Or maybe he will actually replace it with something better? That is what he has been saying all along.
We get ACA subsidies...engineered our post FIRE income to get us in the required income sweet spot. Even with the subsidy I don't find it useful because the deductibles are so high. And if we do some side gigs for extra cash it can act as a tax as the subsidy phases out. If our income drops too much we'll be kicked into MediCal (CA's version of Medicaid) which has a even more limited network. Or if I or DW decide to work part time we risk of hitting the so-called ACA Family Glitch if the employer offers coverage.
For us at least it's more of a pain in the ass than anything. What I really want is plain old catastrophic coverage, you know, actual insurance rather than pre-paid healthcare.
If the ACA goes away my hope is that states will start experimenting with their own reforms, which is what should have happened to begin with. I could see CA going to single payer...though there would be a massive fight with the special interests.
The problem is that that could take forever. I was hoping for EARLY retirement.
-
As someone who is currently relying on the ACA just for access to health insurance, a Drumpf prez with a republican senate scares the snot out of me. They'll repeal, argue incessantly, do nothing, and the insurance companies will go back to their old ways.
I am so ashamed of our country right now.
-
ACA isn't going anywhere.. Once it's in, the govt never gets rid of anything.
But they can change all the rules. Get rid of the mandate/tax/penalty, allow discrimination pricing based on health and demography of the purchaser (say, pre-existing conditions or anything currently used to determine life insurance rates), change the subsidies so they disappear, etc. The health insurance may still be there, but it could be a totally different animal.
-
As someone who is currently relying on the ACA just for access to health insurance, a Drumpf prez with a republican senate scares the snot out of me. They'll repeal, argue incessantly, do nothing, and the insurance companies will go back to their old ways.
I am so ashamed of our country right now.
I'm sorry geekette and I'm sorry about NC (I'm a former orange county girl). My fingers are crossed for all of us that existing conditions and subsidies are protected.
I'm also concerned about the freedom of the press under a Trump presidency but I have some hope that even a Republican congress will protect that.
-
The faces of the newscasters are priceless.
-
Well, it's going to be President Trump. Hopefully taxes go down at least.
-
Reposting from fivethirtyeight.com:
https://twitter.com/PatrickRuffini/status/796209136396550144/photo/1
If Clinton wins NH, it could be an Electoral College tie.
-
Well, it's going to be President Trump. Hopefully taxes go down at least.
Have you read "his" tax "plan"? Your taxes would totally go down, if you make more than $300k/year.
-
Yeah, lucky for me I do (at least for next year). I still can't quite believe it.
-
I've started drinking heavily. This too-close-to-call thing is bigly ungood.
I started hours ago.
In retrospect, I should have gotten in bed before starting to drink. I'm still at work, can't drive home now...
-
Oof.. this is terrible.
Been watching for the last five hours, and I would be totally drunk right now if I drank, and it's not even noon.
Our country is going backwards. Trump. Republican senate. Death penalty victories.
Just makes me sad.
I'm calling in sick tomorrow.
-
NYT has Trump at 95% chance of winning, last I checked.
The best comment I've read so far in their live commentary was that this was the year whites without college degrees voted as a block and at 40% it is enough to tip the election.
Fucking depressing.
Edited to add a number back in
-
Okay. I don't know whether to laugh or cry. It seems like the Brexit vote we had here.
-
Oof.. this is terrible.
Been watching for the last five hours, and I would be totally drunk right now if I drank, and it's not even noon.
Our country is going backwards. Trump. Republican senate. Death penalty victories.
Just makes me sad.
I'm calling in sick tomorrow.
You voted for Johnson!
-
Someone needs to take Comey behind the woodshed for this crap.
-
There goes my health insurance.
Dow futures -800.
-
The faces of the newscasters are priceless.
+1
I think liberal fears of Trump are as baseless (or well founded, depending on what one thinks of the past eight years) as conservative fears of Obama eight years ago.
There is a lot of inertia in the system, although things the Democrats did while in power (e.g., Reid's senate rule changes) have reduced that inertia. That may not have been a good thing to do....
-
Okay. I don't know whether to laugh or cry. It seems like the Brexit vote we had here.
The only consolation is that the economy will probably take a dive in next few years and that'll be laid at Trump's feet. Add in some international blunders, and some cozying up to Putin, and he'll be a one-timer.
He can do a lot of damage in 2-4 years, however.
-
You voted for Johnson!
This is not true. Please don't just make up things about other people.
Especially me. ;)
The best comment I've read so far in their live commentary was that this was the year whites without college degrees voted as a block and at 40% it is enough to tip the election.
IDK, there's a lot of blame to go around. Don't forget the Evangelical Christians more. Yes, white, non-college-educated went for Trump, but not as hard as evangelical Christians.
From 538, stats on each, based on exit polls:
As the night ticks on, the question that seems to be on everyone’s lips is simply this: What is happening?
Clinton, considered the favorite going into the race is now an underdog — our live forecast now gives Trump a better chance to win the White House. So what are the factors at work, upending expectations of how this race would unfold?
At the heart of all this seems to be a Midwestern collapse by Clinton; she lost Ohio, which Obama won in both 2008 and 2012, the race in Michigan is currently too close to call, as is the one in Wisconsin. Obama won both these states in both 2008 and 2012. Pennsylvania, another state nudging into the Midwest, is also too close to call.
These states are filled with white voters without college degrees, a demographic that has in the past trended more favorably toward Democrats. But preliminary exit polls are showing that Trump’s margin in this group is unprecedented among exit polls that date back to 1980 — he is winning the demographic 67 percent to Clinton’s 28 percent, a spread of 39 points. By comparison, Mitt Romney won non-college-educated white voters by a margin of only 26 points in 2012.
Evangelical voters are potentially among the strongest demographic groups for Trump, and they help explain why he is doing unexpectedly well tonight. Trump’s margin among evangelical white Christians is 81-16 percent, according to exit poll results. That appears to be the widest margin for a Republican presidential candidate among evangelicals since 2004.
In Georgia, for example, preliminary exit polls show that Trump won 88 percent of white evangelical voters, compared with 6 percent for Clinton. The demographic makes up a third of the state’s voters. They are anticipated to be 20 percent of Florida’s voters.
During the primaries, many evangelical voters had questions about Trump’s values, but the demographic group consolidated around his candidacy because of issues like abortion and appointments to the Supreme Court.
The margin he has with evangelical Christians is way bigger than the margin with non-educated white folks.
-
Well uhh.. this is going different from what I thought. I've been wrong I think in the past 3 elections in who was going to win. Looks like Trump is our new overlord. Hmm my thoughts of not coming back to the country are strengthening.
-
There goes my health insurance.
Dow futures -800.
Am I the only one who listened to both sides of the election? Every time Trump said he would repeal obamacare, he said he would replace it. It is shocking that rebulicans got behind him on this... but its true, his stance is to repeal AND replace.
-
Looks like sell everything and get a one way ticket out of here is a real possibility.
America has just committed suicide, the experiment is over.
-
Okay. I don't know whether to laugh or cry. It seems like the Brexit vote we had here.
The only consolation is that the economy will probably take a dive in next few years and that'll be laid at Trump's feet. Add in some international blunders, and some cozying up to Putin, and he'll be a one-timer.
He can do a lot of damage in 2-4 years, however.
Republican house and senate and presidency, whom they'll all quickly get on board with?
They're gonna pass so much legislation.
Supreme court nominations. RBG has how much time left? Not a lot.
And from 538, regarding the midterms:
If you’re thinking ahead to the 2018 midterms — and the possibility of a wave against a President Trump — keep two things in mind. The map that may cost Democrats the Electoral College tonight — perhaps despite winning the popular vote — is perhaps even more problematic for them in the House of Representatives, with Democratic voters packed into small, dense congressional districts. And the 2018 Senate map was already shaping up to be pretty terrible for Democrats — they’re defending a lot of red turf they won in 2012 as President Obama was reelected.
-
Okay. I don't know whether to laugh or cry. It seems like the Brexit vote we had here.
The only consolation is that the economy will probably take a dive in next few years and that'll be laid at Trump's feet. Add in some international blunders, and some cozying up to Putin, and he'll be a one-timer.
He can do a lot of damage in 2-4 years, however.
Republican house and senate and presidency, whom they'll all quickly get on board with?
They're gonna pass so much legislation.
Supreme court nominations. RBG has how much time left? Not a lot.
And from 538, regarding the midterms:
If you’re thinking ahead to the 2018 midterms — and the possibility of a wave against a President Trump — keep two things in mind. The map that may cost Democrats the Electoral College tonight — perhaps despite winning the popular vote — is perhaps even more problematic for them in the House of Representatives, with Democratic voters packed into small, dense congressional districts. And the 2018 Senate map was already shaping up to be pretty terrible for Democrats — they’re defending a lot of red turf they won in 2012 as President Obama was reelected.
Straight up - Elections have consequences.
-
Okay. I don't know whether to laugh or cry. It seems like the Brexit vote we had here.
The only consolation is that the economy will probably take a dive in next few years and that'll be laid at Trump's feet. Add in some international blunders, and some cozying up to Putin, and he'll be a one-timer.
He can do a lot of damage in 2-4 years, however.
Republican house and senate and presidency, whom they'll all quickly get on board with?
They're gonna pass so much legislation.
Supreme court nominations. RBG has how much time left? Not a lot.
And from 538, regarding the midterms:
If you’re thinking ahead to the 2018 midterms — and the possibility of a wave against a President Trump — keep two things in mind. The map that may cost Democrats the Electoral College tonight — perhaps despite winning the popular vote — is perhaps even more problematic for them in the House of Representatives, with Democratic voters packed into small, dense congressional districts. And the 2018 Senate map was already shaping up to be pretty terrible for Democrats — they’re defending a lot of red turf they won in 2012 as President Obama was reelected.
Oh, it'll be bad. If Trump gets 2 SC nominations, even gay marriage is on the chopping block.
-
Looks like sell everything and get a one way ticket out of here is a real possibility.
America has just committed suicide, the experiment is over.
Tangent: Assuming that you have the means to emigrate, what country do you think has the best quality of life for ER?
-
There goes my health insurance.
Dow futures -800.
Am I the only one who listened to both sides of the election? Every time Trump said he would repeal obamacare, he said he would replace it. It is shocking that rebulicans got behind him on this... but its true, his stance is to repeal AND replace.
Not to speak for anyone, but I think the people saying that here mostly believe it either will not be replaced because of in-fighting among legislators about what the new system should be, or that a worse, less accessible, more expensive option will be in its place instead, and will adversely affect them.
-
The faces of the newscasters are priceless.
I watched MSNBC from the start. So classic! So wrong. Nothing different from this board either. I've never seen so many people out of touch. Oh well you reap what you sow. You believe the MSM that you're own fault. Now we see the real panic and to think Trump any different than Clinton. LOL Whats even better is the people voting for Johnson and they thought were doing something. Calling him a Libertarian is a joke. I spent 3 weeks in Europe out of the last 2 months and I saw the same thing. This was no different than Britexit as they (MSM) just don't understand. Fall in line and be lemmings. Don't blame me I vote on principal. Think about it.
-
Looks like sell everything and get a one way ticket out of here is a real possibility.
America has just committed suicide, the experiment is over.
Tangent: Assuming that you have the means to emigrate, what country do you think has the best quality of life for ER?
I could get a retirement visa to Thailand or go to England, I am a dual national. I am already FIREd.
-
Check out Pennsylvania. 92% reported so far:
Trump - 2,655,960
Clinton - 2,653,551
Over 5 million votes and they're within 2,400 of each other. I wonder if those 131,000 Johnson and 45,500 Stein voters wish they had voted differently now...
I wonder if the DNC wishes they hadn't interfered (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/07/24/here-are-the-latest-most-damaging-things-in-the-dncs-leaked-emails/) in the primaries?
-
The faces of the newscasters are priceless.
I watched MSNBC from the start. So classic! So wrong. Nothing different from this board either. I've never seen so many people out of touch. Oh well you reap what you sow.
Clinton will win the popular vote. It's the Electoral vote that was incorrectly polled and every poll and betting line and market had Clinton winning.
It's easy to be prescient after the fact.
-
The faces of the newscasters are priceless.
I watched MSNBC from the start. So classic! So wrong. Nothing different from this board either. I've never seen so many people out of touch. Oh well you reap what you sow. You believe the MSM that you're own fault. Now we see the real panic and to think Trump any different than Clinton. LOL Whats even better is the people voting for Johnson and they thought were doing something. Calling him a Libertarian is a joke. I spent 3 weeks in Europe out of the last 2 months and I saw the same thing. This was no different than Britexit as they (MSM) just don't understand. Fall in line and be lemmings. Don't blame me I vote on principal. Think about it.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2016/10/19/irish-bookmaker-already-paying-out-clinton-win/92400784/
These guys might feel especially silly...
-
The faces of the newscasters are priceless.
I watched MSNBC from the start. So classic! So wrong. Nothing different from this board either. I've never seen so many people out of touch. Oh well you reap what you sow.
Clinton will win the popular vote. It's the Electoral vote that was incorrectly polled and every poll and betting line and market had Clinton winning.
It's easy to be prescient after the fact.
I'd actually guess the exact opposite: Trump win the popular vote with a loss in the electoral college. Guess we'll find out in a few hours!
-
ARS: interesting about the evangelicals. I didn't know that.
-
The faces of the newscasters are priceless.
I watched MSNBC from the start. So classic! So wrong. Nothing different from this board either. I've never seen so many people out of touch. Oh well you reap what you sow. You believe the MSM that you're own fault. Now we see the real panic and to think Trump any different than Clinton. LOL Whats even better is the people voting for Johnson and they thought were doing something. Calling him a Libertarian is a joke. I spent 3 weeks in Europe out of the last 2 months and I saw the same thing. This was no different than Britexit as they (MSM) just don't understand. Fall in line and be lemmings. Don't blame me I vote on principal. Think about it.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2016/10/19/irish-bookmaker-already-paying-out-clinton-win/92400784/
These guys might feel especially silly...
Maybe a good buy market in the morning?
-
The faces of the newscasters are priceless.
I watched MSNBC from the start. So classic! So wrong. Nothing different from this board either. I've never seen so many people out of touch. Oh well you reap what you sow.
Clinton will win the popular vote. It's the Electoral vote that was incorrectly polled and every poll and betting line and market had Clinton winning.
It's easy to be prescient after the fact.
I'd actually guess the exact opposite: Trump win the popular vote with a loss in the electoral college. Guess we'll find out in a few hours!
...what? That seems the opposite of what is happening.
-
There goes my health insurance.
Dow futures -800.
Am I the only one who listened to both sides of the election? Every time Trump said he would repeal obamacare, he said he would replace it. It is shocking that rebulicans got behind him on this... but its true, his stance is to repeal AND replace.
My understanding is that he said he would essentially replace with high deductible plans and HSAs? But nothing about protecting pre-existing condition coverage or subsidies. If you know something different please post a link or point to it - because some of us might feel more comforted :)
-
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2016/10/19/irish-bookmaker-already-paying-out-clinton-win/92400784/
These guys might feel especially silly...
They have form for this kind of thing - it's very cheap publicity and they've done it before with other high profile events. They know how to calculate odds, probably didn't take a huge amount of money on the US presidential race. They could easily lay the bet with other bookmakers as part of their marketing budget. In this case, it will be a gift that keeps on giving because they'll get another round of media attention out of it.
-
Honestly it is probably not as bad as many liberals think. Trump has lots of things to dislike about him, but he is not a strong conservative. He has supported lots of things in the past that would make conservatives (for example Cruz) squirm. As a non-conservative, I was far more opposed to Cruz than to Trump. Especially with a Republican congress he may push through many things that liberals oppose. But he may also protect and possibly even advance some other things that they champion. I honestly think that moderate and liberal policies (in practice if not the imaginations of liberals) may have just as good a chance getting passed with a Trump presidency as with a Clinton presidency because the Republicans will have a hard time stopping any liberal leaning policies he does push.
Of course this is sort of in the air, because I am actually not clear where Trump stands on many policies.
-
Clinton will win the popular vote. It's the Electoral vote that was incorrectly polled and every poll and betting line and market had Clinton winning.
It's easy to be prescient after the fact.
I'd actually guess the exact opposite: Trump win the popular vote with a loss in the electoral college. Guess we'll find out in a few hours!
Without PA, Clinton can't win. It'll probably head to a recount no matter who is declared the winner.
Close Vote Margin:
Less than or equal to .5%
I'm assuming that California will throw another 2-3M votes to Clinton. She's trailing by 1M and no other state can make up that much.
-
Honestly it is probably not as bad as many liberals think. Trump has lots of things to dislike about him, but he is not a strong conservative. He has supported lots of things in the past that would make conservatives (for example Cruz) squirm. As a non-conservative, I was far more opposed to Cruz than to Trump. Especially with a Republican congress he may push through many things that liberals oppose. But he may also protect and possibly even advance some other things that they champion. I honestly think that moderate and liberal policies (in practice if not the imaginations of liberals) may have just as good a chance getting passed with a Trump presidency as with a Clinton presidency because the Republicans will have a hard time stopping any liberal leaning policies he does push.
Of course this is sort of in the air, because I am actually not clear where Trump stands on many policies.
Don't feel bad - Trump doesn't know where he stands on most things either.
I think you're right. There isn't much difference between the two. Trump has been acting conservative, Christian, etc.
-
Honestly it is probably not as bad as many liberals think. Trump has lots of things to dislike about him, but he is not a strong conservative. He has supported lots of things in the past that would make conservatives (for example Cruz) squirm. As a non-conservative, I was far more opposed to Cruz than to Trump. Especially with a Republican congress he may push through many things that liberals oppose. But he may also protect and possibly even advance some other things that they champion. I honestly think that moderate and liberal policies (in practice if not the imaginations of liberals) may have just as good a chance getting passed with a Trump presidency as with a Clinton presidency because the Republicans will have a hard time stopping any liberal leaning policies he does push.
Of course this is sort of in the air, because I am actually not clear where Trump stands on many policies.
Don't feel bad - Trump doesn't know where he stands on most things either.
I think you're right. There isn't much difference between the two. Trump has been acting conservative, Christian, etc.
To be fair, Trump was a democrat up until a decade ago or so.
-
Of course this is sort of in the air, because I am actually not clear where Trump stands on many policies.
He is no different than Clinton. I am surprised so many think different but that shows how corrupt the MSM is.
-
Honestly it is probably not as bad as many liberals think. Trump has lots of things to dislike about him, but he is not a strong conservative. He has supported lots of things in the past that would make conservatives (for example Cruz) squirm. As a non-conservative, I was far more opposed to Cruz than to Trump. Especially with a Republican congress he may push through many things that liberals oppose. But he may also protect and possibly even advance some other things that they champion. I honestly think that moderate and liberal policies (in practice if not the imaginations of liberals) may have just as good a chance getting passed with a Trump presidency as with a Clinton presidency because the Republicans will have a hard time stopping any liberal leaning policies he does push.
Of course this is sort of in the air, because I am actually not clear where Trump stands on many policies.
Don't feel bad - Trump doesn't know where he stands on most things either.
I think you're right. There isn't much difference between the two. Trump has been acting conservative, Christian, etc.
To be fair, Trump was a democrat up until a decade ago or so.
True, all good points. He's the ultimate teflon flip-flopper. He's an evangelical! He's pro-choice! No, he's now pro-life!
-
There's a huge difference between the two. Your cynicism and bullshit about the "corrupt media" is passe.
-
Honestly it is probably not as bad as many liberals think. Trump has lots of things to dislike about him, but he is not a strong conservative. He has supported lots of things in the past that would make conservatives (for example Cruz) squirm. As a non-conservative, I was far more opposed to Cruz than to Trump. Especially with a Republican congress he may push through many things that liberals oppose. But he may also protect and possibly even advance some other things that they champion. I honestly think that moderate and liberal policies (in practice if not the imaginations of liberals) may have just as good a chance getting passed with a Trump presidency as with a Clinton presidency because the Republicans will have a hard time stopping any liberal leaning policies he does push.
Of course this is sort of in the air, because I am actually not clear where Trump stands on many policies.
Don't feel bad - Trump doesn't know where he stands on most things either.
I think you're right. There isn't much difference between the two. Trump has been acting conservative, Christian, etc.
To be fair, Trump was a democrat up until a decade ago or so.
True, all good points. He's the ultimate teflon flip-flopper. He's an evangelical! He's pro-choice! No, he's now pro-life!
Well, hopefully he winds up as the perfect mix of progressive and conservative policies.
-
Of course this is sort of in the air, because I am actually not clear where Trump stands on many policies.
He is no different than Clinton. I am surprised so many think different but that shows how corrupt the MSM is.
I'm a non American, so my interest is mostly in not seeing you guys start any wars, at least not stupidly. So the candidates from here are easy to distinguish. Clinton might start a war, but no way is she picking a fight with Russia or anyone with nuclear weapons. Trump believes his own bullshit and could very well start a war that nobody can win.*
*Nobody can win a war when everybody dies.
-
Of course this is sort of in the air, because I am actually not clear where Trump stands on many policies.
He is no different than Clinton. I am surprised so many think different but that shows how corrupt the MSM is.
I'm a non American, so my interest is mostly in not seeing you guys start any wars, at least not stupidly. So the candidates from here are easy to distinguish. Clinton might start a war, but no way is she picking a fight with Russia or anyone with nuclear weapons. Trump believes his own bullshit and could very well start a war that nobody can win.*
*Nobody can win a war when everybody dies.
This could be super bad on a global scale. I can't believe it is happening.
-
Of course this is sort of in the air, because I am actually not clear where Trump stands on many policies.
He is no different than Clinton. I am surprised so many think different but that shows how corrupt the MSM is.
I'm a non American, so my interest is mostly in not seeing you guys start any wars, at least not stupidly. So the candidates from here are easy to distinguish. Clinton might start a war, but no way is she picking a fight with Russia or anyone with nuclear weapons. Trump believes his own bullshit and could very well start a war that nobody can win.*
*Nobody can win a war when everybody dies.
Maybe we can put him in a cage match with Kim Jong Un and they can just annihilate each other?
-
Of course this is sort of in the air, because I am actually not clear where Trump stands on many policies.
He is no different than Clinton. I am surprised so many think different but that shows how corrupt the MSM is.
I'm a non American, so my interest is mostly in not seeing you guys start any wars, at least not stupidly. So the candidates from here are easy to distinguish. Clinton might start a war, but no way is she picking a fight with Russia or anyone with nuclear weapons. Trump believes his own bullshit and could very well start a war that nobody can win.*
*Nobody can win a war when everybody dies.
the only winning move is not to play - War Games
-
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos.
-
Of course this is sort of in the air, because I am actually not clear where Trump stands on many policies.
He is no different than Clinton. I am surprised so many think different but that shows how corrupt the MSM is.
I'm a non American, so my interest is mostly in not seeing you guys start any wars, at least not stupidly. So the candidates from here are easy to distinguish. Clinton might start a war, but no way is she picking a fight with Russia or anyone with nuclear weapons. Trump believes his own bullshit and could very well start a war that nobody can win.*
*Nobody can win a war when everybody dies.
Maybe we can put him in a cage match with Kim Jong Un and they can just annihilate each other?
Oh wait--I just saw that North Korea endorsed Trump as "a wise politician and a prescient presidential candidate." Wonderful.
-
Idiocracy has become reality. Am I the only one who feels this way?
-
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos.
:D Thank you for this...
-
There's a huge difference between the two. Your cynicism and bullshit about the "corrupt media" is passe.
And you don't know what you're talking about. Sorry there is no difference. Keep playing party line. Vote for Johnson because you are voting for something different but not on what you believe in! Or maybe just vote for Clinton because you don't like Trump. Now show me where the difference is?
-
If this is what America wants, then this is what it deserves.
The last time we elected a Republican we got two foreign wars and a ruined global economy. Think Trump can top that?
-
The faces of the newscasters are priceless.
I watched MSNBC from the start. So classic! So wrong. Nothing different from this board either. I've never seen so many people out of touch. Oh well you reap what you sow.
Clinton will win the popular vote. It's the Electoral vote that was incorrectly polled and every poll and betting line and market had Clinton winning.
It's easy to be prescient after the fact.
I'd actually guess the exact opposite: Trump win the popular vote with a loss in the electoral college. Guess we'll find out in a few hours!
...what? That seems the opposite of what is happening.
HOw so? Trump is winning both the electoral college AND the popular vote.
-
Idiocracy has become reality. Am I the only one who feels this way?
Currently there are ~53,000,000 people who might agree with you. OTOH ~54,000,000 probably disagree.
-
If this is what America wants, then this is what it deserves.
The problem with major superpowers, and the USA is one since a little over a century, is that local politics may affect the whole world. The Trump talk about NATO scaledowns are not fun to hear for the small countries round the baltic sea... I'm sure there are similar feelings in Taiwan and Japan and possibly other places.
-
If this is what America wants, then this is what it deserves.
The last time we elected a Republican we got two foreign wars and a ruined global economy. Think Trump can top that?
And Obama wasn't any different? Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen, Libya and Syria. So drones are different than anything else?
-
As a Canadian, I am paying close attention to the election as are many of my friends. I am speechless that there are so many people who have voted for Trump.
-
As a Canadian, I am paying close attention to the election as are many of my friends. I am speechless that there are so many people who have voted for Trump.
No different than Europe. Been there done that. Also been in Canada and saw how amazed your people were but just shows how informed you are also. MSM keep believing!
-
I've started drinking heavily. This too-close-to-call thing is bigly ungood.
I started hours ago.
I wish I was drinking but I'm to busy driving to Canada.
SHould have bought a bus. You could have sold tickets and made a killing!
-
I'd actually guess the exact opposite: Trump win the popular vote with a loss in the electoral college. Guess we'll find out in a few hours!
...what? That seems the opposite of what is happening.
HOw so? Trump is winning both the electoral college AND the popular vote.
I think, and it looks like, she'll win the popular vote.
And he'll win the electoral.
Which is the opposite of what you said (him winning popular, but losing electoral).
-
I want a ticket for that bus.
-
I think, and it looks like, she'll win the popular vote.
And he'll win the electoral.
Which is the opposite of what you said (him winning popular, but losing electoral).
I guess we'll know in a few hours. I don't see how Trump can lose the popular vote, but it'll be (Hopefully) clear by the time the sun rises over California.
-
I want a ticket for that bus.
So apparently the Canadian immigration website has crashed?
-
I think, and it looks like, she'll win the popular vote.
And he'll win the electoral.
Which is the opposite of what you said (him winning popular, but losing electoral).
I guess we'll know in a few hours. I don't see how Trump can lose the popular vote, but it'll be (Hopefully) clear by the time the sun rises over California.
Huh, weird. What are your sources? Like, what are you reading or watching that I'm not?
(I've been following NYT and 538.)
EDIT: Or are you just looking at the current vote total. which has him ahead, but only like 80% reporting, and tons more votes to come in for her in California?
-
How many people who voted Trump are going to be like the UKers the day after Brexit tomorrow: "What have I done?"
-
Did the Canadian immigration site really just crash?
-
I think, and it looks like, she'll win the popular vote.
And he'll win the electoral.
Which is the opposite of what you said (him winning popular, but losing electoral).
I guess we'll know in a few hours. I don't see how Trump can lose the popular vote, but it'll be (Hopefully) clear by the time the sun rises over California.
Huh, weird. What are your sources? Like, what are you reading or watching that I'm not?
(I've been following NYT and 538.)
EDIT: Or are you just looking at the current vote total. which has him ahead, but only like 80% reporting, and tons more votes to come in for her in California?
The reddit election megathread seems to be ahead of 538 by about 5 minutes. Not that I'm paying attention.
-
I think the real story of this election is how the polling could have been so very very wrong.
In most states, the candidate that was expected to win by 2-4% instead won by 6-8%. And in a few states, the candidate that was favored to win by 2-4% actually LOST by 3-5%, an 8 point polling miss. That's not supposed to happen anymore.
In most states, I think you can chalk it up to just the continued polarization of the country. Everyone is seemingly turning hard to one side or the other. But WI and MI were waaaaay off in every single poll, for reasons that aren't yet clear.
Did the Canadian immigration site really just crash?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/how-to-move-to-canada-immigration-website-crash-donald-trump-president-a7406106.html
-
Social stigma of wanting to admit they were voting for Trump?
-
You voted for Johnson!
This is not true. Please don't just make up things about other people.
Especially me. ;)
Hrm, I swear I read on another thread that you were going to vote for Johnson, I can't find it now though, so perhaps you're right :)
-
You voted for Johnson!
This is not true. Please don't just make up things about other people.
Especially me. ;)
Hrm, I swear I read on another thread that you were going to vote for Johnson, I can't find it now though, so perhaps you're right :)
Must have just confused me with someone else. No worries. :)
-
There goes my health insurance.
Dow futures -800.
Am I the only one who listened to both sides of the election? Every time Trump said he would repeal obamacare, he said he would replace it. It is shocking that rebulicans got behind him on this... but its true, his stance is to repeal AND replace.
My understanding is that he said he would essentially replace with high deductible plans and HSAs? But nothing about protecting pre-existing condition coverage or subsidies. If you know something different please post a link or point to it - because some of us might feel more comforted :)
Did some googling and found this:
http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Donald_Trump_Health_Care.htm
Q: Senator Rubio, you said that Mr. Trump thinks part of ObamaCare is pretty good. Which part?
RUBIO: The individual mandate. He said he likes the individual mandate portion of it; I don't believe that should remain there. We need to repeal ObamaCare completely and replace it with a system that puts Americans in charge of their health care money again.
TRUMP: I agree with that 100%, except pre-existing conditions, I would absolutely get rid of ObamaCare. I want to keep pre- existing conditions. It's a modern age, and I think we have to have it.
So.....hopefully the pre-existing conditions clause will remain?
-
I think the real story of this election is how the polling could have been so very very wrong.
In most states, the candidate that was expected to win by 2-4% instead one by 6-8%. And in a few states, the candidate that was favored to win by 2-4% actually LOST by 3-5%, an 8 point polling miss. That's not supposed to happen anymore.
In most states, I think you can chalk it up to just the continued polarization of the country. Everyone is seemingly turning hard to one side or the other. But WI and MI were waaaaay off in every single poll, for reasons that aren't yet clear.
Did the Canadian immigration site really just crash?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/how-to-move-to-canada-immigration-website-crash-donald-trump-president-a7406106.html
MSM Joke! I feel sorry for you if you believed it. Just like Obama's Nobel Piece Prize. Care to answer your last statement about Trump bringing war?
-
Care to answer your last statement about Trump bringing war?
The one where I pointed out that the last time we elected a Republican we got two foreign wars and a crashed global economy?
I don't really feel the need to "answer" that, it's a concrete historical fact. We elected a Republican named George W. Bush. He started two foreign wars. The global economy crashed. What do I have to answer for?
-
Care to answer your last statement about Trump bringing war?
The one where I pointed out that the last time we elected a Republican we got two foreign wars and a crashed global economy?
I don't really feel the need to "answer" that, it's a concrete historical fact. We elected a Republican named George W. Bush. He started two foreign wars. The global economy crashed. What do I have to answer for?
So, all Republicans are the same?
-
How many people who voted Trump are going to be like the UKers the day after Brexit tomorrow: "What have I done?"
How many Ukers have you talked to?
-
I think the real story of this election is how the polling could have been so very very wrong.
In most states, the candidate that was expected to win by 2-4% instead won by 6-8%. And in a few states, the candidate that was favored to win by 2-4% actually LOST by 3-5%, an 8 point polling miss. That's not supposed to happen anymore.
In most states, I think you can chalk it up to just the continued polarization of the country. Everyone is seemingly turning hard to one side or the other. But WI and MI were waaaaay off in every single poll, for reasons that aren't yet clear.
Did the Canadian immigration site really just crash?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/how-to-move-to-canada-immigration-website-crash-donald-trump-president-a7406106.html
Moonshadow is laughing at us somewhere, that's for damn sure. Or, Trump was telling us all along that it was rigged.
-
So, all Republicans are the same?
Didn't say that, did I?
-
Jesus I thought I was unhappy when bush won
-
I, for one, plan to keep doing what I've always done - which is work hard, try to be a good neighbor/American, and do what I can to help everyone else succeed. I didn't vote for Trump (or Hilary, though I'd have preferred her to him) but I hope he proves me wrong and does an excellent job.
If I were him, I'd start by apologizing for the "you'd be in jail" comment and trying to mend fences/bring everyone together a little. He won fair and square, and it would be a class move to extend an olive branch. Being magnanimous in victory is always a good idea.
Hilary needs to make a similarly gracious concession speech and really lay the groundwork for everyone to go forward. Then she should retire permanently from any association with politics.
-W
-
Care to answer your last statement about Trump bringing war?
The one where I pointed out that the last time we elected a Republican we got two foreign wars and a crashed global economy?
I don't really feel the need to "answer" that, it's a concrete historical fact. We elected a Republican named George W. Bush. He started two foreign wars. The global economy crashed. What do I have to answer for?
So you are fine with droning Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen, Libya and Syria. I guess you are right. There is no difference between what Trump might do compared to Obama. You are showing your ignorance.
-
Look on the bright side, the DOW futures is down 800 points. For those of us that are not FI yet it's great time to buy! Assuming you don't get deported.
This might work out for some people's FIRE plans for another buying opportunity. Time to look forward to 2020.
As for the polls being wrong, it seems like the Hillary supporters became complacent and over confident.
Republican senate, house, and president may we live in interesting times.
-
I, for one, plan to keep doing what I've always done - which is work hard, try to be a good neighbor/American, and do what I can to help everyone else succeed. I didn't vote for Trump (or Hilary, though I'd have preferred her to him) but I hope he proves me wrong and does an excellent job.
If I were him, I'd start by apologizing for the "you'd be in jail" comment and trying to mend fences/bring everyone together a little. He won fair and square, and it would be a class move to extend an olive branch. Being magnanimous in victory is always a good idea.
Hilary needs to make a similarly gracious concession speech and really lay the groundwork for everyone to go forward. Then she should retire permanently from any association with politics.
-W
Sure, but there are a lot of unanswered questions to deal with. Will we finally get to see what business interests Trump has in Russia? Will he put his assets into a blind trust, or will he just flagrantly violate all our conflict of interest rules and use the presidency to enrich himself and his family, ala Putin? What does this mean for our national climate policy? Since we're going to have Republicans in control of every branch of government, will they really follow through with repealing the ACA on day 1? What other GOP fantasy legislation is going to get pushed through in the first 100 days? How many supreme court justices will he get to appoint, with no congressional opposition?
There are a lot of serious issues that nobody has taken seriously yet, and since he wasn't expected to win nobody seemed to mind.
-
Jesus I thought I was unhappy when bush won
This is what the "we must win at all costs" right doesn't seem to understand. I would rather have another term of Bush. I would rather Romney defeated Obama in 2012. I would rather Kim Kardashian be nominated for the Republican ticket. I mean, she's also a reality star and successful businessperson, after all. I doubt I am alone in these feelings. But the whole "burn the house down, bla bla Benghazi, bla bla, emails" folks honestly think they have made the moral, or even more mind-boggling, intellectual choice.
I would be so, so happy to be proven wrong. I sure hope I am...
-
So you are fine with droning Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen, Libya and Syria.
I didn't say that either, did I?
You sure are eager to put words in my mouth tonight.
-
So, all Republicans are the same?
Didn't say that, did I?
Care to answer your last statement about Trump bringing war?
The one where I pointed out that the last time we elected a Republican we got two foreign wars and a crashed global economy?
I don't really feel the need to "answer" that, it's a concrete historical fact. We elected a Republican named George W. Bush. He started two foreign wars. The global economy crashed. What do I have to answer for?
Bush W. != Trump. So what exactly did you mean to say?
-
So what exactly did you mean to say?
I meant exactly what I said. I'll repeat it a third time for you, since you seem to be having a hard time.
The last time we elected a Republican President, we got two foreign wars and a crashed global economy. Do you think Trump can top that?
What's not to understand? It's a statement of empirical facts, then a request for your opinion.
-
So what exactly did you mean to say?
I meant exactly what I said. I'll repeat it a third time for you, since you seem to be having a hard time.
The last time we elected a Republican President, we got two foreign wars and a crashed global economy. Do you think Trump can top that?
What's not to understand? It's a statement of empirical facts, then a request for your opinion.
Got it. You think republicans start wars. Democrats also start wars. We will have to see what happens, I guess.
-
The last time we elected a Republican we got two foreign wars and a ruined global economy. Think Trump can top that?
So we elected a Republican president and you are saying a Democrat is any different? Answer the question.
So you are fine with droning Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen, Libya and Syria. I guess you are right. There is no difference between what Trump might do compared to Obama. You are showing your ignorance.
-
Unfortunately the CryBaby has taken the dialog to a new, low level. ... What chance do you think this will occur when the CryBaby loses badly this time around?
The Crybaby had a platform ...
This is another fallacy of the Crybaby supporters ...
Maybe in some Crybaby fantasy ...
What chance do you think that the Crybaby will muster ...
The CryBaby is going to wail like he got a pinky toe caught in the playpen gate once the landslide for H is over. ...
I would also argue that in the case of the Crybaby ... The house that the Crybaby built.
I am going to be so happy when the Crybaby loses by a landslide next week. ...
And then the Crybaby will have another fit.
I'm more interested in the CryBaby's reaction on election night.
The Crybaby loses, gets his Twitter account back from his handlers, and goes tirade.
Well, it's too bad the Crybaby will be a loser tomorrow ...
Okay. I think I speak for everybody when I say, we get it, you dislike Donald Trump. You can stop referring to him as "the crybaby" now. It stopped being clever some time before you first used it.
Anybody see the Crybaby yet?
-
^nicely played
-
Anybody see the Crybaby yet?
I think he's going to speak soon.
-
Anybody see the Crybaby yet?
I think he's going to speak soon.
Sweet I love it. Just like if Sol could answer a question.
-
Stop trolling Sol, weinerdog. Being rude to each other is not productive.
-
I'm assuming everyone saw Clinton called and conceded. Game over.
Pence is on stage; Trump to come out any time.
-
So it's called for Trump. What an upset. A horrible campaign till the end, but a well executed one. Will the Democrats/media/"intellectuals" ever stop underestimating the "dumbass" Republican candidate?
-
So it's coming up to 8am in the UK and I've just listened to Trump's speech. I think it's possible that he might calm the fuck down now that he's not campaigning any more. Quite possibly he will let all the crazy things drop and/or the rest of the party will give him the shaft and not let him do anything stupid. I do think there might be a big disappointment for his supporters, like there was here post-BREXIT when the Leave campaign had to backpedal on stuff very quickly, but this is not necessarily the beginning of the apocalypse.
-
So classic! Went there and done that. Can't blame anyone for not answering what they don't believe in because at this point they don't know any better. If anyone believe's Trump is any different than Hillary then I feel sorry for you.
-
Wow, I don't think anybody saw this kind of result coming. If nothing else, the next four years will bring a lot of juicy headlines :)
@sol, I assume the two wars you're referring to are Iraq and Afghanistan. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the way I remember it, it was a bunch of Afghans that started it, what with the planes crashing into office towers and all that.
-
Wow, I don't think anybody saw this kind of result coming. If nothing else, the next four years will bring a lot of juicy headlines :)
@sol, I assume the two wars you're referring to are Iraq and Afghanistan. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the way I remember it, it was a bunch of Afghans that started it, what with the planes crashing into office towers and all that.
War between nations is not supposed to work like that. If some crazy American came to Britain and blew himself up, would Britain be justified in declaring war on America?
-
Wow, I don't think anybody saw this kind of result coming. If nothing else, the next four years will bring a lot of juicy headlines :)
@sol, I assume the two wars you're referring to are Iraq and Afghanistan. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the way I remember it, it was a bunch of Afghans that started it, what with the planes crashing into office towers and all that.
War between nations is not supposed to work like that. If some crazy American came to Britain and blew himself up, would Britain be justified in declaring war on America?
If the USA aided and abetted the perpetrators and then shielded them from justice? Yes, that would be an act of war.
-
Wow, I don't think anybody saw this kind of result coming. If nothing else, the next four years will bring a lot of juicy headlines :)
@sol, I assume the two wars you're referring to are Iraq and Afghanistan. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the way I remember it, it was a bunch of Afghans that started it, what with the planes crashing into office towers and all that.
War between nations is not supposed to work like that. If some crazy American came to Britain and blew himself up, would Britain be justified in declaring war on America?
If the USA aided and abetted the perpetrators and then shielded them from justice? Yes, that would be an act of war.
...and now, shelivesthedream, you may get a small glimpse of why what happened today happened.
-
War between nations is not supposed to work like that. If some crazy American came to Britain and blew himself up, would Britain be justified in declaring war on America?
Crazy American only shoot their self. If you are Britain then you have much more problems than American. We only shoot our self because you don't have guns. Can you give me an example where we came there to blow Britain up?
-
Wow, I don't think anybody saw this kind of result coming. If nothing else, the next four years will bring a lot of juicy headlines :)
@sol, I assume the two wars you're referring to are Iraq and Afghanistan. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the way I remember it, it was a bunch of Afghans that started it, what with the planes crashing into office towers and all that.
War between nations is not supposed to work like that. If some crazy American came to Britain and blew himself up, would Britain be justified in declaring war on America?
If the USA aided and abetted the perpetrators and then shielded them from justice? Yes, that would be an act of war.
...and now, shelivesthedream, you may get a small glimpse of why what happened today happened.
Not sure what you mean by this. I voted for Johnson, not that it mattered either way because I'm in CA.
After 9/11 the Taliban was given the opportunity to turn over the Al Qaeda leadership, who they were hosting in their country while it operated terror training camps. This was about as cut and dry as it gets, and there was broad bipartisan support for the military actions in Afghanistan. Again, not clear at all why you believe this is in any way related to Trump?
-
Just watched his acceptance speech. Time to invest in wall building companies. Good night all.
-
Well, the next little while will be interesting, especially once President L Plates gets the keys.
Kinda expected it to be honest, it seemed that he had some pretty passionate supporters.
Of course, the sun will rise tomorrow morning and I'm sure America will continue to be a great country, not because of Trump, but in spite of him.
Aren't states like WI and MI traditionally blue states? I wonder if them flipping to the R side of the column is a sign of a longer-term change in preferences, or is it just that Trump's anti-free trade message resonated more there?
-
The Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio, and Pennsylvania results are the Nafta chickens coming home to roost.
Florida may have been because of Elian.
-
Crazy American only shoot their self. If you are Britain then you have much more problems than American. We only shoot our self because you don't have guns. Can you give me an example where we came there to blow Britain up?
We're getting way off-topic for an election results thread, but there were certainly individual Americans in Boston, New York & Chicago who funded terrorist bombings of shopping centres etc. in Britain through the IRA. Should the UK have bombed those cities?
-
I, for one, plan to keep doing what I've always done - which is work hard, try to be a good neighbor/American, and do what I can to help everyone else succeed. I didn't vote for Trump (or Hilary, though I'd have preferred her to him) but I hope he proves me wrong and does an excellent job.
If I were him, I'd start by apologizing for the "you'd be in jail" comment and trying to mend fences/bring everyone together a little. He won fair and square, and it would be a class move to extend an olive branch. Being magnanimous in victory is always a good idea.
Hilary needs to make a similarly gracious concession speech and really lay the groundwork for everyone to go forward. Then she should retire permanently from any association with politics.
-W
Thank you for this. It's what I needed to read this morning. I came here hoping for some Mustachian Stoicism of just this kind.
Having worked in politics for a while when younger, I am aware that some of these emotions are no different than seeing your team lose in the Final Four or Super Bowl. We invest in our side, demonize the other side, and despair when the unthinkable happens.
I am, however, worried about what will happen to the environment in the next two or four years. And I know that whether we think it's warranted or not, there are people who are not white heterosexuals in this country who are concerned, if not terrified, about the future.
-
Calm down ya'll we'll be fine.
Economy is chugging along, we're in no major wars, have no major enemies. We just elected the Peace candidate vs war-monger Clinton.
Biggest disruption, if he follows through on promises, will be on Wall St. Let's see what he does to Yellen, interest rates, etc.
-
(https://media.giphy.com/media/l2JefevVz1il4J5zW/giphy.gif)
-
If we are going to fuck the poor up the ass, and then fuck the rest of the world up the ass, I at least want my tax cut.
-
Wow, markets aren't even down much. No sale or anything.
Now only tax cuts will be good news here (if they actually come).
-
I hope there is still some version of Obamacare available in 10 years or it will be impracticable to FIRE.
-
Man this really fucking sucks.
Working class rural people sold out their decency for a pipe dream. The ambiguous time when America was "great" isn't coming back.
On the plus side, I'm really motivated now to try to be a really good person and make the world a better place. It looks like these sentiments are echoed by some in this thread which I find encouraging.
-
Apparently, the Immigration Canada website crashed shortly after the election results were announced.
-
Someone needs to take Comey behind the woodshed for this crap.
No, someone needs to take Hillary and her staff behind the wood shed for not taking care of their own emails and what should have been private data. Yeah, let's blame the FBI for her and her staffs mistakes. Or maybe we can blame the lady who Hillary had print her documents for her, you know, the classified ones that no one was supposed to see.
It's her own damn fault, reap what you sow.
-
Well, Bernie-hating DNC shills, I hope you're fucking happy!
If the Democrats had done literally anything other than trying to single-mindedly shove Hillary down our throats, the election would have been a landslide in their favor.
-
The people have seen through the medias bias and lies and they recognized the Clinton Corruption Cartel as the criminal organization it really is and voted for change.
Progressive tears are being shed all over America, but that's okay. They need a good dose of reality.
-
Man this really fucking sucks.
Working class rural people sold out their decency for a pipe dream. The ambiguous time when America was "great" isn't coming back.
On the plus side, I'm really motivated now to try to be a really good person and make the world a better place. It looks like these sentiments are echoed by some in this thread which I find encouraging.
This is my opinion as well. I can bemoan the results of this election, or I can take a treacherous outcome and use it as a catalyst for good. I will choose the latter, inasmuch as I am able.
-
Well, Bernie-hating DNC shills, I hope you're fucking happy!
If the Democrats had done literally anything other than trying to single-mindedly shove Hillary down our throats, the election would have been a landslide in their favor.
It is useful to note that Hillary outperformed Obama (and likely Bernie too) in several states - just not enough to actually win them. Look at Texas, Arizona, Georgia, etc. We may see a shifting of the map where the industrial northeast tends to be more Republican (Trumpist).
However, I tend to agree that any other Democrat would have stood a better chance - I'm not sure it would have been enough though. Trumps message brought out massive support in rural and white America. Trump also outperformed Romney with Hispanics.
-
Well, Bernie-hating DNC shills, I hope you're fucking happy!
If the Democrats had done literally anything other than trying to single-mindedly shove Hillary down our throats, the election would have been a landslide in their favor.
It is useful to note that Hillary outperformed Obama (and likely Bernie too) in several states - just not enough to actually win them. Look at Texas, Arizona, Georgia, etc. We may see a shifting of the map where the industrial northeast.
You have exactly zero evidence to support that claim. I know for a fact that Bernie would have gotten at least one vote in Georgia -- mine -- that Hillary did not get.1
(1 FYI to the dumbass false dichotomy trolls: Trump didn't get it either.)
-
Well, Bernie-hating DNC shills, I hope you're fucking happy!
If the Democrats had done literally anything other than trying to single-mindedly shove Hillary down our throats, the election would have been a landslide in their favor.
. . . . Trump also outperformed Romney with Hispanics.
I was (sadly) not shocked by this. I canvassed for HRC and one of my days was in a heavily Latinx neighborhood. Several folks listed as likely democrats told me that they wouldn't vote for a woman and/or abortion supporter. Since many of those same people had backed Obama I was very worried that we were in trouble (and I'm also in a swing state.)
-
Someone needs to take Comey behind the woodshed for this crap.
No, someone needs to take Hillary and her staff behind the wood shed for not taking care of their own emails and what should have been private data. Yeah, let's blame the FBI for her and her staffs mistakes. Or maybe we can blame the lady who Hillary had print her documents for her, you know, the classified ones that no one was supposed to see.
It's her own damn fault, reap what you sow.
What egregious emails were those? What laws were broken? I wish someone could break that down for me. Seriously, please do. The reality is, there is nothing there. I'm not a huge Hilary fan, but please respond with something substantive instead of "she's corrupt. She's a liar."
-
Well, Bernie-hating DNC shills, I hope you're fucking happy!
If the Democrats had done literally anything other than trying to single-mindedly shove Hillary down our throats, the election would have been a landslide in their favor.
It is useful to note that Hillary outperformed Obama (and likely Bernie too) in several states - just not enough to actually win them. Look at Texas, Arizona, Georgia, etc. We may see a shifting of the map where the industrial northeast.
You have exactly zero evidence to support that claim. I know for a fact that Bernie would have gotten at least one vote in Georgia -- mine -- that Hillary did not get.1
(1 FYI to the dumbass false dichotomy trolls: Trump didn't get it either.)
My only evidence is that Clinton won the primaries of all of these states (some by very large margins) and, as I mentioned, made them more competitive than Obama.
-
What egregious emails were those? What laws were broken? I wish someone could break that down for me. Seriously, please do. The reality is, there is nothing there. I'm not a huge Hilary fan, but please respond with something substantive instead of "she's corrupt. She's a liar."
I think we need to get off of the emails now. I think Trump will never mention them or jailing Clinton again. Trump has a track record of viciously attacking his opponents and then basically ignoring (or praising) them after he wins.
I also think the Republicans are going to spend time passing legislation rather than investigating a failed candidate.
-
@sol, I assume the two wars you're referring to are Iraq and Afghanistan. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the way I remember it, it was a bunch of Afghans that started it, what with the planes crashing into office towers and all that.
I or rather, Wikipedia will correct you:
The hijackers in the September 11 attacks were 19 men affiliated with al-Qaeda. 15 of the 19 were citizens of Saudi Arabia, and the others were from the United Arab Emirates (2), Egypt and Lebanon.[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hijackers_in_the_September_11_attacks
All we got from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan was dead people, debt, increased terror and the legal quagmire of Guantanamo.
Probably the reason this election went the way it did: Although we have the marvelous internet at our fingertips and Google searches can bring an instant answer for those who can sift through less reliable sources in literal seconds, our electorate is too God damn lazy to do that and also will not do that because it might challenge beliefs, not fact. If they do end up reading it along the way, they'll ignore data by saying a source is biased or corrupt.
-
Well, Bernie-hating DNC shills, I hope you're fucking happy!
If the Democrats had done literally anything other than trying to single-mindedly shove Hillary down our throats, the election would have been a landslide in their favor.
It is useful to note that Hillary outperformed Obama (and likely Bernie too) in several states - just not enough to actually win them. Look at Texas, Arizona, Georgia, etc. We may see a shifting of the map where the industrial northeast.
You have exactly zero evidence to support that claim. I know for a fact that Bernie would have gotten at least one vote in Georgia -- mine -- that Hillary did not get.1
(1 FYI to the dumbass false dichotomy trolls: Trump didn't get it either.)
My only evidence is that Clinton won the primaries of all of these states (some by very large margins) and, as I mentioned, made them more competitive than Obama.
I've got a newsflash for you: primaries are bullshit and utterly useless as measures of the sentiment of an entire populace. They only measure the people who pick that primary to vote in.
The voters who would have provided Bernie's margin of victory in the general election were busy either sitting out the primary or voting in the Republican one.
This is especially true for people in places like Cobb and Gwinnett (Atlanta suburbs that are increasingly diverse but still controlled by the Republicans): they were forced to pick Republican ballots because of the down-ballot races that would have no credible Democratic opposition and thus be decided by the primary, so their latent preference for Bernie was not possible to measure. (This is yet another reason why political parties are evil -- by all rights, everyone should be allowed to vote in both primaries!)
-
What egregious emails were those? What laws were broken? I wish someone could break that down for me. Seriously, please do. The reality is, there is nothing there. I'm not a huge Hilary fan, but please respond with something substantive instead of "she's corrupt. She's a liar."
I think we need to get off of the emails now. I think Trump will never mention them or jailing Clinton again. Trump has a track record of viciously attacking his opponents and then basically ignoring (or praising) them after he wins.
I also think the Republicans are going to spend time passing legislation rather than investigating a failed candidate.
I agree that I don't think Trump actually cares about the emails or will bring them up again. But I really don't know who is going to run his cabinet and inner circle, and there are some people who are definitely out for blood on emails.
I'm still thinking this all through, but I'm not sure what policies Trump will actually push now that he is in charge. I don't think the TPP was going through either way. I guess he could try to reform the tax code but that seems beyond our gridlocked Congress' capabilities right now. I don't think he actually cares much about immigration, either, but we'll see how protectionist/populist the Senate ends up being.
I guess I keep coming back to being more afraid of things he does accidentally than concerted policy efforts.
-
So it's called for Trump. What an upset. A horrible campaign till the end, but a well executed one. Will the Democrats/media/"intellectuals" ever stop underestimating the "dumbass" Republican candidate?
Probably never. But it's not just Democrats. Romney underestimated Obama, too.
-
What egregious emails were those? What laws were broken? I wish someone could break that down for me. Seriously, please do. The reality is, there is nothing there. I'm not a huge Hilary fan, but please respond with something substantive instead of "she's corrupt. She's a liar."
I think we need to get off of the emails now. I think Trump will never mention them or jailing Clinton again. Trump has a track record of viciously attacking his opponents and then basically ignoring (or praising) them after he wins.
I also think the Republicans are going to spend time passing legislation rather than investigating a failed candidate.
You're right we should get off the emails. The problem I have is just the soundbite stupidity of it all. Doesn't matter if it's emails, or as a poster mentioned the "Clinton Cartel." People will mention her emails without even knowing what the fuck they are talking about. If you've got a real beef with something, then have something to back it up. Yes, the Clintons may have used their position and authority to prosper. So what's different from Trump?
-
What egregious emails were those? What laws were broken? I wish someone could break that down for me. Seriously, please do. The reality is, there is nothing there. I'm not a huge Hilary fan, but please respond with something substantive instead of "she's corrupt. She's a liar."
I think we need to get off of the emails now. I think Trump will never mention them or jailing Clinton again. Trump has a track record of viciously attacking his opponents and then basically ignoring (or praising) them after he wins.
I also think the Republicans are going to spend time passing legislation rather than investigating a failed candidate.
I agree that I don't think Trump actually cares about the emails or will bring them up again. But I really don't know who is going to run his cabinet and inner circle, and there are some people who are definitely out for blood on emails.
I'm still thinking this all through, but I'm not sure what policies Trump will actually push now that he is in charge. I don't think the TPP was going through either way. I guess he could try to reform the tax code but that seems beyond our gridlocked Congress' capabilities right now. I don't think he actually cares much about immigration, either, but we'll see how protectionist/populist the Senate ends up being.
I guess I keep coming back to being more afraid of things he does accidentally than concerted policy efforts.
He ha a republican house and senate and within the first 100 days probably a republican supreme court. He can just rubberstamp everything the republicans want and there is very little the democrats can do about it.
-
Two other points:
Clinton wont the popular vote= The Electoral College is hot garbage.
What happened to this "rigged" election? That's what I though.
-
He ha a republican house and senate and within the first 100 days probably a republican supreme court. He can just rubberstamp everything the republicans want and there is very little the democrats can do about it.
I get that, but we've had both republican and democratic majorities over the last decade that haven't even been able to get a budget together in time. I'm not sure the Republicans are a cohesive force ready to draft new legislation. They'll probably try to repeal ObamaCare again, but it seems like a lot of their goals the last 8 years have been phrased in the negative. What will they do now? It seems like the GOP is so divided on Trump, and has a sort of populist mandate but no real leaders of conservative populism outside of Trump, who doesn't seem to have real policy goals. I guess either the social conservatives or maybe the more traditional conservatives could coalesce and get things done...
-
I get that, but we've had both republican and democratic majorities over the last decade that haven't even been able to get a budget together in time. I'm not sure the Republicans are a cohesive force ready to draft new legislation.
I agree with this. Trump will have to form coalitions with a few old school Republicans (conservative but not wacko), Democrats (who are like herding cats) and Tea Party Republicans (wackos).
-
On the plus side, I'm really motivated now to try to be a really good person and make the world a better place. It looks like these sentiments are echoed by some in this thread which I find encouraging.
TOTALLY agree. My city has a really good volunteer program for assisting newly-arrived refugees. I am going to contact them. This, of course, assumes refugees can stay in the country.
My takeaway is to stay the eff away from heavily biased news sources from now on. I honestly did not know I was in an echo chamber. Their polls, opinion pieces were just wildly off-base.
Election is over, Trump, time to govern.
-
Clinton wont the popular vote= The Electoral College is hot garbage.
Or maybe the popular vote is hot garbage.
If the Electoral Collage were working as it had been originally designed, Trump would never have had a chance in the first place. Hillary Clinton would be the President-elect and Jeb Bush would be the Vice-President-elect (or maybe vice-versa).
-
Two other points:
Clinton wont the popular vote= The Electoral College is hot garbage.
What happened to this "rigged" election? That's what I though.
And I was wrong. I did see this election breaking exactly the opposite of how it did in regards to the popular vote. My bad everyone...
-
Clinton wont the popular vote= The Electoral College is hot garbage.
Or maybe the popular vote is hot garbage.
If the Electoral Collage were working as it had been originally designed, Trump would never have had a chance in the first place. Hillary Clinton would be the President-elect and Jeb Bush would be the Vice-President-elect (or maybe vice-versa).
I've been reading over at FairVote.org. Their plan makes sense, but what are the cons?
http://www.fairvote.org/national_popular_vote#what_is_the_national_popular_vote_plan (http://www.fairvote.org/national_popular_vote#what_is_the_national_popular_vote_plan)
-
serious question. Is there a way to determine the trading activity of someone in a reasonable time scale. Since Trump will not place his assets in a blind trust, and his kids are going to run the businesses, I would imagine that observing the trading activity of the kids would give strong early indicators of what the market might do in response to policy positions not yet public.
Insider trading on them, keen observation for us.
-
Clinton wont the popular vote= The Electoral College is hot garbage.
Or maybe the popular vote is hot garbage.
If the Electoral Collage were working as it had been originally designed, Trump would never have had a chance in the first place. Hillary Clinton would be the President-elect and Jeb Bush would be the Vice-President-elect (or maybe vice-versa).
I've been reading over at FairVote.org. Their plan makes sense, but what are the cons?
http://www.fairvote.org/national_popular_vote#what_is_the_national_popular_vote_plan (http://www.fairvote.org/national_popular_vote#what_is_the_national_popular_vote_plan)
The con is that it doesn't solve the electoral college problem. Instead of focusing attention on just a few swing states, all the focus would be on a few very high population states. Those states are overwhelmingly blue states which is why they signed on to it. Flyover red country will never sign on because it will dilute their influence.
-
On the plus side, I'm really motivated now to try to be a really good person and make the world a better place. It looks like these sentiments are echoed by some in this thread which I find encouraging.
TOTALLY agree. My city has a really good volunteer program for assisting newly-arrived refugees. I am going to contact them. This, of course, assumes refugees can stay in the country.
My takeaway is to stay the eff away from heavily biased news sources from now on. I honestly did not know I was in an echo chamber. Their polls, opinion pieces were just wildly off-base.
Election is over, Trump, time to govern.
Exactly what news sources are you considering? There is literally NO ONE in the middle, IMO not even close to it.
It doesn't surprise me that the polls and media were caught viciously off guard considering the stigma they attached to Trump early on (rather than seeing what he was doing).
This may interest some, posted on September 9th of this year: http://blog.dilbert.com/post/150170746191/measuring-the-shy-trump-supporters (http://blog.dilbert.com/post/150170746191/measuring-the-shy-trump-supporters)
as well as this one posted on May 30th about how Trump could (and is) bringing the right to a more left position on several fronts: http://blog.dilbert.com/post/145160928141/climate-change-and-trump (http://blog.dilbert.com/post/145160928141/climate-change-and-trump)
tldr: Stock getting so worked up, the world won't end over the president and he is likely more liberal than most admit.
-
If this is what America wants, then this is what it deserves.
The last time we elected a Republican we got two foreign wars and a ruined global economy. Think Trump can top that?
Don't tempt him!
-
serious question. Is there a way to determine the trading activity of someone in a reasonable time scale. Since Trump will not place his assets in a blind trust, and his kids are going to run the businesses, I would imagine that observing the trading activity of the kids would give strong early indicators of what the market might do in response to policy positions not yet public.
I don't know the answer to your question, and I heard about them not entering the blind trust. Only more evidence that I've entered Bizarro World
-
The last time we elected a Republican we got two foreign wars and a ruined global economy. Think Trump can top that?
So we elected a Republican president and you are saying a Democrat is any different? Answer the question.
So you are fine with droning Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen, Libya and Syria. I guess you are right. There is no difference between what Trump might do compared to Obama. You are showing your ignorance.
Does anybody know how much droning costs? I'm curious.
I ask because I'm currently reading Hot, Flat, and Crowded by Thomas L. Friedman. (from 2008). The section I read last night said that they did some research when they were in Iraq. They had a lot of small distributed bases.
On one base, they found they were trucking in 10,000 gallons of diesel a day. 9000 gallons of that was to run generators, and 95% of that was to air condition the tents. (needed because of people, equipment, and 121F temperatures).
One base, $171,000 in diesel a day. How many bases were there? (They then started researching ways to increase the efficiencies of the AC by insulating the tents, and also looked into using solar panels, etc.)
-
Well I'm as surprised as everyone else in the world. Honestly the popular/electoral vote inversion is always a surprising outcome, and even then, as far as this election goes, it is one of the closest popular votes in our history (<0.15%). When the election runs that close it usually seems to be a coin flip on how votes distribute across states.
Who are the losers? Well I think it's terrible that a person with terrible PR and no international respect (well at least from countries that we historically like?) was elected. But honestly, I imagine that the real losers are the suckers that Trump convinced to vote for him. I doubt he'll be appealing to them too much longer. Now that he has the power, he'll be running things as he sees fit. Evangelicals will once again not gain anything that they were promised, and hang onto the next race for that ever extending carrot of pro-life promises. Moderate GOP members of House and Senate will be making the calls, and they're going to pass moderate legislation that can actually move through a tight Senate.
The justice replaced is going to replace Scalia. Scalia's vote was obvious every time. No major court decisions will change.
People that thought they were blowing up the system will be disappointed to find that Trump is part of it. They'll see him working with Dems and GOP to rubber stamp things to make himself feel like he's doing something, and do nothing that his supporters actually want.
-
Just watched his acceptance speech. Time to invest in wall building companies. Good night all.
Silver lining is my husband's job, while not building walls, involves a fair bit of working on contracts for Homeland Security.
-
The last time we elected a Republican we got two foreign wars and a ruined global economy. Think Trump can top that?
So we elected a Republican president and you are saying a Democrat is any different? Answer the question.
So you are fine with droning Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen, Libya and Syria. I guess you are right. There is no difference between what Trump might do compared to Obama. You are showing your ignorance.
Does anybody know how much droning costs? I'm curious.
I ask because I'm currently reading Hot, Flat, and Crowded by Thomas L. Friedman. (from 2008). The section I read last night said that they did some research when they were in Iraq. They had a lot of small distributed bases.
On one base, they found they were trucking in 10,000 gallons of diesel a day. 9000 gallons of that was to run generators, and 95% of that was to air condition the tents. (needed because of people, equipment, and 121F temperatures).
One base, $171,000 in diesel a day. How many bases were there? (They then started researching ways to increase the efficiencies of the AC by insulating the tents, and also looked into using solar panels, etc.)
I think this is why we should audit the Department of Defence.
I wonder how many Democrats are thinking today "should have gone with Sanders..."
-
So classic! Went there and done that. Can't blame anyone for not answering what they don't believe in because at this point they don't know any better. If anyone believe's Trump is any different than Hillary then I feel sorry for you.
Seriously? You don't see any political differences on issues between a Democrat and Republican? I think there is the possibility of a lot of changes in the future to everything from the ACA, abortion, environmental issues, taxes, gun control, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, immigration, women, gays and transgender people in the military, gay marriage, foreign trade policy, veterans issues, funding for a variety of social issues, etc... Probably more I can't think of at the moment.
I agree. I voted for Hillary. I agree with her on most issues. I voted for her in 2008. I MUCH preferred her to Bernie. I like Bernie, but he's a little too far to the left for me.
Now, Bernie vs. Trump, I'd vote Bernie.
But I have many many a Republican friend or relative to crossed the aisle to vote for Hillary who most certainly would have not voted for Bernie.
If the Bernie voters crossed to Trump? Well, you reap what you sow man.
(And I do sort of agree with whomever said they aren't *that* much different. Certainly, it's hard to pin down Trump because what he SAYS is all over the map. But if you dig in to what he said earlier on, before he started saying ANYTHING to get elected...they were both pretty moderate.)
-
Who are the losers? Well I think it's terrible that a person with terrible PR and no international respect (well at least from countries that we historically like?) was elected. But honestly, I imagine that the real losers are the suckers that Trump convinced to vote for him. I doubt he'll be appealing to them too much longer. Now that he has the power, he'll be running things as he sees fit. Evangelicals will once again not gain anything that they were promised, and hang onto the next race for that ever extending carrot of pro-life promises. Moderate GOP members of House and Senate will be making the calls, and they're going to pass moderate legislation that can actually move through a tight Senate.
As a relative social liberal/fiscal conservative, if Trump can drag the GOP kicking and screaming from some of its dumber/more divisive policies (LGBT issues, abortion, etc) that would be fantastic.
Frankly, I think Trump will be ultimately ineffective at doing much of anything, and will spend the next 4 years tilting at windmills and basically just running around like an idiot, and that's just fine with me. I don't have any problems that I expect the government to solve, so if those idiots can distract each other with nothingness while the rest of us adults are at work, so much the better.
-
Props to the now absent Moonshadow, and a handful of others who called this race correctly. They said that this time, the polls really were wrong. They were correct.
I am on record (somewhere in one of these threads back during the end of the GOP primaries) as saying I was afraid of Trump because I thought he was the only GOP candidate with a decent shot at yanking the rust belt/Great Lake states away from the Dems, but I thought Clinton would still squeak out a win because of her ground game. I'm extremely disappointed, if not shocked, to be wrong.
-
As a relative social liberal/fiscal conservative, if Trump can drag the GOP kicking and screaming from some of its dumber/more divisive policies (LGBT issues, abortion, etc) that would be fantastic.
I don't see it happening and agree with your second thought. I think the Trump supporters mainly hated Obama. Pence said it at the speech: "The American people have spoken" The election results are obviously a mandate to screw over everything they don't like.
-
On the plus side, I'm really motivated now to try to be a really good person and make the world a better place. It looks like these sentiments are echoed by some in this thread which I find encouraging.
TOTALLY agree. My city has a really good volunteer program for assisting newly-arrived refugees. I am going to contact them. This, of course, assumes refugees can stay in the country.
My takeaway is to stay the eff away from heavily biased news sources from now on. I honestly did not know I was in an echo chamber. Their polls, opinion pieces were just wildly off-base.
Election is over, Trump, time to govern.
Holy cow. Yep - I was dead wrong on this one. I didn't forsee this dumpster fire. Who knew the uneducated, angry, white guy was going to peg the meter on the rural vote. You have to admit he ran the table - Ohio, Florida, and Pennsylvania for crying out loud!
Ok folks, you want him, you got him: http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=video+trump+mocking+disabled+reporter&view=detail&mid=E1B8917DF9FB9BB7C30AE1B8917DF9FB9BB7C30A&FORM=VIRE
-
As a relative social liberal/fiscal conservative, if Trump can drag the GOP kicking and screaming from some of its dumber/more divisive policies (LGBT issues, abortion, etc) that would be fantastic.
I don't see it happening
Me neither, that was a response to FIPurpose, wishful thinking but I don't see it happening. Frankly, I don't think he'll do anything on those issues.
and agree with your second thought. I think the Trump supporters mainly hated Obama Hillary. Pence said it at the speech: "The American people have spoken" The election results are obviously a mandate to screw over everything they don't like.
Fixed, I've said all along, I think people on the left sincerely underestimate how unlikable the right and much of the middle finds Hillary. Frankly, had almost any other candidate been in the race, on either side, that candidate would've won in a landslide.
-
Sharing because it made me LOL
-
Fixed, I've said all along, I think people on the left sincerely underestimate how unlikable the right and much of the middle finds Hillary. Frankly, had almost any other candidate been in the race, on either side, that candidate would've won in a landslide.
I know, right? I feel like either side could have replaced their candidate with a literal turd sandwich and increased their odds.
Obligatory south park reference
(https://cdn.meme.am/instances/64396612.jpg)
-
Trump has no real moral convictions. I kind of doubt he has any real legislative convictions either. He can probably be convinced by just about anyone to do anything. The question will be who will Trump be listening to? Pence? Ryan? McConnell? GOP will either spend its time passing tax simplification or social issues that will waste millions of dollars and then be brought down by the courts. 50/50?
-
Trump has no real moral convictions. I kind of doubt he has any real legislative convictions either. He can probably be convinced by just about anyone to do anything. The question will be who will Trump be listening to? Pence? Ryan? McConnell? GOP will either spend its time passing tax simplification or social issues that will waste millions of dollars and then be brought down by the courts. 50/50?
I think at his core he's a businessman and a deal maker, and I really don't think he gives a crap about social issues. I think he cares about 1) money and 2) appearing to win, so he'll focus on areas where he can do/gain those things.
-
Trump has no real moral convictions. I kind of doubt he has any real legislative convictions either. He can probably be convinced by just about anyone to do anything. The question will be who will Trump be listening to? Pence? Ryan? McConnell? GOP will either spend its time passing tax simplification or social issues that will waste millions of dollars and then be brought down by the courts. 50/50?
I think at his core he's a businessman and a deal maker, and I really don't think he gives a crap about social issues. I think he cares about 1) money and 2) appearing to win, so he'll focus on areas where he can do/gain those things.
+1
-
Trump has no real moral convictions. I kind of doubt he has any real legislative convictions either. He can probably be convinced by just about anyone to do anything. The question will be who will Trump be listening to? Pence? Ryan? McConnell? GOP will either spend its time passing tax simplification or social issues that will waste millions of dollars and then be brought down by the courts. 50/50?
I think at his core he's a businessman and a deal maker, and I really don't think he gives a crap about social issues. I think he cares about 1) money and 2) appearing to win, so he'll focus on areas where he can do/gain those things.
+1
He's a politician, essentially
-
Fixed, I've said all along, I think people on the left sincerely underestimate how unlikable the right and much of the middle finds Hillary. Frankly, had almost any other candidate been in the race, on either side, that candidate would've won in a landslide.
Yeah, Hilary, sure, but Obama was definitely part of it. I said it somewhere else...I wonder how many Democrats are saying this morning, "We should have gone with Sanders..."
-
Trump has no real moral convictions. I kind of doubt he has any real legislative convictions either. He can probably be convinced by just about anyone to do anything. The question will be who will Trump be listening to? Pence? Ryan? McConnell? GOP will either spend its time passing tax simplification or social issues that will waste millions of dollars and then be brought down by the courts. 50/50?
I think at his core he's a businessman and a deal maker, and I really don't think he gives a crap about social issues. I think he cares about 1) money and 2) appearing to win, so he'll focus on areas where he can do/gain those things.
If Trump truly doesn't put his assets into a blind trust, he'll definitely gain a lot of money during his term.
The big concern with Trump is his off the cuff remarks and, well, temper tantrums. Angering powerful nations, such as China, makes it more difficult to work with them.
-
I see the Trump win as largely a referendum on establishment politics (I expect that Sanders would have captured this sentiment for the Democrats). In spite of a majority in both houses in congress, the presidency, and (soon) a favorable supreme court, I don't think Republicans will be able to erode any of the civil liberties that many seem to fear they will nor will they be able to outright repeal Obama Care. For one thing, the Democrats still have the ability to filibuster in the Senate. I don't see the Democratic Senators allowing legislation that would eliminate protections for people with preexisting conditions or completely eliminate subsidies.
I do think the Republicans will be able to pass tariffs intended to reduce the trade deficit (making cheap Chinese stuff less cheap). They will also be able to cut corporate taxes intending to make america a better place for business. They may be able to modify the ACA reducing required coverage, reducing subsidies, and/or eliminating the individual mandate.
The ACA may be part of why Trump won: it is open enrollment time and people who are unhappy with changes in their plans may have cast their vote for the candidate promising to replace it. Improving it (without screwing up foreign relations or the economy) could be the highlight of Trump's 4-year term (and a key campaign topic for a reelection bid).
-
Here's another decent article explaining why it happened and how it could not be so bad:
https://medium.com/@trentlapinski/dear-democrats-read-this-if-you-do-not-understand-why-trump-won-5a0cdb13c597#.1fauc9nzq
-
I see the Trump win as largely a referendum on establishment politics (I expect that Sanders would have captured this sentiment for the Democrats). In spite of a majority in both houses in congress, the presidency, and (soon) a favorable supreme court, I don't think Republicans will be able to erode any of the civil liberties that many seem to fear they will nor will they be able to outright repeal Obama Care. For one thing, the Democrats still have the ability to filibuster in the Senate. I don't see the Democratic Senators allowing legislation that would eliminate protections for people with preexisting conditions or completely eliminate subsidies.
...
And I don't see Trump proposing that in the first place.
http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Donald_Trump_Health_Care.htm (http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Donald_Trump_Health_Care.htm)
Keep pre-existing condition coverage; not individual mandate
Q: Senator Rubio, you said that Mr. Trump thinks part of ObamaCare is pretty good. Which part?
RUBIO: The individual mandate. He said he likes the individual mandate portion of it; I don't believe that should remain there. We need to repeal ObamaCare completely and replace it with a system that puts Americans in charge of their health care money again.
TRUMP: I agree with that 100%, except pre-existing conditions, I would absolutely get rid of ObamaCare. I want to keep pre- existing conditions. It's a modern age, and I think we have to have it.
Q: The insurance companies say is that the only way that they can cover people with pre-existing conditions is to have a mandate requiring everybody purchase health insurance. Are they wrong?
TRUMP: I think they're wrong 100%. Look, the insurance companies take care of the politicians [and vice-versa]. The insurance companies are making an absolute fortune. Yes, they will keep preexisting conditions, and that would be a great thing.
Source: 2016 CNN-Telemundo Republican debate on eve of Texas primary , Feb 25, 2016
Removing cross-state barriers solves many insurance issues
TRUMP: We should have gotten rid of the lines around the state so there's competition. The insurance companies are making a fortune on every single thing they do. You're going to see preexisting conditions, but the price will be down, and the insurance companies can pay. Yes, they will keep preexisting conditions, and that would be a great thing. Get rid of ObamaCare, we'll come up with new plans. But, we should keep preexisting conditions.
RUBIO: Here's what you didn't hear in that answer. What is your plan? I understand the lines around the state, whatever that means. This is not a game where you draw maps. What is your plan, Mr. Trump?
TRUMP: You get rid of the lines, it brings in competition. So, instead of having one insurance company taking care of New York, or Texas, you'll have many. They'll compete, and it'll be a beautiful thing.
RUBIO: So, that's the only part of the plan? Just the lines?
Source: 2016 CNN-Telemundo Republican debate on eve of Texas primary , Feb 25, 2016
Taking care of poor sick people isn't single-payer
Q: If Obamacare is repealed & there's no mandate for everybody to have insurance, why would insurance companies insure somebody who has a pre-existing condition?
TRUMP: Well, I like the mandate. I don't want people dying on the streets. The Republican people, they don't want people dying on the streets, but sometimes they'll say "Donald Trump wants single payer."
Q: Will people with pre-existing conditions be able to get insurance?
TRUMP: Yes. Now, the new plan is good. It's going to be inexpensive. It's going to be much better for the people at the bottom, people that don't have any money. We're going to take care of them through maybe concepts of Medicare. Now, some people would say, "that's not a very Republican thing to say." That's not single payer, by the way. That's called heart. We gotta take care of people that can't take care of themselves.
Source: 2016 CNN GOP Town Hall in South Carolina , Feb 18, 2016
But thanks for playing.
It seems to me most democrats are being caught by surprise because they were in an echo chamber (albeit possibly unknowingly) and never even listened to what Trump was saying. He isn't getting rid of pre-existing conditions clause, he is getting (or planning to) rid of forced insurance and they probably are going to replace ACA. To me, all of these are a good thing if they can pull it off. F the insurance douchbags that lobbied for insurance to be a mandate in the first place.
-
Here's another decent article explaining why it happened and how it could not be so bad:
https://medium.com/@trentlapinski/dear-democrats-read-this-if-you-do-not-understand-why-trump-won-5a0cdb13c597#.1fauc9nzq
Except I don't think Bernie could have won.
-
On the ACA question, my guess is that if anything, this will hasten the arrival of single payer/medicare for all. Trump has openly supported most (SS, medicare, "don't let people die on the streets") of what it would take already. If you just kill the insurance mandate, but keep the preexisting condition requirement, the insurance companies are pretty much screwed (get seriously ill? Go buy some insurance!) or alternately prices will rise so high that nobody will get insurance at all.
I'm ok with blowing up our healthcare system. It sucks. Hopefully we can do it with minimal disruption.
-W
-
Good summary Spartana!
-
On the ACA question, my guess is that if anything, this will hasten the arrival of single payer/medicare for all. Trump has openly supported most (SS, medicare, "don't let people die on the streets") of what it would take already. If you just kill the insurance mandate, but keep the preexisting condition requirement, the insurance companies are pretty much screwed (get seriously ill? Go buy some insurance!) or alternately prices will rise so high that nobody will get insurance at all.
I'm ok with blowing up our healthcare system. It sucks. Hopefully we can do it with minimal disruption.
-W
Yep, you can't have one without the other. Either way, if the no-mandate passes, it might just lead to single-payer.
Or it could lead to a more bifurcated system where only the wealthy can afford health care.
-
Here's another decent article explaining why it happened and how it could not be so bad:
https://medium.com/@trentlapinski/dear-democrats-read-this-if-you-do-not-understand-why-trump-won-5a0cdb13c597#.1fauc9nzq
Except I don't think Bernie could have won.
There also wasn't a Democratic "echo chamber."
An echo chamber is when everyone else is saying that you're going to lose but your friends insist that you'll win because of internal polls. That's what happened to Romney.
With Clinton, EVERYONE, from the polls to the betting lines to the markets, was assuming that she'd win. Even Trump believed that he was going to lose -- he was already suing in NV because he figured that would be a key state and he was also talking up a rigged election.
Big difference.
-
This election is already over. Clinton won a long time ago.
Well I was definitely wrong.
-
This election is already over. Clinton won a long time ago.
Well I was definitely wrong.
(http://stream1.gifsoup.com/view2/20140916/5109205/samsonite-i-was-way-off-o.gif)
-
Totally agree to blame Hillary for being such a crappy candidate she allowed trump to win. All through the night, newscasters kept comparing her progress to Obama. Uh, she's not Obama... Nowhere near it. She may mimic his policies but that's where the similarity ends.
It's shit like this that makes me think we deserve what we are getting: http://abc7.com/news/anti-trump-protests-form-across-state-after-election-results/1597889/
Well I'm as surprised as everyone else in the world. Honestly the popular/electoral vote inversion is always a surprising outcome, and even then, as far as this election goes, it is one of the closest popular votes in our history (<0.15%). When the election runs that close it usually seems to be a coin flip on how votes distribute across states.
Who are the losers? Well I think it's terrible that a person with terrible PR and no international respect (well at least from countries that we historically like?) was elected. But honestly, I imagine that the real losers are the suckers that Trump convinced to vote for him. I doubt he'll be appealing to them too much longer. Now that he has the power, he'll be running things as he sees fit. Evangelicals will once again not gain anything that they were promised, and hang onto the next race for that ever extending carrot of pro-life promises. Moderate GOP members of House and Senate will be making the calls, and they're going to pass moderate legislation that can actually move through a tight Senate.
The justice replaced is going to replace Scalia. Scalia's vote was obvious every time. No major court decisions will change.
People that thought they were blowing up the system will be disappointed to find that Trump is part of it. They'll see him working with Dems and GOP to rubber stamp things to make himself feel like he's doing something, and do nothing that his supporters actually want.
Ive always suspected this was true, and hope it turns out to be. It always seemed like trumps entire platform was just a show calculated to get votes, so it remains to be seen if he feels any obligation to follow through (does he really want a second term?). I'm 100% sure his goal is self enrichment, but that doesn't necessarily have to cost the nation that much if he walks back his crazier ideas
-
What egregious emails were those? What laws were broken? I wish someone could break that down for me. Seriously, please do. The reality is, there is nothing there. I'm not a huge Hilary fan, but please respond with something substantive instead of "she's corrupt. She's a liar."
I think we need to get off of the emails now. I think Trump will never mention them or jailing Clinton again. Trump has a track record of viciously attacking his opponents and then basically ignoring (or praising) them after he wins.
I also think the Republicans are going to spend time passing legislation rather than investigating a failed candidate.
I agree that I don't think Trump actually cares about the emails or will bring them up again. But I really don't know who is going to run his cabinet and inner circle, and there are some people who are definitely out for blood on emails.
I'm still thinking this all through, but I'm not sure what policies Trump will actually push now that he is in charge. I don't think the TPP was going through either way. I guess he could try to reform the tax code but that seems beyond our gridlocked Congress' capabilities right now. I don't think he actually cares much about immigration, either, but we'll see how protectionist/populist the Senate ends up being.
I guess I keep coming back to being more afraid of things he does accidentally than concerted policy efforts.
He ha a republican house and senate and within the first 100 days probably a republican supreme court. He can just rubberstamp everything the republicans want and there is very little the democrats can do about it.
You're forgetting that it now takes 60 votes in the Senate to do anything. Democrats have more than enough seats to filibuster.
-
On the plus side, I'm really motivated now to try to be a really good person and make the world a better place. It looks like these sentiments are echoed by some in this thread which I find encouraging.
TOTALLY agree. My city has a really good volunteer program for assisting newly-arrived refugees. I am going to contact them. This, of course, assumes refugees can stay in the country.
My takeaway is to stay the eff away from heavily biased news sources from now on. I honestly did not know I was in an echo chamber. Their polls, opinion pieces were just wildly off-base.
Election is over, Trump, time to govern.
Exactly what news sources are you considering? There is literally NO ONE in the middle, IMO not even close to it.
Huffpost had H's odds at a laughable 98%. That should have thrown up red flags. Slate had really high number for H too.
-
more like the fluffington post, amirite?
-
You're forgetting that it now takes 60 votes in the Senate to do anything. Democrats have more than enough seats to filibuster.
Ah, but thanks to Harry Reid and the 2013 Democratic majority, that isn't true.
Don't be surprised if the Republicans turn this idea back on the Democrats:A Democratic Senate Might Need to Curtail Filibuster, Harry Reid Says - The New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/01/us/politics/a-democratic-senate-might-need-to-curtail-filibuster-harry-reid-says.html).
-
I'm not a fan of this guy, but I think it explains a lot of what happened last night.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YY-CiPVo_NQ
-
In the coming days, commentators will attempt to normalize this event. They will try to soothe their readers and viewers with thoughts about the “innate wisdom” and “essential decency” of the American people. They will downplay the virulence of the nationalism displayed, the cruel decision to elevate a man who rides in a gold-plated airliner but who has staked his claim with the populist rhetoric of blood and soil.
George Orwell, the most fearless of commentators, was right to point out that public opinion is no more innately wise than humans are innately kind. People can behave foolishly, recklessly, self-destructively in the aggregate just as they can individually. Sometimes all they require is a leader of cunning, a demagogue who reads the waves of resentment and rides them to a popular victory.
“The point is that the relative freedom which we enjoy depends of public opinion,” Orwell wrote in his essay “Freedom of the Park.” “The law is no protection. Governments make laws, but whether they are carried out, and how the police behave, depends on the general temper in the country. If large numbers of people are interested in freedom of speech, there will be freedom of speech, even if the law forbids it; if public opinion is sluggish, inconvenient minorities will be persecuted, even if laws exist to protect them.” MOD NOTE: This response is taken from a section of the following article in the New Yorker: http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/an-american-tragedy-2 (http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/an-american-tragedy-2)When quoting in full, linking to the source and proper attribution is standard and expected. Thanks.
-
In the coming days, commentators will attempt to normalize this event. They will try to soothe their readers and viewers with thoughts about the “innate wisdom” and “essential decency” of the American people. They will downplay the virulence of the nationalism displayed, the cruel decision to elevate a man who rides in a gold-plated airliner but who has staked his claim with the populist rhetoric of blood and soil.
George Orwell, the most fearless of commentators, was right to point out that public opinion is no more innately wise than humans are innately kind. People can behave foolishly, recklessly, self-destructively in the aggregate just as they can individually. Sometimes all they require is a leader of cunning, a demagogue who reads the waves of resentment and rides them to a popular victory.
“The point is that the relative freedom which we enjoy depends of public opinion,” Orwell wrote in his essay “Freedom of the Park.” “The law is no protection. Governments make laws, but whether they are carried out, and how the police behave, depends on the general temper in the country. If large numbers of people are interested in freedom of speech, there will be freedom of speech, even if the law forbids it; if public opinion is sluggish, inconvenient minorities will be persecuted, even if laws exist to protect them.”
OTOH, amusing to view this from the viewpoint that the left tried to drive public opinion towards criminalizing (or at least making is social leprosy) a vote for Trump, and it backfired on them.
Keep insisting your viewpoint is the only ethical one. We now know how that works out.
-
OTOH, amusing to view this from the viewpoint that the left tried to drive public opinion towards criminalizing (or at least making is social leprosy) a vote for Trump, and it backfired on them.
Who was trying to criminalize a vote for Trump?
-
In the coming days, commentators will attempt to normalize this event. They will try to soothe their readers and viewers with thoughts about the “innate wisdom” and “essential decency” of the American people. They will downplay the virulence of the nationalism displayed, the cruel decision to elevate a man who rides in a gold-plated airliner but who has staked his claim with the populist rhetoric of blood and soil.
George Orwell, the most fearless of commentators, was right to point out that public opinion is no more innately wise than humans are innately kind. People can behave foolishly, recklessly, self-destructively in the aggregate just as they can individually. Sometimes all they require is a leader of cunning, a demagogue who reads the waves of resentment and rides them to a popular victory.
“The point is that the relative freedom which we enjoy depends of public opinion,” Orwell wrote in his essay “Freedom of the Park.” “The law is no protection. Governments make laws, but whether they are carried out, and how the police behave, depends on the general temper in the country. If large numbers of people are interested in freedom of speech, there will be freedom of speech, even if the law forbids it; if public opinion is sluggish, inconvenient minorities will be persecuted, even if laws exist to protect them.”
You should cite that Northwestie (unless you are David Remnick - in which case- Hi! I enjoy your writing!)
-
In the coming days, commentators will attempt to normalize this event. They will try to soothe their readers and viewers with thoughts about the “innate wisdom” and “essential decency” of the American people. They will downplay the virulence of the nationalism displayed, the cruel decision to elevate a man who rides in a gold-plated airliner but who has staked his claim with the populist rhetoric of blood and soil.
George Orwell, the most fearless of commentators, was right to point out that public opinion is no more innately wise than humans are innately kind. People can behave foolishly, recklessly, self-destructively in the aggregate just as they can individually. Sometimes all they require is a leader of cunning, a demagogue who reads the waves of resentment and rides them to a popular victory.
“The point is that the relative freedom which we enjoy depends of public opinion,” Orwell wrote in his essay “Freedom of the Park.” “The law is no protection. Governments make laws, but whether they are carried out, and how the police behave, depends on the general temper in the country. If large numbers of people are interested in freedom of speech, there will be freedom of speech, even if the law forbids it; if public opinion is sluggish, inconvenient minorities will be persecuted, even if laws exist to protect them.”
You should cite that Northwestie (unless you are David Remnick - in which case- Hi! I enjoy your writing!)
Ohhh, very good call, StarBright. Plagiarism is not okay! http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/an-american-tragedy-2
-
OTOH, amusing to view this from the viewpoint that the left tried to drive public opinion towards criminalizing (or at least making is social leprosy) a vote for Trump, and it backfired on them.
Who was trying to criminalize a vote for Trump?
Criminalize is the wrong word, but there was definitely a prevailing feeling (at least here in Chicagoland) that voting for Trump was Wrong, ethically, morally, etc. Not "I disagree", actually Wrong.
-
OTOH, amusing to view this from the viewpoint that the left tried to drive public opinion towards criminalizing (or at least making is social leprosy) a vote for Trump, and it backfired on them.
Who was trying to criminalize a vote for Trump?
Criminalize is the wrong word, but there was definitely a prevailing feeling (at least here in Chicagoland) that voting for Trump was Wrong, ethically, morally, etc. Not "I disagree", actually Wrong.
I think the word you are looking for is daemonize.
-
OTOH, amusing to view this from the viewpoint that the left tried to drive public opinion towards criminalizing (or at least making is social leprosy) a vote for Trump, and it backfired on them.
Who was trying to criminalize a vote for Trump?
Criminalize is the wrong word, but there was definitely a prevailing feeling (at least here in Chicagoland) that voting for Trump was Wrong, ethically, morally, etc. Not "I disagree", actually Wrong.
I think the word you are looking for is daemonize.
That works.
-
If the Bernie voters crossed to Trump? Well, you reap what you it sow the DNC reaps what it sows, man.
FTFY.
Hillary lost. It's time to stop with the delusion that anybody but the hyper-partisan Democrat cheerleaders wanted more establishment bullshit instead of Bernie.
Unless you want to fuck up 2020 too, of course...
Except I don't think Bernie could have won.
More delusion. Bernie had a better chance to win than any other liberal, in exactly the same way that Trump had a better chance than any other conservative.
Seriously, Democratic establishment people (in general, not referring specifically to people in this thread): quit trying to pretend this is about racism or sexism, and LEARN SOMETHING for once! Namely, learn that the people you actually depend on to win -- the people outside the "Democratic Party" who are usually described as "moderates" but who are actually just people who want to keep their civil rights and their money -- are sick and tired of you paying lip service to progressive ideology while actually screwing them over in the name of filthy corporatism! Hillary did not lose because of the "glass ceiling" or retaliation for Obama or whatever other lie you try to convince yourself of. Hillary lost because of her bad policies (e.g. support for the TPP), her empty rhetoric and her lack of character. Period. If you wanted to win, you should have fielded a candidate who didn't suck.
-
If the Bernie voters crossed to Trump? Well, you reap what you it sow the DNC reaps what it sows, man.
FTFY.
Hillary lost. It's time to stop with the delusion that anybody but the hyper-partisan Democrat cheerleaders wanted more establishment bullshit instead of Bernie.
Unless you want to fuck up 2020 too, of course...
Except I don't think Bernie could have won.
More delusion. Bernie had a better chance to win than any other liberal, in exactly the same way that Trump had a better chance than any other conservative.
Seriously, Democratic establishment people (in general, not referring specifically to people in this thread): quit trying to pretend this is about racism or sexism, and LEARN SOMETHING for once! Namely, learn that the people you actually depend on to win -- the people outside the "Democratic Party" who are usually described as "moderates" but who are actually just people who want to keep their civil rights and their money -- are sick and tired of you paying lip service to progressive ideology while actually screwing them over in the name of filthy corporatism! Hillary did not lose because of the "glass ceiling" or retaliation for Obama or whatever other lie you try to convince yourself of. Hillary lost because of her bad policies (e.g. support for the TPP), her empty rhetoric and her lack of character. Period. If you wanted to win, you should have fielded a candidate who didn't suck.
I'm Chris22, and I approve of this post.
-
Agree with that. There are a lot of people who feel ignored/left behind.
Now, I personally think Trump's policy proposals (inasmuch as they exist) will probably make things worse for those folks, not better - but many years of mainstream Democratic policies didn't do much of anything either.
I don't like Trump. But the establishment needed a slap in the face (or a blowing up) so hopefully many positive things come from his election.
-W
-
The good news is this will keep me off the news sites for the next four years.
-
Agree with that. There are a lot of people who feel ignored/left behind.
Now, I personally think Trump's policy proposals (inasmuch as they exist) will probably make things worse for those folks, not better - but many years of mainstream Democratic policies didn't do much of anything either.
I don't like Trump. But the establishment needed a slap in the face (or a blowing up) so hopefully many positive things come from his election.
-W
I basically agree with this, but I worry at whose expense the slap in the face will come. The establishment of political parties, fine. I worry it's going to embolden a lot of really ugly behavior towards minorities, women, Jews, etc. in the interim.
-
quit trying to pretend this is about racism or sexism, and LEARN SOMETHING for once!
Like the republicans after 2012 learned they had to be more inclusive in order to expand their voter base?
The only lesson to be learned here is that bigoted demagoguery is an efficient motivator of a bigoted electorate. I have never been more ashamed of my countrymen.
-
Agree with that. There are a lot of people who feel ignored/left behind.
Now, I personally think Trump's policy proposals (inasmuch as they exist) will probably make things worse for those folks, not better - but many years of mainstream Democratic policies didn't do much of anything either.
I don't like Trump. But the establishment needed a slap in the face (or a blowing up) so hopefully many positive things come from his election.
-W
I basically agree with this, but I worry at whose expense the slap in the face will come. The establishment of political parties, fine. I worry it's going to embolden a lot of really ugly behavior towards minorities, women, Jews, etc. in the interim.
It will come at the expense of whom it always comes: the poor.
Rich people who are minorities, Muslims, Jews, etc. will be just fine.
The war on poverty is over - the poor lost.
-
As a relative social liberal/fiscal conservative, if Trump can drag the GOP kicking and screaming from some of its dumber/more divisive policies (LGBT issues, abortion, etc) that would be fantastic.
I don't see it happening and agree with your second thought. I think the Trump supporters mainly hated Obama. Pence said it at the speech: "The American people have spoken" The election results are obviously a mandate to screw over everything they don't like.
But that's what *everyone* who wins an election does in the United States. They honestly believe that being elected to an office entitles them to abuse it in order to advance some particular religious, philosophical, or personal agenda.
American elected officials really, truly, honestly don't understand that voters don't like or trust them one bit. They simply have a set of tasks that need to be performed, and they pick the candidate who they think will do as little damage to their interests as possible. Elected officials for some reason think we like and trust them. So they misconstrue tolerance as license, and act as though they have a mandate to abuse their office by deliberately screwing people over when in reality all they have is permission to perform a set of tasks related to their office. When their incompetence, corruption, or abuse of office becomes egregious enough, voters replace them with a fresh idiot.
It's why we've become so mistrustful, polarized, and resentful.
-
I think that people can kiss the ACA goodbye. Ryan said today on TV news conference that was one of the first things on the agenda.
-
What egregious emails were those? What laws were broken? I wish someone could break that down for me. Seriously, please do. The reality is, there is nothing there. I'm not a huge Hilary fan, but please respond with something substantive instead of "she's corrupt. She's a liar."
I think we need to get off of the emails now. I think Trump will never mention them or jailing Clinton again. Trump has a track record of viciously attacking his opponents and then basically ignoring (or praising) them after he wins.
I also think the Republicans are going to spend time passing legislation rather than investigating a failed candidate.
No I think we need to force the elections process to speak in terms of reality and fact. Just because the election tradition is based on lies and half-truths doesn't mean we ought to embrace that.
He ought to be held accountable for every false accusation and false promise he made along the way. Hillary too.
Our election cycles are at this point hosting outright propaganda rather "empty promises and white lies". This is a big part of why I'm so frustrated with this election. This morn my coworkers are defending Trump's "election rhetoric". I have no public opinion one way or another at work.
To the educated these words may be throwaway statements but to the uneducated these are real accusations that a couple of my coworkers believed every syllable of. People get riled up about this crap. To me this is dangerous.
It honestly seems alot like slander what he has said about HRC. She had not been convicted of anything. She had been cleared several times by investigators. I'm not naive enough to believe she is squeaky clean but she isn't what Trump said she was. Repeatedly.
I hate the precedent that this election has set - one where a man can be as disgusting as he wants to be and if he claims to be on the right political team - even the Christian right will defend him. He can say whatever he wants - thumb his nose at the fact checkers - and still be elected. He has cheapened the value of truth and honor in the democratic process.
Like Spartana - I fear there will be a whole host of people bullied right back into the shadows of our society.
-
quit trying to pretend this is about racism or sexism, and LEARN SOMETHING for once!
Like the republicans after 2012 learned they had to be more inclusive in order to expand their voter base?
The only lesson to be learned here is that bigoted demagoguery is an efficient motivator of a bigoted electorate. I have never been more ashamed of my countrymen.
I'm ashamed of them too.
But you're wrong: Trump didn't win because of his bigotry; he won because of his populist anti-establishment message. Democrats need to understand that! You know how for the last several elections -- including the Republican primary -- Democrats were laughing it up about how out-of-touch the establishment Republicans were? Well, they were just looking at themselves through a funhouse mirror. If they don't realize that (and toss the Clinton faction out on their ear and do a hard turn to port in favor of Bernie-esque polices, whether championed by Bernie himself or by some other suitable progressive, such as Elizabeth Warren), they are going to be utterly screwed for at least the next eight years.
The fact that Trump's anti-establishment message was packaged with the bigotry should have destroyed his support as a matter of principle, but it didn't and that's the disgusting part. I'm disgusted not by the complete monsters who actually agreed with Trump's bigotry -- their worthlessness was already well-established and thus could be ignored -- but by the otherwise-moral people who failed to repudiate it because they cared more about their goddamn bread and circuses.
-
quit trying to pretend this is about racism or sexism, and LEARN SOMETHING for once!
Like the republicans after 2012 learned they had to be more inclusive in order to expand their voter base?
The only lesson to be learned here is that bigoted demagoguery is an efficient motivator of a bigoted electorate. I have never been more ashamed of my countrymen.
I'm ashamed of them too.
But you're wrong: Trump didn't win because of his bigotry; he won because of his populist anti-establishment message. Democrats need to understand that! You know how for the last several elections -- including the Republican primary -- Democrats were laughing it up about how out-of-touch the establishment Republicans were? Well, they were just looking at themselves through a funhouse mirror. If they don't realize that (and toss the Clinton faction out on their ear and do a hard turn to port in favor of Bernie-esque polices, whether championed by Bernie himself or by some other suitable progressive, such as Elizabeth Warren), they are going to be utterly screwed for at least the next eight years.
The fact that Trump's anti-establishment message was packaged with the bigotry should have destroyed his support as a matter of principle, but it didn't and that's the disgusting part. I'm disgusted not by the complete monsters who actually agreed with Trump's bigotry -- their worthlessness was already well-established and thus could be ignored -- but by the otherwise-moral people who failed to repudiate it because they cared more about their goddamn bread and circuses.
We've disagreed about things in the past, but today you are speaking my mind, man.
-
quit trying to pretend this is about racism or sexism, and LEARN SOMETHING for once!
Like the republicans after 2012 learned they had to be more inclusive in order to expand their voter base?
The only lesson to be learned here is that bigoted demagoguery is an efficient motivator of a bigoted electorate. I have never been more ashamed of my countrymen.
I'm ashamed of them too.
But you're wrong: Trump didn't win because of his bigotry; he won because of his populist anti-establishment message. Democrats need to understand that! You know how for the last several elections -- including the Republican primary -- Democrats were laughing it up about how out-of-touch the establishment Republicans were? Well, they were just looking at themselves through a funhouse mirror. If they don't realize that (and toss the Clinton faction out on their ear and do a hard turn to port in favor of Bernie-esque polices, whether championed by Bernie himself or by some other suitable progressive, such as Elizabeth Warren), they are going to be utterly screwed for at least the next eight years.
The fact that Trump's anti-establishment message was packaged with the bigotry should have destroyed his support as a matter of principle, but it didn't and that's the disgusting part. I'm disgusted not by the complete monsters who actually agreed with Trump's bigotry -- their worthlessness was already well-established and thus could be ignored -- but by the otherwise-moral people who failed to repudiate it because they cared more about their goddamn bread and circuses.
We've disagreed about things in the past, but today you are speaking my mind, man.
This is exactly what I've been trying to articulate whenever I talk about the election results
-
"The fact that Trump's anti-establishment message was packaged with the bigotry should have destroyed his support as a matter of principle, but it didn't and that's the disgusting part. I'm disgusted not by the complete monsters who actually agreed with Trump's bigotry -- their worthlessness was already well-established and thus could be ignored -- but by the otherwise-moral people who failed to repudiate it because they cared more about their goddamn bread and circuses."
+1
I am still trying to form some articulable opinions about him and his supporters, but am very much enjoying the intelligent discussion.
-
If the Bernie voters crossed to Trump? Well, you reap what you it sow the DNC reaps what it sows, man.
FTFY.
Hillary lost. It's time to stop with the delusion that anybody but the hyper-partisan Democrat cheerleaders wanted more establishment bullshit instead of Bernie.
Unless you want to fuck up 2020 too, of course...
Except I don't think Bernie could have won.
More delusion. Bernie had a better chance to win than any other liberal, in exactly the same way that Trump had a better chance than any other conservative.
Seriously, Democratic establishment people (in general, not referring specifically to people in this thread): quit trying to pretend this is about racism or sexism, and LEARN SOMETHING for once! Namely, learn that the people you actually depend on to win -- the people outside the "Democratic Party" who are usually described as "moderates" but who are actually just people who want to keep their civil rights and their money -- are sick and tired of you paying lip service to progressive ideology while actually screwing them over in the name of filthy corporatism! Hillary did not lose because of the "glass ceiling" or retaliation for Obama or whatever other lie you try to convince yourself of. Hillary lost because of her bad policies (e.g. support for the TPP), her empty rhetoric and her lack of character. Period. If you wanted to win, you should have fielded a candidate who didn't suck.
I can only speak as someone who has looked at all of the issues, and compared them to my own values. Of everyone running, she matched my values the best. (Nobody matched them 100%)
Bernie was far too left for me. It's very hard, however, to find a true moderate. It's been that way for quite awhile, unfortunately.
So for the people that *I* personally know, who aren't looking to pick someone "outside the establishment", Bernie would not have worked. I'm speaking of older Republican friends, who simply want someone experienced.
Now, apparently the percentage of "disenfranchised voters" is larger than the percentage of "hey I want someone experienced who reasonably closely matched my values".
I don't think she sucks. I voted for her in 2008 in the primaries. I ACTUALLY LIKE HILLARY CLINTON.
And of course the glass ceiling was part of the reason she lost. There were many reasons people voted for Trump, and the anti-feminist "I don't want a woman President" was part of it. Granted, I don't know what percentage - but it doesn't take much.
-
Consider The press takes him literally, but not seriously; his supporters take him seriously, but not literally. (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/09/trump-makes-his-case-in-pittsburgh/501335/) Also described at Peter Thiel perfectly summed up Donald Trump in one paragraph (http://www.cnbc.com/2016/11/09/peter-thiel-perfectly-summed-up-donald-trump-in-one-paragraph.html).
In other words, there were plenty of non-bigoted, college educated men and women who (perhaps while holding their nose over his personal qualities) decided to vote for Trump in the hopes of "a saner, more sensible immigration policy" and other policy issues.
-
I really hope that Trump is a 1 term president. I find him being elected scary and I have never felt that way about a major party candidate before.
-
The fact that Trump's anti-establishment message was packaged with the bigotry should have destroyed his support as a matter of principle, but it didn't and that's the disgusting part. I'm disgusted not by the complete monsters who actually agreed with Trump's bigotry -- their worthlessness was already well-established and thus could be ignored -- but by the otherwise-moral people who failed to repudiate it because they cared more about their goddamn bread and circuses.
As someone who is relieved but not happy with the results of the presidential election, can I insert an opinion shared by many Trump voters? (BTW, I didn't vote for Trump)
This election, for me, came down to one issue: The Supreme Court. Mine may not be a politically correct or popular view, but SCOTUS is supposed to do two things: 1) judge cases based on the law, and 2) judge laws based on the Constitution. That #2 is a huge issue for me. Over the last 80 years or so, we've seen incremental steps gradually and steadily taken to erode circumvent interpret the Constitution in the service of convenience. If you've heard of the terms "intermediate scrutiny" or "strict scrutiny," you're probably familiar with this issue. In short, we've reached a point where the constitution can be violated if the government can convince a judge that such an action will "further an important government interest by means that are substantially related to that interest." (for intermediate scrutiny) That concept has been used to justify all sorts of things that would clearly be unconstitutional with a plain reading, from Guantanamo Bay to Gun Control to the Fairness Doctrine to Net Neutrality to Civil Asset Forfeiture.
The next president will appoint at least one Supreme Court justice (Scalia's seat), and very possibly more (Ginsburg, Kennedy, and Breyer are all over 75 years old). And I would very much prefer to see justices who will judge based strictly on the laws and constitution, and set personal emotions and biases aside. It is not the Supreme Court's role to rewrite laws (as they did with the Obamacare subsidies ruling), or to permit regulations just because they're a good idea.* Unfortunately, we have several justices who don't seem to be very interested in ruling that way, and I believe Trump is more likely to nominate such justices than Clinton.
Yes, Trump is morally disgusting in many ways, and unqualified in many other ways.** But I would expect a better outcome from him than from Clinton.
* If you don't think the Constitution meets today's needs, that's fine! There's a way to change it, called the amendment process. Yes, that process is hard. It was made hard on purpose, to prevent marginal majorities from making sweeping changes. If a change is important enough and good enough, you'll get your 75% of states to ratify it.
** That's why we have three branches of government, and a cabinet of people who can help him out.
-
Your assessment of how the Supreme Court works and which justices are pushing agendas is ridiculously partisan. Scalia was the worst activist judge of them all, and also the biggest hypocrite when it came to "strict" interpretation. I won't deny the left leaning judges also have biases, of course. You may be worried about the SCOTUS because you oppose Gay Marriage, or think Obama's still gonna come for your guns one day, or dislike immigrants. I disagree with those stances but I understand why those who hold them want a court that is sympathetic. Just stop pretending that your preference is anything but political. Both sides want a court that will forward their agenda, let's be honest here.
-
Your assessment of how the Supreme Court works and which justices are pushing agendas is ridiculously partisan. Scalia was the worst activist judge of them all, and also the biggest hypocrite when it came to "strict" interpretation. I won't deny the left leaning judges also have biases, of course. You may be worried about the SCOTUS because you oppose Gay Marriage, or think Obama's still gonna come for your guns one day, or dislike immigrants. I disagree with those stances but I understand why those who hold them want a court that is sympathetic. Just stop pretending that your preference is anything but political. Both sides want a court that will forward their agenda, let's be honest here.
I'll address the bolded because it's an issue I know about, versus the other two where I'm less versed.
I don't want the court to "forward my agenda" on guns. I want them to interpret the Constitution to mean "shall not be infringed" as written. I'm not looking for them to FORWARD my agenda, I'm looking for them to keep others from forwarding THEIR agenda over my rights.
It's a distinction with a difference.
-
Consider The press takes him literally, but not seriously; his supporters take him seriously, but not literally. (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/09/trump-makes-his-case-in-pittsburgh/501335/) Also described at Peter Thiel perfectly summed up Donald Trump in one paragraph (http://www.cnbc.com/2016/11/09/peter-thiel-perfectly-summed-up-donald-trump-in-one-paragraph.html).
In other words, there were plenty of non-bigoted, college educated men and women who (perhaps while holding their nose over his personal qualities) decided to vote for Trump in the hopes of "a saner, more sensible immigration policy" and other policy issues.
full Thiel quote
"I think one thing that should be distinguished here is that the media is always taking Trump literally. It never takes him seriously, but it always takes him literally. ... I think a lot of voters who vote for Trump take Trump seriously but not literally, so when they hear things like the Muslim comment or the wall comment, their question is not, 'Are you going to build a wall like the Great Wall of China?' or, you know, 'How exactly are you going to enforce these tests?' What they hear is we're going to have a saner, more sensible immigration policy."
He may be right about this but the trouble with dealing with people like this is that they can say XYZ and then a week later tell you that they actually said ABC, or there surrogates can say "well you know he really meant 123". I have known a woman like this personally and after a while it gets impossible. Words have no meaning. And once they establish this double talk they can stretch it so that they can say the most god awful disrespectful things and people will just blow it off and excuse it with a "well you know what he meant - it could have been said better but, after all his intended meaning was right." I did this with the person I knew too for a time. But NO-FUCK NO!!! You are a god damn adult, you are responsible for the words you say.
I am not sure how conscience all this is with him or the woman I knew like this.
It will be interesting to see if and when his supporters get tired of not knowing what he means or him doing something different from what they thought he meant and them Trump saying that is what he intended all along. Believe me this will happen.
But I fear that a good number of people will die in the coming years because of his language (according to FB some LGBT teens already have committed suicide).
edit: spelling.
-
Your assessment of how the Supreme Court works and which justices are pushing agendas is ridiculously partisan. Scalia was the worst activist judge of them all, and also the biggest hypocrite when it came to "strict" interpretation. I won't deny the left leaning judges also have biases, of course. You may be worried about the SCOTUS because you oppose Gay Marriage, or think Obama's still gonna come for your guns one day, or dislike immigrants. I disagree with those stances but I understand why those who hold them want a court that is sympathetic. Just stop pretending that your preference is anything but political. Both sides want a court that will forward their agenda, let's be honest here.
I'll address the bolded because it's an issue I know about, versus the other two where I'm less versed.
I don't want the court to "forward my agenda" on guns. I want them to interpret the Constitution to mean "shall not be infringed" as written. I'm not looking for them to FORWARD my agenda, I'm looking for them to keep others from forwarding THEIR agenda over my rights.
It's a distinction with a difference.
Your interpretation is my activism and my interpretation is your activism.
-
Your assessment of how the Supreme Court works and which justices are pushing agendas is ridiculously partisan. Scalia was the worst activist judge of them all, and also the biggest hypocrite when it came to "strict" interpretation. I won't deny the left leaning judges also have biases, of course. You may be worried about the SCOTUS because you oppose Gay Marriage, or think Obama's still gonna come for your guns one day, or dislike immigrants. I disagree with those stances but I understand why those who hold them want a court that is sympathetic. Just stop pretending that your preference is anything but political. Both sides want a court that will forward their agenda, let's be honest here.
I'll address the bolded because it's an issue I know about, versus the other two where I'm less versed.
I don't want the court to "forward my agenda" on guns. I want them to interpret the Constitution to mean "shall not be infringed" as written. I'm not looking for them to FORWARD my agenda, I'm looking for them to keep others from forwarding THEIR agenda over my rights.
It's a distinction with a difference.
Your interpretation is my activism and my interpretation is your activism.
My point is, I'm not looking for action. You are. I don't think you can characterize looking for inaction as "forwarding an agenda".
-
I want them to interpret the Constitution to mean "shall not be infringed" as written.
And I want them to interpret the amendment to apply to "a well regulated militia" as written.
We get very different results if we each try to interpret individual phrases without their context. Don't pretend your selected phrase is more important than mine.
-
Your assessment of how the Supreme Court works and which justices are pushing agendas is ridiculously partisan. Scalia was the worst activist judge of them all, and also the biggest hypocrite when it came to "strict" interpretation. I won't deny the left leaning judges also have biases, of course. You may be worried about the SCOTUS because you oppose Gay Marriage, or think Obama's still gonna come for your guns one day, or dislike immigrants. I disagree with those stances but I understand why those who hold them want a court that is sympathetic. Just stop pretending that your preference is anything but political. Both sides want a court that will forward their agenda, let's be honest here.
I'll address the bolded because it's an issue I know about, versus the other two where I'm less versed.
I don't want the court to "forward my agenda" on guns. I want them to interpret the Constitution to mean "shall not be infringed" as written. I'm not looking for them to FORWARD my agenda, I'm looking for them to keep others from forwarding THEIR agenda over my rights.
It's a distinction with a difference.
Your interpretation is my activism and my interpretation is your activism.
My point is, I'm not looking for action. You are. I don't think you can characterize looking for inaction as "forwarding an agenda".
No, you're looking for action. I'm not.
There are liberal activist judges just as there as conservative activist judges. There's no holy ground here that one side gets to claim.
-
My point is, I'm not looking for action. You are. I don't think you can characterize looking for inaction as "forwarding an agenda".
Of course you can, if the status quo is what's unconstitutional. Plenty of historical examples to learn from on that front.
-
The fact that Trump's anti-establishment message was packaged with the bigotry should have destroyed his support as a matter of principle, but it didn't and that's the disgusting part. I'm disgusted not by the complete monsters who actually agreed with Trump's bigotry -- their worthlessness was already well-established and thus could be ignored -- but by the otherwise-moral people who failed to repudiate it because they cared more about their goddamn bread and circuses.
As someone who is relieved but not happy with the results of the presidential election, can I insert an opinion shared by many Trump voters? (BTW, I didn't vote for Trump)
This election, for me, came down to one issue: The Supreme Court. Mine may not be a politically correct or popular view, but SCOTUS is supposed to do two things: 1) judge cases based on the law, and 2) judge laws based on the Constitution. That #2 is a huge issue for me. Over the last 80 years or so, we've seen incremental steps gradually and steadily taken to erode circumvent interpret the Constitution in the service of convenience. If you've heard of the terms "intermediate scrutiny" or "strict scrutiny," you're probably familiar with this issue. In short, we've reached a point where the constitution can be violated if the government can convince a judge that such an action will "further an important government interest by means that are substantially related to that interest." (for intermediate scrutiny) That concept has been used to justify all sorts of things that would clearly be unconstitutional with a plain reading, from Guantanamo Bay to Gun Control to the Fairness Doctrine to Net Neutrality to Civil Asset Forfeiture.
The next president will appoint at least one Supreme Court justice (Scalia's seat), and very possibly more (Ginsburg, Kennedy, and Breyer are all over 75 years old). And I would very much prefer to see justices who will judge based strictly on the laws and constitution, and set personal emotions and biases aside. It is not the Supreme Court's role to rewrite laws (as they did with the Obamacare subsidies ruling), or to permit regulations just because they're a good idea.* Unfortunately, we have several justices who don't seem to be very interested in ruling that way, and I believe Trump is more likely to nominate such justices than Clinton.
Yes, Trump is morally disgusting in many ways, and unqualified in many other ways.** But I would expect a better outcome from him than from Clinton.
* If you don't think the Constitution meets today's needs, that's fine! There's a way to change it, called the amendment process. Yes, that process is hard. It was made hard on purpose, to prevent marginal majorities from making sweeping changes. If a change is important enough and good enough, you'll get your 75% of states to ratify it.
** That's why we have three branches of government, and a cabinet of people who can help him out.
I agree with all of that except for the notion that a Trump Supreme Court nominee would some how be less of a disaster for strict construction than a Clinton nominee would.
By the way, the Fairness Doctrine and Net Neutrality are not unconstitutional: free speech and free association are rights, but incorporation into a business entity (i.e., anything other than a sole proprietorship or full-liability partnership) is not. Therefore, regulation of corporations for the public interest -- which they agreed to by virtue of the fact that their members chose to incorporate rather than remain a full-liability partnership -- is perfectly constitutional and Citizen's United was simply an incorrect decision.
In fact, the only reason the concept of incorporation exists in the first place was for groups to get privileged treatment in exchange for being required to act in the public interest (http://reclaimdemocracy.org/corporate-accountability-history-corporations-us/). Our modern corporatist shithead overlords fail to appreciate that fact.
god-offal
God-offal (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Offal)? That's an... interesting choice of imagery, to say the least!
-
Your assessment of how the Supreme Court works and which justices are pushing agendas is ridiculously partisan. Scalia was the worst activist judge of them all, and also the biggest hypocrite when it came to "strict" interpretation. I won't deny the left leaning judges also have biases, of course. You may be worried about the SCOTUS because you oppose Gay Marriage, or think Obama's still gonna come for your guns one day, or dislike immigrants. I disagree with those stances but I understand why those who hold them want a court that is sympathetic. Just stop pretending that your preference is anything but political. Both sides want a court that will forward their agenda, let's be honest here.
This. More importantly, if you think you can "judge laws based on the Constitution" in a clear-cut manner without interpreting it, you haven't read the Constitution. Or do you really believe that fraud should be allowed because "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech." Period.
-
No doubt we are interpreting, given how "is" may be interpreted differently depending on the context...
For folks too young to remember:
"It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is. If the--if he--if 'is' means is and never has been, that is not--that is one thing. If it means there is none, that was a completely true statement....Now, if someone had asked me on that day, are you having any kind of sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky, that is, asked me a question in the present tense, I would have said no. And it would have been completely true."
-
I want them to interpret the Constitution to mean "shall not be infringed" as written.
And I want them to interpret the amendment to apply to "a well regulated militia" as written.
We get very different results if we each try to interpret individual phrases without their context. Don't pretend your selected phrase is more important than mine.
Your phrase is important, it just doesn't mean what you think it does.
-
I want them to interpret the Constitution to mean "shall not be infringed" as written.
And I want them to interpret the amendment to apply to "a well regulated militia" as written.
We get very different results if we each try to interpret individual phrases without their context. Don't pretend your selected phrase is more important than mine.
Your phrase is important, it just doesn't mean what you think it does.
Sure it does; If I just ignore mountains of historical documentation, synchronistic vernacular, and insert it in my myopic contemporary parlance, it means my state national guard right?
-
it just doesn't mean what you think it does.
Neither does yours. Unless you believe US citizens who are convicted terrorists should be allowed to privately own nuclear weapons, "shall not be infringed" clearly means "shall be infringed in some cases and not in others".
-
it just doesn't mean what you think it does.
Neither does yours. Unless you believe US citizens who are convicted terrorists should be allowed to privately own nuclear weapons, "shall not be infringed" clearly means "shall be infringed in some cases and not in others".
Oh come on.
First of all, we have a method, outlined in the Constitution in other amendments, by which we can deprive people of their rights, using a court of law, jury of their peers, etc.
Second, just knock it off with the nukes thing, you've been slapped around on that one quite enough.
-
The Hillary people filed out of that building like Thulsa Dooms followers.
(http://www.screeninsults.com/images/conan-the-barbarian-head-doom.JPG)
-
just knock it off with the nukes thing, you've been slapped around on that one quite enough.
I must have missed that post. Can you please summarize for me why we are allowed to restrict some arms and not others, for some people and not others? Those all seem like "interpretations" of the 2nd Amendment, to me.
Our you could just link to it, if there is a previous forum post addressing this issue.
-
Can you please summarize for me why we are allowed to restrict some arms and not others, for some people and not others?
We're not. Go find my previous post explaining it yourself.
Are you done now?
-
This election, for me, came down to one issue: The Supreme Court. ...If you've heard of the terms "intermediate scrutiny" or "strict scrutiny," you're probably familiar with this issue.
Amen. If the government is enacting laws, it needs to narrowly craft them to accomplish the goals with a minimum of restriction of rights. There should not be a rationing of the rights.
Motorcycles speeding down I-95 should not result in all speed limits changed to 40. Targeting criminals but not actually reducing their activities while burdening many honest people is not narrow tailoring.
Overly broad restriction of rights "because the government has the general goal of crime reduction" is improper. Maryland has a law that you can pick up a firearm X days after you pay and get your background check (if you've jumped through many other prereq. hoops.) Many purchasers have another firearm. If you have other firearms, a "cooling off period" is useless on the next one. This is not narrowly tailored, and I believe was overturned in another state. MD has another law about 30 days between purchases unless you are a designated collector, so that factors into the timeline too.
Maryland doesn't let you conceal a non-folding knife. However you can carry a foot long folding knife because court proceedings have labeled it a pen knife. Baltimore City doesn't allow spring-assisted knives, where you flick it open with your thumb and a spring helps complete the opening. This was what got Freddy Gray in trouble. (Although the prosecutor said on TV he "had a knife legal in the state of MD" -- uh, but not in her city.)
-
The fact that Trump's anti-establishment message was packaged with the bigotry should have destroyed his support as a matter of principle, but it didn't and that's the disgusting part. I'm disgusted not by the complete monsters who actually agreed with Trump's bigotry -- their worthlessness was already well-established and thus could be ignored -- but by the otherwise-moral people who failed to repudiate it because they cared more about their goddamn bread and circuses.
As someone who is relieved but not happy with the results of the presidential election, can I insert an opinion shared by many Trump voters? (BTW, I didn't vote for Trump)
This election, for me, came down to one issue: The Supreme Court. Mine may not be a politically correct or popular view, but SCOTUS is supposed to do two things: 1) judge cases based on the law, and 2) judge laws based on the Constitution. That #2 is a huge issue for me. Over the last 80 years or so, we've seen incremental steps gradually and steadily taken to erode circumvent interpret the Constitution in the service of convenience. If you've heard of the terms "intermediate scrutiny" or "strict scrutiny," you're probably familiar with this issue. In short, we've reached a point where the constitution can be violated if the government can convince a judge that such an action will "further an important government interest by means that are substantially related to that interest." (for intermediate scrutiny) That concept has been used to justify all sorts of things that would clearly be unconstitutional with a plain reading, from Guantanamo Bay to Gun Control to the Fairness Doctrine to Net Neutrality to Civil Asset Forfeiture.
The next president will appoint at least one Supreme Court justice (Scalia's seat), and very possibly more (Ginsburg, Kennedy, and Breyer are all over 75 years old). And I would very much prefer to see justices who will judge based strictly on the laws and constitution, and set personal emotions and biases aside. It is not the Supreme Court's role to rewrite laws (as they did with the Obamacare subsidies ruling), or to permit regulations just because they're a good idea.* Unfortunately, we have several justices who don't seem to be very interested in ruling that way, and I believe Trump is more likely to nominate such justices than Clinton.
Yes, Trump is morally disgusting in many ways, and unqualified in many other ways.** But I would expect a better outcome from him than from Clinton.
* If you don't think the Constitution meets today's needs, that's fine! There's a way to change it, called the amendment process. Yes, that process is hard. It was made hard on purpose, to prevent marginal majorities from making sweeping changes. If a change is important enough and good enough, you'll get your 75% of states to ratify it.
** That's why we have three branches of government, and a cabinet of people who can help him out.
This was huge for me too. STAY THE FUCK OUT OF MY UTERUS.
-
The fact that Trump's anti-establishment
This election, for me, came down to one issue: The Supreme Court.
This was huge for me too. STAY THE FUCK OUT OF MY UTERUS.
+1 Well said
-
I want them to interpret the Constitution to mean "shall not be infringed" as written.
And I want them to interpret the amendment to apply to "a well regulated militia" as written.
We get very different results if we each try to interpret individual phrases without their context. Don't pretend your selected phrase is more important than mine.
As long as one understands that the second part of this amendment is not a subordinate clause, there should be no conflict. D.C. v Heller has shown this as well.
-
Let's not derail the discussion because of all of you single issue (guns) voters. That you are favoring interpretation, just like anyone else, is painfully obvious. Let's not be disingenuous in pretending we don't all have views on what we think the founders wanted and that any basic study of history can produce lots of evidence to support either "strict" or flexible interpretations of the exact final wording of the constitution.
Not sure why you all are so insistent on how your interpretation is the only correct one. I guess it must be a page out of the elitist conservative handbook.
-
I want them to interpret the Constitution to mean "shall not be infringed" as written.
And I want them to interpret the amendment to apply to "a well regulated militia" as written.
We get very different results if we each try to interpret individual phrases without their context. Don't pretend your selected phrase is more important than mine.
Your phrase is important, it just doesn't mean what you think it does.
Sure it does; If I just ignore mountains of historical documentation, synchronistic vernacular, and insert it in my myopic contemporary parlance, it means my state national guard right?
it means every male above 21(18 now?) years of age.
-
Let's not derail the discussion because of all of you single issue (guns) voters. That you are favoring interpretation, just like anyone else, is painfully obvious. Let's not be disingenuous in pretending we don't all have views on what we think the founders wanted and that any basic study of history can produce lots of evidence to support either "strict" or flexible interpretations of the exact final wording of the constitution.
Not sure why you all are so insistent on how your interpretation is the only correct one. I guess it must be a page out of the elitist conservative handbook.
Great question - is single-issue voting a problem? Time for a new thread.
-
Let's not derail the discussion because of all of you single issue (guns) voters. That you are favoring interpretation, just like anyone else, is painfully obvious. Let's not be disingenuous in pretending we don't all have views on what we think the founders wanted and that any basic study of history can produce lots of evidence to support either "strict" or flexible interpretations of the exact final wording of the constitution.
Not sure why you all are so insistent on how your interpretation is the only correct one. I guess it must be a page out of the elitist conservative handbook.
Great question - is single-issue voting a problem? Time for a new thread.
It's actually a rather interesting question in some ways. Viewed from a certain angle, single issue voter coalitions act somewhat like a multi-party system, although I suppose they don't change party allegiances often enough for that to have much practical impact, especially with regards to congress. But yes, a question for another thread.
-
Let's not derail the discussion because of all of you single issue (guns) voters. That you are favoring interpretation, just like anyone else, is painfully obvious. Let's not be disingenuous in pretending we don't all have views on what we think the founders wanted and that any basic study of history can produce lots of evidence to support either "strict" or flexible interpretations of the exact final wording of the constitution.
Not sure why you all are so insistent on how your interpretation is the only correct one. I guess it must be a page out of the elitist conservative handbook.
Great question - is single-issue voting a problem? Time for a new thread.
It's actually a rather interesting question in some ways. Viewed from a certain angle, single issue voter coalitions act somewhat like a multi-party system, although I suppose they don't change party allegiances often enough for that to have much practical impact, especially with regards to congress. But yes, a question for another thread.
Great thoughts! Feel free to share them here: http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/off-topic/single-issue-voting-is-this-a-problem/ (http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/off-topic/single-issue-voting-is-this-a-problem/)
-
just knock it off with the nukes thing, you've been slapped around on that one quite enough.
I must have missed that post. Can you please summarize for me why we are allowed to restrict some arms and not others, for some people and not others? Those all seem like "interpretations" of the 2nd Amendment, to me.
Our you could just link to it, if there is a previous forum post addressing this issue.
This is precisely the point I'm trying to make--passing gun control amendments (the proper way to handle it) is not sufficiently popular, so we pass laws and then justify it by saying "but we can bend the constitution if it makes sense to us."
I agree with all of that except for the notion that a Trump Supreme Court nominee would some how be less of a disaster for strict construction than a Clinton nominee would.
By the way, the Fairness Doctrine and Net Neutrality are not unconstitutional: free speech and free association are rights, but incorporation into a business entity (i.e., anything other than a sole proprietorship or full-liability partnership) is not. Therefore, regulation of corporations for the public interest -- which they agreed to by virtue of the fact that their members chose to incorporate rather than remain a full-liability partnership -- is perfectly constitutional and Citizen's United was simply an incorrect decision.
In fact, the only reason the concept of incorporation exists in the first place was for groups to get privileged treatment in exchange for being required to act in the public interest (http://reclaimdemocracy.org/corporate-accountability-history-corporations-us/). Our modern corporatist shithead overlords fail to appreciate that fact.
Keep in mind, however, that with Trump being a nominal Republican, and with the Republicans holding the Senate, he'll be expected to nominate more constructionist justices.
Can you clarify where in the Constitution the federal government is granted power to regulate corporations? We're risking wading into the "corporations are/aren't people" argument...
-
Can you clarify where in the Constitution the federal government is granted power to regulate corporations? We're risking wading into the "corporations are/aren't people" argument...
Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3.
-
Someone up-thread mentioned construction company stock going up due to "the wall" now being a possibility. I arrived at the office at 5:30 Mountain and Jim Cramer was being interviewed telling people to calm the hell down because the market was down half a percent on the news that Trump won. He was comparing the reaction to the almost non-event of the markets reacting to Brexit. Fast forward just a few short hours later and whatever emotions investors were having seemed to wear off because defense contractors and construction company stocks were skyrocketing to what I assume are hopes that Trump will spend a lot of money in those sectors. I always get a good laugh watching the market react to whatever the issue is of the day. The TV at work is usually on Foxnews, but when nobody is looking I like to change it to CNBC. I'd rather listen to financial bullshit than political bullshit, but since most of my coworkers have no clue what their talking about my victories are short-lived.
I have found congressional politics to be more meaningful to the future than the presidency since it only takes a couple guys in positions of power to completely gum up the works (I'm looking at you Reid and McConnell). Half of what presidential candidates promise seem to never happen anyways since it was either never in their power to begin with, they only said it to get elected, or without a completely compliant Congress it didn't stand a chance.
I managed to avoid almost all political news the last 36 hours or so and purposely stayed off of Facebook the last 48 and it's been a very restful experience. I got on my account this evening and after 20 minutes of scrolling through nothing but election commentary from my friends going across the spectrum I put it away again. With the seething and hate in some of the posts I'm actually looking forward to someone Instagramming whatever they were going to have for dinner.
-
The poor lost? I would argue that the poor have it better in the US than they ever had. Healthcare is more accessible, social safety nets have been expanded, etc...
All of which are likely to be changed, reduced and possibly eliminated over the next 4 years.
Agree. One step away from the gutter is still not that great. I don't think bender was saying this, but there's that idea from the right that being poor is wonderful. Always thought that it was a strange world view.
-
Can you clarify where in the Constitution the federal government is granted power to regulate corporations? We're risking wading into the "corporations are/aren't people" argument...
Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3.
Ah, the much-abused and misinterpreted Commerce Clause. The one clause in the constitution that has been used to justify 70% of what our government does.
-
Can you clarify where in the Constitution the federal government is granted power to regulate corporations? We're risking wading into the "corporations are/aren't people" argument...
Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3.
Ah, the much-abused and misinterpreted Commerce Clause. The one clause in the constitution that has been used to justify 70% of what our government does.
The commerce clause is SUPER abused. I hate it so much.
But... isn't regulating commerce (yes, between states) basically one of the main parts of it? And businesses conduct commerce? Hard to argue that it's being used way out of line in that instance...
-
I agree with all of that except for the notion that a Trump Supreme Court nominee would some how be less of a disaster for strict construction than a Clinton nominee would.
free speech and free association are rights, but incorporation into a business entity (i.e., anything other than a sole proprietorship or full-liability partnership) is not.
Keep in mind, however, that with Trump being a nominal Republican, and with the Republicans holding the Senate, he'll be expected to nominate more [strict-]constructionist justices.
Can you clarify where in the Constitution the federal government is granted power to regulate corporations? We're risking wading into the "corporations are/aren't people" argument...
LOL!
First of all, the only Republicans who will expect him to nominate strict-constructionist judges would be, I don't know, maybe Rand Paul or someone. The rest will expect him to nominate socially-conservative judges in the mold of Scalia, strict construction and consistent ideology be damned.
Second, if the government has no power to regulate corporations then it also has no power to create them in the first place. I'm perfectly happy to take the position that the government does not have that power, but the consequence is that all corporations cease to exist and instead immediately devolve to full-liability partnerships!
Remember, nothing in the Constitution requires LLCs, S-Corps, C-Corps, etc. to exist. They are concepts created by the government, and since the only valid reason for the government to create something is for the public good, that must be their purpose. Organizing your group into one of them is not a natural right (or Constitutional right). It is a privilege, granted only in return for acting in the public interest.
Can you clarify where in the Constitution the federal government is granted power to regulate corporations? We're risking wading into the "corporations are/aren't people" argument...
Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3.
Ah, the much-abused and misinterpreted Commerce Clause. The one clause in the constitution that has been used to justify 70% of what our government does.
The commerce clause is SUPER abused. I hate it so much.
But... isn't regulating commerce (yes, between states) basically one of the main parts of it? And businesses conduct commerce? Hard to argue that it's being used way out of line in that instance...
The commerce clause isn't even relevant! This is a discussion of incorporation, and not all corporations conduct commerce (let alone interstate commerce). Remember: municipalities, non-profits and clubs can be corporations too!
(But yes, I agree that the commerce clause is super-abused.)
-
I think we should all be far more concerned with the santa clause.
-
Second, if the government has no power to regulate corporations then it also has no power to create them in the first place. I'm perfectly happy to take the position that the government does not have that power, but the consequence is that all corporations cease to exist and instead immediately devolve to full-liability partnerships!
Remember, nothing in the Constitution requires LLCs, S-Corps, C-Corps, etc. to exist. They are concepts created by the government, and since the only valid reason for the government to create something is for the public good, that must be their purpose. Organizing your group into one of them is not a natural right (or Constitutional right). It is a privilege, granted only in return for acting in the public interest.
You beat me to it. I don't think even the strictest constitutional literalist would consider abolishing corporations as legal entities a good idea.
-W
-
But I fear that a good number of people will die in the coming years because of his language (according to FB some LGBT teens already have committed suicide).
Perhaps those with more maturity ought not be abetting panic in the less mature. There are wild-eyed crazies on both sides of the political spectrum, but let's not mistake campaign rhetoric for what is likely to happen in reality. In other words, follow Clinton's and Obama's classy advice and move forward together.
-
But I fear that a good number of people will die in the coming years because of his language (according to FB some LGBT teens already have committed suicide).
Perhaps those with more maturity ought not be abetting panic in the less mature. There are wild-eyed crazies on both sides of the political spectrum, but let's not mistake campaign rhetoric for what is likely to happen in reality. In other words, follow Clinton's and Obama's classy advice and move forward together.
Normally I would agree, but we're already seeing a climate change denier put in charge of the EPA, massive underreporting on Mike Pence, a true-believer Evangelical who Trump explicitly noted would manage more day to day responsibilities than the average VP, numerous potential cabinet appointees who most certainly support things like discrimination of the LGBT community, The Patriot Act, trickle-down economics, etc.
I am happy to "move forward together," but there is already substantial evidence that there is no such attitude within the forthcoming administration.
-
But I fear that a good number of people will die in the coming years because of his language (according to FB some LGBT teens already have committed suicide).
Perhaps those with more maturity ought not be abetting panic in the less mature. There are wild-eyed crazies on both sides of the political spectrum, but let's not mistake campaign rhetoric for what is likely to happen in reality. In other words, follow Clinton's and Obama's classy advice and move forward together.
I am a member of a support based group for transgender teens in North America. We have seen the lose of numerous youth 16-22(there have been 15 since the election results) The notes have one thing in common. That we cannot be ourselves now...
You may argue that adults have caused this, but trump said he would repel the marriage equality law. The VP said that he was for shock therapy to "fix" the gays... this is an issue. This is who was voted for.
-
But I fear that a good number of people will die in the coming years because of his language (according to FB some LGBT teens already have committed suicide).
Perhaps those with more maturity ought not be abetting panic in the less mature. There are wild-eyed crazies on both sides of the political spectrum, but let's not mistake campaign rhetoric for what is likely to happen in reality. In other words, follow Clinton's and Obama's classy advice and move forward together.
I am a member of a support based group for transgender teens in North America. We have seen the lose of numerous youth 16-22(there have been 15 since the election results) The notes have one thing in common. That we cannot be ourselves now...
You may argue that adults have caused this, but trump said he would repel the marriage equality law. The VP said that he was for shock therapy to "fix" the gays... this is an issue. This is who was voted for.
wtf. Aren't they being overly dramatic and extreme? I get that they dislike the outcome and fear negative changes, but he isn't even taking office for 2 1/2 months.
-
Ah, the much-abused and misinterpreted Commerce Clause. The one clause in the constitution that has been used to justify 70% of what our government does.
Don't forget the General Welfare Clause - between the two, the Feds can do just about anything.
-
But I fear that a good number of people will die in the coming years because of his language (according to FB some LGBT teens already have committed suicide).
Perhaps those with more maturity ought not be abetting panic in the less mature. There are wild-eyed crazies on both sides of the political spectrum, but let's not mistake campaign rhetoric for what is likely to happen in reality. In other words, follow Clinton's and Obama's classy advice and move forward together.
I am a member of a support based group for transgender teens in North America. We have seen the lose of numerous youth 16-22(there have been 15 since the election results) The notes have one thing in common. That we cannot be ourselves now...
You may argue that adults have caused this, but trump said he would repel the marriage equality law. The VP said that he was for shock therapy to "fix" the gays... this is an issue. This is who was voted for.
I do expect that the Trump administration will end requirements that transgender individuals can use the restroom that matches their gender identity. I don't expect them to have enough political capital to reverse the Supreme Court decision that banning same sex marriage is a violation of the 14th Amendment.
-
Well other than Trump / Clinton
The North Carolina governor race is throwing out McCrory by less than 5000 votes. HB2 reversal?
http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/north-carolina-governor-mccrory-cooper (http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/north-carolina-governor-mccrory-cooper)
-
I am happy to "move forward together," but there is already substantial evidence that there is no such attitude within the forthcoming administration.
You may argue that adults have caused this, but trump said he would repel the marriage equality law.
Consider http://www.snopes.com/trump-plans-reverse-marriage-equality-elected-president/.
E.g.,
Pence said Friday he believes marriage is the union between one man and one woman and that he was disappointed the Supreme Court failed to recognize the historic role of the states in setting marriage policy. But he says his administration will uphold the law and abide by the court ruling.
For the past eight years, about half the country had a president with whom they disagreed on various things. That's still true for the upcoming president, just that it's a different half. Again, election rhetoric is often not the same as reality.
-
But I fear that a good number of people will die in the coming years because of his language (according to FB some LGBT teens already have committed suicide).
Perhaps those with more maturity ought not be abetting panic in the less mature. There are wild-eyed crazies on both sides of the political spectrum, but let's not mistake campaign rhetoric for what is likely to happen in reality. In other words, follow Clinton's and Obama's classy advice and move forward together.
I am a member of a support based group for transgender teens in North America. We have seen the lose of numerous youth 16-22(there have been 15 since the election results) The notes have one thing in common. That we cannot be ourselves now...
You may argue that adults have caused this, but trump said he would repel the marriage equality law. The VP said that he was for shock therapy to "fix" the gays... this is an issue. This is who was voted for.
wtf. Aren't they being overly dramatic and extreme? I get that they dislike the outcome and fear negative changes, but he isn't even taking office for 2 1/2 months.
Excuse me?
Please don't comment if you haven't got a clue.
-
But I fear that a good number of people will die in the coming years because of his language (according to FB some LGBT teens already have committed suicide).
Perhaps those with more maturity ought not be abetting panic in the less mature. There are wild-eyed crazies on both sides of the political spectrum, but let's not mistake campaign rhetoric for what is likely to happen in reality. In other words, follow Clinton's and Obama's classy advice and move forward together.
I am a member of a support based group for transgender teens in North America. We have seen the lose of numerous youth 16-22(there have been 15 since the election results) The notes have one thing in common. That we cannot be ourselves now...
You may argue that adults have caused this, but trump said he would repel the marriage equality law. The VP said that he was for shock therapy to "fix" the gays... this is an issue. This is who was voted for.
wtf. Aren't they being overly dramatic and extreme? I get that they dislike the outcome and fear negative changes, but he isn't even taking office for 2 1/2 months.
Excuse me?
Please don't comment if you haven't got a clue.
"Aren't they being overly dramatic and extreme?"
Yes. Hence the lovely riots occurring. Funny to see the "inclusive, loving" party out burning images and beating Trump supporters.
(Here: http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-downtown-la-trump-protests-20161109-htmlstory.html (http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-downtown-la-trump-protests-20161109-htmlstory.html) and here: http://ktla.com/2016/11/09/anti-trump-protesters-burn-pinata-chant-not-my-president-in-downtown-l-a/ (http://ktla.com/2016/11/09/anti-trump-protesters-burn-pinata-chant-not-my-president-in-downtown-l-a/) and here: https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2156907/us-riot-teenagers-beat-donald-trump-voter/ (https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2156907/us-riot-teenagers-beat-donald-trump-voter/) and here: http://www.dailywire.com/news/10664/video-trump-voter-dragged-his-car-and-beaten-gang-chase-stephens#modal (http://www.dailywire.com/news/10664/video-trump-voter-dragged-his-car-and-beaten-gang-chase-stephens#modal))
-
I think we should all be far more concerned with the santa clause.
Get your government out of my chimney!
-
But I fear that a good number of people will die in the coming years because of his language (according to FB some LGBT teens already have committed suicide).
Perhaps those with more maturity ought not be abetting panic in the less mature. There are wild-eyed crazies on both sides of the political spectrum, but let's not mistake campaign rhetoric for what is likely to happen in reality. In other words, follow Clinton's and Obama's classy advice and move forward together.
I am a member of a support based group for transgender teens in North America. We have seen the lose of numerous youth 16-22(there have been 15 since the election results) The notes have one thing in common. That we cannot be ourselves now...
You may argue that adults have caused this, but trump said he would repel the marriage equality law. The VP said that he was for shock therapy to "fix" the gays... this is an issue. This is who was voted for.
wtf. Aren't they being overly dramatic and extreme? I get that they dislike the outcome and fear negative changes, but he isn't even taking office for 2 1/2 months.
Excuse me?
Please don't comment if you haven't got a clue.
I took that to mean a number of transgender people are committing suicide, which if true I find overly dramatic and extreme.
Unless dycker just means they left the support group, and left a note, without killing themselves, which I also find overly dramatic and extreme.
I genuinely don't understand your comment.
-
But I fear that a good number of people will die in the coming years because of his language (according to FB some LGBT teens already have committed suicide).
Perhaps those with more maturity ought not be abetting panic in the less mature. There are wild-eyed crazies on both sides of the political spectrum, but let's not mistake campaign rhetoric for what is likely to happen in reality. In other words, follow Clinton's and Obama's classy advice and move forward together.
I am a member of a support based group for transgender teens in North America. We have seen the lose of numerous youth 16-22(there have been 15 since the election results) The notes have one thing in common. That we cannot be ourselves now...
You may argue that adults have caused this, but trump said he would repel the marriage equality law. The VP said that he was for shock therapy to "fix" the gays... this is an issue. This is who was voted for.
wtf. Aren't they being overly dramatic and extreme? I get that they dislike the outcome and fear negative changes, but he isn't even taking office for 2 1/2 months.
Some kids have killed themselves, try to show some sympathy. Most of there lives have been spent with Obama as pres and a gradual lessening of the Official Crap they have to deal with as LGBT; they have only lived in a time when there was real hope they could as first class citizens. Trumps election validates all the name calling, harassment and abuse they have experienced every day from fellow students/teachers/church leaders/parents/politicians. These kids dont yet have the perspective to see that life will go on and these things ebb and flow. I have no clue what Trump will do but he has said some extreme things it is sad that some have focused on that and it pushed them over the edge.
-
But I fear that a good number of people will die in the coming years because of his language (according to FB some LGBT teens already have committed suicide).
Perhaps those with more maturity ought not be abetting panic in the less mature. There are wild-eyed crazies on both sides of the political spectrum, but let's not mistake campaign rhetoric for what is likely to happen in reality. In other words, follow Clinton's and Obama's classy advice and move forward together.
I am a member of a support based group for transgender teens in North America. We have seen the lose of numerous youth 16-22(there have been 15 since the election results) The notes have one thing in common. That we cannot be ourselves now...
You may argue that adults have caused this, but trump said he would repel the marriage equality law. The VP said that he was for shock therapy to "fix" the gays... this is an issue. This is who was voted for.
wtf. Aren't they being overly dramatic and extreme? I get that they dislike the outcome and fear negative changes, but he isn't even taking office for 2 1/2 months.
Some kids have killed themselves, try to show some sympathy. Most of there lives have been spent with Obama as pres and a gradual lessening of the Official Crap they have to deal with as LGBT; they have only lived in a time when there was real hope they could as first class citizens. Trumps election validates all the name calling, harassment and abuse they have experienced every day from fellow students/teachers/church leaders/parents/politicians. These kids dont yet have the perspective to see that life will go on and these things ebb and flow. I have no clue what Trump will do but he has said some extreme things it is sad that some have focused on that and it pushed them over the edge.
I do have sympathy for them and their family/loved ones, it's absolutely terrible. I honestly cannot imagine living in their shoes. No matter how much I try to imagine it, I don't think I'm capable of fully understanding/experiencing the discrimination they face.
However I still think killing yourself just because trump got elected is an extreme over reaction.
-
I do have sympathy for them and their family/loved ones, it's absolutely terrible. I honestly cannot imagine living in their shoes. No matter how much I try to imagine it, I don't think I'm capable of fully understanding/experiencing the discrimination they face.
However I still think killing yourself just because trump got elected is an extreme over reaction.
Of course it's an extreme over reaction. But for a young LGBT person who is presumably dealing with mental health issues and low self-worth, I can understand how they might perceive a national presidential election as a referendum on their value as a person. It's not rational, but it's also not hard for me to see how this could happen.
-
But I fear that a good number of people will die in the coming years because of his language (according to FB some LGBT teens already have committed suicide).
Perhaps those with more maturity ought not be abetting panic in the less mature. There are wild-eyed crazies on both sides of the political spectrum, but let's not mistake campaign rhetoric for what is likely to happen in reality. In other words, follow Clinton's and Obama's classy advice and move forward together.
I am a member of a support based group for transgender teens in North America. We have seen the lose of numerous youth 16-22(there have been 15 since the election results) The notes have one thing in common. That we cannot be ourselves now...
You may argue that adults have caused this, but trump said he would repel the marriage equality law. The VP said that he was for shock therapy to "fix" the gays... this is an issue. This is who was voted for.
I do expect that the Trump administration will end requirements that transgender individuals can use the restroom that matches their gender identity. I don't expect them to have enough political capital to reverse the Supreme Court decision that banning same sex marriage is a violation of the 14th Amendment.
No one expected trump to win 500 some days ago
-
I do have sympathy for them and their family/loved ones, it's absolutely terrible. I honestly cannot imagine living in their shoes. No matter how much I try to imagine it, I don't think I'm capable of fully understanding/experiencing the discrimination they face.
However I still think killing yourself just because trump got elected is an extreme over reaction.
Of course it's an extreme over reaction. But for a young LGBT person who is presumably dealing with mental health issues and low self-worth, I can understand how they might perceive a national presidential election as a referendum on their value as a person. It's not rational, but it's also not hard for me to see how this could happen.
I know several LGBT people very well. The shock they felt is palatable. It's not so much about Trump himself (who seems to have a relatively moderate stance), but Pence, and their impression of the Republican platform.
-
A number of transgender people are killing themselves. One cannot judge what others are feeling unless they belong to that group of people. LGBT people are extremely scared right now. They have been told, by Mr. Trump that this result will remove all of their right, so in my opinion they have reason to be scared.
Yesterday, I had a friend of mine, who is a truck driver. She was down in the USA for one of her runs. She also happens to be transgender. She approached a counter at a retail outlet, where a middle age person was cleaning behind it with a spray chemical. When my friend asked for help this woman turned around, looked at my friend, and instantly hated her so much that the worker sprayed my friend in the face with this chemical. The chemical was Ammonium Hydroxid. Now you can say that Trump has not done anything yet, and he has not taken government, but his campaign has decimated against, well everyone... the bigots feel they have won, and they are lashing out now...
-
I just found this collection on my Facebook feed. This is what Trump has done so far... Warning, extremely offensive language is used in this post.
https://twitter.com/i/moments/796417517157830656
-
Yesterday, I had a friend of mine, who is a truck driver. She was down in the USA for one of her runs. She also happens to be transgender. She approached a counter at a retail outlet, where a middle age person was cleaning behind it with a spray chemical. When my friend asked for help this woman turned around, looked at my friend, and instantly hated her so much that the worker sprayed my friend in the face with this chemical. The chemical was Ammonium Hydroxid. Now you can say that Trump has not done anything yet, and he has not taken government, but his campaign has decimated against, well everyone... the bigots feel they have won, and they are lashing out now...
Did your friend file a complaint with the retail outlet's owner/manager and/or local law enforcement? IMHO the employee should have been fired on the spot and charged with assault.
-
She did, but that is not the point. The point is that the hatred is there now. It has reared its ugly head. Many in the LGBT community may not be strong enough to go to the police if this happens...
-
It's crazy. There was never any hatred towards gays/trans/blacks/women/etc until trump was elected. /s
-
She did, but that is not the point. The point is that the hatred is there now. It has reared its ugly head. Many in the LGBT community may not be strong enough to go to the police if this happens...
The hatred was there before Trump was elected; the hatred would still be there if Clinton had been elected. Was there anything that was said by the retail employee to indicate that the election meant her actions were OK? I very much doubt that anyone feels they can get away with something like this because of election results.
Meanwhile there is also hatred and violence against Trump supporters in the streets of many cities. While this hatred was also there before the election, the violence is a response to it.
-
It's crazy. There was never any hatred towards gays/trans/blacks/women/etc until trump was elected. /s
The thing is though it was getting better. Now you have a guy that says its 100% ok to do this. If the leader of the country is openly racist, homophobic, transphobic, xenophobic that will let other know that it is ok.
IT IS NOT OK. Not at all, and if you think for one second that just because it used to be there makes it OK now, you sir are part of the problem
-
It's crazy. There was never any hatred towards gays/trans/blacks/women/etc until trump was elected. /s
Are you being willfully obtuse here? The point is that the (soon to be) most powerful person on the planet has basically just told these bigots that their hate is not only OK, but that they should feel comfortable expressing it as they see fit. Can you seriously not understand how this is terrifying to groups that are potential targets of that hate?
-
It's crazy. There was never any hatred towards gays/trans/blacks/women/etc until trump was elected. /s
Are you being willfully obtuse here? The point is that the (soon to be) most powerful person on the planet has basically just told these bigots that their hate is not only OK, but that they should feel comfortable expressing it as they see fit. Can you seriously not understand how this is terrifying to groups that are potential targets of that hate?
His privilege is showing... And for those who say that white privilege is a myth... this is what it looks like.
-
It's crazy. There was never any hatred towards gays/trans/blacks/women/etc until trump was elected. /s
The thing is though it was getting better. Now you have a guy that says its 100% ok to do this. If the leader of the country is openly racist, homophobic, transphobic, xenophobic that will let other know that it is ok.
IT IS NOT OK. Not at all, and if you think for one second that just because it used to be there makes it OK now, you sir are part of the problem
I agree it's not ok. The president doesn't make the laws. We already have laws on the books to deal with shit like this, and hopefully anyone committing any crimes will be punished. My point isn't that it's ok because it used to ok, my point is that this didn't suddenly spring up over night. I've witness people being racist and yelling at people calling them niggers, faggots, and all kinds of other hurt full names, people writing racist graffiti in the rest room, even people physically harming other people for race/religion/etc. All of it before trump. It's an on going problem that goes back thousands of years, and is going to continue to be a problem going forward. The problem is systemic and not strictly because of Trump. I have a sneaking suspicion it would continue to be a problem even if Hillary had won. I also have a suspicion that every person participating in these hates crimes had these view points and biases BEFORE trump was elected. They may be using this as an opportunity to act out, but the hatred was always inside them.
-
It's crazy. There was never any hatred towards gays/trans/blacks/women/etc until trump was elected. /s
The thing is though it was getting better. Now you have a guy that says its 100% ok to do this. If the leader of the country is openly racist, homophobic, transphobic, xenophobic that will let other know that it is ok.
IT IS NOT OK. Not at all, and if you think for one second that just because it used to be there makes it OK now, you sir are part of the problem
I agree it's not ok. The president doesn't make the laws. We already have laws on the books to deal with shit like this, and hopefully anyone committing any crimes will be punished. My point isn't that it's ok because it used to ok, my point is that this didn't suddenly spring up over night. I've witness people being racist and yelling at people calling them niggers, faggots, and all kinds of other hurt full names, people writing racist graffiti in the rest room, even people physically harming other people for race/religion/etc. All of it before trump. It's an on going problem that goes back thousands of years, and is going to continue to be a problem going forward. The problem is systemic and not strictly because of Trump. I have a sneaking suspicion it would continue to be a problem even if Hillary had won. I also have a suspicion that every person participating in these hates crimes had these view points and biases BEFORE trump was elected. They may be using this as an opportunity to act out, but the hatred was always inside them.
The truth is that the hate has always been here. But Trump has normalized it again. He has basically said it is ok to hate.
Yes there are laws in place, but Trump has said that he will do everything in his power to repeal these laws, so many are already not following them. many feel that all process in the LGBT movement will be lost with trump as president, and that is a fair thought, in my opinion.
People brushing it off as if it always has been there, we cant fix it, there is no point in trying is a large part of the issue. We need to take a stand for the betterment of the whole human race.
-
The truth is that the hate has always been here. But Trump has normalized it again. He has basically said it is ok to hate.
Yes there are laws in place, but Trump has said that he will do everything in his power to repeal these laws, so many are already not following them. many feel that all process in the LGBT movement will be lost with trump as president, and that is a fair thought, in my opinion.
People brushing it off as if it always has been there, we cant fix it, there is no point in trying is a large part of the issue. We need to take a stand for the betterment of the whole human race.
(1) Show me where and how Trump said "It is ok to hate"
and
(2) I'm pretty sure Trump isn't going to be repealing any laws about assault- seeing as that is what frugalnacho was talking about.
-
It's crazy. There was never any hatred towards gays/trans/blacks/women/etc until trump was elected. /s
Are you being willfully obtuse here? The point is that the (soon to be) most powerful person on the planet has basically just told these bigots that their hate is not only OK, but that they should feel comfortable expressing it as they see fit. Can you seriously not understand how this is terrifying to groups that are potential targets of that hate?
His privilege is showing... And for those who say that white privilege is a myth... this is what it looks like.
Yes I am an intelligent, straight, white male living in america. On the entire spectrum of humanity I hit the jackpot and I realize it.
I never said that Trumps views are ok, nor did I say I can't understand how it's not terrifying to groups that are targets of that hatred. In fact I said the exact opposite, I can totally understand it, however committing suicide because of it is a completely unreasonable and extreme over reaction.
-
The truth is that the hate has always been here. But Trump has normalized it again. He has basically said it is ok to hate.
Yes there are laws in place, but Trump has said that he will do everything in his power to repeal these laws, so many are already not following them. many feel that all process in the LGBT movement will be lost with trump as president, and that is a fair thought, in my opinion.
People brushing it off as if it always has been there, we cant fix it, there is no point in trying is a large part of the issue. We need to take a stand for the betterment of the whole human race.
(1) Show me where and how Trump said "It is ok to hate"
and
(2) I'm pretty sure Trump isn't going to be repealing any laws about assault- seeing as that is what frugalnacho was talking about.
1. Watch any of his early rallies. Where he is saying he will pay the lawyer bills if the beat the shit out of some one who disagrees. Where he makes fun of the handicapped person, where he grabs women by the pussy... come on why do I have to even explain this.
2. repeal, maybe not, but complete disregard...
-
It's crazy. There was never any hatred towards gays/trans/blacks/women/etc until trump was elected. /s
[/quote
Are you being willfully obtuse here? The point is that the (soon to be) most powerful person on the planet has basically just told these bigots that their hate is not only OK, but that they should feel comfortable expressing it as they see fit. Can you seriously not understand how this is terrifying to groups that are potential targets of that hate?
His privilege is showing... And for those who say that white privilege is a myth... this is what it looks like.
Yes I am an intelligent, straight, white male living in america. On the entire spectrum of humanity I hit the jackpot and I realize it.
I never said that Trumps views are ok, nor did I say I can't understand how it's not terrifying to groups that are targets of that hatred. In fact I said the exact opposite, I can totally understand it, however committing suicide because of it is a completely unreasonable and extreme over reaction.
Or the straw that broke the camels back right?
I know you have acknowledged your privilege before, but do you stand up for people that you see on the streets being picked on? Do you tell your coworkers to stop the racist or homophobic talk at work? or do you just listen and laugh...
More white males like you, like me need to step up and say something.
-
The truth is that the hate has always been here. But Trump has normalized it again. He has basically said it is ok to hate.
Yes there are laws in place, but Trump has said that he will do everything in his power to repeal these laws, so many are already not following them. many feel that all process in the LGBT movement will be lost with trump as president, and that is a fair thought, in my opinion.
People brushing it off as if it always has been there, we cant fix it, there is no point in trying is a large part of the issue. We need to take a stand for the betterment of the whole human race.
(1) Show me where and how Trump said "It is ok to hate"
and
(2) I'm pretty sure Trump isn't going to be repealing any laws about assault- seeing as that is what frugalnacho was talking about.
Sigh... Even more willfully obtuse. If you can't even admit that maybe, just maybe Trump just did the tiniest, ittiest little bit of courting bigots and xenophobes for their votes, there's no helping you. I'm not even asking you to acknowledge that Trump himself is a bigot or that he might be a bad president. Are you trolling or do you really think him literally saying "it's ok to hate" is what we're talking about here?!? smh.
-
Sigh... Even more willfully obtuse. If you can't even admit that maybe, just maybe Trump just did the tiniest, ittiest little bit of courting bigots and xenophobes for their votes, there's no helping you. I'm not even asking you to acknowledge that Trump himself is a bigot or that he might be a bad president. Are you trolling or do you really think him literally saying "it's ok to hate" is what we're talking about here?!? smh.
Assume that is true. Now look at the other side. Are you willing to admit that Hillary courted BLM racist thugs and people that are in the country illegally?
What's the difference?
-
It's crazy. There was never any hatred towards gays/trans/blacks/women/etc until trump was elected. /s
Are you being willfully obtuse here? The point is that the (soon to be) most powerful person on the planet has basically just told these bigots that their hate is not only OK, but that they should feel comfortable expressing it as they see fit. Can you seriously not understand how this is terrifying to groups that are potential targets of that hate?
His privilege is showing... And for those who say that white privilege is a myth... this is what it looks like.
Yes I am an intelligent, straight, white male living in america. On the entire spectrum of humanity I hit the jackpot and I realize it.
I never said that Trumps views are ok, nor did I say I can't understand how it's not terrifying to groups that are targets of that hatred. In fact I said the exact opposite, I can totally understand it, however committing suicide because of it is a completely unreasonable and extreme over reaction.
Or the straw that broke the camels back right?
I know you have acknowledged your privilege before, but do you stand up for people that you see on the streets being picked on? Do you tell your coworkers to stop the racist or homophobic talk at work? or do you just listen and laugh...
More white males like you, like me need to step up and say something.
The straw that broke the camels back? Back to my original point: He literally just got elected and isn't even in office for another 2 1/2 months. He talks a lot of shit, but nothing is even happening yet. I think suicide in the event that he actually follows through on repealing/overturning legislation and every worst case scenario for [insert oppressed minority] is an extreme over reaction. But committing suicide months before he even takes office, on the chance he might repeal some law, or officially promote hatred/discrimination? That is even more extreme. I wish I had a word that was even more extreme than extreme.
Yes I stand up for people if I see them being discriminated against. I openly speak out when I hear people expressing discriminatory views. I don't like it and I think the world would be a better place if people just stopped hating other people for no reason.
-
Sigh... Even more willfully obtuse. If you can't even admit that maybe, just maybe Trump just did the tiniest, ittiest little bit of courting bigots and xenophobes for their votes, there's no helping you. I'm not even asking you to acknowledge that Trump himself is a bigot or that he might be a bad president. Are you trolling or do you really think him literally saying "it's ok to hate" is what we're talking about here?!? smh.
Assume that is true. Now look at the other side. Are you willing to admit that Hillary courted BLM racist thugs and people that are in the country illegally?
What's the difference?
LOL. I don't have the time or inclination to educate you enough on civil rights and privilege for you to know why that comparison is asinine. Plus I very much doubt you would be receptive to learning anyway. So feel free to think I'm a liberal shill.
-
The truth is that the hate has always been here. But Trump has normalized it again. He has basically said it is ok to hate.
Yes there are laws in place, but Trump has said that he will do everything in his power to repeal these laws, so many are already not following them. many feel that all process in the LGBT movement will be lost with trump as president, and that is a fair thought, in my opinion.
People brushing it off as if it always has been there, we cant fix it, there is no point in trying is a large part of the issue. We need to take a stand for the betterment of the whole human race.
(1) Show me where and how Trump said "It is ok to hate"
and
(2) I'm pretty sure Trump isn't going to be repealing any laws about assault- seeing as that is what frugalnacho was talking about.
1. Watch any of his early rallies. Where he is saying he will pay the lawyer bills if the beat the shit out of some one who disagrees. Where he makes fun of the handicapped person, where he grabs women by the pussy... come on why do I have to even explain this.
2. repeal, maybe not, but complete disregard...
Specific links? Seriously.
Edit: I'm asking for specific examples because it is apparent (from the election results) that half the country (or nearly half) has been talking in an echo chamber without actually listening to the other side. Combine that with the media that has been cramming HRC down everyone's throat as well as teaming up (across the left and the right) to paint Trump as a homicidal maniac in the primaries and you get the result of people genuinely not understanding the other side.
Because of this, Yes, I legitimately question why you think he said "It is ok to hate" because you have been primed and framed to see him as such. If you would revisit what he said now, with the context of this election behind us, you might just realize that he didn't say what you heard (and were told by the media).
-
I never said that Trumps views are ok, nor did I say I can't understand how it's not terrifying to groups that are targets of that hatred. In fact I said the exact opposite, I can totally understand it, however committing suicide because of it is a completely unreasonable and extreme over reaction.
Look, you don't get to say that. You are not that person, you don't understand their situation. It may look "unreasonable" to you, or an "extreme over reaction" to you. But you are not walking in their shoes and don't get to say how they feel or how they should or should not react. You don't get to judge their reaction by your own standards and situation, and by your own lack of understanding and empathy.
If you want to carry on with making such statements, you need to qualify them. Instead of making the bald statement that someone else's actions are unreasonable and extreme, you would do better to acknowledge that there are people, who are American citizens just like you, who are being pushed to extremes you can't fathom because they are being subjected to levels of pain which are outside your experience and understanding.
-
(1) Show me where and how Trump said "It is ok to hate"
Because unlimited bigotry and hate is A-OK as long as it's not explicitly stated?
Are you willing to admit that Hillary courted BLM racist thugs and people that are in the country illegally?
Contrary to your apparent delusion, BLM isn't racist. And WTF do illegal immigrants have to do with any of this? It's like you're playing bigoted dog-whistle bingo or something.
-
The truth is that the hate has always been here. But Trump has normalized it again. He has basically said it is ok to hate.
Yes there are laws in place, but Trump has said that he will do everything in his power to repeal these laws, so many are already not following them. many feel that all process in the LGBT movement will be lost with trump as president, and that is a fair thought, in my opinion.
People brushing it off as if it always has been there, we cant fix it, there is no point in trying is a large part of the issue. We need to take a stand for the betterment of the whole human race.
(1) Show me where and how Trump said "It is ok to hate"
and
(2) I'm pretty sure Trump isn't going to be repealing any laws about assault- seeing as that is what frugalnacho was talking about.
1. Watch any of his early rallies. Where he is saying he will pay the lawyer bills if the beat the shit out of some one who disagrees. Where he makes fun of the handicapped person, where he grabs women by the pussy... come on why do I have to even explain this.
2. repeal, maybe not, but complete disregard...
Specific links? Seriously.
Edit: I'm asking for specific examples because it is apparent (from the election results) that half the country (or nearly half) has been talking in an echo chamber without actually listening to the other side. Combine that with the media that has been cramming HRC down everyone's throat as well as teaming up (across the left and the right) to paint Trump as a homicidal maniac in the primaries and you get the result of people genuinely not understanding the other side.
Because of this, Yes, I legitimately question why you think he said "It is ok to hate" because you have been primed and framed to see him as such. If you would revisit what he said now, with the context of this election behind us, you might just realize that he didn't say what you heard (and were told by the media).
These things were extremely widely reported on and there are numerous video clips where you can see these sorts of words come directly out of Donald Trump's mouth. No media spin, no agenda, just his words to your ears. Google is your friend. The fact that you don't even believe these literal quotes from Trump actually happened shows pretty clearly that we are not the ones brainwashed by slanted media.
-
The truth is that the hate has always been here. But Trump has normalized it again. He has basically said it is ok to hate.
Yes there are laws in place, but Trump has said that he will do everything in his power to repeal these laws, so many are already not following them. many feel that all process in the LGBT movement will be lost with trump as president, and that is a fair thought, in my opinion.
People brushing it off as if it always has been there, we cant fix it, there is no point in trying is a large part of the issue. We need to take a stand for the betterment of the whole human race.
(1) Show me where and how Trump said "It is ok to hate"
and
(2) I'm pretty sure Trump isn't going to be repealing any laws about assault- seeing as that is what frugalnacho was talking about.
1. Watch any of his early rallies. Where he is saying he will pay the lawyer bills if the beat the shit out of some one who disagrees. Where he makes fun of the handicapped person, where he grabs women by the pussy... come on why do I have to even explain this.
2. repeal, maybe not, but complete disregard...
"...they let you do this..."
not assault
btw, he wasn't the male that would be in the whitehouse with a string of sexual assault accusations
\
not sure why I am even bothering...
-
The straw that broke the camels back? Back to my original point: He literally just got elected and isn't even in office for another 2 1/2 months. He talks a lot of shit, but nothing is even happening yet.
What do you mean, "nothing is even happening yet?" The bigots' opinions have been vindicated (in their minds) by winning the election. They think they have a majority, and they think that makes it okay to wear their abusiveness on their sleeves in ways they didn't before. That's far from "nothing!"
-
You realize that suicide is always an extreme reaction right. That people who come to that decision in their lives honestly feel that it cannot possibly get better, no matter what happens. You understand that right? This is not something people just od... they think about this and ponder it for many many years some times...
LGBT people have among the highest rates for attempted suicide in North America(41% of LGBT youth attempt suicide before age 20). This is 22 times the national average. Now there are always many complex reasons to why someone may decide to take their own life. But societal bullying is the most common reason to those who are in the LGBT community.
My son get bullied every single day. Every one, there is not a day that goes by where he doesn't face bullying. Now my son has a very stable home, and me and his mom will fight for him no matter what, and he know that. But he still faces depression and anxiety.
The reason that I am telling you this is because 4/5 or 80% of LGBT youth is not supported by their families. Of that many get kicked out of their homes etc. Now if you are not supported at home, bullied every day in public, and then get the blow that the new leader of your country is going to repeal all of the progress that has been made to your freedoms. And you are already at the end of your rope, yes suicide becomes a very real option.
So step off your high horse. We all realize that suicide is an extreme option. But these people feel this is the end of the line for them anyway. The likely hood that this may or may not happen is not even coming into play here. These youth are already at the end of their ropes, and this becomes the only option they can imagine.
-
This was on another thread. I'm sure you pro-Trump guys will rationalize or dismiss it, but if you have any actual empathy for the oppressed, this is just a mere glimpse into the potential pandora's box he opened:
https://mobile.twitter.com/i/moments/796417517157830656?m=1
I truly hope this is just a spasm of hate and not the start of something broader and more sinister. Either way, you can be damn sure those who stand by in silence are well on the wrong side of history.
-
The truth is that the hate has always been here. But Trump has normalized it again. He has basically said it is ok to hate.
Yes there are laws in place, but Trump has said that he will do everything in his power to repeal these laws, so many are already not following them. many feel that all process in the LGBT movement will be lost with trump as president, and that is a fair thought, in my opinion.
People brushing it off as if it always has been there, we cant fix it, there is no point in trying is a large part of the issue. We need to take a stand for the betterment of the whole human race.
(1) Show me where and how Trump said "It is ok to hate"
and
(2) I'm pretty sure Trump isn't going to be repealing any laws about assault- seeing as that is what frugalnacho was talking about.
1. Watch any of his early rallies. Where he is saying he will pay the lawyer bills if the beat the shit out of some one who disagrees. Where he makes fun of the handicapped person, where he grabs women by the pussy... come on why do I have to even explain this.
2. repeal, maybe not, but complete disregard...
"...they let you do this..."
not assault
btw, he wasn't the male that would be in the whitehouse with a string of sexual assault accusations
\
not sure why I am even bothering...
I am going to post this https://www.google.ca/search?q=dose&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-US:IE-Address&ie=&oe=&gfe_rd=cr&ei=6t0kWIi8B4iN8QeFgLLIBQ#q=donald+trump+going+to+court+for+sexual+assault&safe=off&tbm=nws.
It is just a Google search so allow me to post some links as well.
http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/3/13501364/trump-rape-13-year-old-lawsuit-katie-johnson-allegation
http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/11/donald-trump-university-lawsuit
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/11/donald-trump-faces-hearing-for-trump-university-case.html
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/the-president-elect-faces-court-date-fraud-case
Now I know that these are all media related, but there must be something right? Thought so
-
I never said that Trumps views are ok, nor did I say I can't understand how it's not terrifying to groups that are targets of that hatred. In fact I said the exact opposite, I can totally understand it, however committing suicide because of it is a completely unreasonable and extreme over reaction.
Look, you don't get to say that. You are not that person, you don't understand their situation. It may look "unreasonable" to you, or an "extreme over reaction" to you. But you are not walking in their shoes and don't get to say how they feel or how they should or should not react. You don't get to judge their reaction by your own standards and situation, and by your own lack of understanding and empathy.
If you want to carry on with making such statements, you need to qualify them. Instead of making the bald statement that someone else's actions are unreasonable and extreme, you would do better to acknowledge that there are people, who are American citizens just like you, who are being pushed to extremes you can't fathom because they are being subjected to levels of pain which are outside your experience and understanding.
Well I just did say it.
I guess it's a completely reasonable reaction to have though. In fact I guess every single reaction anyone has to anything ever is completely reasonable and no one can pass judgement on any other person because no one can possibly understand what's going on inside any other person's mind.
-
I never said that Trumps views are ok, nor did I say I can't understand how it's not terrifying to groups that are targets of that hatred. In fact I said the exact opposite, I can totally understand it, however committing suicide because of it is a completely unreasonable and extreme over reaction.
Look, you don't get to say that. You are not that person, you don't understand their situation. It may look "unreasonable" to you, or an "extreme over reaction" to you. But you are not walking in their shoes and don't get to say how they feel or how they should or should not react. You don't get to judge their reaction by your own standards and situation, and by your own lack of understanding and empathy.
If you want to carry on with making such statements, you need to qualify them. Instead of making the bald statement that someone else's actions are unreasonable and extreme, you would do better to acknowledge that there are people, who are American citizens just like you, who are being pushed to extremes you can't fathom because they are being subjected to levels of pain which are outside your experience and understanding.
Well I just did say it.
I guess it's a completely reasonable reaction to have though. In fact I guess every single reaction anyone has to anything ever is completely reasonable and no one can pass judgement on any other person because no one can possibly understand what's going on inside any other person's mind.
I know you said that tongue in cheek, but it is the truth. I am sure you have had a bad day, then someone says the wrong thing to you, and you snap a little bit. Their thought is that asshole, but is that the case? I doubt it, just a bad day.
-
I never said that Trumps views are ok, nor did I say I can't understand how it's not terrifying to groups that are targets of that hatred. In fact I said the exact opposite, I can totally understand it, however committing suicide because of it is a completely unreasonable and extreme over reaction.
Look, you don't get to say that. You are not that person, you don't understand their situation. It may look "unreasonable" to you, or an "extreme over reaction" to you. But you are not walking in their shoes and don't get to say how they feel or how they should or should not react. You don't get to judge their reaction by your own standards and situation, and by your own lack of understanding and empathy.
If you want to carry on with making such statements, you need to qualify them. Instead of making the bald statement that someone else's actions are unreasonable and extreme, you would do better to acknowledge that there are people, who are American citizens just like you, who are being pushed to extremes you can't fathom because they are being subjected to levels of pain which are outside your experience and understanding.
Well I just did say it.
I guess it's a completely reasonable reaction to have though. In fact I guess every single reaction anyone has to anything ever is completely reasonable and no one can pass judgement on any other person because no one can possibly understand what's going on inside any other person's mind.
I know you said that tongue in cheek, but it is the truth. I am sure you have had a bad day, then someone says the wrong thing to you, and you snap a little bit. Their thought is that asshole, but is that the case? I doubt it, just a bad day.
So if someone snaps and murders another person, no passing judgement because you "just can't understand whats going on in their head". No way that murder was "an extreme overreaction"... /[sarcasm off]
Sheesh, and I'm the one being accused of mental gymnastics.
-
The truth is that the hate has always been here. But Trump has normalized it again. He has basically said it is ok to hate.
The actual hate and violence I've seen is from the anti-Trumpers.
Heck it's going on now. mini-riots, property damage, calls for violence and assassination on social media.
Why do they always only come out at night? bunch of cockroaches..
http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/3/13501364/trump-rape-13-year-old-lawsuit-katie-johnson-allegation
http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/11/donald-trump-university-lawsuit
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/11/donald-trump-faces-hearing-for-trump-university-case.html
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/the-president-elect-faces-court-date-fraud-case
Now I know that these are all media related, but there must be something right? Thought so
Lousy sources, proven to be divisive, alarmist, hateful, biased, untrustworthy.
-
I never said that Trumps views are ok, nor did I say I can't understand how it's not terrifying to groups that are targets of that hatred. In fact I said the exact opposite, I can totally understand it, however committing suicide because of it is a completely unreasonable and extreme over reaction.
Look, you don't get to say that. You are not that person, you don't understand their situation. It may look "unreasonable" to you, or an "extreme over reaction" to you. But you are not walking in their shoes and don't get to say how they feel or how they should or should not react. You don't get to judge their reaction by your own standards and situation, and by your own lack of understanding and empathy.
If you want to carry on with making such statements, you need to qualify them. Instead of making the bald statement that someone else's actions are unreasonable and extreme, you would do better to acknowledge that there are people, who are American citizens just like you, who are being pushed to extremes you can't fathom because they are being subjected to levels of pain which are outside your experience and understanding.
Well I just did say it.
I guess it's a completely reasonable reaction to have though. In fact I guess every single reaction anyone has to anything ever is completely reasonable and no one can pass judgement on any other person because no one can possibly understand what's going on inside any other person's mind.
I know you said that tongue in cheek, but it is the truth. I am sure you have had a bad day, then someone says the wrong thing to you, and you snap a little bit. Their thought is that asshole, but is that the case? I doubt it, just a bad day.
So if someone snaps and murders another person, no passing judgement because you "just can't understand whats going on in their head". No way that murder was "an extreme overreaction"... /[sarcasm off]
Sheesh, and I'm the one being accused of mental gymnastics.
Wow... Just wow...
-
The straw that broke the camels back? Back to my original point: He literally just got elected and isn't even in office for another 2 1/2 months. He talks a lot of shit, but nothing is even happening yet.
What do you mean, "nothing is even happening yet?" The bigots' opinions have been vindicated (in their minds) by winning the election. They think they have a majority, and they think that makes it okay to wear their abusiveness on their sleeves in ways they didn't before. That's far from "nothing!"
I mean that nothing had officially happened yet. My original response was to this quote:
I am a member of a support based group for transgender teens in North America. We have seen the lose of numerous youth 16-22(there have been 15 since the election results) The notes have one thing in common. That we cannot be ourselves now...
You may argue that adults have caused this, but trump said he would repel the marriage equality law. The VP said that he was for shock therapy to "fix" the gays... this is an issue. This is who was voted for
Marriage equality hasn't been repealed, and no one is administering shock therapy to gays. Nor will they. I have my doubts either of those things could even possibly happen, once he takes office. But he isn't even in office yet, he is just president elect. An LGBT person killing themselves is (in my opinion) a complete over reaction to the situation, and is very premature if it's for the reasons given.
Someone being the direct victim of a hate crime is a separate issue, and if people are ramping up bigotry and performing hate crimes because they feel vindicated that trump has been elected it is shameful and I feel sorry for their victims. Those assholes have been here all along though. I still don't think suicide is the most rational and reasonable reaction though, even if they are currently being victimized by bigoted assholes that some how feel it's ok now that trump is president elect. I don't think (certainly hope) that this is just a temporary lashing out by those assholes, and won't be tolerated long term.
-
Are you willing to admit that Hillary courted BLM racist thugs and people that are in the country illegally?
Contrary to your apparent delusion, BLM isn't racist. And WTF do illegal immigrants have to do with any of this? It's like you're playing bigoted dog-whistle bingo or something.
Bigoted dog whistle? Lol...all you're doing is repeating a Democrat talking point.
BLM does contain plenty of racists...you just won't see the evidence watching mainstream media. As to illegal immigrants...well, first of all, they are NOT immigrants. They are people who are in the US illegally. Try to grasp that simple fact.
Hillary played on the fears that people in the US illegally might be deported and accused Trump of racism for wanting to uphold existing immigration laws. Only brainwashed progressives see this as racism. Everyone else sees it as a country protecting the sanctity of their borders.
-
The truth is that the hate has always been here. But Trump has normalized it again. He has basically said it is ok to hate.
The actual hate and violence I've seen is from the anti-Trumpers.
Heck it's going on now. mini-riots, property damage, calls for violence and assassination on social media.
Why do they always only come out at night? bunch of cockroaches..
http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/3/13501364/trump-rape-13-year-old-lawsuit-katie-johnson-allegation
http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/11/donald-trump-university-lawsuit
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/11/donald-trump-faces-hearing-for-trump-university-case.html
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/the-president-elect-faces-court-date-fraud-case
Now I know that these are all media related, but there must be something right? Thought so
Lousy sources, proven to be divisive, alarmist, hateful, biased, untrustworthy.
In other words you disagree with them.
The people who are rioting now should be ashamed as well. If you feel the need to protest that is your right in the USA, but do it peacefully.
-
The truth is that the hate has always been here. But Trump has normalized it again. He has basically said it is ok to hate.
The actual hate and violence I've seen is from the anti-Trumpers.
Heck it's going on now. mini-riots, property damage, calls for violence and assassination on social media.
Why do they always only come out at night? bunch of cockroaches..
http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/3/13501364/trump-rape-13-year-old-lawsuit-katie-johnson-allegation
http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/11/donald-trump-university-lawsuit
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/11/donald-trump-faces-hearing-for-trump-university-case.html
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/the-president-elect-faces-court-date-fraud-case
Now I know that these are all media related, but there must be something right? Thought so
Lousy sources, proven to be divisive, alarmist, hateful, biased, untrustworthy.
In other words you disagree with them.
The people who are rioting now should be ashamed as well. If you feel the need to protest that is your right in the USA, but do it peacefully.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/us-election/trump-due-in-court-for-fraud-trial-before-assuming-office/article32785783/
Globe and mail good enough for you?
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/campaign-2016-donald-trump-trial-date-set-in-trump-university-lawsuit/
CBS?
-
The straw that broke the camels back? Back to my original point: He literally just got elected and isn't even in office for another 2 1/2 months. He talks a lot of shit, but nothing is even happening yet.
What do you mean, "nothing is even happening yet?" The bigots' opinions have been vindicated (in their minds) by winning the election. They think they have a majority, and they think that makes it okay to wear their abusiveness on their sleeves in ways they didn't before. That's far from "nothing!"
I mean that nothing had officially happened yet. My original response was to this quote:
I am a member of a support based group for transgender teens in North America. We have seen the lose of numerous youth 16-22(there have been 15 since the election results) The notes have one thing in common. That we cannot be ourselves now...
You may argue that adults have caused this, but trump said he would repel the marriage equality law. The VP said that he was for shock therapy to "fix" the gays... this is an issue. This is who was voted for
Marriage equality hasn't been repealed, and no one is administering shock therapy to gays. Nor will they. I have my doubts either of those things could even possibly happen, once he takes office. But he isn't even in office yet, he is just president elect. An LGBT person killing themselves is (in my opinion) a complete over reaction to the situation, and is very premature if it's for the reasons given.
Someone being the direct victim of a hate crime is a separate issue, and if people are ramping up bigotry and performing hate crimes because they feel vindicated that trump has been elected it is shameful and I feel sorry for their victims. Those assholes have been here all along though. I still don't think suicide is the most rational and reasonable reaction though, even if they are currently being victimized by bigoted assholes that some how feel it's ok now that trump is president elect. I don't think (certainly hope) that this is just a temporary lashing out by those assholes, and won't be tolerated long term.
Suicide in general is not a rational and reasonable reaction. Your apparent utter void of empathy isn't making you look very human, though. Whether it is the case or not, you are giving the impression that their concerns are invalid and premature and they're silly for committing suicide.
Well, they're gone now, while you brush off their concerns as ridiculous.
-
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/us-election/trump-due-in-court-for-fraud-trial-before-assuming-office/article32785783/
Globe and mail good enough for you?
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/campaign-2016-donald-trump-trial-date-set-in-trump-university-lawsuit/
CBS?
accusation of fraud =/ hate
In other words you disagree with them.
No. Very different. C'mon, be logical.
-
Ever notice that it's always the left that riot in the street when they don't get their way?
-
The straw that broke the camels back? Back to my original point: He literally just got elected and isn't even in office for another 2 1/2 months. He talks a lot of shit, but nothing is even happening yet.
What do you mean, "nothing is even happening yet?" The bigots' opinions have been vindicated (in their minds) by winning the election. They think they have a majority, and they think that makes it okay to wear their abusiveness on their sleeves in ways they didn't before. That's far from "nothing!"
I mean that nothing had officially happened yet. My original response was to this quote:
I am a member of a support based group for transgender teens in North America. We have seen the lose of numerous youth 16-22(there have been 15 since the election results) The notes have one thing in common. That we cannot be ourselves now...
You may argue that adults have caused this, but trump said he would repel the marriage equality law. The VP said that he was for shock therapy to "fix" the gays... this is an issue. This is who was voted for
Marriage equality hasn't been repealed, and no one is administering shock therapy to gays. Nor will they. I have my doubts either of those things could even possibly happen, once he takes office. But he isn't even in office yet, he is just president elect. An LGBT person killing themselves is (in my opinion) a complete over reaction to the situation, and is very premature if it's for the reasons given.
Someone being the direct victim of a hate crime is a separate issue, and if people are ramping up bigotry and performing hate crimes because they feel vindicated that trump has been elected it is shameful and I feel sorry for their victims. Those assholes have been here all along though. I still don't think suicide is the most rational and reasonable reaction though, even if they are currently being victimized by bigoted assholes that some how feel it's ok now that trump is president elect. I don't think (certainly hope) that this is just a temporary lashing out by those assholes, and won't be tolerated long term.
Suicide in general is not a rational and reasonable reaction. Your apparent utter void of empathy isn't making you look very human, though. Whether it is the case or not, you are giving the impression that their concerns are invalid and premature and they're silly for committing suicide.
Well, they're gone now, while you brush off their concerns as ridiculous.
I don't understand how i'm being void of empathy. I don't understand why I can't have the opinion that their concerns are invalid/premature either. Maybe I should kill myself because some people on the internet disagree with me? Or maybe because my local sports team lost last night? Are those valid reasons be default because you'd be an inhuman monster to pass judgement that maybe it was an over reaction?
This thread has gotten way off topic and getting hard to keep up with all the replies.
-
Sure, we're the ones doing mental gymnastics... You Trump supports are all doing a bang-up job avoiding quite a few things that have been said that have any chance of causing icky cognitive dissonance and/or that can't be "debunked" through sloppy generalities, ignorance stated as fact, or whopping red herrings.
To repeat, for the purpose of our current discussion, you don't have to even admit Trump himself is a racist. I'll even let you claim he will be a "great" president. That doesn't chance some simple fundamental facts about how he has very obviously influenced certain less savory segments of the population. And you don't even have the decency to say something like "yes, that is a regrettable side-effect of his campaign, but I'm confident he will do good in the long run."
-
The straw that broke the camels back? Back to my original point: He literally just got elected and isn't even in office for another 2 1/2 months. He talks a lot of shit, but nothing is even happening yet.
What do you mean, "nothing is even happening yet?" The bigots' opinions have been vindicated (in their minds) by winning the election. They think they have a majority, and they think that makes it okay to wear their abusiveness on their sleeves in ways they didn't before. That's far from "nothing!"
I mean that nothing had officially happened yet. My original response was to this quote:
I am a member of a support based group for transgender teens in North America. We have seen the lose of numerous youth 16-22(there have been 15 since the election results) The notes have one thing in common. That we cannot be ourselves now...
You may argue that adults have caused this, but trump said he would repel the marriage equality law. The VP said that he was for shock therapy to "fix" the gays... this is an issue. This is who was voted for
Marriage equality hasn't been repealed, and no one is administering shock therapy to gays. Nor will they. I have my doubts either of those things could even possibly happen, once he takes office. But he isn't even in office yet, he is just president elect. An LGBT person killing themselves is (in my opinion) a complete over reaction to the situation, and is very premature if it's for the reasons given.
Someone being the direct victim of a hate crime is a separate issue, and if people are ramping up bigotry and performing hate crimes because they feel vindicated that trump has been elected it is shameful and I feel sorry for their victims. Those assholes have been here all along though. I still don't think suicide is the most rational and reasonable reaction though, even if they are currently being victimized by bigoted assholes that some how feel it's ok now that trump is president elect. I don't think (certainly hope) that this is just a temporary lashing out by those assholes, and won't be tolerated long term.
Suicide in general is not a rational and reasonable reaction. Your apparent utter void of empathy isn't making you look very human, though. Whether it is the case or not, you are giving the impression that their concerns are invalid and premature and they're silly for committing suicide.
Well, they're gone now, while you brush off their concerns as ridiculous.
I don't understand how i'm being void of empathy. I don't understand why I can't have the opinion that their concerns are invalid/premature either. Maybe I should kill myself because some people on the internet disagree with me? Or maybe because my local sports team lost last night? Are those valid reasons be default because you'd be an inhuman monster to pass judgement that maybe it was an over reaction?
This thread has gotten way off topic and getting hard to keep up with all the replies.
You may have any opinion you wish. I'm just pointing out to you how you appear.
However, as you just equated LGBT oppression, hatred, harassment, and unequal rights with your local sports team losing a game, I think any productive discussion is simply impossible. You don't have a clue.
-
Sure, we're the ones doing mental gymnastics... You Trump supports are all doing a bang-up job avoiding quite a few things that have been said that have any chance of causing icky cognitive dissonance and/or that can't be "debunked" through sloppy generalities, ignorance stated as fact, or whopping red herrings.
To repeat, for the purpose of our current discussion, you don't have to even admit Trump himself is a racist. I'll even let you claim he will be a "great" president. That doesn't chance some simple fundamental facts about how he has very obviously influenced certain less savory segments of the population. And you don't even have the decency to say something like "yes, that is a regrettable side-effect of his campaign, but I'm confident he will do good in the long run."
Are you under the impression I am pro trump?
You may have any opinion you wish. I'm just pointing out to you how you appear.
However, as you just equated LGBT oppression, hatred, harassment, and unequal rights with your local sports team losing a game, I think any productive discussion is simply impossible. You don't have a clue.
You didn't really answer me. I thought my extreme satirical example was obvious. Just for the record that has actually happened before. Some people take their sports very seriously. Clearly we can simply dismiss them as over reacting though.
-
BLM does contain plenty of racists...
By the nature of the problem, every group trying to address racial issues is going to contain some racists. There is no evidence whatsoever that BLM contains even an average proportion of them, let alone "plenty," and even less that Clinton was courting specifically the "racist thugs" in BLM rather than aligning herself with BLM in general.
As to illegal immigrants...well, first of all, they are NOT immigrants. They are people who are in the US illegally. Try to grasp that simple fact.
"People who are in the US illegally" have committed a moral offense orders of magnitude less bad than people who commit bigotry (at least in the opinion of anyone who isn't a bigot himself). And you're the one who tried to equate Hillary courting immigrants with Trump courting bigots, as if they were somehow equivalent!
Oh, by the way: try to grasp the fact that "immigrant" as a definition relates to the purpose for which the people are here (i.e., that they intend to stay permanently and aren't merely on vacation or a business trip or something). It has nothing to do with whether they've followed the rules or not. Illegal immigrants are still immigrants.
What do you mean, "nothing is even happening yet?" The bigots' opinions have been vindicated (in their minds) by winning the election. They think they have a majority, and they think that makes it okay to wear their abusiveness on their sleeves in ways they didn't before. That's far from "nothing!"
I mean that nothing had officially happened yet. My original response was to this quote:
I am a member of a support based group for transgender teens in North America. We have seen the lose of numerous youth 16-22(there have been 15 since the election results) The notes have one thing in common. That we cannot be ourselves now...
You may argue that adults have caused this, but trump said he would repel the marriage equality law. The VP said that he was for shock therapy to "fix" the gays... this is an issue. This is who was voted for
Marriage equality hasn't been repealed, and no one is administering shock therapy to gays. Nor will they. I have my doubts either of those things could even possibly happen, once he takes office. But he isn't even in office yet, he is just president elect. An LGBT person killing themselves is (in my opinion) a complete over reaction to the situation, and is very premature if it's for the reasons given.
I understand the point you're trying to make. However, the real, "official" thing that has happened is that the probability of any of those policies passing has just gone from "remote" to "likely." That's not a hypothetical change.
-
Are you under the impression I am pro trump?
Not necessarily in your case, although (correct me if I'm wrong) you still seem unwilling to acknowledge that his campaign was based in part on stoking bigotry among his base or that having a presidential candidate do such things with no consequences directly empowers an increase in related public rhetoric and hate-crimes.
The posters who clearly are pro-Trump deny/ignore this, I presume, because they either sympathize with those bigoted views, think race-baiting/xenophobia/homophobia is no big deal, or possibly just refuse to admit any flaw in their chosen one (and/or that they would vote for such a person) and thus lie to themselves about it.
-
Unfortunately, crying wolf like the person who made up a story about two men attacking her and stealing her wallet and hijab on Wednesday (http://www.theadvertiser.com/story/news/crime/2016/11/09/ul-student-robbed-wallet-hijab-near-campus/93572808/) doesn't help anyone.
I believe the LGBT kids who committed suicide felt real pain. I believe that, if those kids had a better appreciation of the very low likelihood that Trump/Pence will bring to fruition any of the extreme things Trump/Pence have been accused of planning to implement, said kids would not have felt as much pain.
...his campaign was based in part on stoking bigotry among his base...
Of course it was. So was Clinton's. Attacking LGBT people and police are both deplorable, but the "win at all costs" philosophy of both major parties leads to those results.
-
Are you under the impression I am pro trump?
Not necessarily in your case, although (correct me if I'm wrong) you still seem unwilling to acknowledge that his campaign was based in part on stoking bigotry among his base or that having a presidential candidate do such things with no consequences directly empowers an increase in related public rhetoric and hate-crimes.
The posters who clearly are pro-Trump deny/ignore this, I presume, because they either sympathize with those bigoted views, think race-baiting/xenophobia/homophobia is no big deal, or possibly just refuse to admit any flaw in their chosen one (and/or that they would vote for such a person) and thus lie to themselves about it.
Or we recognize the extreme stretching that comes from the left in taking what he said and turning it into something completely different. As such, I wanted him to (but I know he wont) go re-watch the exact things Trump said or did that "said its ok to hate". There aren't any. It is all fabricated by cognitive dissonance. Because of this, it doesn't matter that Trump may be one of the best things that happens to the socially liberal minded segment of the US because they wont see or listem to what he is actually saying/doing.
I'll give you an example from this forum:
Point of order, I'm no Trump supporter, but most of his policies that people get their panties in a wad over are not about CITIZENS, they're targeted at immigrants (Mexican and Muslim).
I also think it used to be okay to be against ILLEGAL immigration and be for vetting potential immigrants without being racist up until anti-Trumpers decided to make sure everyone felt it was default racist.
Except that he vilifies plenty of citizens - remember the judge of Mexican heritage? OR:
1. “President Obama is the least transparent president in the history of this country.”
I refuse to believe the FBI did a thorough background check the FBI did on this n-gger. He is too dark to be my president.
2. “I’m very honored to have gotten him to release his long form birth certificate, or whatever it may be.”
You see how much power I have? i got the only n-gger president to do what I told him to.
3. “I have a deal for the president. A deal that I don’t believe he can refuse.”
Naturally, I believe I’m mentally superior you n-ggers. Hopefully, you won’t realize I’m offering one of the shittiest deals in the history of business and dealing.
4. “If Barack Obama opens up and gives his college records and application, and if he gives his passport applications and records, I will give to a charity of his choice–Inner City Children in Chicago, the American Cancer Society, AIDS research, anything he wants–immediately a check for $5 million.”
If that boy shows me his freedom papers, I’ll an amount of money I wipe my ass with to a little negro organization you choose to champion. If you break it down, Donald Trump’s $5 million equals $91 of poor people money.
-
Ah yes, that strategy. Claim the "other side" does the same thing by drawing false parallels. Of course, even if these were in fact reasonable comparisons, the principled thing to do is still to admit that your candidate has behaved in a dangerous fashion that is demonstrably stoking hatred and potentially (but hopefully not) could lead us down a very ugly road.
-
Ah yes, the other strategy. Claim the "other side" does the same thing by drawing false parallels. Of course, even if these were in fact reasonable comparisons, the principled thing to do is still admit that your candidate has behaved in a dangerous fashion that is already stoking hatred and potentially (but hopefully not) could lead us down a very ugly road.
Nope. Nope. Nope, nopitty nope and nope. I am saying the other side has taken his statements out of context (action A) not that his statements are as disparaging as the actions of the other side (which would be Action B). It is not 'the other', separate actions means you are not actually recognizing my argument.
(IE, 'the other' is that group A did 'Action A' so when group B does 'Action A' it is acceptable. I am stating the actions are different).
-
Got it. I've highlighted the relevant portion of my above post for you:
The posters who clearly are pro-Trump deny/ignore this, I presume, because they either sympathize with those bigoted views, think race-baiting/xenophobia/homophobia is no big deal, or possibly just refuse to admit any flaw in their chosen one (and/or that they would vote for such a person) and thus lie to themselves about it.
Edit - And before you try to disagree with that, go back through the last couple pages of the thread and carefully note which posts asked questions or provided information that you completely ignored. Cognitive dissonance is certainly uncomfortable, but sometimes we have to face our demons.
-
I'll certainly admit that he's lewd and crass. And definitely misogynistic to the extent that most (dare I saw all) men are. But insofar as labeling him a racist its your cognitive dissonance that painted that picture. Trump won 8% of the black vote. If he is nearly as racist as he has been painted, why did 1.4 million black voters pick him?...
Edit - And before you try to disagree with that, go back through the last couple pages of the thread and carefully note which posts asked questions or provided information that you completely ignored. Cognitive dissonance is certainly uncomfortable, but sometimes we have to face our demons.
And can you point out what, exactly, I'm ignoring?
My point is, the image of Trump that has been painted by the media and the destructive campaigning by both sides has resulted in a bitter election where we have riots and people polling for the electoral college to abandon our government's structure. There is a window, right now, for the democratic party to step out of the echo chamber and find common ground that will advance the nation as a whole- but it only happens if people realize Trump isn't the Hilteresque monster that he is painted as.
Just out of curiosity, did you watch his victory speech? It might surprise you.
Edit: apparently I received a warning for the text in red above. Sorry for offending anyone with my opinion and view of reality. Please feel free to directly point it out next time. Funny that my warning level was increased, but the mod didn't feel the need to modify or clarify this post in any manner. Whatever.
-
Nope. Nope. Nope, nopitty nope and nope. I am saying the other side has taken his statements out of context (action A) not that his statements are as disparaging as the actions of the other side (which would be Action B).
So when Trump stated that Mexico is sending us "not the right people" and "people with lots of problems," what do you think he meant? "They're rapists," he claimed. How is that taken of context? He did walk it back a bit with an, "And some, I assume, are good people" but the overall message is not stoking hatred towards immigrants?
I have some framers working on a garage in my backyard. Should I be worried about them because they're most likely druggies and rapists? Or maybe these guys, while "not the right people," are the "some" who are "good people?"
-
Or we recognize the extreme stretching that comes from the left in taking what he said and turning it into something completely different. As such, I wanted him to (but I know he wont) go re-watch the exact things Trump said or did that "said its ok to hate". There aren't any. It is all fabricated by cognitive dissonance. Because of this, it doesn't matter that Trump may be one of the best things that happens to the socially liberal minded segment of the US because they wont see or listem to what he is actually saying/doing.
I have no idea if Trump is actually a racist, and to my knowledge he's always been good about maintaining plausible deniability in all of his statements. But he is definitely cultivating xenophobia and hate. He would constantly throw out the shape of a racist idea and then backpedal, reeling the hook in:
Lets ban muslims from entering the country, you know that's not very different from the Japanese internment camps, oh I don't like the idea of internment camps but can't say for sure either way, but we definitely have to do something, like maybe a Muslim database, well maybe I won't have a Muslim database after all.
or:
Oh, my supporters beat up an (ethnic) homeless man? That might be a shame, but either way at least they are very passionate! Oh, a black protester got beat up at my rally? Maybe he should have been beat up, but I wouldn't really know the details.
I get it. Trump is a super intellectual and therefore cannot say very much for sure because of course everything depends heavily on the exact circumstances. But any reasonable politician NOT courting the racist demographic would definitively come out against these actions, and any future violence.
Trump never outright said "it's OK to hate, " he demonstrated that it's ok to hate by condoning the hate.
Think what you want of Clinton (I sure do), but when her supporters attacked Trump supporters, she immediately denounced it. Obviously, there are assholes in all parties, and she may be insincere, but she did what she could to stop violence. The same cannot be said of Trump.
-
A coworker's high school children were told today to start packing their bags, they're going to be deported come January. By their classmates at a fairly selective school. Two boys even offered to tell the police their address so when Trump started rounding people up they could find them faster. The children are third generation Americans. This is harassment, intimidation, and threats that are new and in the open and directly related to the election of Trump. Before yesterday, the worst thing that happened is everyone assumed they spoke Spanish, and some people assumed they didn't speak much English. They are fluent.
-
Just out of curiosity, did you watch his victory speech? It might surprise you.
Everyone knows what he said in his victory speech. It was all over the news, even if I hadn't watched it. I was glad he tried to be presidential for once, but that doesn't change anything about the damage that now needs to be undone. This persecution complex among his supporters is really something else. Look, I get it. You get a lot of hate thrown your way by liberals who really don't bother to to think outside of their usual box. If it helps bring perspective, I probably would have voted for Kaisch, or possibly for Romney if he had run again. No way on Ted Cruz, and #neverTrump for reasons that far transcend any liberal lean I might have.
Clearly we all need to collaborate if we want to move forward productively, but as already been pointed out ad naseum, we know Republicans in congress are vehemently opposed to reaching across the aisle and the incoming administration appears at least as unwilling to try. One need only read through the info on probable cabinet members to see the picture there.
Regardless, none of that invalidates the already demonstrable increase in blatant bigotry across the country since Trump started intentionally stoking those fires. You can call it a tactic and claim he won't actually enact policy based on that tactic all you want, but at least admit that this is not just the same as it ever was. People like you need to do this if any sort of collaborative healing is actually going to happen. And Trumpites need to stop comparing BLM or Planned Parenthood to the KKK or neo-nazi groups if you want to be taken seriously that you actually want to work together to heal our social wounds.
-
I have no idea if Trump is actually a racist, and to my knowledge he's always been good about maintaining plausible deniability in all of his statements. But he is definitely cultivating xenophobia and hate. He would constantly throw out the shape of a racist idea and then backpedal, reeling the hook in:
Lets ban muslims from entering the country, you know that's not very different from the Japanese internment camps, oh I don't like the idea of internment camps but can't say for sure either way, but we definitely have to do something, like maybe a Muslim database, well maybe I won't have a Muslim database after all.
Be sure to let me know when Islam becomes a race. In the meanwhile, I'll continue to support the idea that we need to ban or postpone immigration from a geopolitical area that has a faction with "Death to America" on its official flag. (Sources because I don't like being in a bubble: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_to_America (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_to_America) as well as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Houthis (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Houthis) and: http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/who-are-yemen-s-houthis-what-do-they-want-n665636 (http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/who-are-yemen-s-houthis-what-do-they-want-n665636))
or:
Oh, my supporters beat up an (ethnic) homeless man? That might be a shame, but either way at least they are very passionate! Oh, a black protester got beat up at my rally? Maybe he should have been beat up, but I wouldn't really know the details.
I actually don't know of these two quotes. Do you have a video link to them?...
I get it. Trump is a super intellectual and therefore cannot say very much for sure because of course everything depends heavily on the exact circumstances. But any reasonable politician NOT courting the racist demographic would definitively come out against these actions, and any future violence.
Trump never outright said "it's OK to hate, " he demonstrated that it's ok to hate by condoning the hate.
Think what you want of Clinton (I sure do), but when her supporters attacked Trump supporters, she immediately denounced it. Obviously, there are assholes in all parties, and she may be insincere, but she did what she could to stop violence. The same cannot be said of Trump.
And, FYI, the party that is encouraging violence isn't the party that one. (DNC strongly encouraged violence: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/21/us/politics/video-dnc-trump-rallies.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/21/us/politics/video-dnc-trump-rallies.html)
-
I have no idea if Trump is actually a racist, and to my knowledge he's always been good about maintaining plausible deniability in all of his statements. But he is definitely cultivating xenophobia and hate. He would constantly throw out the shape of a racist idea and then backpedal, reeling the hook in:
Lets ban muslims from entering the country, you know that's not very different from the Japanese internment camps, oh I don't like the idea of internment camps but can't say for sure either way, but we definitely have to do something, like maybe a Muslim database, well maybe I won't have a Muslim database after all.
Be sure to let me know when Islam becomes a race. In the meanwhile, I'll continue to support the idea that we need to ban or postpone immigration from a geopolitical area that has a faction with "Death to America" on its official flag. (Sources because I don't like being in a bubble: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_to_America (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_to_America) as well as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Houthis (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Houthis) and: http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/who-are-yemen-s-houthis-what-do-they-want-n665636 (http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/who-are-yemen-s-houthis-what-do-they-want-n665636))
Uh, I didn't say Islam was a race. I said Trump courts xenophobia. Islam is certainly an outsider religion. But hey, be sure to let me know when Islam becomes a geopolitical region. It ain't. I'm sure there are plenty of British, German, and U.S. born Muslims who are being harassed (and remember, the majority of "Japanese" internees were U.S. citizens).
or:
Oh, my supporters beat up an (ethnic) homeless man? That might be a shame, but either way at least they are very passionate! Oh, a black protester got beat up at my rally? Maybe he should have been beat up, but I wouldn't really know the details.
I actually don't know of these two quotes. Do you have a video link to them?...
Homeless man: Here's an article where he said "I haven’t heard about that ... It would be a shame, but I haven’t heard about that. I will say that people who are following me are very passionate. They love this country and they want this country to be great again. They are passionate. I will say that, and everybody here has reported it.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/08/21/trump-says-fans-are-very-passionate-after-hearing-one-of-them-allegedly-assaulted-hispanic-man/
Four days later, he did tweet: "Boston incident is terrible. We need energy and passion, but we must treat each other with respect. I would never condone violence."
So that's good for him, but it certainly sends a mixed message at first, and it fits my impression of his strategy to hit his most zealous followers with a message they can internalize and later walk it back.
Black protester: Here's an article with video of the "roughing up" and later trump saying "maybe he should have been roughed up"
http://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2015/11/22/donald-trump-protester-roughed-up-fox-and-friends-alabama-sot.cnn
I personally think protesting a rally is kinda a dick move, but I still don't think non-violent protesters should be roughed up and I believe the ambiguity of Trump's message is calculated to tacitly approve while at the same technically not an endorsement.
I get it. Trump is a super intellectual and therefore cannot say very much for sure because of course everything depends heavily on the exact circumstances. But any reasonable politician NOT courting the racist demographic would definitively come out against these actions, and any future violence.
Trump never outright said "it's OK to hate, " he demonstrated that it's ok to hate by condoning the hate.
Think what you want of Clinton (I sure do), but when her supporters attacked Trump supporters, she immediately denounced it. Obviously, there are assholes in all parties, and she may be insincere, but she did what she could to stop violence. The same cannot be said of Trump.
And, FYI, the party that is encouraging violence isn't the party that one. (DNC strongly encouraged violence: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/21/us/politics/video-dnc-trump-rallies.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/21/us/politics/video-dnc-trump-rallies.html)
If your argument is that Clinton's supporters tried to antagonize Trump supporters, well I guess it worked. I don't have much love for Clinton, and I personally hope Trump turns out to be a good president, but "she poked me first" isn't really a valid excuse for the results of his campaign.
-
I have no idea if Trump is actually a racist, and to my knowledge he's always been good about maintaining plausible deniability in all of his statements. But he is definitely cultivating xenophobia and hate. He would constantly throw out the shape of a racist idea and then backpedal, reeling the hook in:
Lets ban muslims from entering the country, you know that's not very different from the Japanese internment camps, oh I don't like the idea of internment camps but can't say for sure either way, but we definitely have to do something, like maybe a Muslim database, well maybe I won't have a Muslim database after all.
Be sure to let me know when Islam becomes a race. In the meanwhile, I'll continue to support the idea that we need to ban or postpone immigration from a geopolitical area that has a faction with "Death to America" on its official flag. (Sources because I don't like being in a bubble: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_to_America (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_to_America) as well as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Houthis (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Houthis) and: http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/who-are-yemen-s-houthis-what-do-they-want-n665636 (http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/who-are-yemen-s-houthis-what-do-they-want-n665636))
Uh, I didn't say Islam was a race. I said Trump courts xenophobia. Islam is certainly an outsider religion. But hey, be sure to let me know when Islam becomes a geopolitical region. It ain't. I'm sure there are plenty of British, German, and U.S. born Muslims who are being harassed (and remember, the majority of "Japanese" internees were U.S. citizens).
And Trump actually said he was for a ban on immigration of refugees and persons from majority-Muslim countries. Not actually a religious requirement. It is a painful and sad condition but then again if we stayed out then maybe it wouldn't be nearly as much of a problem now (yes, I recognize that was/is a bipartisan problem).
or:
Oh, my supporters beat up an (ethnic) homeless man? That might be a shame, but either way at least they are very passionate! Oh, a black protester got beat up at my rally? Maybe he should have been beat up, but I wouldn't really know the details.
I actually don't know of these two quotes. Do you have a video link to them?...
Homeless man: Here's an article where he said "I haven’t heard about that ... It would be a shame, but I haven’t heard about that. I will say that people who are following me are very passionate. They love this country and they want this country to be great again. They are passionate. I will say that, and everybody here has reported it.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/08/21/trump-says-fans-are-very-passionate-after-hearing-one-of-them-allegedly-assaulted-hispanic-man/
Four days later, he did tweet: "Boston incident is terrible. We need energy and passion, but we must treat each other with respect. I would never condone violence."
So that's good for him, but it certainly sends a mixed message at first, and it fits my impression of his strategy to hit his most zealous followers with a message they can internalize and later walk it back.
Are you kidding me? He literally said "that would be a shame but I haven't heard about it"... Then he tried to steer the conversation by turning to something more positive. That isn't his failure but rather the media taking a 'nothing' event and making something out of it. If you want a similar example, remember the outcry that Trump didn't denounce the KKK "quick enough" when he was on a talk show.
Black protester: Here's an article with video of the "roughing up" and later trump saying "maybe he should have been roughed up"
http://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2015/11/22/donald-trump-protester-roughed-up-fox-and-friends-alabama-sot.cnn
I personally think protesting a rally is kinda a dick move, but I still don't think non-violent protesters should be roughed up and I believe the ambiguity of Trump's message is calculated to tacitly approve while at the same technically not an endorsement.
And what you see as a stamp of approval, I see as the nominee not wanting to alienate his own supporters. What you said ("I personally think protesting a rally is kinda a dick move") is something I see as the equivalent of Trump saying "maybe he should have been roughed up". It is the same sentiment- plus you gotta remember that the Drumf is from New York, viewing him in that context is important.
I get it. Trump is a super intellectual and therefore cannot say very much for sure because of course everything depends heavily on the exact circumstances. But any reasonable politician NOT courting the racist demographic would definitively come out against these actions, and any future violence.
Trump never outright said "it's OK to hate, " he demonstrated that it's ok to hate by condoning the hate.
Think what you want of Clinton (I sure do), but when her supporters attacked Trump supporters, she immediately denounced it. Obviously, there are assholes in all parties, and she may be insincere, but she did what she could to stop violence. The same cannot be said of Trump.
And, FYI, the party that is encouraging violence isn't the party that one. (DNC strongly encouraged violence: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/21/us/politics/video-dnc-trump-rallies.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/21/us/politics/video-dnc-trump-rallies.html)
If your argument is that Clinton's supporters tried to antagonize Trump supporters, well I guess it worked. I don't have much love for Clinton, and I personally hope Trump turns out to be a good president, but "she poked me first" isn't really a valid excuse for the results of his campaign.
I completely agree! But as you even noted above, I don't see him "not denouncing" violence based on the quotes. I do see cognitive dissonance and the media skewing things into something they are not.
-
Unfortunately, crying wolf like the person who made up a story about two men attacking her and stealing her wallet and hijab on Wednesday (http://www.theadvertiser.com/story/news/crime/2016/11/09/ul-student-robbed-wallet-hijab-near-campus/93572808/) doesn't help anyone.
I believe the LGBT kids who committed suicide felt real pain. I believe that, if those kids had a better appreciation of the very low likelihood that Trump/Pence will bring to fruition any of the extreme things Trump/Pence have been accused of planning to implement, said kids would not have felt as much pain.
...his campaign was based in part on stoking bigotry among his base...
Of course it was. So was Clinton's. Attacking LGBT people and police are both deplorable, but the "win at all costs" philosophy of both major parties leads to those results.
Thank you for this (yet again) well-reasoned post MDM. Instead of stoking fear and blasting the horrors that could (but largely most likely won't) happen, perhaps supporters of LGBT supporters should step out of their bubble and help concerned citizens find positive action and understanding of the low likelihood of drastic changes to their daily lives in the near future.
Trump won. He's the president, and his party have majorities in both the Senate and the HOR. One half of the country had better step out of their bubble and start finding some fucking common ground with the other half of the country that has felt its been ignored and marginalized for the better part of a decade or the self-fulfilling prophecy will come to pass and no progress will be had with President Trump, either.
I'll certainly admit that he's lewd and crass. And definitely misogynistic to the extent that most (dare I saw all) men are. But insofar as labeling him a racist its your cognitive dissonance that painted that picture. Trump won 8% of the black vote. If he is nearly as racist as he has been painted, why did 1.4 million black voters pick him?...
Edit - And before you try to disagree with that, go back through the last couple pages of the thread and carefully note which posts asked questions or provided information that you completely ignored. Cognitive dissonance is certainly uncomfortable, but sometimes we have to face our demons.
And can you point out what, exactly, I'm ignoring?
My point is, the image of Trump that has been painted by the media and the destructive campaigning by both sides has resulted in a bitter election where we have riots and people polling for the electoral college to abandon our government's structure. There is a window, right now, for the democratic party to step out of the echo chamber and find common ground that will advance the nation as a whole- but it only happens if people realize Trump isn't the Hilteresque monster that he is painted as.
Just out of curiosity, did you watch his victory speech? It might surprise you.
One would think that with so much evidence of Trump's calling for violence and hate and racisim, there would be more links and videos of him saying these things directly...
Just out of curiosity, did you watch his victory speech? It might surprise you.
Everyone knows what he said in his victory speech. It was all over the news, even if I hadn't watched it. I was glad he tried to be presidential for once, but that doesn't change anything about the damage that now needs to be undone......
Clearly we all need to collaborate if we want to move forward productively, but as already been pointed out ad naseum, we know Republicans in congress are vehemently opposed to reaching across the aisle and the incoming administration appears at least as unwilling to try. One need only read through the info on probable cabinet members to see the picture there.
And the bubble stays in tact, safely contained in the echo chamber of similar opinions and sound bites taken protectively out of context.
-
One would think that with so much evidence of Trump's calling for violence and hate and racisim, there would be more links and videos of him saying these things directly...
http://mashable.com/2016/03/12/trump-rally-incite-violence/#YESzSDUpziqb
Complete with video.
-
One would think that with so much evidence of Trump's calling for violence and hate and racisim, there would be more links and videos of him saying these things directly...
http://mashable.com/2016/03/12/trump-rally-incite-violence/#YESzSDUpziqb
Complete with video.
Five quotes taken out of context and turned into sound bites. Great reporting... :rolleyes:
-
One would think that with so much evidence of Trump's calling for violence and hate and racisim, there would be more links and videos of him saying these things directly...
http://mashable.com/2016/03/12/trump-rally-incite-violence/#YESzSDUpziqb
Complete with video.
Five quotes taken out of context and turned into sound bites. Great reporting... :rolleyes:
Can you explain how the quotes were taken "out of context"? The context of election speeches at a podium is clear. The events leading up to the quotes are explained. What about those quotes is unexplained?
-
One would think that with so much evidence of Trump's calling for violence and hate and racisim, there would be more links and videos of him saying these things directly...
http://mashable.com/2016/03/12/trump-rally-incite-violence/#YESzSDUpziqb
Complete with video.
Five quotes taken out of context and turned into sound bites. Great reporting... :rolleyes:
Can you explain how the quotes were taken "out of context"? The context of election speeches at a podium is clear. The events leading up to the quotes are explained. What about those quotes is unexplained?
Clearly it doesn't fit the narrative, therefore the facts are invalid.
-
One would think that with so much evidence of Trump's calling for violence and hate and racisim, there would be more links and videos of him saying these things directly...
http://mashable.com/2016/03/12/trump-rally-incite-violence/#YESzSDUpziqb
Complete with video.
Five quotes taken out of context and turned into sound bites. Great reporting... :rolleyes:
Can you explain how the quotes were taken "out of context"? The context of election speeches at a podium is clear. The events leading up to the quotes are explained. What about those quotes is unexplained?
How about the 30-40 seconds before and after those clips that puts it in the context of jokes (albeit probably inappropriate) or tough New York guy talk. If you miss the framing you don't see the picture as it was intended.
-
Donald Trump is facing a federal fraud trial for Trump University on Nov. 28th. Incredible how people voted for this guy.
-
One half of the country had better step out of their bubble and start finding some fucking common ground with the other half of the country that has felt its been ignored and marginalized for the better part of a decade or the self-fulfilling prophecy will come to pass and no progress will be had
Hilarious. You could have said the exact same thing in 2008, when the country supported Democrats much more overwhelmingly than they now support Republicans. But rather than seeking common ground, Republicans immediately doubled down on full obstructionism, pledging complete gridlock. They literally shut down the US government in protest.
It's pretty rich to see those same folks now expecting Democrats to suddenly forgive and forget. By all rights, Democrats should now publicly say they will oppose anything and everything Trump tries to do. They should filibustered or reject every appointment (CFPB anyone?) and vote to reject every appropriation bill if Congress doesn't advance their minority pet agenda. After it gets built, they should vote to defund the wall 68 times even though it is the president's signature accomplishment.
Republicans have zero room to talk about expecting cooperation, after the last 8 years.
-
One half of the country had better step out of their bubble and start finding some fucking common ground with the other half of the country that has felt its been ignored and marginalized for the better part of a decade or the self-fulfilling prophecy will come to pass and no progress will be had
Hilarious. You could have said the exact same thing in 2008, when the country supported Democrats much more overwhelmingly than they now support Republicans. But rather than seeking common ground, Republicans immediately doubled down on full obstructionism, pledging complete gridlock. They literally shut down the US government in protest.
It's pretty rich to see those same folks now expecting Democrats to suddenly forgive and forget. By all rights, Democrats should now publicly say they will oppose anything and everything Trump tries to do. They should filibustered or reject every appointment (CFPB anyone?) and vote to reject every appropriation bill if Congress doesn't advance their minority pet agenda. After it gets built, they should vote to defund the wall 68 times even though it is the president's signature accomplishment.
Republicans have zero room to talk about expecting cooperation, after the last 8 years.
My own new Senator essentially said just that.
-
I think it's clear we're at an impasse. The Trumpers will never accept anything but their current worldview. The rest of us have all been hoodwinked, of course. Doesn't matter that there are literally many dozens of clips of Trump expressing extreme misogyny, inciting/abetting hate, appealing to bigotry, etc. They were all taken out of context! It doesn't matter that Pence and almost literally every name in his potential cabinet are either true-believing Evangelical extremists, police state supporters, and/or climate change deniers. It doesn't matter that his likely secretary of state wants to bring back McCarthy-style witch hunts (http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/14/politics/newt-gingrich-house-un-american-activities-committee/index.html).
It doesn't matter that all of the above is easily verifiable fact, absent any spin whatsoever. The Trumpers have an answer for everything, naturally. Perhaps they think none of the above is a problem, but more likely they think somehow these facts are the result of spin. Their candidate has no flaws other than he's "crude." Indeed, it appears anyone who doesn't support Trump, even those that dislike the Democratic party and would prefer not to vote for it (aka me), are the ones residing in an echo chamber. Not much more needs to be said, it seems.
-
...his campaign was based in part on stoking bigotry among his base...
Of course it was. So was Clinton's. Attacking LGBT people and police are both deplorable, but the "win at all costs" philosophy of both major parties leads to those results.
Quit lying. Clinton's campaign did not attack "police." The only ones attacked were criminal jackbooted thugs who happen to wear blue uniforms and commit their offenses under the color of law. The only thing "deplorable" would be defending them instead of stripping that uniform from them!
-
...his campaign was based in part on stoking bigotry among his base...
Of course it was. So was Clinton's. Attacking LGBT people and police are both deplorable, but the "win at all costs" philosophy of both major parties leads to those results.
Quit lying. Clinton's campaign did not attack "police." The only ones attacked were criminal jackbooted thugs who happen to wear blue uniforms and commit their offenses under the color of law. The only thing "deplorable" would be defending them instead of stripping that uniform from them!
Ok, resorting to Poe's law (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law) here because http://hotair.com/archives/2016/09/17/two-philly-officers-shot-latest-ambush-attack-police/, etc.
-
I think it's clear we're at an impasse. The Trumpers will never accept anything but their current worldview. The rest of us have all been hoodwinked, of course. Doesn't matter that there are literally many dozens of clips of Trump expressing extreme misogyny, inciting/abetting hate, appealing to bigotry, etc. They were all taken out of context! It doesn't matter that Pence and almost literally every name in his potential cabinet are either true-believing Evangelical extremists, police state supporters, and/or climate change deniers. It doesn't matter that his likely secretary of state wants to bring back McCarthy-style witch hunts (http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/14/politics/newt-gingrich-house-un-american-activities-committee/index.html).
It doesn't matter that all of the above is easily verifiable fact, absent any spin whatsoever. The Trumpers have an answer for everything, naturally. Perhaps they think none of the above is a problem, but more likely they think somehow these facts are the result of spin. Their candidate has no flaws other than he's "crude." Indeed, it appears anyone who doesn't support Trump, even those that dislike the Democratic party and would prefer not to vote for it (aka me), are the ones residing in an echo chamber. Not much more needs to be said, it seems.
Come on man, you don't think that exact post could be written by "Trumpers" about Clinton supporters just by changing the names? Your first line is especially ironic given that the prevailing opinion from the left seems to be "Trump voters just vote for him because they're ignorant uneducated morons."
-
Doesn't matter that there are literally many dozens of clips of Trump expressing extreme misogyny, inciting/abetting hate, appealing to bigotry, etc. They were all taken out of context!
This just astounds me. There is no "context", unless it was someone saying "it would be wrong for someone to say XXX", and you clipped out the "it would be wrong to".
Oh, he was making a joke? Hardly. Not. Fucking. Funny.
-
I think it's clear we're at an impasse. The Trumpers will never accept anything but their current worldview. The rest of us have all been hoodwinked, of course. Doesn't matter that there are literally many dozens of clips of Trump expressing extreme misogyny, inciting/abetting hate, appealing to bigotry, etc. They were all taken out of context! It doesn't matter that Pence and almost literally every name in his potential cabinet are either true-believing Evangelical extremists, police state supporters, and/or climate change deniers. It doesn't matter that his likely secretary of state wants to bring back McCarthy-style witch hunts (http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/14/politics/newt-gingrich-house-un-american-activities-committee/index.html).
It doesn't matter that all of the above is easily verifiable fact, absent any spin whatsoever. The Trumpers have an answer for everything, naturally. Perhaps they think none of the above is a problem, but more likely they think somehow these facts are the result of spin. Their candidate has no flaws other than he's "crude." Indeed, it appears anyone who doesn't support Trump, even those that dislike the Democratic party and would prefer not to vote for it (aka me), are the ones residing in an echo chamber. Not much more needs to be said, it seems.
Come on man, you don't think that exact post could be written by "Trumpers" about Clinton supporters just by changing the names? Your first line is especially ironic given that the prevailing opinion from the left seems to be "Trump voters just vote for him because they're ignorant uneducated morons."
?
I am not on particularly on the left, nor have I ever expressed that opinion about Trump supporters in general. In fact, on this very forum I have empathized with them, especially those in lower-middle class middle America.
But anyone reading this thread with a remotely open mind will see nothing by denial and deflection from the Trump supporters that have shown up. They can't admit a single flaw in him, no matter what evidence is presented. I mean literally that's what's happening, so I find your post to be what's especially ironic. It's really quite remarkable. I will happily go on all day about Clinton's flaws, if it makes you feel better.
-
I think it's clear we're at an impasse. The Trumpers will never accept anything but their current worldview. The rest of us have all been hoodwinked, of course. Doesn't matter that there are literally many dozens of clips of Trump expressing extreme misogyny, inciting/abetting hate, appealing to bigotry, etc. They were all taken out of context! It doesn't matter that Pence and almost literally every name in his potential cabinet are either true-believing Evangelical extremists, police state supporters, and/or climate change deniers. It doesn't matter that his likely secretary of state wants to bring back McCarthy-style witch hunts (http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/14/politics/newt-gingrich-house-un-american-activities-committee/index.html).
It doesn't matter that all of the above is easily verifiable fact, absent any spin whatsoever. The Trumpers have an answer for everything, naturally. Perhaps they think none of the above is a problem, but more likely they think somehow these facts are the result of spin. Their candidate has no flaws other than he's "crude." Indeed, it appears anyone who doesn't support Trump, even those that dislike the Democratic party and would prefer not to vote for it (aka me), are the ones residing in an echo chamber. Not much more needs to be said, it seems.
Come on man, you don't think that exact post could be written by "Trumpers" about Clinton supporters just by changing the names? Your first line is especially ironic given that the prevailing opinion from the left seems to be "Trump voters just vote for him because they're ignorant uneducated morons."
?
I am not on particularly on the left, nor have I ever expressed that opinion about Trump supporters in general. In fact, on this very forum I have empathized with them, especially those in lower-middle class middle America.
But anyone reading this thread with a remotely open mind will see nothing by denial and deflection from the Trump supporters that have shown up. They can't admit a single flaw in him, no matter what evidence is presented. I mean literally that's what's happening, so I find your post to be what's especially ironic. It's really quite remarkable. I will happily go on all day about Clinton's flaws, if it makes you feel better.
That is simply not true.
I'll certainly admit that he's lewd and crass. And definitely misogynistic to the extent that most (dare I saw all) men are. But insofar as labeling him a racist its your cognitive dissonance that painted that picture. Trump won 8% of the black vote. If he is nearly as racist as he has been painted, why did 1.4 million black voters pick him?
...
-
Come on man, you don't think that exact post could be written by "Trumpers" about Clinton supporters just by changing the names? Your first line is especially ironic given that the prevailing opinion from the left seems to be "Trump voters just vote for him because they're ignorant uneducated morons."
Lagom,
I agree with Chris22. Have you watched Fox news? Ever? All day long it talks about the corrupt and terrible Democrats, led by their Crooked queen. All the terrible facts you mention above literally do NOT show up in their newsfeeds or on their Fox news. In other words, they are looking at a completely separate set of articles, news clips, and videos.
They think the way they do because of the media they consume, and guess what, so do you and I. In today's Facebook world, the news we consume is incredibly biased and we only see what supports our current world view. People used to consume a more balanced diet of biased news, now we tend to consume only Right or only Left.
And that's why its so hard to understand each other. The left has spent no time sitting with the Right's worldview, and vice versa.
Of course nobody in their right mind who has consumed news that highlights "clips of Trump expressing extreme misogyny, inciting/abetting hate, appealing to bigotry, etc." would vote for him. Here's the thing, his voters literally did not see those clips.
They saw clips that talk about how premiums are rising with Obamacare, and Clinton is more of the same. They saw clips of how much money Clinton got paid by big banks to do speeches. And clips of suspicious links between favors and Clinton Foundation donations. They saw clips of Clinton referring to themselves (hard-working Americans!) as a Basket of Deplorables. That is what they saw, and that is ALL they saw.
They did not see that in addition to the stuff in your newsfeed, and weigh the arguments, weigh the set of facts and decide to vote for a misogynist, racist, fascist.
This is not to see that I agree with them. I am worried about climate change. And I voted for Sanders in the primary. I'm just trying to point out where his voters are coming from (the majority...yes, a tiny radical part of them are racist misogynists, but they are not reflective of the whole).
Something must be done about our MEDIA! You want to know what is wrong with our country? It is not the basket of deplorables. This is what is wrong with our democracy:
"Since the beginning of 2016, ABC’s World News Tonight, CBS Evening News and NBC Nightly News have devoted just 32 minutes to issues coverage, according to Andrew Tyndall.
Differentiating issues coverage from daily campaign coverage where policy topics might be addressed, Tyndall defines issues coverage by a newscast this way: “It takes a public policy, outlines the societal problem that needs to be addressed, describes the candidates' platform positions and proposed solutions, and evaluates their efficacy.”
And here’s how that kind of in-depth coverage breaks down, year to date [as of October 2016], by network:
ABC: 8 minutes, all of which covered terrorism.
NBC: 8 minutes for terrorism, LBGT issues, and foreign policy.
CBS: 16 minutes for foreign policy, terrorism, immigration, policing, and the Environmental Protection Agency.
And this remarkable finding from Tyndall [emphasis added]:
No trade, no healthcare, no climate change, no drugs, no poverty, no guns, no infrastructure, no deficits. To the extent that these issues have been mentioned, it has been on the candidates' terms, not on the networks' initiative."
--src: http://mediamatters.org/blog/2016/10/26/study-confirms-network-evening-newscasts-have-abandoned-policy-coverage-2016-campaign/214120
I have to repeat this, in a shouting bold voice once more because it's so fucking irresponsible: "Since the beginning of 2016, ABC’s World News Tonight, CBS Evening News and NBC Nightly News have devoted just 32 minutes to issues coverage". IN A FUCKING YEAR!
In Jesus's words, forgive that Basket of Deplorables, and those ivory tower celebrity liberals, because "they know not what they do". :(
-
@PriestTheRunner - What? Your quote is just you saying he's crude. You excuse his misogyny, so no credit there. You also excused even the crudeness in another post, referencing "jokes" and "tough New York tough-guy talk." I stand by my statement.
@LadyStache - I don't disagree with pretty much any of that. I have frequently and publicly empathized with the core Trump voters. It's the ones who pretend to have carefully considered all angles (i.e. the ones in this thread) that I take issue with.
-
I am much more worried about Pence than Trump, to be honest. Pence has said his role model is Dick Cheney. Aside from his stands on women's reproductive rights, sex education and gay "conversion therapy", he does not believe that humans evolved from apes, tobacco causes cancer, the climate is changing.
-
I am much more worried about Pence than Trump, to be honest. Pence has said his role model is Dick Cheney. Aside from his stands on women's reproductive rights, sex education and gay "conversion therapy", he does not believe that 1) humans evolved from apes, tobacco causes cancer, the climate is changing.
I agree with you PBK. I can at least rationalize on Trump that he has been putting on a show to win the election and will hopefully return to more pragmatic governance and moderate thinking. Trump is scary because we don't really know what he'll do, but Pence is especially scary because we do know and it's so bad.
-
Guess who is in the running for head of the Interior Department? Sarah Palin. Holy shite.
-
Indeed. One thing the Trump supporters have yet to respond to in this thread, the travesty that is his likely cabinet. I'm with you guys. If he at least had non-psycho Republicans as advisors, I would be more willing to be cautiously optimistic. I suppose there's still time for this to change.
-
Guess who is in the running for head of the Interior Department? Sarah Palin. Holy shite.
Shit, does that mean we have to call snowmobiles "snow machines" again?
-
First, for Secretary of the Interior, some campaign aides have said that they are looking into Sarah Palin. Yes, that Sarah Palin, one of the most grossly unqualified politicians to ever enter the public eye, who understands nothing about science, and who has open contempt for nature and wildlife. The same Sarah Palin who couldn’t find her way out of a wet paper bag without an oil company drilling an opening for her. Or have you already forgotten about “Drill, baby, drill”?
But don’t worry: Apparently Palin isn’t Trump’s first choice. That belongs to Forrest Lucas, an oil executive, because of course. And don’t worry about Palin, either, as Trump has expressed an interest in having her on his cabinet somewhere anyway. Unless he finds a spot for J. R. Ewing first.
As for the second spot I want to focus on, I hope you’re sitting down.
Who would make a better Secretary of Education than… Ben Carson?
Answer: Practically every human being on Earth.
Remember Ben Carson? While he may be a retired neurosurgeon (and by all accounts an excellent one), he has some decidedly terrible views on science. Unless maybe I’m wrong, and evolution really is satanic and the Big Bang really is a fairy tale. But I’m pretty sure they aren’t.
So yes, seriously, Trump is considering putting a creationist in charge of this great nation’s education program. The same guy who hypocritically said, “To willfully ignore evidence that you have for some ideological reason is wrong,” and “I just don't have that much faith [in the Big Bang, evolution, and global warming], but [scientists] are welcome to believe whatever they want to believe. I'm welcome to believe what I want to believe."
Sigh. No, you’re not welcome to deny facts, Dr. Carson. Unless, of course, Trump puts you in a position where you have the imprimatur of the Presidency to do so.
To be fair, Trump has also said he’ll diminish or cut the Education Department entirely, so yay?
As for everything else, it just gets worse. Trump picked Myron Ebell, a climate change denier, to head up his EPA transition team. That’s no surprise, as he had already chosen a climate change denying crackpot, Rep. Kevin Cramer (R-North Dakota), as his energy advisor during the campaign.
Trump, of course, has stated repeatedly that climate change is a hoax (then denied he said it, despite the tweet still being in his timeline). He has said he’ll end all federal renewable energy development, he’ll pull the US out of the Paris climate change agreement, and he’ll kill every environmental safeguard the Obama Administration put into place.
Mind you, these are just names being floated around; he may go with different people. But not entirely different; I’m sure the ones he picks will be just as mustache-twirlingly villainous and incompetent for their designated jobs as the names we’ve already heard.
The bigger picture isn’t hard to see here; Trump will be a disaster for the nation, for the climate, and for the world. And he’s still over a month out from taking the reins. This is a nightmare, and one we won’t be able to wake up from for a long time. All we can do now is stay aware, make our voices heard, and hope that nothing he does is irrevocable. There is some hope, but we'll have to work hard to mitigate any damage a Trump presidency will inevitably do.
-
How about Jamie Dimon for Treasury Secretary?
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/11/10/donald-trump-advisors-considered-jpmorgans-jamie-dimon-for-treasury-secretary-sources.html (http://www.cnbc.com/2016/11/10/donald-trump-advisors-considered-jpmorgans-jamie-dimon-for-treasury-secretary-sources.html)
-
Lovely reactions:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/countless-acts-of-hate-have-been-carried-out-since-trumps-win_us_5825ee38e4b02d21bbc86211
-
UNSUBSCRIBE
-
I mean, how do I even have a conversation with this?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-fan-msnbc-rant_us_5825b067e4b0c4b63b0c2a53 (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-fan-msnbc-rant_us_5825b067e4b0c4b63b0c2a53)
-
quit trying to pretend this is about racism or sexism, and LEARN SOMETHING for once!
Like the republicans after 2012 learned they had to be more inclusive in order to expand their voter base?
The only lesson to be learned here is that bigoted demagoguery is an efficient motivator of a bigoted electorate. I have never been more ashamed of my countrymen.
I'm ashamed of them too.
But you're wrong: Trump didn't win because of his bigotry; he won because of his populist anti-establishment message. Democrats need to understand that! You know how for the last several elections -- including the Republican primary -- Democrats were laughing it up about how out-of-touch the establishment Republicans were? Well, they were just looking at themselves through a funhouse mirror. If they don't realize that (and toss the Clinton faction out on their ear and do a hard turn to port in favor of Bernie-esque polices, whether championed by Bernie himself or by some other suitable progressive, such as Elizabeth Warren), they are going to be utterly screwed for at least the next eight years.
The fact that Trump's anti-establishment message was packaged with the bigotry should have destroyed his support as a matter of principle, but it didn't and that's the disgusting part. I'm disgusted not by the complete monsters who actually agreed with Trump's bigotry -- their worthlessness was already well-established and thus could be ignored -- but by the otherwise-moral people who failed to repudiate it because they cared more about their goddamn bread and circuses.
This, exactly.
Trump won because some Americans are racist and endorsed his bigotry AND because many, many more Americans overlooked it or think it won't matter. As a result, he has unleashed the evil forces that are the root of America's greatest tragedies.
To those who think it won't matter..... What if you're wrong?
Is it okay if:
Muslims are banned entry
American Muslims are surveiled without probable cause
A deportation force begins identifying, arresting and deporting illegal immigrants
SCOTUS overturns the right to privacy, resulting in: LGBT-Americans losing the right to marry and women losing the right to buy birth control or have an abortion
Journalists are sued over their negative coverage
DOJ and the FBI investigate, pursue and prosecute Trump's political opponents and dissidents
He has made promises that cannot be kept -- Rust Belt industrial jobs are not coming back. When his voters begin to realize they were conned and their anger wells up, how will he handle it? If racism, homophobia, misogyny worked for him this time. Will he double-down in the future?
History tells us over and over again that hate is viral and cannot be easily contained or managed.
-
My main worry about Trump has always been that he would behave like an authoritarian: ruling by executive order, installing loyalists in the military leadership, using regulatory authority to destroy businesses and media corporations he dislikes, and so on.
I've never been certain he'd do these things, but he has said he would do them, and to me this is what makes sense to be afraid of even if you're a conservative (as I am).
So I ask: what are the early signs that he will or will not end up going down this authoritarian path?
One sign might be who he nominates to the supreme court. Another might be how he reacts to the inevitable obstruction he'll run into from democrats in the senate. If he makes a reasonable nomination to the supreme court (as he's promised to do), maybe that is a sign that he's willing to have executive orders hemmed in a bit. And, if he reacts to obstruction in the senate by making compromises or applying political pressure (rather than running around congress with executive orders), that's a good sign that he intends to stick with the constitutional framework.
-
My main worry about Trump has always been that he would behave like an authoritarian: ruling by executive order, installing loyalists in the military leadership, using regulatory authority to destroy businesses and media corporations he dislikes, and so on.
I've never been certain he'd do these things, but he has said he would do them, and to me this is what makes sense to be afraid of even if you're a conservative (as I am).
So I ask: what are the early signs that he will or will not end up going down this authoritarian path?
One sign might be who he nominates to the supreme court. Another might be how he reacts to the inevitable obstruction he'll run into from democrats in the senate. If he makes a reasonable nomination to the supreme court (as he's promised to do), maybe that is a sign that he's willing to have executive orders hemmed in a bit. And, if he reacts to obstruction in the senate by making compromises or applying political pressure (rather than running around congress with executive orders), that's a good sign that he intends to stick with the constitutional framework.
Yeah, that's my worst fear, as well. I have been thinking about how to counter that in the last few days... ACLU donations? calls to Congresspeople?
-
I honestly don't think there's much that can be done if Trump is determined enough.
I'm actually relieved that republicans captured both houses, since I think that a democratic senate would have been even more frustrating for Trump and more likely to push him in the direction of authoritarianism.
For the record, I blame both Bush and Obama for repeatedly abusing executive authority. They really set a dangerous precedent, and now Trump himself has said that the way is paved for this sort of abuse.
-
Is it okay if:
Muslims are banned entry -Yes. They aren't citizens. If they are from a anti-American geo-political area, they don't have any right to come into this country. Get over it.
American Muslims are surveiled without probable cause -Thanks to Obama, they already are... Or did you forget about NSA?...
A deportation force begins identifying, arresting and deporting illegal immigrants -DT has brough his position down to those who break laws here (and not just by being here. Show me, speicifally, where this can be found in his policies. Take a hint. It. Isn't. There.
SCOTUS overturns the right to privacy, resulting in: LGBT-Americans losing the right to marry and women losing the right to buy birth control or have an abortion -It takes "compelling evidence" to overturn a precedent. Having a new set of judges isn't compelling evidence. Besides, he will be replacing Scalia, the furthest right judge you could imagine. Nothing will be different (unless other judges die off / are replaced).
Journalists are sued over their negative coverage -If a "journalist" is committing slander with no basis in fact, then yes they should be sued.
DOJ and the FBI investigate, pursue and prosecute Trump's political opponents and dissidents -Really?... If you are talking about HRC, it ain't gonna happen.
I can't really believe how these views aren't discussed.
-
The fact that Trump's anti-establishment message was packaged with the bigotry should have destroyed his support as a matter of principle, but it didn't and that's the disgusting part. I'm disgusted not by the complete monsters who actually agreed with Trump's bigotry -- their worthlessness was already well-established and thus could be ignored -- but by the otherwise-moral people who failed to repudiate it because they cared more about their goddamn bread and circuses.
This, exactly.
Trump won because some Americans are racist and endorsed his bigotry AND because many, many more Americans overlooked it or think it won't matter. As a result, he has unleashed the evil forces that are the root of America's greatest tragedies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Very dissapointed in the vulgal language and race to the bottom with Trump. He is a vile person.
-
Are you kidding me? He literally said "that would be a shame but I haven't heard about it"... Then he tried to steer the conversation by turning to something more positive. That isn't his failure but rather the media taking a 'nothing' event and making something out of it. If you want a similar example, remember the outcry that Trump didn't denounce the KKK "quick enough" when he was on a talk show.
No, I'm not kidding you -- this is my whole point. He sticks out the support "that's a shame but my supporters are certainly passionate" and then later "clarifies" that he doesn't support violence.
Similar to the excuse given about the above video of him "inciting violence." I'll punch you in the face, no wait I'm only joking. His violent followers will hear the first part and his non-violent followers will hear the second part.
And what you see as a stamp of approval, I see as the nominee not wanting to alienate his own supporters. What you said ("I personally think protesting a rally is kinda a dick move") is something I see as the equivalent of Trump saying "maybe he should have been roughed up". It is the same sentiment- plus you gotta remember that the Drumf is from New York, viewing him in that context is important.
Yeah, he doesn't want to alienate his racist supporters. He's not being racist per se, he's just fine with his voters being racist as long as they get him elected.
I completely agree! But as you even noted above, I don't see him "not denouncing" violence based on the quotes. I do see cognitive dissonance and the media skewing things into something they are not.
Are you saying I have cognitive dissonance? Because I'll have you know that I've scored three Lamberts on the Adams dissonance resistance scale. I also have one of the highest IQs, so please don’t feel so stupid or insecure... it’s not your fault.
-
Are you kidding me? He literally said "that would be a shame but I haven't heard about it"... Then he tried to steer the conversation by turning to something more positive. That isn't his failure but rather the media taking a 'nothing' event and making something out of it. If you want a similar example, remember the outcry that Trump didn't denounce the KKK "quick enough" when he was on a talk show.
No, I'm not kidding you -- this is my whole point. He sticks out the support "that's a shame but my supporters are certainly passionate" and then later "clarifies" that he doesn't support violence.
Similar to the excuse given about the above video of him "inciting violence." I'll punch you in the face, no wait I'm only joking. His violent followers will hear the first part and his non-violent followers will hear the second part.
I highlighted the relevant portions. He opened with it being a shame. As in shameful. The left's point that he didn't denounce it "harder" isn't going to get much sympathy from the right.
And what you see as a stamp of approval, I see as the nominee not wanting to alienate his own supporters. What you said ("I personally think protesting a rally is kinda a dick move") is something I see as the equivalent of Trump saying "maybe he should have been roughed up". It is the same sentiment- plus you gotta remember that the Drumf is from New York, viewing him in that context is important.
Yeah, he doesn't want to alienate his racist supporters. He's not being racist per se, he's just fine with his voters being racist as long as they get him elected.
Not what I said. I was pointing out motivation. Besides... as I noted above, Trump started out by saying "That would be a shame", not sure how much clearer he could be than that.
I completely agree! But as you even noted above, I don't see him "not denouncing" violence based on the quotes. I do see cognitive dissonance and the media skewing things into something they are not.
Are you saying I have cognitive dissonance? Because I'll have you know that I've scored three Lamberts on the Adams dissonance resistance scale. I also have one of the highest IQs, so please don’t feel so stupid or insecure... it’s not your fault.
No need to get huffy. I was addressing that towards the left in general and the media specifically (as in, I don't think they intentionally skew his words to be more extreme than they are, but cognitive dissonance pushes them into that territory).
-
Are you kidding me? He literally said "that would be a shame but I haven't heard about it"... Then he tried to steer the conversation by turning to something more positive. That isn't his failure but rather the media taking a 'nothing' event and making something out of it. If you want a similar example, remember the outcry that Trump didn't denounce the KKK "quick enough" when he was on a talk show.
No, I'm not kidding you -- this is my whole point. He sticks out the support "that's a shame but my supporters are certainly passionate" and then later "clarifies" that he doesn't support violence.
Similar to the excuse given about the above video of him "inciting violence." I'll punch you in the face, no wait I'm only joking. His violent followers will hear the first part and his non-violent followers will hear the second part.
I highlighted the relevant portions. He opened with it being a shame. As in shameful. The left's point that he didn't denounce it "harder" isn't going to get much sympathy from the right.
And what you see as a stamp of approval, I see as the nominee not wanting to alienate his own supporters. What you said ("I personally think protesting a rally is kinda a dick move") is something I see as the equivalent of Trump saying "maybe he should have been roughed up". It is the same sentiment- plus you gotta remember that the Drumf is from New York, viewing him in that context is important.
Yeah, he doesn't want to alienate his racist supporters. He's not being racist per se, he's just fine with his voters being racist as long as they get him elected.
Not what I said. I was pointing out motivation. Besides... as I noted above, Trump started out by saying "That would be a shame", not sure how much clearer he could be than that.
Trump was using a rhetorical technique called apophasis (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apophasis).
I'll be charitable: I won't talk about what an asshole Trump is for using apophasis to incite violence and then disclaim responsibility. I also won't address how woefully ignorant his supporters are when they don't recognize the tactic. I won't question their parentage or disparage their schooling; that would be mean and totally uncalled-for.
And of course, any claim alleging that I insulted PriestTheRunner or anyone else just now would be totally and categorically false.
(But seriously: it really would be. I'm just trying to make a point.)
-
"That would be a shame..."
Clearly one set of words can be heard in many ways, Trump is a master of this.
"Hillary wants to abolish -- essentially abolish the Second Amendment. By the way, if she gets to pick, if she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks. Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is, I don't know," Trump said. "But I tell you what, that will be a horrible day, if Hillary gets to put her judges in, right now we're tied."
Tony Soprano saying the same thing as Balki from "Perfect Strangers" can get a totally different meaning.
-
Trump was using a rhetorical technique called apophasis (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apophasis).
I'll be charitable: I won't talk about what an asshole Trump is for using apophasis to incite violence and then disclaim responsibility. I also won't address how woefully ignorant his supporters are when they don't recognize the tactic. I won't question their parentage or disparage their schooling; that would be mean and totally uncalled-for.
And of course, any claim alleging that I insulted PriestTheRunner or anyone else just now would be totally and categorically false.
(But seriously: it really would be. I'm just trying to make a point.)
Yes and no... It isn't exactly apophasis because he didn't bring it up in that instance (he was asked the question), but yes he uses that a lot.
-
Unfortunately, crying wolf like the person who made up a story about two men attacking her and stealing her wallet and hijab on Wednesday (http://www.theadvertiser.com/story/news/crime/2016/11/09/ul-student-robbed-wallet-hijab-near-campus/93572808/) doesn't help anyone.
I believe the LGBT kids who committed suicide felt real pain. I believe that, if those kids had a better appreciation of the very low likelihood that Trump/Pence will bring to fruition any of the extreme things Trump/Pence have been accused of planning to implement, said kids would not have felt as much pain.
...his campaign was based in part on stoking bigotry among his base...
Of course it was. So was Clinton's. Attacking LGBT people and police are both deplorable, but the "win at all costs" philosophy of both major parties leads to those results.
Thank you for this (yet again) well-reasoned post MDM. Instead of stoking fear and blasting the horrors that could (but largely most likely won't) happen, perhaps supporters of LGBT supporters should step out of their bubble and help concerned citizens find positive action and understanding of the low likelihood of drastic changes to their daily lives in the near future.
Trump won. He's the president, and his party have majorities in both the Senate and the HOR. One half of the country had better step out of their bubble and start finding some fucking common ground with the other half of the country that has felt its been ignored and marginalized for the better part of a decade or the self-fulfilling prophecy will come to pass and no progress will be had with President Trump, either.
I'll certainly admit that he's lewd and crass. And definitely misogynistic to the extent that most (dare I saw all) men are. But insofar as labeling him a racist its your cognitive dissonance that painted that picture. Trump won 8% of the black vote. If he is nearly as racist as he has been painted, why did 1.4 million black voters pick him?...
Edit - And before you try to disagree with that, go back through the last couple pages of the thread and carefully note which posts asked questions or provided information that you completely ignored. Cognitive dissonance is certainly uncomfortable, but sometimes we have to face our demons.
And can you point out what, exactly, I'm ignoring?
My point is, the image of Trump that has been painted by the media and the destructive campaigning by both sides has resulted in a bitter election where we have riots and people polling for the electoral college to abandon our government's structure. There is a window, right now, for the democratic party to step out of the echo chamber and find common ground that will advance the nation as a whole- but it only happens if people realize Trump isn't the Hilteresque monster that he is painted as.
Just out of curiosity, did you watch his victory speech? It might surprise you.
One would think that with so much evidence of Trump's calling for violence and hate and racisim, there would be more links and videos of him saying these things directly...
Just out of curiosity, did you watch his victory speech? It might surprise you.
Everyone knows what he said in his victory speech. It was all over the news, even if I hadn't watched it. I was glad he tried to be presidential for once, but that doesn't change anything about the damage that now needs to be undone......
Clearly we all need to collaborate if we want to move forward productively, but as already been pointed out ad naseum, we know Republicans in congress are vehemently opposed to reaching across the aisle and the incoming administration appears at least as unwilling to try. One need only read through the info on probable cabinet members to see the picture there.
And the bubble stays in tact, safely contained in the echo chamber of similar opinions and sound bites taken protectively out of context.
Clearly Trump is in some or large part a whiplash to marginalization under the Neoliberals and Obama. The left pushed too hard for too long to silence and shut down dissenting view points instead finding compromise and common ground they built up minorities versus the rest of America. As left leaning, atheist 30 something millennial I believe now that most of that is true.
But because Trump is part of an ugly response to that force (baring the good reasons for supporting him like anti-trade and pro working class), it becomes less likely he will be able to do anything to heal a divide. He plays nice sometimes but he is a very petty man and he can't keep his mouth shut. You don't have to sound bite Trump, he does it for you when he is tweeting his every thought.
It is a rare thing that handing a person a ton of power and fame will make them a better person. Trump, at least in public life, has never been a particularly good person or inspiring leader so there is next to zero reason to expect it now. We can hope for the best but you have to be realistic.
-
I'm just excited that everyone acknowledges the Patriot Act is bad again.
-
I'm just excited that everyone acknowledges the Patriot Act is bad again.
He said that he's in favor of the Patriot Act less than a year ago. Is he now against it?
http://truthinmedia.com/trump-supports-reauthorizing-patriot-act-nsa-metadata-collection/
-
I completely agree! But as you even noted above, I don't see him "not denouncing" violence based on the quotes. I do see cognitive dissonance and the media skewing things into something they are not.
Are you saying I have cognitive dissonance? Because I'll have you know that I've scored three Lamberts on the Adams dissonance resistance scale. I also have one of the highest IQs, so please don’t feel so stupid or insecure... it’s not your fault.
No need to get huffy. I was addressing that towards the left in general and the media specifically (as in, I don't think they intentionally skew his words to be more extreme than they are, but cognitive dissonance pushes them into that territory).
Interesting that you found my response huffy.