I shut down a thread last week (something that rarely happens here) about the election results because I felt it was too soon to have a discussion. Emotions were high and I personally was feeling pretty wrecked (not joking: I had a migraine all Wednesday and was pretty out of it). But, I think there can be an opportunity for discussion and I am interested to hear member opinions on the result and the future of America in the next few years. And, also because we have many international members who can provide a unique perspective.
What I do not want and won't tolerate here: bashing other groups, political parties or forum members, gross stereotypes, disparaging remarks about race, religion or sexual orientation. If you have an opinion to offer, do it. But do so as gentlemen. Otherwise, in the words of Negan, "I will shut that shit down."
----------------------
About me: I am an unabashed liberal and make no apologies for it. But, I try to be rational and reasoned in my political opinions. I voted for Clinton because Sanders did not win and because I am a Democrat. I liked some things about Clinton and not others. I liked Sanders a whole lot more. I support a progressive agenda in all social policies and quite a few economic ones (although there are some conservative ideas about the economy which I think are good ones). I think Obama has been a good president and while I do not agree with some things he has done (and not done) I will truly miss him in office. And, his awesome family.
I am terrified right now. Not because Trump won, though. We have had bad presidents before and he will hardly be the last. That is something we can weather. I am terrified at the prospect of an unencumbered Republican control of all branches of government. I am terrified that we will normalize some of the awful conduct and opinions people have expressed during the long campaign. And, I am very worried for the future of important social tentpoles like Medicare, Social Security, women's and minority rights, voting rights, health care, the Supreme Court, and too many others to list. Lastly, I am worried that we Americans are at a tipping point where any hope of coming together despite (and in some ways, because of) our differences for the good of the country is quickly receding. I am also very concerned about the next steps we take regarding energy and dealing with climate.
I understand why "my side" lost. We lost because the DNC propped up the wrong candidate and ignored the concerns of many Americans who would have otherwise voted for a Democrat. We lost because HRC did not speak to enough Americans (and made one awful and stupid comment about a large portion of them). And, we lost because of this stupid and antiquated Electoral College. I understand that we are a Democratic Republic. I just think the elections themselves should be purely democratic (and I would say the same thing if the situation with the popular vote were reversed ((even though I would secretly be relieved))).
What I look forward to: the Democratic party re-molding itself into what more Americans want. Undoubtedly we need new, fresh faces. We need to increase the diversity of candidates to represent the many different kinds of people in this country. We need to listen. We should defend why we feel our ideas are the right ones for the country but not insist anyone who thinks differently is uneducated or believes what they do solely out of self-interest. We should call out those who express ideas that are counter to our democracy and who express racist or xenophobic rhetoric, but not stereotype others as embracing those views just because they happen to be in the same political party. And, much as it pains me to say, sometimes we need to fight dirty; it seems to be the reality we live in now.
----------------------
All that said, I'd like to hear other takes on it. And, like I said, let's stay adults.
ok, I'll start. First off, my understanding of the american political system is rather crude, so please excuse if I make false statements.
I am and was very much against Trump. The things he said and has done in the past were quite shocking and I found it hard to believe that so many US citizens would actually vote for someone like him. One of things that surprised me most was that after his rating went down after all the things about his attitude towards women came to light, they went up again to a point were he was able to win. Did people just forget about that within a week? I can't imagine a situation where I would vote for a guy like that. At least he is very moderate since he has been elected and this has been a great relief. Apparently many of the things he claimed to do were just hot air after all. thank god for that.
That being said, I'm not so fond of Hillary Clinton either. She sure made mistakes during her time in the Obama administration, but at least she has experience in the field of politics. That alone made her a lot more suited for the job.
One of the problems I see is that there are factually just two parties in the US. Republicans and Democrats. That's it. Of course there are other parties, but due to the electoral college system, they are neglectable. Also watching Jon Oliver's portrait of those parties (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3O01EfM5fU) opened my eyes in that regard. Basically every vote you cast for those parties is lost. I think there is a choice between two parties in the end, and even if you'd rather vote for another party, you should consider voting for one of the big two, just to make sure you get "the lesser evil". I see that no political diversity can ever result from that and in a regular election, I would totally go for a third party. However, in this one, facing Trump as a potential president, I wouldn't for the reasons mentioned above.
And I believe very firmly that your voting system is outdated. I get that it can be important to protect/save heritage or customs, but this is just not one of those cases. If you really want to consider the US a democratic state, than popular vote is the only way to go. It ensures that every vote is equal, independent of race, gender, religion or any other background.
I hope that wasn't to blunt or anything. But who am I too say anything. In Austria, were having the 4th round to elect our president, which only has representative functions mostly. We managed to have a regular vote, than between the two most popular candidates (you need >50%). The later one was invalidated by the loosing party due to some mostly formal errors, but the decision was correct after all. This round was supposed to be repeated in September but got postponed because the optional mail-in voting had defect envelopes. To circumvent another invalidation, they opted out for a postponed voting on Dec. 4th.
It's a similar situation as in the US, just with less global effects. We have the former leader of the green party - a former university professor of economics - against a right winged populist who similar to Trump sees the evil in islam and immigrants. The first vote that got invalidated was 50.2% for the former green party member, so it's gonna be a close one too. I just hope people didn't get fed up by now with all the postponing and stuff. It will come down to how many people will bother to go to vote. I hardly think that many of the people who made up their minds at the first round would have changed, especially since the candidates couldn't be much different.
I can only address one of many factors regarding the results.
I am beholden to the same clearance and rights, although not read on to all programs, as Bradley, Snowden, and Clinton. (And thousands of other people in the Intelligence Community.)
Regardless of position in the military, State Department, Department of Energy, any department of the government you have to swear by, sign, and confirm your capability in the handling, storage, and transmission of classified information once you are provided with the clearance, access, and need to know of that information.
Bradley is in prison for intentionally releasing classified information. I'm cool with that.
Snowden is in exile for intentionally releasing classified information. I'm cool with that.
I can name dozens of others in the same position as those two and I am cool with that. Not because i don't think it's fucked up, because in some cases it is, but because those individuals knew before they ever set eyes on the information that the intentional or unintentional release of classified information would get them shit canned.
I would go to jail for the intentional or unintentional release of the same information that Clinton did.
I would go to jail if I kept classified information in my car, or my house, or my barn, or my laptop.
The senior intelligence officer for the Department of Defense would be fired, removed from service, and lucky if they did the same thing and not end up in jail.
GEN Petraeus was one of the best combatant commanders we've had in decades and he was raked over the coals and drummed out of the Army for releasing material to a person who did have clearance but not a confirmed need to know.
Clinton breaks the rules, meh, whatever.
She knew exactly what laws she was breaking. If she didn't, then she isn't competent enough to hold the honor of President.
She did it anyway. Regardless of personality and general shit-headedness of any competitor she went up against, I could not stand to cast my ballot for a person who falls under the same rules as everyone else but blatently disregards them because she thinks her position is more important.
Once the classified email scandal hit, Clinton lost the vote of millions of people with security clearances.
If she can't behave and act under the rules as Secretary of State, the real number 2 under the President, then she won't behave as President.
Things Clinton has done as Secretary of State have directly impacted me. Whether it was behavior with rules listed above or other actions as Secretary of State. My decision to go against her was not one of conceptual or principled thought. It was result of very direct impact to my individual life because of her decisions.
Trump, while apparently not a nice guy, has done nothing to directly harm me or any actual individual I know.
Brian, you've voiced basically all of my concerns in a much more eloquent way than I could. I'm trying to come to terms with how so many people could be either onboard or indifferent to all of the groups of people Trump has hurt with the things he said.
Quote from: icecycle66 on November 15, 2016, 07:12:48 PM
I can only address one of many factors regarding the results.
I am beholden to the same clearance and rights, although not read on to all programs, as Bradley, Snowden, and Clinton. (And thousands of other people in the Intelligence Community.)
Regardless of position in the military, State Department, Department of Energy, any department of the government you have to swear by, sign, and confirm your capability in the handling, storage, and transmission of classified information once you are provided with the clearance, access, and need to know of that information.
Bradley is in prison for intentionally releasing classified information. I'm cool with that.
Snowden is in exile for intentionally releasing classified information. I'm cool with that.
I can name dozens of others in the same position as those two and I am cool with that. Not because i don't think it's fucked up, because in some cases it is, but because those individuals knew before they ever set eyes on the information that the intentional or unintentional release of classified information would get them shit canned.
I would go to jail for the intentional or unintentional release of the same information that Clinton did.
I would go to jail if I kept classified information in my car, or my house, or my barn, or my laptop.
The senior intelligence officer for the Department of Defense would be fired, removed from service, and lucky if they did the same thing and not end up in jail.
GEN Petraeus was one of the best combatant commanders we've had in decades and he was raked over the coals and drummed out of the Army for releasing material to a person who did have clearance but not a confirmed need to know.
Clinton breaks the rules, meh, whatever.
She knew exactly what laws she was breaking. If she didn't, then she isn't competent enough to hold the honor of President.
She did it anyway. Regardless of personality and general shit-headedness of any competitor she went up against, I could not stand to cast my ballot for a person who falls under the same rules as everyone else but blatently disregards them because she thinks her position is more important.
Once the classified email scandal hit, Clinton lost the vote of millions of people with security clearances.
If she can't behave and act under the rules as Secretary of State, the real number 2 under the President, then she won't behave as President.
Things Clinton has done as Secretary of State have directly impacted me. Whether it was behavior with rules listed above or other actions as Secretary of State. My decision to go against her was not one of conceptual or principled thought. It was result of very direct impact to my individual life because of her decisions.
Trump, while apparently not a nice guy, has done nothing to directly harm me or any actual individual I know.
As someone who works in the defense industry and is very familiar with clearance requirements, the idea that mishandling classified info automatically lands you in jail is entirely untrue. Classified materials are frequently mishandled at all levels of the government. They are frequently not stored, couriered, handled, disseminated, etc. in by the proper maner and this does not land you in jail automatically. Statements like that are painting with a
really broad brush and are very misleading. The focus on investigations related to mishandling of classified information is on malicious intent and severity of consequence if the information is allowed to get "out" which is why there are different security levels for different information. Anyway, I'm not justifying what was done or disagreeing with whether or not similar behavior from someone else would necessarily land them in jail. That's stance speculation and nothing more. I am just pointing this out so folks unfamiliar with the topic do not come away with the wrong impression.
In addition, I'll add my more moderate/liberal twist here and hope to not offend. Bluntly, it would appear, to me at least, that holding this view point (that Clinton should be jailed for what she did) is synonymous with saying that the many people investigating the server issue and Comey himself are nothing but puppets who did not treat the investigation fairly. That's a high charge for someone who is not privy to the actual facts and, personally, I would not take such a hard stance on such little evidence.
Quote from: cajone5 on November 15, 2016, 07:50:53 PM
As someone who works in the defense industry and is very familiar with clearance requirements, the idea that mishandling classified info automatically lands you in jail is entirely untrue. Classified materials are frequently mishandled at all levels of the government. They are frequently not stored, couriered, handled, disseminated, etc. in by the proper maner and this does not land you in jail automatically. Statements like that are painting with a really broad brush and are very misleading. The focus on investigations related to mishandling of classified information is on malicious intent and severity of consequence if the information is allowed to get "out" which is why there are different security levels for different information. Anyway, I'm not justifying what was done or disagreeing with whether or not similar behavior from someone else would necessarily land them in jail. That's stance speculation and nothing more. I am just pointing this out so folks unfamiliar with the topic do not come away with the wrong impression.
I agree with what you are saying and I'm not going to get into all the nitty gritty about clearances etc, but it doesn't make a CI agents job any easier when the Secretary of State does what she did. In fact, it makes it much more unnecessarily difficult when somebody being investigates says, "Well, The Secretary of State did it on a much larger scale than repeatedly forgetting to get her courier orders renewed." Remember, it is her direct impact on my life that caused me to go the other way, not the conceptual.
My vote was cast based almost solely on the fact that only one candidate who could get within spitting distance of the Whitehouse was not a climate change denier. All candidates are typically a mixed bag to me, and who knows if Hillary would have followed through on her (actually rather impressive) climate proposals. Climate change is literally the most important thing that will happen in the next 100 years, and will drive mountains of social and economic upheaval without adequate preparation, but the level at which climate issues were ignored this election cycle is simply unforgivable. Even the Green Party barely said anything. POTUSE Trump could barely even be bothered to admit that it exists (http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Donald_Trump_Energy_+_Oil.htm) and has a problem with renewable energy not because he thinks it doesn't work, not because he thinks the investment won't pay back, but because
he thinks it takes too long to earn back what you paid into it. And while I'm happy to go back to working on this issue via charity and personal action and pressuring manufacturers, the level of coordination required to deal with this can't be done at a local or even state level; it can barely be done at a continent level. The coordination effort alone is too expensive for private enterprise and this is exactly the sort of thing that the ability of an immortal entity like the U.S. Government borrowing money is FOR.
That said, I also didn't think any candidate was nearly as bad as everyone tried to make them out to be, but maybe that's because I am contrarian as crap and tend to watch speeches or segments of speeches in their entirety rather than relying on soundbites and a very well developed BS detector.
I have friends at all points on the political spectrum and frankly I'm in perpetual disagreement with everyone. But I'll also listen to anyway and do my best to understand.
---
QuoteI am an unabashed liberal and make no apologies for it
I'm also a liberal (registered independent) but because words mean different things to different people, I think it's important to say what I mean by that. Below is an e-mail I wrote to a friend about it:
QuoteLiberalism is both actions and words. Liberal comes from the french word (spelled the same way) meaning "befitting free people; noble, generous; willing, zealous"; when first absorbed into English, it mean generous, noble (uhh ...meaning blue blood, in part, but not exclusively ... nothing's perfect!), and free and selfless and magnanimous. (OED or Etymonline for the history of the word.)
When I use the word "liberal" to describe myself, I do so meaning that generosity, selflessness, and magnanimity are the qualities I strive for. My personal moral compass is Kant's categorical imperative, which I see reflected in the U.S. Constitutional protections of equal protection under the law. Act in such a way that your action could become a universal law. Doing this requires thinking about how your actions would affect others, and in seeking to ensure that people are treated equally, you strive for generosity.
This meaning is being subverted. It's being subverted both by opponents of those aspects of liberalism as a philosophy -- I will explain this further later -- but also by self-described liberals who are ingenerous to people they disagree with, which is a big part of what that video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLG9g7BcjKs) is about.
It's classically opposed to conservatism.
Strictly speaking, conservatism is not a political system, but rather a way of looking at the civil order. The conservative of Peru ... will differ greatly from those of Australia, for though they may share a preference for things established, the institutions and customs which they desire to preserve are not identical. [Russell Kirk (1918-1994)]
(Etymonline again for the easiest source)
When a new element is introduced into a body politic, liberalism can incorporate it as-is. Conservatism can incorporate it only if it already fits in the system.
Liberalism is also not the same as progressivism. Progressivism is an intentional movement toward a goal that's defined as "progress." It's also traditionally understood as opposed to conservatism, and this is a better fit to my mind than saying liberalism is the opposite. Liberalism can oppose both progressivism and conservatism, because if the progress is not magnanimous and inhibits freedom in a universally applicable way (with equal protection), then the progress is illiberal.
I used the word "opposed," but I think it's important to realize that all of these can be good. There must be a way for societies to process new information, people, and ideas. There also have to be dissenting voices that say, "Wait, let's think about this for a second." That's not an evil sentiment.
The biggest problem I see now -- and this was touched on in that video (I watched it earlier) -- is that somehow people have gotten it into their head that their fellow citizens are an enemy.
I took a few years off Facebook, and when I came back in the middle of this election cycle, it was like I landed on a different planet. I barely recognized my friends based on what they said on there.
And while I thought people were being harsh and sanctimoneous before, thins actually managed to get worse afterward. People are angry, I get that. But some of them, it's like they learned nothing.
Last night, I listened to some people circle-jerking that Trump only got elected by stupid people, as if that would make his election illegitimate. These people describe themselves as liberal, and progressive, sitting around suggesting that hypothetically less intelligent fellow citizens (demonstrably untrue) should not enjoy the same protection of their right to vote simply because they picked a different person than they would have picked. And my Facebook feed is nearly flooded with articles writing the same thing, being shared by friends who say the same thing, and then moments later saying that they want to protect their friends who are minorities.
Here's a short list of some bad things:
1. Bigotry and prejudice;
2. Theft
3. Murder
4. oppression;
5. Other ways that treat other humans as less human;
6. ...
Having a particular political view does not make one less likely to do any of these things or anything else. Philosophies, including political outlooks, are simply tools. Tools are not inherently good or bad. They're just one of the millions of descriptors that can be applied to another human being.
I wrote earlier today that I'm in perpetual disagreement with nearly everyone. I think we would find a very strange thing if we all got better at discussion (and this is mentioned in the video): That we simultaneously disagree with each other more than we think AND have more common ground than suspected.
From here, I'll just copy something I wrote on Facebook, about a lesson in discussion:
Story time (finish this, because there's an important point at the end): As I posted just before going in to vote early, the environment is my ultimate deciding issue. A few months ago, I had a conversation with someone who disagreed with me on climate change. There are times when I didn't have the mental presence or energy to have an actual discussion about this. Frankly, the evidence is overwhelming and it feels like discussing gravity to me. But you don't learn anything about people by writing them off, so I let him talk.
He mentioned a lot of the usual stuff about solar activity and other common explanations, potential abuse of a carbon tax, and damaged competitiveness on the world stage, mixed in with a little bit of "I don't think humans are contributing" and "climate change scientists have something to gain by supporting it." He had heard all the arguments for human activity being the major factor in the changing climate and just wasn't convinced.
That's important right there. If I was going to continue this conversation, if I decided to argue the merits we were both going to walk away thinking EXACTLY the same thing at the end of it. No one would go anywhere.
There was a brief lull in the conversation where I got to ask myself, "Does this *actually* matter?" And so I asked different questions rather than making statements.
First, I asked if he thought that people working for oil companies who publish studies contradicting climate change have something to gain. I got an answer that surprised me but honestly shouldn't have: He said "Of course. They're selling you something." Already we had some common ground.
We talked a little about the economic implications. I am on the side that investment, even if it makes us weaker, even if it were to permanently put us in second, third, or tenth place economically, is ultimately right *because it's the right thing to do*. But I also recognize that's a big ask for people if their paycheck depends on it.
Eventually we got to a point in the conversation where I asked what he thought of investing in green technology, and the issue was that he just didn't want the government doing it. The dude has solar panels on his roof, drives a fuel efficient car (he might have even said his wife drives a hybrid), and he said he'd have a wind turbine too if he had room on his property.
At this point, not only have I been surprised, but I'm actually kind of jealous. I can't afford a hybrid; I live in an oak forest (despite being in Baltimore City) and can't put solar panels on my roof (I think it's actually forbidden by our HA), and certainly wouldn't be able to even think about a wind turbine.
Granted, this turned out to be an extreme example, but despite not agreeing with me on the goals, causes, or methods, he had reached a place that did some good toward the same ends.
Well said, Brian. Pretty much my thoughts exactly. My headache lasted until Thursday because I couldn't get good sleep, to boot.
My partner is Latina and she's been having nightmares the past few months. She's had the word 'Trump' chanted at her and her family. Two days ago, her African-American colleague had a white man come up to her in Starbucks, get right up in her face and say, 'Go Trump.' Yesterday, at an anti-discrimination rally, a man in a truck drove by giving a Nazi salute and yelling, 'White Power.'
This is why this is so different - real terror. It's very troubling to see it dismissed as being upset that your 'team' lost, as if it were a football game.
Like you said, we have a lot of members here from around the globe, so I feel a bit as if I owe a bit of explanation.
About the Electoral College System: It was implemented to appease slave states. The slaves couldn't vote, of course, so those states needed a way to count that population to balance electoral power. It's very antiquated, but the Constitution is extremely hard to change, so it's stuck around.
About Hillary: You're wondering how such an unpopular candidate would be chosen. Basically, it was just her turn. She'd played the inside game of politics to perfection - raised all the money, spread it to the right people, was owed all the favors and loyalty - which is the way it's traditionally worked. She cleared the path for herself and the polls and traditional voting patterns indicated to everyone that she couldn't lose, even being as unpopular as she was. This was a double-whammy, though, because if you combine inevitability with low enthusiasm, you get very low turnout, which is exactly what happened. Trump didn't over perform, she just wildly underperformed.
Trump voters: I grew up in a single-wide mobile home on an Appalachian hillside and went to an all-white little mountain school. I'm related to Trump voters and grew up with them. I can sympathize with them. I was never part of their tribe because my mom was from Philadelphia and even though I grew up there, I didn't talk like they did. I went to college, which even though I don't make a lot money, means I'm 'elite.' Being 'elite' doesn't mean you're rich or powerful, it means you work behind a desk at a computer all day drinking coffee (not REAL work). Also, you are just like their smarty-pants boss. These people are angry and they cannot stand to be condescended to.
Their good jobs are disappearing. Their kids are hooked on drugs. Their life expectancy is actually decreasing. Their suicide rates are climbing. Their town is dirty and crumbling and didn't bother putting on a Christmas parade last year for the first time ever. The world and society is changing so fast it's scaring them. Their problems are very real and they don't think anyone is listening to them and they want 'elite' people to feel the anxiety.
I can't take credit for the analogy, but I saw an article that used 'Hunger Games' as an analogy. The 'good guys' are relegated to shanteys in the hillsides, hunting squirrels for food and the 'elites' live in cities, wear hipster clothes and are self-absorbed know-it-alls.
Of course I can't speak for every Trump voter, and they're not a monolithic bloc, but anecdotally I can say that every person in my Facebook feed who supported Trump has privately expressed to me racist and homophobic attitudes in person at some point or another, and they're very angry that 'the media' portrays them as 'bad guys' because of it. It's just something we have to deal with and it's hard being stuck in this situation. I certainly love my brother, but he doesn't like people of color and hates that pop culture allows gay people to think that 'lifestyle' is OK. There's just a lot of fear, anger and confusion here.
The outlook: I wish I could be more reassuring, but I'm genuinely worried. And my confidence is shaken after the U.S. took a turn I was so sure it wouldn't take. What I can say is that our government was purposefully designed to move very slowly and elections come often - the founders tried to foresee events like this. Society and technology is changing very rapidly and much faster than people can reasonably deal with. I look at people in my generation and younger and I really do have a feeling that the future will be better and eventually we will get past prejudices.
Quote from: icecycle66 on November 15, 2016, 08:03:22 PM
Quote from: cajone5 on November 15, 2016, 07:50:53 PM
As someone who works in the defense industry and is very familiar with clearance requirements, the idea that mishandling classified info automatically lands you in jail is entirely untrue. Classified materials are frequently mishandled at all levels of the government. They are frequently not stored, couriered, handled, disseminated, etc. in by the proper maner and this does not land you in jail automatically. Statements like that are painting with a really broad brush and are very misleading. The focus on investigations related to mishandling of classified information is on malicious intent and severity of consequence if the information is allowed to get "out" which is why there are different security levels for different information. Anyway, I'm not justifying what was done or disagreeing with whether or not similar behavior from someone else would necessarily land them in jail. That's stance speculation and nothing more. I am just pointing this out so folks unfamiliar with the topic do not come away with the wrong impression.
I agree with what you are saying and I'm not going to get into all the nitty gritty about clearances etc, but it doesn't make a CI agents job any easier when the Secretary of State does what she did. In fact, it makes it much more unnecessarily difficult when somebody being investigates says, "Well, The Secretary of State did it on a much larger scale than repeatedly forgetting to get her courier orders renewed." Remember, it is her direct impact on my life that caused me to go the other way, not the conceptual.
Well put. It was definitely a major "oops" that was very avoidable at the very least. Good discussion.
I find that online political discussions generally degrade into an echo chamber, wall-of-butthurt, and/or shouting matches in ALL CAPS... ending with the inevitable accusations of who is the bigger nazi, communist, racist, SJW and a moderator lock.
Quote from: EBRAddict on November 15, 2016, 10:04:20 PM
I find that online political discussions generally degrade into an echo chamber, wall-of-butthurt, and/or shouting matches in ALL CAPS... ending with the inevitable accusations of who is the bigger nazi, communist, racist, SJW and a moderator lock.
Well that's very true. But, much of that can be attributed to the anonymity that online forums affords IMO. Here the case is a bit different because many of us know each other and have interacted for a number of years. That doesn't mean we agree on anything and everything. I think it's possible to have an interesting discussion within the bounds I laid out in the first post. I might be proved wrong but even so this is most likely to be a time limited thread anyway. Unless people are willing to talk to one another things won't change, right?
I'll say that I have an uneasy feeling about what's going to happen over the next 4 years. From his exiling Mexicans, muslims and his stop and search idea. All of his other policies are, "Were going to do it gooder" leave me uneasy, as well as total control of the house being republican also. It's just unsettling all the way around. My fear is a recession also.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Quote from: jimilee on November 15, 2016, 10:34:00 PM
total control of the house being republican also.
This is what I think people need to be worried about more than the Executive.
The President can't do much, and can do hardly anything that endures, without the support of the Legislature.
As a Canadian watching, about the only observation I have had is this: I feel like the American government system is broken. Also, how on earth could anyone think that Hillary was a better option than Sanders. If Sanders was in place, he would have won by a landslide.
I have more thoughts than these, but as an outsider it doesn't seem like I can really add much more than you're all already saying.
Jacob
Quote from: jubal81 on November 15, 2016, 08:49:40 PM
Their good jobs are disappearing. Their kids are hooked on drugs. Their life expectancy is actually decreasing. Their suicide rates are climbing. Their town is dirty and crumbling and didn't bother putting on a Christmas parade last year for the first time ever. The world and society is changing so fast it's scaring them. Their problems are very real and they don't think anyone is listening to them and they want 'elite' people to feel the anxiety.
From my isolated town in an isolated country, my suspicion is that another part of it is the changing social culture -- most of the people you describe, from what I've heard, are white, and for years now, the narrative has been that whites oppress everyone, and owe. I've heard professors proclaim that all white people are racist, even if it is "unconscious bias", and all white people "benefit from the system" (this last one was from a black person, with a gold watch, who talked earlier about how he bought his mum a new house, but still insisted that a white homeless man had more institutional privilege.
I don't know how widespread this narrative is in the States. I see quite a few articles about universities going down this road. But no one likes being told that they are a racist, homophobic, misogynist asshole.
I'm not sure that the traditional USA Democrats/Republicans divide applies to this situation, either -- Trump was getting it dished to him from the traditional Republicans as well as the Democrats. (At least until it was obvious that he was going to be up there with srs contenders.)
I worry about the party in charge of all branches in government. I just spent 6 years in Brownbackistan(Kansas) where the Republican Party controls everything. Kansas now has the worst economy in the U.S. and a government that's teetering on the precipice of a failed state. Ymmv right?
I have so much more to say but I don't want to get preachy or hurt people's feelings. I'll chime in again later.
Most of the people I've spoken to had a very hard time being enthusiastic about either candidate. My gut feeling is that a lot of reasonable people felt they had to choose between one list of unsavory traits or another. These people don't make much noise on social media, but I suspect the comprise most of the voting block.
Quote from: icecycle66 on November 15, 2016, 10:55:39 PM
Quote from: jimilee on November 15, 2016, 10:34:00 PM
total control of the house being republican also.
This is what I think people need to be worried about more than the Executive.
The President can't do much, and can do hardly anything that endures, without the support of the Legislature.
It's true that Republicans now control the Legislature, but Trump isn't really a party insider. His agenda doesn't align perfectly with his party's platform. He won't be able to get much done if the House and Senate decide to stick hard to the official party agenda.
I also found it heartening that, after a meeting with Obama, Trump is reconsidering his stance on the Affordable Care Act. Maybe this means he's open to new information and insight? We can only hope.
I agree with much that has been said and definitely echo Jon's comments on climate change, the stance the majority of the republican party has taken there is scary. It's a very serious issue.
The one thing I would say is that I never cared that much for Bernie, I was a big Clinton supporter. Her past and experience probably made her one of the single most qualified candidates to run for office. She has certainly not been perfect but has achieved some great things in her lifetime.
In my opinion her biggest deficit was that the republicans started campaigning against her as soon as Obama won re-election four years ago. I'll never forget how immediately after Obama won in 2008 Mitch McConnell (one of the highest ranking republicans) said the republicans job for the next four years was to make sure Obama wasn't re-elected. The same held true for Clinton after the 2012 election, though they were savy enough to keep it quiet that time. Republicans just started throwing whatever they could at Hillary to see what they could make stick, and unfortunately they managed to create a narrative that she was dishonest and untrustworthy. They would double down on Bengazhi, then the email thing, then the Clinton Foundation, and there were numerous others as well. In the end I don't know if it mattered if there was any real substance to any of those "scandals" but they created such a large amount of them that even democrats started buying into the narrative.
In the end she also had the Russian government, wikileaks, and the freaking director of the FBI try to sabotage her campaign, and she still managed to get more votes than the guy who won.
To me one of the saddest things is that it was our first opportunity for a woman to be president. I'm worried we might not get another chance at that anytime soon. I think people take for granted what just happened with Clinton and don't realize how much harder it must have been for her to get to that point than it would have been for a man. If you asked anybody sixty years ago (when Mrs. Clinton was a little kid) if they thought America would have a woman as a president they would have probably all said no. I think almost everybody would have said the same thing just 25-30 years ago when I was a kid. It scares me because people who are just getting old enough to vote really take this for granted and don't see the history there. After all African-Americans got the right to vote after in the 15th amendment the civil war (yes I know there were still all kinds of problems that weren't straightened out 'til '65), but women didn't have that right for almost another fifty years until after WWI. Just makes me sad to have missed that chance. It could come around again soon, but I'm not super hopeful it will.
Brain I get what you are saying about the Republicans having control of both houses of congress and the presidency, but I keep thinking back to those first years of Obama's first term when the dems had that situation. Don't get me wrong, I really think Obama has done a ton of good, but those first two years were rough due largely (IMO) to his inexperience at the time. He really struggled to find his footing for a long time (but man did he ever in the end), and I think the same might be true of Trump. He isn't popular among the Republican's in office, and once the whole excitement wares off he might come up against some real opposition from within his own party.
Everybody has to remember to that the experiences that Jubal81 was talking about are coming from a very small minority of the people who voted for Trump. I think it's safe to say that a good portion of the people that voted for his were pretty uncomfortable with him, and probably would have been relieved a little to see him lose.
I could really go on for a long time about all of this but I'll leave you with this. I teach math at a school that has a huge immigrant population. A few of my classes are english language learners, many of whom barely speak or understand english at all and have a teacher, me, who speaks absolutely no Spanish. It's interesting. Those kids were all scared last Wednesday, and it has been a specter that has hung over the school since. I've had some interesting conversations with them lately, and I really feel for these kids. Wether it's justified or not a lot of those kids are scared.
re: ACA ... things like pre-existing conditions and insuring the young adult population(aka slackers) are probably here to stay because if they are done away with, they will be the hardest to get back in any form. those are "keys to the kingdom" items for insurers. They're both stuck picking up the tab for patients they'd rather not(pre-existing), and they're also stuck covering young adults who'd ideally be paying a higher premium than their folks are paying for them(much less money in their pockets). Less potential for reward and higher risk aren't selling points in any business.
I took a minute to collect myself and my thoughts ... forget how we got here, we're already balls deep in this reality. forget looking into the crystal ball of what they're going to do or not do because we don't know that yet. I want to talk about fear. Specifically, my fear.
I don't like that on day one we've got hate crimes going on encouraged directly by the results of the election. I don't like his answer to that. I don't like that the KKK is holding a celebration rally. I don't like a President Elect trying to postpone a class action federal fraud lawsuit rather than just settle. I don't like Russia admitting their relationship to Trump after he denied it. I don't like people telling me there's an enemies list on national television. I don't like a twitter war with the New York Times after just giving an interview saying this stuff was a thing of the past. I don't like people telling me to get over it before the popular votes have been tallied let alone the electoral college votes cast. These things give me fear and they should trouble you too. All of this has happened since the election. This is completely ignoring everything said to date about what he's done in the past. This is ignoring what he's promised people he will do when he's finally President. Genuinely fearful based just on this stuff.
Ok, here's my viewpoint from, well, Australia, but I can't claim to hold the same opinion as anyone else here.
I was pretty stunned when Trump won. To a large degree, I think we've seen the cult of celebrity win through. People have voted for the sort of person they wish they could be - a loud, rich, famous TV celebrity who gets away with grabbing lady parts whenever he feels like it.
He also seems to represent a backlash against "political correctness". People over here seem to think that voicing irrational fears about muslim terrorists in a racist manner is "telling it how it is" rather than the fearmongering it really is. We've seen the most ignorant politicians get into some power here based on popularist viewpoints such as illegal refugees taking jobs, musims wanting to implement sharia law, whatever. By taking the views of the lowest common denominator, they appeal to the great unwashed.
As a result, we now have a bunch of science deniers and conspiracy theorists in the senate. I mean, check this rubbish out:
What is becoming fairly apparent is that Trump has been putting on a show to get the votes and he's a master manipulator. After watching his victory speech I though, "I could almost vote for that guy if he'd been like that the whole time," and then realised it was all part of the act. His interview with 60 minutes - "It'll be a fence in places" - he has no intention of following up on some of that stuff. His list of promises worries me, especially in the areas of abortion and the like.
Anyway, good luck with it guys. He's been elected by the process and he's there for the next 4 years.
As an outsider to US politics but someone who has an interest in things going on in the world I'll throw in my two pence. I think the Trump phenomena and Brexit are intrinsically linked.
In the modern democratic world generally we have noticed a widening divide between those in power looking after their own interests and the interests of the corporate world, and those in work who are pushed further and further down the pile. Everything in the corporate world is about making money for the shareholders. When politicians are inevitably linked with these corporate entities they will more and more look after their own interests. Sure it's always happened, but it's never been quite so blatant as when the banking crisis happened.
The banks, through their own greed and manipulation crashed the world economy. They were bailed out by our governments and just simply not held accountable for this. There were token scapegoats, but little more. To add insult to this injury, the people were made to pay for this with austerity. Not the banks who caused it, not the companies that avoid paying taxes in their billions, the people who are being increasingly de-valued and downtrodden.
Then you have our government in particular doing it's level best to destroy the NHS so they can sell it off again to their friends in private industry. The NHS that provides healthcare to EVERYONE. We're very protective of it because it's one of those last brilliant things we have. It's not perfect, but no matter who you are in this country, if you are sick, you can be cared for. 'We' apparently don't have the money to maintain this. But we do have the money for Trident. A weapons system that if we ever used it would mean our imminent destruction. BUT again, who benefits financially from Trident... That would be the banks.
Brexit happened because the unheard people had enough of being victimised by the elite. It was a direct backlash against them. As Trump was against Hillary and all she represents. It's a modern revolution of sorts and if I was the EU I'd be shitting myself as to who will be next? (France/Germany/Italy/Holland).
The problem is of course not that simple. The media has an enormous role to play in this. They have had their own agendas, but the main one has been to deflect 'blame' onto the nearest scapegoat to avoid the real issue (above). So immigrants have been singled out as the Jews of the modern era. Both on this side of the pond and the other. Which has stirred up and empowered the 'less tolerant' among us to an uncomfortable degree.
Here there is the other problem (actually one of the real political issues) of the EU being an unelected body capable of making policy on it's members. It's enjoyed this ridiculous position for too long. The EU needed modernising, but was too damn stubborn. Like the corporate world who believe it doesn't need it's workers, it said, you can like it or lump it. We lumped it, and don't for a second think we'll be the only ones.
Finally there's modern politics in the age of 24hr news, heavily biased media and indeed the modern worship of celebrity over actual reality. We were asked to vote on our remaining in the EU, which in itself is idiotic as that's the exact reason we have a government; to make informed decisions on our behalf... At least that's the theory... As it was we were asked to make the decision for them, but instead of facts we got jingoistic bullshit, blame re-appointing and blatant lies. We had no idea what was fact and what was bullshit. Some were obvious, like the 350m to go to the NHS. BUT PEOPLE BELIEVED IT.
Watching the US presidential election was like having a PTSD flashback of Brexit. It was all happening again. A cocky, overconfident, entitled representative of the current establishment, and a guy basically telling people what they want to hear. The truth wasn't even secondary, it wasn't even considered.
The sad thing is, Trump is part of that corporate system that bullies the little people all for personal progression. You haven't got change there, you've got someone out for himself. Much like we have with Johnson and Farage. Its no different really. We've just swapped one set of uber-rich entitled elite out for another.
FWIW. I voted to remain in the EU, I agree with the main point above about them really needing to reform, but I believed we were better in than out. But I see what's happening as being an inevitable tipping point. It had to happen. It's not the revolution I was expecting or wanted. But it's been a very rude awakening for the modern political world.
I highly recommend watching the documentary HyperNormalisation. It's a little sensationalist at times, but there's an awful lot of very well thought out observation in there about the current state of world politics and how we got to this point: http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p04b183c/adam-curtis-hypernormalisation
I wasn't really shocked that Trump won to be honest. The up-shoot may be that he was just saying whatever he thought he needed to to win. Winning was all that mattered, so he might have a lot of flexibility in his policies now he has got what he wanted.
Like John has commented; the whole campaign and result had clear echoes of the referendum.
I would imagine like the referendum, a lot of the people who voted Trump had nothing to lose.
I imagine they come from towns that in the past were proud white working class areas, where employment was readily available to all in the manufacturing+industry sectors (a 'job for life'). Over the past generation these towns have been totally decimated economically (look at the old pit towns in Yorkshire, near to where I live), and what has been left is people with no work, no hope, no education, no prospects and no economic stability.
What they do have is a clear abiding memory passed down to them of what they used to have and who they believe took it away from them.
Then someone comes along, gift wraps these beliefs in a bow, and tells them that they will bring back manufacturing+jobs, and will get rid of the immigrants who took their work and town from them etc. It's not surprising that they vote for this.
They already believe that all politicians are corrupt liars, so why not vote for the one who at least says what they want to hear. It makes no difference to them. What's the worst that can happen?
The promises these 'populists' spout outweigh the threats from the opposition. Over here it was 'vote leave and we could risk another recession'. A lot of people who voted leave had nothing to lose in the first place, so what do they care?
There are also clearly still severe racial issues in some areas of the US (in the UK too, although to a lesser extent as our population is just not as diverse). From an outsiders perspective, it comes across that this is 'brushed under the carpet' by most politicians and the media, rather than addressed openly. Until this is accepted and addressed, I don't see how things will improve in that regard.
I think we (the West) are about to hit the lowest ebb in politics for many years (upcoming elections in France, Germany, Italy etc. are also worrying). My only hope is that we have reached some kind of nadir (or will do shortly). I have to believe (esp. now I have a family) that things will get better.
I'm not sure how its in the US, but over here the traditional working class has deserted the traditional left wing parties in favor of right wing populist parties. I can understand why. For decades there has been a growing inequality between rich and poor. While the country gets richer, the new wealth is not being distributed equally. Jobs are being outsourced while the jobs that remain have poor job security. It's hard to buy a home or raise a family if you don't know if you will still have a job last year. Meanwhile there is a steady influx of East-Europeans with whom the working class is in stiff competition for jobs and now we have a massive influx of socalled refugees as well which puts immense stress on the rental housing market. Again competition for the working class.
Meanwhile the traditional leftwing parties, who should have looked out for their interests, seem to have abandoned them. At best they're more concerned with political correctness, gay rights, women's rights, minority rights, 3rd world issues, letting even more socalled refugees in, or worse, actively helping rightwing parties push through an agenda which actually increases job insecurity and income equality. I suspect in the case of my country its because the traditional socialist party, which used to be a working class grassroots party, was taken over by university degree intellectuals in the 70's, who seem to have thought that the working class emancipation was concluded, time to move on other issues. Like the stuff I mentioned above. Which means little to nothing to the working class. Who now feel left out in the cold and have become susceptible to the easy seduction of the right wing populist parties. Who at least dare to put issues that matter to them on the public agenda. Only to be then told that they're a bunch of racist xenophobes. The socalled basket of deplorables. Well, as alanp said, nobody likes to be told that they're racist, homophobic, misogynist assholes. Getting insulted does not endear anyone to the insulter, especially when they feel that they have legitimate concerns that do not get addressed in the first place.
There's tough times ahead.
If you are really wondering why Trump won, this book is an excellent primer on the divide between what is portrayed on media meant to make money on advertisements to select populations and what all the flyover states have been going through for the past 30 years.
https://www.amazon.com/Strangers-Their-Own-Land-Mourning/dp/1620972255
I live in a rural county in New York State - so we have an interesting situation, sociologically. On one hand, our economy is, more or less, post manufacturing. There are still a few production sites in the area, but far fewer than 30 years ago. So we are pretty similar to most of "fly over" country in some ways.
On the other hand, I live in a college town, so diversity and inclusion are emphasized by many of the local institutions - schools, governments, etc. There is also a large hispanic population.
I'm a democrat, but I think that the emphasis on social issues - that only really matter to a very small number of people - have hurt the party. I hope that the Dems move for action on matters that actually matter to the central things in people's lives: access to health care, access to a robust labor market, access to a robust safety net that helps people out of poverty.
Each of those three major points has been compromised by Republicans, who have no good solutions to those points. It is the republicans who are trying to screw with Obamacare, it is the Republicans who have been the major movers in the "right to work" and open trade movements, and it is the Republicans who have criminalised poverty.
Concern for the working class and the poor are not really found in the policies and priorities of the entitled class who populate Washington. As I write this, I think of the ways that the Dems have aided the republicans, and contributed in major ways to the fundamental inequalities of our country.
I think the reason Bernie resonated with so many voters is his ability to speak truth to power. Trump (seems) to have that ability (although I can't stand the guy and think he is an amazing liar) and that is why his rhetoric resonated with the working class people of rural america.
The Democrats need to develop younger leaders, and create a political environment where more people are welcome at the table.
I am sure this thread won't go down the shittier simply due to the fact that probably 97% of the people on this forum (and musicians in general) are liberal and lean to the left.
I'll keep it short and just say this... We have had a democratic in office for 8 years and we need a change to keep it balanced IMO. Until this two party thing goes away and we can truly have an independent with a real chance of winning, you can't have one party in office for too many terms. There has to be a balance.
I was a registered independent until this year. I switched to Democrat to vote for Bernie in the primary. When Bernie lost I voted for Clinton for 2 main reasons:
1. She was prepared. She has spent decades learning the issues, learning the ins & outs of how the US government works, learning foreign policy, and building the perfect resume.
2. Trump not only had none of that, he espoused hateful policies. I am afraid that hate is rising in the US in no small way as a result of Trump 'normalizing' this behavior.
Quote from: jkokura on November 15, 2016, 11:58:57 PM
As a Canadian watching, about the only observation I have had is this: I feel like the American government system is broken. Also, how on earth could anyone think that Hillary was a better option than Sanders. If Sanders was in place, he would have won by a landslide.
I doubt that Bernie (a 75-year-old socialist Jew) would have done much better. Obviously we can never know, but I think the Trump campaign would have destroyed him. Trump's closing ad was anti-Semitic, a theme that would have surfaced much sooner if Bernie was the candidate.
A lot of good points have already been made here. The thing that stands out for me is that this election and Brexit as noted by others previously are indicative of what happens in late-stage capitalism. The folks who have been marginalized economically are manipulated into turning on each other rather than the real source of their pain. It's not a new phenomenon—Lyndon Johnson, a white southerner saw this as common knowledge 50+ years ago.
I grew up in the rustbelt. I have seen the entire economy of that region hollowed out by the loss of jobs. How did those jobs "disappear"? The owners (the .01%) of those industries chose to move those jobs to places where the cost of labor was cheaper. They said that they couldn't compete with foreign companies that had "unfair advantages". Over the last 40 years, the owning class has seen their share of the wealth multiply tremendously, while everyone else is barely, or not even, treading water.
The middle class (which is really a branch of the working class) is useful to the owning class because they serve as the buffer between the working class and themselves. These are the managers who do the dirty work of firing/laying off, etc. And the anger of those directly affected is geared towards the middle class, when those decisions are made at the upper levels of the ownership (I work for a large corporation as a manger btw).
The beauty of racism is that it allows the owning class to misdirect the working class into blaming others (including the middle class) rather than those actually responsible (themselves) for the true economic hardship. People like Rush Limbaugh have made careers out of this and have been handsomely rewarded for their efforts (also Fox "News"). DT made a nakedly racist appeal to people who have been economically marginalized and their anger and frustration found a voice. Mexicans did not ship jobs out of the country. Muslims didn't either. Gays? Nope. Black people?... The people who own those companies moved those jobs, and got tax breaks to do it!
As I mentioned previously, I know lots of folks who have seen their way of life destroyed before their eyes—particularly those of my generation (born '61), who grew up with this expectation of good-paying industrial jobs available to those without advanced education (I didn't go to college). I also have members of my extended family who likely were KKK back in the day. And I know this: no one is born racist, and no one asks to be racist. We live in societies where racism and bigotry are useful tools of class oppression. That's why it exists. I don't hate the people who are the main subjects of this teaching (good white working-class people). I do fight back when their behavior harms others. And this is already happening across the country, as I knew it would.
DT will do absolutely nothing to help those disaffected folks who are in economic pain. He's already getting ready to gut many of the regulations and policies that actually help the vast majority of people (and they're already insufficient) in favor of implementing policy that benefits the 1%. Did any of DT's working class supporters (btw HRC won the majority of people earning < $50k) vote to have medicare and social security dismantled; getting rid regulations put in place to prevent the destruction of the economy by Wall Street? I don't think so.
I'll do my best to sound intelligent and informed here, though I'm probably not qualified in either regard on this issue.
As an outsider (Canadian), I didn't see either candidate as a good option for various reasons. Jeff Dunham had a blurb on the radio that was quite fitting - "Even if you hate both candidates, go out and vote for the one you dislike the least, because in doing so, you have done your part in trying to make the result a little less shitty." And with 49% of the country not voting (I think that was the number), you get the results from the other 51%.
I guess what I found disturbing in the whole process (I don't know if disturbing is the right word, and it could be just complete media bias in the way they were showcasing the voter base) is that it appeared like a lot of voters were voting based on a single issue, and the impact of that issue on the country as a whole was relatively insignificant (one woman they had on stated "I'm voting for Trump because Hillary will take my guns away". My analogy to that would be selling my house for a loss because I don't like the colour of paint. Sure it's an issue, but is it the hill to die on, most people would say probably not).
And now you have four years of Trump as POTUS. How someone with no qualifications or experience can land that job blows my mind. No political experience, but holds one of the most significant political positions in the world. I suspect a lot of his blow hard stances will go away or at least calm down to a rational level. At least I hope so.
Locally here we had a change in government for the first time in 41 years last year. Much of the vote was entirely reactionary, as the public were tired of the previous party and their attitude of entitlement. A year and a half later, it's been a pretty much a disaster. In what would have been tough times for any party (I live in a province that booms and busts with the price of oil, so we've been in bust mode for two years), the government with no leadership experience has made it significantly worse. They've introduced measures to actually make it less business friendly in a time when investment is down to begin with, have introduced legislation that contravenes existing contract law, and in doing so, are now trying to invalidate contracts that have been in place for decades which will only further amplify the problem. Everytime our premier walk up to a microphone, all you get is deer in the headlights and useless banter. Hopefully you don't experience the same with Trump.
That being said, a decision was made, and the results should be accepted. I find the level of protests to be disturbing and reflect badly on the process as a whole.
Quote from: GermanCdn on November 16, 2016, 05:01:22 PM
How someone with no qualifications or experience can land that job blows my mind. No political experience, but holds one of the most significant political positions in the world.
Trump has EVERY qualification needed to become President of the USA.
Trump also has plenty of "experience." As you stated, he has little to no POLITICAL experience however, that is exactly what people were looking for. Someone who was not a "lifetime politician."
Personally, I do not care which political party holds the office. As long as they do a good job and do what is right for our country! Period.
Quote from: Govmnt_Lacky on November 16, 2016, 05:35:35 PM
Trump has EVERY qualification needed to become President of the USA.
Just in case anyone thinks he's kidding:
QuoteNo Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
I don't think someone with no political experience or qualifications is necessarily a bad thing.
Look at some of the well educated and politically experienced people we have had in positions of power over here in the UK. They have no comprehension of the real world (George Osbourne anyone?).
A life of Eton -> Oxford -> Politics (or the US equivalent) does not necessarily set you up as a grounded individual with a good overview of a country, it's businesses, and it's demographics.
I agree with an earlier comment; hopefully recent developments in politics are going to motivate and mobilize the younger generation in a positive way.
The more people get angry with the way our governments are ran and determined, then hopefully the more people will get engaged in a positive way to make change.
Also, taking a positive outlook, now we have got rid of some of the dross after the referendum (bye bye Cameron), we have a new PM who seems to have a quite progressive agenda. Early days yet, but I don't think Theresa May is all that bad. I also doubt she would have got into power through the normal election process (she isn't exactly charismatic).
We could hope that there will be a similar scenario in the US (although some of Trumps republican pals scare me even more than he does...).
A panelist on the BBC was commenting that they don't think Trump will even last a full term before he gets fed up with it all. I don't think he will be fully prepared for the shit storm that he is about to face... I wouldn't want to take the job.
Hillary had all the experience/qualifications in the world and still didn't understand how to deal with emails properly.
...just sayin.
Quote from: midwayfair on November 16, 2016, 05:46:42 PM
Quote from: Govmnt_Lacky on November 16, 2016, 05:35:35 PM
Trump has EVERY qualification needed to become President of the USA.
Just in case anyone thinks he's kidding:
QuoteNo Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
OK, understood. There are stricter requirements to being a bus driver than President of the United States. :P
And I mean no disrespect to bus drivers with that statement.
Quote from: Govmnt_Lacky on November 16, 2016, 05:35:35 PM
Personally, I do not care which political party holds the office. As long as they do a good job and do what is right for our country! Period.
This is my view of politics...
Quote from: midwayfair on November 16, 2016, 05:46:42 PM
Quote from: Govmnt_Lacky on November 16, 2016, 05:35:35 PM
Trump has EVERY qualification needed to become President of the USA.
Just in case anyone thinks he's kidding:
QuoteNo Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
True, but meeting the eligibility requirements is a matter of fact whereas "qualified" is a lot more subjective. I mean, I meet the eligibility requirements to run for President and while madbean2020 has a nice ring to it I hold myself as entirely unqualified to do the job! ;D
(http://i63.photobucket.com/albums/h155/dan_schumaker/Madbean%2020_zpstr6uylxe.jpg)
Quote from: peAk on November 16, 2016, 03:11:06 PM
...simply due to the fact that probably 97% of the people on this forum (and musicians in general) are liberal and lean to the left.
I guess I'm part of the 3%. However, that doesn't mean I "identify" (goodness, I don't care for that word these days) as Republican. I did until the last few elections. I "hated" both sides equally in this election.
Now, for full disclosure, I know that the majority of my stances and reasons for being right lie in my religious beliefs. The "cool" thing about this election is that it forces me to go back to the Bible and ask what it
truly says, not what right-American says that it says.
I have no $0.02 for this election. I could go on a rant about safe-spaces and shutting down colleges to 'mourn,' but I'm too exhausted to do that.
We're all still friends, though, right? :D
Quote from: dan.schumaker on November 16, 2016, 07:09:19 PM
(http://i63.photobucket.com/albums/h155/dan_schumaker/Madbean%2020_zpstr6uylxe.jpg)
Naturally. Who wouldn't vote for those two handsome bastards?
Quote from: madbean on November 16, 2016, 08:16:47 PM
Quote from: dan.schumaker on November 16, 2016, 07:09:19 PM
(http://i63.photobucket.com/albums/h155/dan_schumaker/Madbean%2020_zpstr6uylxe.jpg)
Naturally. Who wouldn't vote for those two handsome bastards?
I bet those guys get mad chicks.
Brian & Forrest could make this list:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States_with_facial_hair (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States_with_facial_hair)
MORE BEARDS IN OFFICE!
Cody
Quote from: culturejam on November 16, 2016, 08:39:33 PM
Quote from: madbean on November 16, 2016, 08:16:47 PM
Quote from: dan.schumaker on November 16, 2016, 07:09:19 PM
(http://i63.photobucket.com/albums/h155/dan_schumaker/Madbean%2020_zpstr6uylxe.jpg)
Naturally. Who wouldn't vote for those two handsome bastards?
I bet those guy get mad chicks.
Just make sure you don't talk about it near anyone with a recording device. Or maybe do. Worked out for the other guy.
This discussion is a great example of why I love this forum. Discussion from various sides (and points around the globe) without getting into stupid/pointless/reactionary arguments. Well done by all.
Quote from: GermanCdn on November 16, 2016, 11:19:22 PM
Quote from: culturejam on November 16, 2016, 08:39:33 PM
Quote from: madbean on November 16, 2016, 08:16:47 PM
Quote from: dan.schumaker on November 16, 2016, 07:09:19 PM
(http://i63.photobucket.com/albums/h155/dan_schumaker/Madbean%2020_zpstr6uylxe.jpg)
Naturally. Who wouldn't vote for those two handsome bastards?
I bet those guy get mad chicks.
Just make sure you don't talk about it near anyone with a recording device. Or maybe do. Worked out for the other guy.
This discussion is a great example of why I love this forum. Discussion from various sides (and points around the globe) without getting into stupid/pointless/reactionary arguments. Well done by all.
Thread isn't over yet. ;)
Quote from: icecycle66 on November 15, 2016, 07:12:48 PM
I can only address one of many factors regarding the results.
I am beholden to the same clearance and rights, although not read on to all programs, as Bradley, Snowden, and Clinton. (And thousands of other people in the Intelligence Community.)
Regardless of position in the military, State Department, Department of Energy, any department of the government you have to swear by, sign, and confirm your capability in the handling, storage, and transmission of classified information once you are provided with the clearance, access, and need to know of that information.
Bradley is in prison for intentionally releasing classified information. I'm cool with that.
Snowden is in exile for intentionally releasing classified information. I'm cool with that.
I can name dozens of others in the same position as those two and I am cool with that. Not because i don't think it's fucked up, because in some cases it is, but because those individuals knew before they ever set eyes on the information that the intentional or unintentional release of classified information would get them shit canned.
I would go to jail for the intentional or unintentional release of the same information that Clinton did.
I would go to jail if I kept classified information in my car, or my house, or my barn, or my laptop.
The senior intelligence officer for the Department of Defense would be fired, removed from service, and lucky if they did the same thing and not end up in jail.
GEN Petraeus was one of the best combatant commanders we've had in decades and he was raked over the coals and drummed out of the Army for releasing material to a person who did have clearance but not a confirmed need to know.
Clinton breaks the rules, meh, whatever.
She knew exactly what laws she was breaking. If she didn't, then she isn't competent enough to hold the honor of President.
She did it anyway. Regardless of personality and general shit-headedness of any competitor she went up against, I could not stand to cast my ballot for a person who falls under the same rules as everyone else but blatently disregards them because she thinks her position is more important.
Once the classified email scandal hit, Clinton lost the vote of millions of people with security clearances.
If she can't behave and act under the rules as Secretary of State, the real number 2 under the President, then she won't behave as President.
Things Clinton has done as Secretary of State have directly impacted me. Whether it was behavior with rules listed above or other actions as Secretary of State. My decision to go against her was not one of conceptual or principled thought. It was result of very direct impact to my individual life because of her decisions.
Trump, while apparently not a nice guy, has done nothing to directly harm me or any actual individual I know.
I did a few spells working for DoD including TS clearance back in the 90's and there was zero question that the whole Hillary email situation is/was/forever-should-have-been a non-starter. There's no way that it was just a 'oops! I didn't understand' sort of thing. That definitely made me question her decision making and her overall intentions. I've also had the misfortune of working for someone very much like Trump, with all of the misogyny and racial tendencies. That's not the kind of person that you want to lead.
We thought past elections were the lesser of two evils, we had no idea what 2016 would bring.
Here's hoping not too much damage comes our way....
Quote from: peAk on November 17, 2016, 01:14:51 AM
Thread isn't over yet. ;)
I'll probably close the thread tomorrow. Not because anything is going bad (quite the opposite). But, it's an experiment and a good experiment has a conclusion.
That said, I've come up with a solid idea for a new political party. The DIY Party. The party slogan will be, "We'll Fix Our Own Shit!"
I'm going to work up a party platform and make a call for members. I'm maybe half-joking.
Quote from: bcalla on November 16, 2016, 03:27:41 PM
1. She was prepared. She has spent decades learning the issues, learning the ins & outs of how the US government works, learning foreign policy, and building the perfect resume.
For some people, this was the exact reason they were opposed to her. From an outside perspective, the US doesn't really seem to have changed or evolved much in the last couple decades, apart from the odd minor eruption (like the healthcare thing that Obama did.) Other than that, it's been corporatism business as usual, with the 1% elite gap growing.
So there was also, I suspect, an attitude for a section of voters along the lines of, "Well, Trump is a complete lucky dip as far as the future, but at least it's sure to not be what we've had for the last twenty years."
Quote from: cajone5 on November 15, 2016, 07:50:53 PM
The focus on investigations related to mishandling of classified information is on malicious intent and severity of consequence if the information is allowed to get "out" which is why there are different security levels for different information. Anyway, I'm not justifying what was done or disagreeing with whether or not similar behavior from someone else would necessarily land them in jail. That's stance speculation and nothing more. I am just pointing this out so folks unfamiliar with the topic do not come away with the wrong impression.
There's something of a damned one way or the other to this.
If there was malicious intent with the email server, and how she handled it on a day to day basis, then she is a criminal.
If there was no malicious intent, then she is either ignorant or incompetent in her handling of USGovt secrecy regulations, despite three decades of working under those regulations, which doesn't bode well for her either.
If the threads almost over...
Let's end on a good note.
I've been laying low for a while, partly because of the election, but I want to get in here before the thread gets closed.
If anyone's been feeling helpless and nihilistic in the wake of this election, I want to offer one concrete thing that you can do. I don't think anyone here wants to see Stephen Bannon in the White House, so if you who feel up to it, call your representatives and ask them to speak out against him. It's true that his appointment isn't subject to a Congressional vote, but presidents have been forced to withdraw nominations after public outcry in the past (remember Bill Clinton and Nannygate?).
If you don't know who your representatives are, you can look up your Senators here: http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
And your Representatives in the House here: http://www.house.gov/representatives/find/
Call them up, they'll listen! It only takes five minutes of your time, and it could make a real difference.
And remember: if you're upset, do not let this become normal. This is not normal. Pay attention, hold your leaders accountable, and make your voices heard.
Time will tell what Trump will do in the US, but in the foreign policy department at least I'm breathing a sigh of relief with Trump. I for one didn't relish the chance of a potential WWIII because Hillary wanted to shoot down Russian aircraft over Syria. If Trump wants to be best pals with Putin I'm fine with that. The less tension in that department, the better. Lately there has been an insane amount of anti-Russia hysteria in the news, and while I don't think the sun shines out of Putin's arse I do start to find it suspect. I've experienced the Cold War during the 80's and the anti-Soviet propaganda back then wasn't this bad. I suspect it was back then the Left kinda liked the USSR whereas nowadays they seem to hate Putin as well. And while the USSR at least was a super power, Russia today is nowhere near that level. France, the UK and Germany each have bigger economies then Russia.
Quote from: Muadzin on November 17, 2016, 10:18:01 AMFrance, the UK and Germany each have bigger economies then Russia.
We're doing our level best to rectify that currently ;)
Quote from: alanp on November 17, 2016, 02:35:50 AM
So there was also, I suspect, an attitude for a section of voters along the lines of, "Well, Trump is a complete lucky dip as far as the future, but at least it's sure to not be what we've had for the last twenty years."
That section of voters may well be right (and they may end up wrong, as the Washington machine has a way of taking any input and giving the same old output), but MOST Americans did not vote for this type of roll-of-dice change. About a million more people voted for "establishment" than voted for "drain the swamp".
Since the 2000 election (another instance in which I did not care for either candidate, and at that time I had no major preference on the outcome), I've been advocating to abolish the US Electoral College. I know people say that without it, the smaller states end up with no real say in the outcome, but I think that's crap because it assumes that all of the higher population states would vote 100% for the same candidate. Complete and utter nonsense. Everybody's vote should count equally, and that's the end of it.
TL;DR: Fuck the Electoral College
Feeling the spirit of '76 in 2016...... .... ...Thought this was cool
With echoes of "Hamilton," reader Denis Ian views Nov. 8, 2016:
"Two dozen decades ago, the British Empire bent a knee and grudgingly offered a sword of surrender to an army of Deplorables led by George Washington.
The embarrassment was so mighty, the commander of the defeated couldn't bear to offer his own sword and delegated the display of humility to an underling, slighting the victor and bruising protocol.
The honors of war also called for a British band to play a song chosen by the victors. Legend has it that Washington requested "The World Turn'd Upside Down."
Now the world is again turned upside down. And once more, the underdog outclassed the mighty and, with a legion of Deplorables, pointed to a new and brilliant future.
To bruise the words of Benjamin Franklin, who I am sure is in sweet shock, we have our republic back ... IF we can keep it.
This time, we better pay more careful attention. We are ever lucky for this second chance.
The mess was caused by our own sloppy apathy. Our civic sloth, our moral negligence.
We let others hijack our principles, kidnap our values, and hostage our free speech. We permitted a slender few to tell us who we were to be, rather than honor who we are. We let them guilt us into a nightmare from which we have been freed.
We were mustered by a powerful personality, but in truth, we were the power. Ordinary us. We banged the shields. Banded together in a noisy brotherhood. Steeled our spines. And kept the faith.
We turned the world upside down. Again.
In this new beginning, we should stand tall for anthems that honor us all and kneel more often for the right reasons.
We should respect the Laws of Nature, and make fashionable common sense. Government must be reminded that we are its master.
We are America. Again.
Quote from: culturejam on November 17, 2016, 01:19:13 PM
That section of voters may well be right (and they may end up wrong, as the Washington machine has a way of taking any input and giving the same old output), but MOST Americans did not vote for this type of roll-of-dice change. About a million more people voted for "establishment" than voted for "drain the swamp".
Since the 2000 election (another instance in which I did not care for either candidate, and at that time I had no major preference on the outcome), I've been advocating to abolish the US Electoral College. I know people say that without it, the smaller states end up with no real say in the outcome, but I think that's crap because it assumes that all of the higher population states would vote 100% for the same candidate. Complete and utter nonsense. Everybody's vote should count equally, and that's the end of it.
TL;DR: Fuck the Electoral College
I've heard that argument as well, saying that without the EC the small states would be ignored. But the big states seem to be mostly blue or red states. So any voter of the opposite opinion in those states might just as well stay at home. So big states, small states doesn't seem to matter. The only thing that seems to matter is which states swing both ways.
Of course this is a problem inherit to any system that uses first past the post. The EC only magnifies this because it basically turns the US into 50 districts. It does make for interesting entertainment though as an outside viewer. Your election nights are way more interesting then ours.
Quote from: alanp on November 17, 2016, 02:41:36 AM
Quote from: cajone5 on November 15, 2016, 07:50:53 PM
The focus on investigations related to mishandling of classified information is on malicious intent and severity of consequence if the information is allowed to get "out" which is why there are different security levels for different information. Anyway, I'm not justifying what was done or disagreeing with whether or not similar behavior from someone else would necessarily land them in jail. That's stance speculation and nothing more. I am just pointing this out so folks unfamiliar with the topic do not come away with the wrong impression.
There's something of a damned one way or the other to this.
If there was malicious intent with the email server, and how she handled it on a day to day basis, then she is a criminal.
If there was no malicious intent, then she is either ignorant or incompetent in her handling of USGovt secrecy regulations, despite three decades of working under those regulations, which doesn't bode well for her either.
ARS technica did an interesting fairly non-partisan review of the email situation.
http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/07/indifference-and-ignorance-delving-deep-into-the-clinton-e-mail-saga/
Quote from: culturejam on November 16, 2016, 08:39:33 PM
Quote from: madbean on November 16, 2016, 08:16:47 PM
Quote from: dan.schumaker on November 16, 2016, 07:09:19 PM
(http://i63.photobucket.com/albums/h155/dan_schumaker/Madbean%2020_zpstr6uylxe.jpg)
Naturally. Who wouldn't vote for those two handsome bastards?
I bet those guys get mad chicks.
Mad is in high quantity or mad as in crazy?
I'm not sure there is going to be a correct answer for you on this one. ;D
The only thing I think I can add here is.. BEWARE OF FEAR. That's what they need us to feel so that they can split us apart. When we are scared of the person on the other side we get angry! And when we are angry we can not see the other persons point of view. And when we can't empathize we get entrenched and stubborn and lose sight of the value of compromise.
We need compromise to move forward as a democracy.
When political parties, corporations, marketers, lobbyists and the culture of our peers corrupts our common sense with making us feel like victims we all lose. DON'T LET THEM MAKE YOU INTO A VICTIM. You're stronger with empathy and forgiveness and understanding.
Quote from: Muadzin on November 17, 2016, 04:01:39 PM
I've heard that argument as well, saying that without the EC the small states would be ignored. But the big states seem to be mostly blue or red states. So any voter of the opposite opinion in those states might just as well stay at home.
You're describing what happens now, actually. EC forces states to vote as a single entity (with a few minor exceptions). So if you get 50.01% of the popular vote in any given state, you get 100% of the electoral votes. And that means that 49.99% of the people's vote ended up not counting. It's stupid.
A few examples:
In Cali, Trump got 33% of the popular vote, so he got no electoral votes. That seems outrageously unfair to me.
In Florida, Clinton got 48% of the popular vote, so she got no electoral votes. Madness!!
In New Hampshire, Clinton was at 47.6% and Trump was at 47.2%, and yet Trump gets no electoral votes. Crazy.
No state has ever had 100% of the popular vote for any one presidential candidate.
The net effect of the EC is that the individual votes of voters in less populous states count for more than voters in more populous states. Here's proof:
I live in NJ, which has 14 electoral votes and a population of 8.9 million. Compare that with New Mexico, which has 5 electoral votes with a population of 2 million people. In an equitable distribution of electoral votes, NJ would have a little more than 4x the number of EC votes than New Mexico. But it has less than 3x the number of EC votes. That means my vote counts for less than any person in New Mexico. Not only that, but my watered-down vote counts for nothing if I don't vote for the same candidate as the majority of my fellow statesmen. HORSESHIT!
Quote from: Muadzin on November 17, 2016, 10:18:01 AM
Time will tell what Trump will do in the US, but in the foreign policy department at least I'm breathing a sigh of relief with Trump. I for one didn't relish the chance of a potential WWIII because Hillary wanted to shoot down Russian aircraft over Syria. If Trump wants to be best pals with Putin I'm fine with that.
There is a major concern in Europe that after Putin effectively annexed a large part of Ukraine, other formerly Soviet states that are currently democratic will be similarly re-absorbed. Trump has publicly relished Brexit (just like Putin), and whilst the desire for less war is commendable, the potential for the break-up of the EU and the stability it has provided since the end of the cold war is quite possibly at risk. Obama and the Democrats have always supported a united Europe, and I question Trump's motivation in celebrating the UK'S exit: The fact that both he and Nigel Farage are extremely wealthy individuals posing as "defenders of the working poor" whilst spouting racially divisive rhetoric is seriously troubling.
Quote from: lincolnic on November 17, 2016, 06:20:32 AM
I've been laying low for a while, partly because of the election, but I want to get in here before the thread gets closed.
If anyone's been feeling helpless and nihilistic in the wake of this election, I want to offer one concrete thing that you can do. I don't think anyone here wants to see Stephen Bannon in the White House, so if you who feel up to it, call your representatives and ask them to speak out against him. It's true that his appointment isn't subject to a Congressional vote, but presidents have been forced to withdraw nominations after public outcry in the past (remember Bill Clinton and Nannygate?).
If you don't know who your representatives are, you can look up your Senators here: http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm (http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm)
And your Representatives in the House here: http://www.house.gov/representatives/find/ (http://www.house.gov/representatives/find/)
Call them up, they'll listen! It only takes five minutes of your time, and it could make a real difference.
And remember: if you're upset, do not let this become normal. This is not normal. Pay attention, hold your leaders accountable, and make your voices heard.
Bannon was Trump's second choice after his son-in-law told him Hedley Lamarr was fictional...
Quote from: jubal81 on November 17, 2016, 08:54:43 PM
Quote from: lincolnic on November 17, 2016, 06:20:32 AM
I've been laying low for a while, partly because of the election, but I want to get in here before the thread gets closed.
If anyone's been feeling helpless and nihilistic in the wake of this election, I want to offer one concrete thing that you can do. I don't think anyone here wants to see Stephen Bannon in the White House, so if you who feel up to it, call your representatives and ask them to speak out against him. It's true that his appointment isn't subject to a Congressional vote, but presidents have been forced to withdraw nominations after public outcry in the past (remember Bill Clinton and Nannygate?).
If you don't know who your representatives are, you can look up your Senators here: http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm (http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm)
And your Representatives in the House here: http://www.house.gov/representatives/find/ (http://www.house.gov/representatives/find/)
Call them up, they'll listen! It only takes five minutes of your time, and it could make a real difference.
And remember: if you're upset, do not let this become normal. This is not normal. Pay attention, hold your leaders accountable, and make your voices heard.
Bannon was Trump's second choice after his son-in-law told him Hedley Lamarr was fictional...
Actually, it's too bad HEDY Lamarr isn't alive, she was quite clever. She got a patent that spread spectrum transmission is based on:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedy_Lamarr
It was a good experiment, and I want to thank everyone for offering their well thought opinions. It just shows that a dialogue can happen without it becoming a sport.
Final thought - no one knows what's coming, but I'm always and forever an optimist. Whatever happens over the next few years I do believe nothing will be as bad as we can imagine. So, I'm hopeful.