The Election Results Thread

[mm1970]

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.

[Apples]

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

[Metric Mouse]

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.

[Lagom]

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.

[hoping2retire35]

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.

[Metric Mouse]

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.

[Lagom]

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.

[Metric Mouse]

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/

[zolotiyeruki]

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. 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...

[RentSeeking]

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.

[Travis]

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.

[accolay]

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.

[zolotiyeruki]

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.

[arebelspy]

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...

[Jack]

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.)

[frugalnacho]

I think we should all be far more concerned with the santa clause.

[waltworks]

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

[MDM]

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.

[Lagom]

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.

[dycker1978]

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.

[frugalnacho]

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.

[robartsd]

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.

[robartsd]

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.

[FIPurpose]

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

[MDM]

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.

[former player]

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.

[TexasRunner]

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 and here: 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/ and here: http://www.dailywire.com/news/10664/video-trump-voter-dragged-his-car-and-beaten-gang-chase-stephens#modal)

[Crushtheturtle]

I think we should all be far more concerned with the santa clause.

Get your government out of my chimney!

[frugalnacho]

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.

[AlanStache]

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. 

[frugalnacho]

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.

[Mississippi Mudstache]

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.

[dycker1978]

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

[mtnrider]

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.

[dycker1978]

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...

[dycker1978]

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

[robartsd]

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.

[dycker1978]

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...

[frugalnacho]

It's crazy.  There was never any hatred towards gays/trans/blacks/women/etc until trump was elected.  /s
 

[robartsd]

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.

[dycker1978]

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

[Lagom]

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?

[dycker1978]

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.

[frugalnacho]

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.

[dycker1978]

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.

[TexasRunner]

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.

[frugalnacho]

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.

[dycker1978]

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...

[dycker1978]

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.

[Lagom]

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.