It's Going to Be Okay(waitbutwhy.com)
waitbutwhy.com
It's Going to Be Okay
http://waitbutwhy.com/2016/11/its-going-to-be-okay.html
93 comments
"a demagogue with authoritarian tendencies that considers the norms of a liberal democracy to be a inconvenience and subordinate to the needs of order "
You know she lost right?
You know she lost right?
Every politician must be a demagogue to some degree, but Trump appeared to say one thing to one group, and then the next day, say the direct opposite to another group. It's a matter of degree. What does he _actually_ stand for? Nobody truly knows.
> What does he _actually_ stand for? Nobody truly knows.
Sure, we do. It's easy. Just look at someone's actions and ignore what they say.
Trump's entire career very clearly about making things better for Trump. Simple extrapolation indicates that's what his presidency is going to be about too.
If you happen to be like Trump -- a wealthy US business owner -- you may get some improvement in your life as a sort of halo effect. But otherwise, a Trump presidency is good news for no one whose name doesn't rhyme with "Ronald Rump".
Sure, we do. It's easy. Just look at someone's actions and ignore what they say.
Trump's entire career very clearly about making things better for Trump. Simple extrapolation indicates that's what his presidency is going to be about too.
If you happen to be like Trump -- a wealthy US business owner -- you may get some improvement in your life as a sort of halo effect. But otherwise, a Trump presidency is good news for no one whose name doesn't rhyme with "Ronald Rump".
The next day? Trump wasn't afraid to say the opposite in the next sentence.
He just has a faster release cycle, more iterations.
I seem to recall at least a few threads on HN over the past couple of years that suggested politics needs to be more agile.
I seem to recall at least a few threads on HN over the past couple of years that suggested politics needs to be more agile.
The most apt analysis I've read was that from a historical standpoint Clinton was trying to do something even very strong candidates have trouble doing - keeping a party three terms in a row for the White House. There's only one president that's done it to date and it was George Bush, Sr following Reagan. It implies that Americans' desire for party change may be among the strongest of predictors. On the other hand, this party streak breaking is completely irrelevant for any other elected branch of the government as seen by the unending cycle of easy defense for incumbents in office.
>The most apt analysis I've read was that from a historical standpoint Clinton was trying to do something even very strong candidates have trouble doing - keeping a party three terms in a row for the White House. There's only one president that's done it to date and it was George Bush, Sr following Reagan.
The Democrats actually managed it back after the Great Depression. Three terms of Franklin Delano Roosevelt followed by one of Harry Truman.
The Democrats actually managed it back after the Great Depression. Three terms of Franklin Delano Roosevelt followed by one of Harry Truman.
Yep, and the Republicans did it 3 more times before that. And then there's Jackson/Van Buren three terms Dem which immediately follows the first big run of Thomas Jefferson and co running 7 terms as the Democratic-Republican party.
So really, it's just uncommon in the last sixty-odd years.
So really, it's just uncommon in the last sixty-odd years.
So when the 22nd amendment was passed to limit the president to two terms in 1951 that seems to have changed the dynamics considerably.
Maybe. Maybe not. We don't have a good control group to be able to know for certain. I think there is some psychological effect the term limit has on voters. For many the end of a second terms appeals to them as an opportunity of a fresh start (for better or worse), which may translate into electing a leader from a different party.
Technically FDR was elected to 4 terms (not 3), but died in the 4th.
That is certainly true; its very hard for a political party in a genuine liberal democracy to hold onto power for more than 2 or 3 4/5 year cycles.
The problem with that analysis in this particular case is that it is an attempt to normalise what is a fundamentally abnormal election (which is what a lot of people unfamiliar with the historical and current European and international politics generally are guilty of doing through ignorance). This wasn't a normal change of the guards, and is part of a trend that we are seeing across the world. A charisma candidate that is frankly unsuited for office, with almost no real institutional support from any recognisable political peers, and a disdain for the norms of liberal democracy just beat in a head to head contest a candidate that is fundamentally a normal, if flawed, candidate.
The problem with that analysis in this particular case is that it is an attempt to normalise what is a fundamentally abnormal election (which is what a lot of people unfamiliar with the historical and current European and international politics generally are guilty of doing through ignorance). This wasn't a normal change of the guards, and is part of a trend that we are seeing across the world. A charisma candidate that is frankly unsuited for office, with almost no real institutional support from any recognisable political peers, and a disdain for the norms of liberal democracy just beat in a head to head contest a candidate that is fundamentally a normal, if flawed, candidate.
[deleted]
Whether you are liberal or conservative, it is hard to argue that 2016 is more a time of institutional weakness than 2008.
If I had to guess your definition of what counts as an institution is much narrower and fairly specific to banking and international finance.
When I say institutions I mean the political institutions that support and enforce the norms liberal democracy which make the key difference between say Russia and Egypt vs the US or France as models of democracy, specifically in these cases of presidential democracies.
When I say institutions I mean the political institutions that support and enforce the norms liberal democracy which make the key difference between say Russia and Egypt vs the US or France as models of democracy, specifically in these cases of presidential democracies.
[deleted]
In 2008, McCain voters were very disappointed but didn't experience the total loss of emotional control I've witnessed last night and this morning.
This article is a rare expression of maturity.
This article is a rare expression of maturity.
Yes it's almost as if McCain voters were mostly straight white people with very little to lose with an Obama presidency. Almost as if, say, major portions of the left today are marginalized groups who are now at risk of a Klan backed president....
Funny how that works out
Funny how that works out
It's not like Trump is responsible for who endorses him. But if we're going to apply that logic, then we may as well get all up in arms about the Clinton Foundation and the countries who've backed that.
Robert Byrd left the KKK in the 1940s. Then he spent decades apologising for it, saying he had been wrong, and fighting FOR Civil Rights. THe NAACP said this of Byrd when he died:
"Senator Byrd went from being an active member of the KKK to a being a stalwart supporter of the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act and many other pieces of seminal legislation that advanced the civil rights and liberties of our country."[1]
Does this really compare to Trump's support from the KKK and his resistance to rejecting them?
1: https://donate.naacp.org/press/entry/naacp-mourns-the-passin...
"Senator Byrd went from being an active member of the KKK to a being a stalwart supporter of the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act and many other pieces of seminal legislation that advanced the civil rights and liberties of our country."[1]
Does this really compare to Trump's support from the KKK and his resistance to rejecting them?
1: https://donate.naacp.org/press/entry/naacp-mourns-the-passin...
It doesn't compare.
A Republican who was once in the KKK would never be forgiven no matter how many decades went by.
And you aren't responsible for who endorses you. Trump doesn't actually believe in white supremacy, so a KKK endorsement is meaningless and it's a logical fallacy to say otherwise. If the KKK endorsed carrot cake, carrot cake would not suddenly be bad.
Unless it's the kind with the overly sweetened frosting they serve in cafeterias. With the little orange and green frosting carrot on top.
A Republican who was once in the KKK would never be forgiven no matter how many decades went by.
And you aren't responsible for who endorses you. Trump doesn't actually believe in white supremacy, so a KKK endorsement is meaningless and it's a logical fallacy to say otherwise. If the KKK endorsed carrot cake, carrot cake would not suddenly be bad.
Unless it's the kind with the overly sweetened frosting they serve in cafeterias. With the little orange and green frosting carrot on top.
[deleted]
at risk of what? slave labor to build the magnificent wall of USA?
Don't be glib. Mike pence has come out in favor of conversion therapy for gays, a barbaric method with no scientific basis and a near 50% suicide rate. Trump has sexually assaulted and abused multiple women and has gotten away with it. Trump has called the Mexican people dangerous and a threat to the united States. All of these people are now at risk
Sorry if I misunderstood, but you're saying maturity means being unemotional?
Maturity means perspective.
This is extremely difficult for everyone after a campaign with as much fear and fear-mongering on both sides. The voices calling for moderation and composure are not unemotional, they may just have a different perspective.
This is extremely difficult for everyone after a campaign with as much fear and fear-mongering on both sides. The voices calling for moderation and composure are not unemotional, they may just have a different perspective.
I don't think the fears we currently face can be dismissed as fear-mongering. When someone says, "My opponent will start a war over a rude gesture," that is fear-mongering. When someone says "I will start a war over a rude gesture," well, I feel like I should believe them.
But he's a politician, right. So anything and everything that comes out of his mouth has a 110% likelihood of being nonsense.
If he said "I'm going to end homelessness" would you believe him?
If he said "I'm going to end homelessness" would you believe him?
No, but only because that's impossible. Starting a war with Iran is well within his powers.
That's a good point. I just feel that when a politician says "I am going to" what they mean is "I will not".
Time will tell.
Time will tell.
I know what you mean, and sometimes I feel that way too. But I think a lot of it is just overpromising. Politicians promise the moon and stars, when all they have is a tall ladder. It's especially bad with American presidents, who the people see as almost an emperor, but whose power is relatively limited in most areas. It's crazy how many times I saw people say things like, "Trump will cut taxes on..." or "Clinton will raise taxes on...." No they won't, that's Congress's area!
But telling the military to sink another country's ships, that is something the president can do....
But telling the military to sink another country's ships, that is something the president can do....
> If he said "I'm going to end homelessness" would you believe him?
I believe that they would try. Starting a military conflict is well within the abilities of a president, especially when his party has control over both houses of congress and a demonstrated inability to stand up to him.
I believe that they would try. Starting a military conflict is well within the abilities of a president, especially when his party has control over both houses of congress and a demonstrated inability to stand up to him.
> But Trump can still do a huge amount of damage.”
> Yes he can. And that sucks. But every president can do a lot of damage, and many of them do, and we’re still standing. And remember, the president is seriously limited in what he can do without the approval of other parts of the government, so he’s unlikely to be able to carry out anything that crazy.
Not every one is in the situation to sit back and take this with stride. I'm happy that the author is, and all things considered, I'm probably in that position, too. But if I were in a group that faced potential disenfranchisement, I wouldn't be laid back at the prospect of Republicans controlling all 3 branches of government.
> Yes he can. And that sucks. But every president can do a lot of damage, and many of them do, and we’re still standing. And remember, the president is seriously limited in what he can do without the approval of other parts of the government, so he’s unlikely to be able to carry out anything that crazy.
Not every one is in the situation to sit back and take this with stride. I'm happy that the author is, and all things considered, I'm probably in that position, too. But if I were in a group that faced potential disenfranchisement, I wouldn't be laid back at the prospect of Republicans controlling all 3 branches of government.
You're correct - I am directly negatively affected by Supreme Court nominations that favour the removal of Roe v Wade, legal same-sex marriage, and the Affordable Care act. I will not be laid back.
that favour the removal of Roe v Wade
Five of the seven who supported the plaintiff (e.g. to uphold abortion rights) were Republican appointees.
I wouldn't say totally unfamiliar, but I suppose I'm biased to my own understanding.
Correct, Republican appointees did support and continue to reaffirm constitutional protections for abortion rights. However, it is not clear to me that the Republicans making those appointments made a clear statement vowing that they would appoint those who would be in favor of removing Roe v Wade [0]. The seat currently open will be unlikely to overturn Roe v Wade regardless of who was appointed. However, should Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Kennedy, or Stephen Breyer leave the court (All >=78yrs) [1] and be replaced by Trump's appointees. I understand it's not an immediate ability with the appointment of one justice in that favour, but there's still reason for concern.
[0] http://www.cnbc.com/2016/10/19/trump-ill-appoint-supreme-cou...
[1] http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-trump-supreme-court-2016...
Correct, Republican appointees did support and continue to reaffirm constitutional protections for abortion rights. However, it is not clear to me that the Republicans making those appointments made a clear statement vowing that they would appoint those who would be in favor of removing Roe v Wade [0]. The seat currently open will be unlikely to overturn Roe v Wade regardless of who was appointed. However, should Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Kennedy, or Stephen Breyer leave the court (All >=78yrs) [1] and be replaced by Trump's appointees. I understand it's not an immediate ability with the appointment of one justice in that favour, but there's still reason for concern.
[0] http://www.cnbc.com/2016/10/19/trump-ill-appoint-supreme-cou...
[1] http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-trump-supreme-court-2016...
> it turns out that there are just as many people who are thrilled by last night’s election as there are people who are devastated by it. For every single American who voted for Hillary yesterday and who watched last night’s events unfold in horror, there’s another American out there who rejoiced. It’s a 1-to-1 ratio.
This has never been more incorrect than in this election. Many people who voted for Trump only because they didn't want Hillary to be president. And many who voted for Hillary because they didn't want Trump to be president.
When you get to pick your poison, that doesn't imply you're going to like the poison you pick. It's still poison.
This has never been more incorrect than in this election. Many people who voted for Trump only because they didn't want Hillary to be president. And many who voted for Hillary because they didn't want Trump to be president.
When you get to pick your poison, that doesn't imply you're going to like the poison you pick. It's still poison.
Ehh, Trump lost the popular vote by a significant margin.
Trump won due to 64,252 voters in Florida. Alternatively, Hillary lost due to 8,693 voters in Michigan and 34,006 voters in Pennsylvania.
PS: It really was a tight race, but thinking in national terms is completely misleading. And no I did not vote for Hillary or Trump or more importantly live in a state that mattered.
Trump won due to 64,252 voters in Florida. Alternatively, Hillary lost due to 8,693 voters in Michigan and 34,006 voters in Pennsylvania.
PS: It really was a tight race, but thinking in national terms is completely misleading. And no I did not vote for Hillary or Trump or more importantly live in a state that mattered.
> Trump lost the popular vote by a significant margin
I'm not sure the facts support that statement. As of this comment:
Trump: 59,341,446 Clinton: 59,578,989
That's a difference of just 237,543 votes, out of about 125 million votes. Or, less than 1/5th of a percent difference.
I'm not sure the facts support that statement. As of this comment:
Trump: 59,341,446 Clinton: 59,578,989
That's a difference of just 237,543 votes, out of about 125 million votes. Or, less than 1/5th of a percent difference.
More to the point, not all of those 59,341,446 Trump voters are happy that he won. They're just not quite as sad as they would have been if Hillary had won.
He got 47.5% of the popular vote. Which is slightly lower than 47.7% for Hillary, but a long way from 50.001%.
Calling 47.5:52.5 a 1:1 ratio is rather far off it's 1:1.105.
Calling 47.5:52.5 a 1:1 ratio is rather far off it's 1:1.105.
I suppose what you're saying is that Johnson (3%), Stein (1%) and other (0.7%) means that not everyone in the country voted for one of the two. While true, the relative difference between the two main contenders is what matters.
According to Wikipedia's chart, this is the 3rd closest popular vote elections in history.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presiden...
According to Wikipedia's chart, this is the 3rd closest popular vote elections in history.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presiden...
> “Easy for you to say, white male blogger. I’m brown and I don’t feel safe here anymore.”
> Here’s what I’ll say to that:
> This country had your back yesterday and it’ll have your back tomorrow.
The whole point of not feeling safe is that the country doesn't have their back.
> Here’s what I’ll say to that:
> This country had your back yesterday and it’ll have your back tomorrow.
The whole point of not feeling safe is that the country doesn't have their back.
Articles like this are sadly mostly useless because people who need to read them the most are not going to.
Hardcore liberals who blame Trump and his supporters for "bigotry" usually refuse to accept or even take a look at any other points of view, which is, ironically, the definition of bigotry.
Hardcore liberals who blame Trump and his supporters for "bigotry" usually refuse to accept or even take a look at any other points of view, which is, ironically, the definition of bigotry.
Don't blame people for not being able to see other people's perspectives. That takes very hard physical work, and when you perhaps write down the kinds of things that would be required to explore even a few divergent perspectives, most people are simply not cut out for the task.
Additionally, most people are not even cut out for the task of coming up with a credible narrative of what selfish rationality means to them. They have difficulty describing even their own interests.
Heaven forbid they have to model the rationality of others! Heaven forbid a model should have more than 3 factors in interaction!
Additionally, most people are not even cut out for the task of coming up with a credible narrative of what selfish rationality means to them. They have difficulty describing even their own interests.
Heaven forbid they have to model the rationality of others! Heaven forbid a model should have more than 3 factors in interaction!
It's not going to be okay. A lot of marginalized people are going to be hurt even more, and yes, the people that voted for Trump are racists, sexists, etc., or at the very least they are fine with a president who is all of those things.
> and yes, the people that voted for Trump are racists, sexists, etc.,
Not a Trump supporter, I don't like him and I live on another continent, but I do not like the way some of you want to paint everyone who doesn't agree with you as morally corrupt and divide USA even more.
Please guys, for your own good, stop, take a step back and think about why this happened.
I argue that if the reason was that 50% of the voters are stupid haters then you would had an real problem long before this election.
Not a Trump supporter, I don't like him and I live on another continent, but I do not like the way some of you want to paint everyone who doesn't agree with you as morally corrupt and divide USA even more.
Please guys, for your own good, stop, take a step back and think about why this happened.
I argue that if the reason was that 50% of the voters are stupid haters then you would had an real problem long before this election.
We did have a real problem long before this election. Now it has finally come to a head.
We have had real problems, and continue to have them. It's not implausible at all, given the US's (recent!) history, to suggest that 50+% of Americans are racist or sexist. In some ways, it would be more surprising if the number was less than 50%.
...... please, stop.
This kind of absurd social justice rampage is exactly why people stayed quiet in public, but privately voted for Trump at the ballot box.
This kind of absurd social justice rampage is exactly why people stayed quiet in public, but privately voted for Trump at the ballot box.
Agreed.
I notice you have been downvoted. This post election shaming campaign is really making certain "democrats" look bad.
I won't attribute it to all democrats but a few people here have been behaving in what I see as a very undemocratic way over the last 24 hours.
That said, here is a protip: don't mention SJ, it just fuels the fire.
I notice you have been downvoted. This post election shaming campaign is really making certain "democrats" look bad.
I won't attribute it to all democrats but a few people here have been behaving in what I see as a very undemocratic way over the last 24 hours.
That said, here is a protip: don't mention SJ, it just fuels the fire.
Are you basing the 50+% on the election results? Is that fair, given a voter has to coalesce all of the positions they may have on a variety of issues into a single, effectively binary choice? If you were in an eligible voter and voted in the US election, do you subscribe to all of the positions of the candidates you voted for or have ever supported?
It isn't a concern about moral corruption with Trump and Trump supporters, it's a concern for physical safety.
We've seen Trump enable and condone his supporters assaulting people.
Will he reign in the violent supporters? This is what I want to know. To date, he has not.
We've seen Trump enable and condone his supporters assaulting people.
Will he reign in the violent supporters? This is what I want to know. To date, he has not.
The DNC leaks show that Democrats also incited violence on Trump rallies. So you didn't really have a choice.
I actually do have a choice. I see behavior like this and I reject it vocally and unequivocally. The guy in the hat [0] is 100% responsible for his own abhorrent behavior.
By Trump's own words, Trump expressed a desire to sucker punch somebody at a convention earlier in the campaign cycle [1]. I do not wish to associate myself with Trump or either party at this point.
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LX4Q643aEU
[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/02/2...
By Trump's own words, Trump expressed a desire to sucker punch somebody at a convention earlier in the campaign cycle [1]. I do not wish to associate myself with Trump or either party at this point.
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LX4Q643aEU
[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/02/2...
This is not strictly true... I think for a lot of people, this vote represented two main issues:
1. The establishment has long been sticking up for big commercial interests with lobbyists controlling Washington, lining the pockets of the 1% at the cost of those living at or below the poverty line, who struggle to find work and put food on the table every day of their lives. Ever since Wikileaks, sentiment has been growing against this form of corruption, and then Snowden added fuel to the fire, and now this.
2. For better or for worse, Trump represents hope of jobs they can do returning to the country and a way out of the hole.
When you have to put food on the table right now, or see your hard earned cash walking out of the door every day into the pockets of the 1% while you struggle - EVERY SINGLE DAY, racism, bigotry and sexism can take a back seat to feeding your kids and keeping a roof over your head - for right or wrong.
If I were American, if I lived in America, I couldn't in good conscience have voted for Hillary. I also couldn't in good conscience have voted for racism, bigotry and sexism. But then, as someone in the software industry, I guess I'm part of the 1% and I'll always find a way to be okay.
The only way I could have voted in good conscience would have been to vote for myself - an un-nominated candidate with no platform other than try and do what's right by people... and because the electoral college is fucked, it would have been an entirely wasted vote.
This was a giant fuck you to the establishment, and on that, I resoundingly agree. But I'm also unhappy that Trump won.
With this in mind, with the fact that many have the perception that Trump cannot be bought because Trump only gives a shit about one thing - what Trump wants; and the fact that Hillary's entire platform is held afloat by big commercial interests, I think this vote was already made a long time before the election.
Figure out what's good for Trump post presidency, buy stocks in that. You'll be fine.
Of course, there's always the 25th Amendment and the CIA standing between here and there... so who knows what the future holds. Either way, I'm gonna need more popcorn.
1. The establishment has long been sticking up for big commercial interests with lobbyists controlling Washington, lining the pockets of the 1% at the cost of those living at or below the poverty line, who struggle to find work and put food on the table every day of their lives. Ever since Wikileaks, sentiment has been growing against this form of corruption, and then Snowden added fuel to the fire, and now this.
2. For better or for worse, Trump represents hope of jobs they can do returning to the country and a way out of the hole.
When you have to put food on the table right now, or see your hard earned cash walking out of the door every day into the pockets of the 1% while you struggle - EVERY SINGLE DAY, racism, bigotry and sexism can take a back seat to feeding your kids and keeping a roof over your head - for right or wrong.
If I were American, if I lived in America, I couldn't in good conscience have voted for Hillary. I also couldn't in good conscience have voted for racism, bigotry and sexism. But then, as someone in the software industry, I guess I'm part of the 1% and I'll always find a way to be okay.
The only way I could have voted in good conscience would have been to vote for myself - an un-nominated candidate with no platform other than try and do what's right by people... and because the electoral college is fucked, it would have been an entirely wasted vote.
This was a giant fuck you to the establishment, and on that, I resoundingly agree. But I'm also unhappy that Trump won.
With this in mind, with the fact that many have the perception that Trump cannot be bought because Trump only gives a shit about one thing - what Trump wants; and the fact that Hillary's entire platform is held afloat by big commercial interests, I think this vote was already made a long time before the election.
Figure out what's good for Trump post presidency, buy stocks in that. You'll be fine.
Of course, there's always the 25th Amendment and the CIA standing between here and there... so who knows what the future holds. Either way, I'm gonna need more popcorn.
I will be fine, they aren't trying to take my rights away, but many people won't be fine. Gay people, transgender people, muslims, black people, women, poor people, etc. will all experience serious negative consequences of a Republican controlled government.
And let's not forget that the most important issue of all, climate change, has been denied to even exist by Trump.
And let's not forget that the most important issue of all, climate change, has been denied to even exist by Trump.
I don't disagree with you. Many people won't be fine and I will stand shoulder to shoulder with them against the bullshit they have to go through on a daily basis.
But given these things and putting food on the table and feeding their kids every day. What do you think people look to do first? Stand up for their principles, morals and beliefs or feed their kids? The other things can be fixed tomorrow in their minds.
I'm not saying I agree that these things should be swept aside, ignored, accepted, everything you state is important and needs to be fixed absolutely. But people care about themselves and their circumstance before their principles. They will satisfy their principles tomorrow once their kids are fed and their bills are paid.
But given these things and putting food on the table and feeding their kids every day. What do you think people look to do first? Stand up for their principles, morals and beliefs or feed their kids? The other things can be fixed tomorrow in their minds.
I'm not saying I agree that these things should be swept aside, ignored, accepted, everything you state is important and needs to be fixed absolutely. But people care about themselves and their circumstance before their principles. They will satisfy their principles tomorrow once their kids are fed and their bills are paid.
Which demographic would have been unable to put food on the table under Hillary but not under Trump? Not trying to be snide; I'm genuinely curious.
It's not about who will or won't it's about perception, for right or wrong.
Under Hillary, the perception is that the 1% would continue to get richer and the poor would continue to get poorer while lobbyists continue to control the Government fanning the flames of the perception of Government corruption that runs salt in the wounds of those left fighting tooth and nail for the scraps that are left.
Under the Donald, there is an offer of hope that this blusterous bigot who doesn't give a fuck what anyone but he wants himself cannot be bought by the establishment has offered a promise of bringing jobs they can do back home. The masses living in poverty don't give a flying fuck about the 1% who benefit from a lobby controlled Government who's only concern appears to be Wall St. - and nor should they when their primary concern is putting food in their kids mouths.
Whether these perceptions are valid or not, whether or not the Donald will make good on these apparently empty promises, these are the perceptions that make up a large part of the country's reality and that is what people voted to fix.
So the demographic that perceives they're going to benefit are the 99% that have been left behind by corporate America.
Under Hillary, the perception is that the 1% would continue to get richer and the poor would continue to get poorer while lobbyists continue to control the Government fanning the flames of the perception of Government corruption that runs salt in the wounds of those left fighting tooth and nail for the scraps that are left.
Under the Donald, there is an offer of hope that this blusterous bigot who doesn't give a fuck what anyone but he wants himself cannot be bought by the establishment has offered a promise of bringing jobs they can do back home. The masses living in poverty don't give a flying fuck about the 1% who benefit from a lobby controlled Government who's only concern appears to be Wall St. - and nor should they when their primary concern is putting food in their kids mouths.
Whether these perceptions are valid or not, whether or not the Donald will make good on these apparently empty promises, these are the perceptions that make up a large part of the country's reality and that is what people voted to fix.
So the demographic that perceives they're going to benefit are the 99% that have been left behind by corporate America.
That is simply not true. It's not that black and white. For example, some people had to choose between their livelihoods or voting for Trump. Many of them didn't like his sexism, racism, etc. However, for them, it appeared that the choice was voting for Trump regardless or lose their job, home, and community. I'm sure most of them hope that his racism and sexism won't come into play during the presidency.
I think this is missing the part where Pence claimed, yesterday, that Trump will be repealing many LGBT rights. That's not a political opinion, that's a threat.
Well let's see what he thinks of Minnesota or California basically tell him to fly a kite.
If Minnesota or California can protect the rights of their citizens, then good for them, but it does not protect LGBT individuals in Texas or the Midwest.
No doubt and I'm open to helping them anyway I can.
That state of affairs existed before 2015. Several states had approved gay marriage but it was still a clusterfuck of legal issues.
Ordinarily I think this should have been handled at the state level. But when states fail so badly that citizens are living in daily fear of violence, I think it's appropriate for the federal government to step in. And it's irresponsible to repeal those protections when the issue has not been resolved at the state level.
On another note, I find it really interesting that people are up in arms about the "social damage" implications, as if that was the only thing at stake. What about the damage potential of Hilary's desire to enforce a no-fly-zone over Syria, unambiguously escalating tensions with Russia and moving us closer to a potential WWIII? Acceptable for the sake of the former? A minor detail?
This isn't about losing an election, this is about the next 40 years. Trump will sit one justice immediately, setting the lean of the court, and likely 3 more over his presidency. He is setting the SCOTUS for the next 40 years.
He has all 3 branches.
He has all 3 branches.
I voted for Obama and I voted for Trump. I am not alone. The "other side" is not the mythical homogenous group of zealots so many have painted it to be. A lot of supposedly rational open-minded people are interpreting this in an overly simplistic, frankly emotional way. I commend the message here. Just stop and breathe. Take it in, don't jump to conclusions based on your knee-jerk reaction/feelings.
Right now, we have no clue if it will be OK. We have no idea what Trump will do on foreign policy. Harry Truman once said "domestic policy can only hurt you, but foreign policy can kill you". He'd been in charge for the end of WWII, after all.
It will matter a lot who Trump picks as Secretary of State. They'll probably determine more of foreign policy than Trump does.
It will matter a lot who Trump picks as Secretary of State. They'll probably determine more of foreign policy than Trump does.
I don't see how you can realistically claim that public policy just doesn't matter. Republicans just claimed control of the Presidency, the House, and the Senate in a clean sweep, while the Supreme Court has a vacancy and numerous federal judicial and executive positions remain unfilled. They are going to be able to implement whatever they can come to consensus about within their own ranks.
This isn't Windows versus Macintosh. This is life and death. You can hold the opinion that the Republican policy platform is acceptable while acknowledging that your party just got near-total power over a heavily divided, regionalized, racialized country in an incredibly narrow victory. There is going to be conflict over this.
This isn't Windows versus Macintosh. This is life and death. You can hold the opinion that the Republican policy platform is acceptable while acknowledging that your party just got near-total power over a heavily divided, regionalized, racialized country in an incredibly narrow victory. There is going to be conflict over this.
This was a refreshing read. Thanks.
I think the mistake this post makes is that this revultion isn't just about the politics. It's also and much more so for me, and the person.
Yeah, I was voting age through the Clinton and Bush Presidencies. I view the Bush Presidency as a complete disaster. What we have here, however, is setup to be worse, because the Republican Party has shifted even more to the right with the rise of the Tea Party.
They can most immediately do massive damage through appointment of Supreme Court justices. While its true that the open seat was an arch conservative and having a Republican appointment to that seat will not change the balance of power in the court much, Kennedy, Ginsburg and Breyer are all 78-83 and mortality will be catching up with them soon. That puts Roe v. Wade legitimately in jeopardy like never before.
When it comes to one of the biggest issues of our time -- climate change -- we just elected the candidate who claimed that it was a chinese hoax. The House is full of candidates who believe similarly. The most moderate of Republicans are likely to dismiss the magnitude of the concerns over the climate and vote in favor of protecting carbon based industries. It really is fairly black and white on this issue and the fact that there's a few moderates who won't straight up deny the science doesn't help when they form a coalition with the anti-science tea partiers, the effect is going to be the same.
Its also likely that the ACA gets repealed now. It might take triggering the "nuclear option" in the senate to override a fillibuster, but I can see that happening now. About the only upside to this is that when 10 million or so Americans wake up the next day and find they've lost their healthcare they might think twice about voting Republican. Conceivably the possibility of that backlash might cause some Republicans to defect and not consider the nuclear option and this may not happen, but that is teetering on a hugely sharp knife edge.
Then there's just rolling back all the progress over the past 8 years in civil rights. At the very least it will solidly block progress for the next 4-8 years. It won't be getting any better. I can't imagine that the issues with police shootings of black males will improve and that BLM will be going away. If anything, I could see even more incidents like the Dallas shootings and movements springing up that really were more like the Blank Panthers. Riots in major cities, etc.
And then there's foreign involvement. I suspect that everyone who voted for Trump thinking that was the anti-war vote is going to be shocked pretty soon at how many boots we wind up with on the ground in Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria. I would never defend Obama's drone strikes or Hillary's penchant for bombing, but the Republican party is the one that likes to see Abrams battle tanks rolling across sand dunes in the Middle East, which is orders of magnitude worse. There was one anti-war candidate in this election and it was Bernie Sanders. What we got was the Hawk in Dove's clothing.
And when it comes to financial crisis we're going to see the repeal of Dodd-Frank almost certainly. The problem here is that while during the 2008 crisis you saw George Bush's administration rescue the financial industry (and the entire country) there's no assurances that we won't see the Trump administration and the Republican congress blow up the US financial industry. Last time there was that awkward picture of Treasury Secretary Paulson getting down on one knee and begging Nancy Pelosi to stop the financial crisis. What we've elected since then is the whole Tea Party wing who think the solution to financial crisis is not regulation before it happens and instead is just letting a financial crisis unwind with maximum possible destruction. Next time we might see money market accounts lock up, short term credit evaporate and literally ATMs and monthly paychecks from otherwise solvent industries stop. We peered over that abyss in 2008 and now we've put all the people who thought going over that cliff sounded like a great idea into power.
And even if you discount those last two arguments I made as being unlikely, its still not remotely going to be okay.
They can most immediately do massive damage through appointment of Supreme Court justices. While its true that the open seat was an arch conservative and having a Republican appointment to that seat will not change the balance of power in the court much, Kennedy, Ginsburg and Breyer are all 78-83 and mortality will be catching up with them soon. That puts Roe v. Wade legitimately in jeopardy like never before.
When it comes to one of the biggest issues of our time -- climate change -- we just elected the candidate who claimed that it was a chinese hoax. The House is full of candidates who believe similarly. The most moderate of Republicans are likely to dismiss the magnitude of the concerns over the climate and vote in favor of protecting carbon based industries. It really is fairly black and white on this issue and the fact that there's a few moderates who won't straight up deny the science doesn't help when they form a coalition with the anti-science tea partiers, the effect is going to be the same.
Its also likely that the ACA gets repealed now. It might take triggering the "nuclear option" in the senate to override a fillibuster, but I can see that happening now. About the only upside to this is that when 10 million or so Americans wake up the next day and find they've lost their healthcare they might think twice about voting Republican. Conceivably the possibility of that backlash might cause some Republicans to defect and not consider the nuclear option and this may not happen, but that is teetering on a hugely sharp knife edge.
Then there's just rolling back all the progress over the past 8 years in civil rights. At the very least it will solidly block progress for the next 4-8 years. It won't be getting any better. I can't imagine that the issues with police shootings of black males will improve and that BLM will be going away. If anything, I could see even more incidents like the Dallas shootings and movements springing up that really were more like the Blank Panthers. Riots in major cities, etc.
And then there's foreign involvement. I suspect that everyone who voted for Trump thinking that was the anti-war vote is going to be shocked pretty soon at how many boots we wind up with on the ground in Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria. I would never defend Obama's drone strikes or Hillary's penchant for bombing, but the Republican party is the one that likes to see Abrams battle tanks rolling across sand dunes in the Middle East, which is orders of magnitude worse. There was one anti-war candidate in this election and it was Bernie Sanders. What we got was the Hawk in Dove's clothing.
And when it comes to financial crisis we're going to see the repeal of Dodd-Frank almost certainly. The problem here is that while during the 2008 crisis you saw George Bush's administration rescue the financial industry (and the entire country) there's no assurances that we won't see the Trump administration and the Republican congress blow up the US financial industry. Last time there was that awkward picture of Treasury Secretary Paulson getting down on one knee and begging Nancy Pelosi to stop the financial crisis. What we've elected since then is the whole Tea Party wing who think the solution to financial crisis is not regulation before it happens and instead is just letting a financial crisis unwind with maximum possible destruction. Next time we might see money market accounts lock up, short term credit evaporate and literally ATMs and monthly paychecks from otherwise solvent industries stop. We peered over that abyss in 2008 and now we've put all the people who thought going over that cliff sounded like a great idea into power.
And even if you discount those last two arguments I made as being unlikely, its still not remotely going to be okay.
couldn't agree more.
Imagine this election is a startup. You have this wonderful/magical/great product but just not sell. Then what? Back to development and try again!
Imagine this election is a startup. You have this wonderful/magical/great product but just not sell. Then what? Back to development and try again!
Sure, but the unfinished product can severely impact your life regardless of how it's going.
[deleted]
At a time of greatest institutional weakness, a demagogue with authoritarian tendencies that considers the norms of a liberal democracy to be a inconvenience and subordinate to the needs of order has just been elected on a wave of hate, lies, racism, and bigotry with the promise of locking up his political opponents and abandoning international allies and obligations.
This is potentially a game changer from which there is no return and everyone is a loser.