President of the United States of America

[Forestradio]

As usual, Windu is pretty much right on everything. Though I'll disagree about the Republican party. The Republican platform this time around was definitely anti-establishment. The party may not be... but the sets of policies/ideals laid out by the Trump campaign definitely was.

It'll be interesting to see what happens to the GOP from here on out.

[Wise Windu]

The Republican platform this time around was definitely anti-establishment. The party may not be... but the sets of policies/ideals laid out by the Trump campaign definitely was.

Right, that's what I meant. Trump's campaign is what drew people in. A lot of the Republican party detached itself from them, at least superficially. I'm sure some state-level races were won by party association.

I'm curious to see whether or not some of the GOP members who condemned Trump in the end continue to do so. Wouldn't be surprised if they started crawling back, though.

[Gorbles]

Also Gorb, what you said is blatantly untrue, ofc this country has a long history of some pretty disgusting shit to minorities but implying that everyone else has always been fine is laughably false, events like the Civil war, Great Depression, etc etc made life absolute hell for ALL groups, when America suffers all its people suffer, and right now if America suffers, it looks like the world will suffer too.

The problem with that is that the groups I mentioned still suffered more. If you negate (in mathematical terms) the suffering of Great Event X across the entire population, the existing injustices and / or stuff happening to the minority groups I mentioned would still be happening on top of that.

I've suffered, comparatively speaking, through one of the worst economic depressions the UK has been through in recent times. But others have still suffered more by dint of their race, background and so forth because of the existing injustices around class and racial demographics layered on top of the economic depression.

Comparatively speaking, I have always been fine. In general terms. It's a difficult realisation to come to terms with, I agree, and this is often what garners it the most pushback. But that doesn't make it untrue. I recognise your stand against neo-nazi sentiments (and welcome it), but remember the whole "white genocide" thing was basically invented by that specific demographic.

[Oddnerd]

That is starting to sound eerily similar to the post-2000 left wing's collectivist approach to suffering and oppression... using aggregate statistics to tell an individual how much they are suffering because of whichever racial/cultural/socioeconomic groups they belong to. On the whole, the black demographic collectively suffers more from poverty and disenfranchisement than the white demographic, but that is a collective statistic. Plenty of white individuals in the so-called rust belt of the USA and many other regions are doing very poorly due to poor education, poor employment opportunities, etc.... and the fact that they are white has done nothing to help them anymore than their non-white counterparts.

Every attempt to tag on a little, meaningless asterisk to this observation with generalized, collectivist claims about who is suffering more just helps feed the fire and strengthen the sense of victimhood these people have.

[Gorbles]

I'm not telling individuals anything. I'm describing trends, using aggregate statistics. Remember I faced this scrutiny just because I offered my support and sympathy to groups that will be harder hit than even the economically poorer-off "safe" demographics. Nobody's making law specifically to target them.

Disenfranchisement is an entirely different story, and requires and entirely different debate. You're literally going "but white people", and I have no time for that. Not when by the poll breakdowns most white folk in general voted for Trump. Knowing what his platform offered, they voted for him by a majority.

You accept the will of the majority, that majority also accepts the consequences of that will. Pure and simple.

If you spent an equal amount of time going "well actually" to the people doing the opposite of what I was doing, maybe I'd accept your argument in good faith. But I see absolutely no evidence of that, and good faith is hard to find at the moment.

EDIT

And as for the economic argument (late edit, I'm sorry) I'll leave the thread with this. Blue is Dems, red is Republicans.

https://twitter.com/jonallendc/status/7 ... 5060832256

[Swift]

I have been ordered (at gunpoint, might I add), to impart some nuggets of wisdom.

In the end, they were both terrible choices.

Hillary represents the political elite and the corruption of Washington, getting away with fraud and more because the Clinton name and the party, getting votes partly because she's a woman and partly because she's the known evil.

Trump represents the extent of American patriotism gone cancerous. He puts voice to prejudice and puts down the minorities to play the role of demagogue, securing the vote by appealing to America's nationalistic and the people disenfranchised with government. Trump is the symbol of the unknown evil, and his widely public denunciations of almost every minority and non white American male do not just actively make some people loathe him, but back up his rather wild socio-economic views.

But you've got to choose, because well... the only other candidate is a Libertarian... PFFFFFFT, America isn't that crazy yet.

I don't blame you for picking either one to be honest, because in the end the system will go full circle and each bring their own benefits to the table.

Hillary has White House and high office experience as well as having spent four years negotiating with other nations across the world. Whilst not the prime candidate for any Democrat, she carries plenty of experience and even, yes I know, surprisingly, some respect.

Trump is a man who is not afraid to speak his mind and whilst you can condemn him for giving insight into how best to grope a woman, he is the perfect anti-politician for a time where people are sick of the lies and misinformation their government spew out. Whether this feeling is justified or not, Trump is an icon for change and power, and the fact he has been elected is surprising, but not all that unlikely considering the growing hostilities to various communities.

To sum it up, the pair are like two sides of a bent coin. If Hillary had been elected then Congress would continue to shamble on for four more years under Republican cock-blocking. Now Trump is elected America will likely turn it's policy eyes and ears to commercialism, working out deals that best fit within his sphere of influence whilst slowly isolating the US from groups it deems dangerous.

If I could vote there, I would have chosen Hillary. In fact, I would have chosen Sanders given the chance, but the Red Terror still descends over a lot of people regarding his views. I am not the risk taker, so Hillary to me was the lesser of two evils, but Trump, whilst not a good choice, is not the worst thing to happen to America.

[Oddnerd]

I get why people say Americans should make the pragmatic choice, but you have to see it from the perspective of disenfranchised liberals.

I think the average young liberal in the USA and Canada are basically identical. If you live in Canada and are a young liberal, you can choose the center-left party that is the Liberal party, or you can go more far left and vote NDP. In the USA the best you can hope for is the center-right democrats who have cynically been putting out candidates who have little appeal to serious left wingers. They count on the fact that as long as they are less right wing than the Republicans then they can expect liberals to vote for them as a way of voting negatively against the Republicans. The end result is that democrats have had to make little-to-no effort to actually appeal to left wing voters. It has been this way pretty much as far back as the 60s when the democrats went from being the white southern christian party to being the "liberal" party.

This election season, the american left wingers got a taste of what it feels like to vote for someone who actually speaks to their values (I'm not particularly hardcore socialist, but I appreciate Bernie as a genuine guy). Of course, he ended up losing what was a rigged nomination process, and then the liberal voters were basically told it was time to fall back in line and vote for the lesser of two evils once again. I imagine if I was in that position I would seriously consider that the only way to make the Democrats actually start putting up serious left wing candidates was to let them know they could not count on me voting for whatever heavily manufactured, focus group-tested, centrist robot they created simply because I don't like the Republicans. Some people who did not like Donald Trump may have even felt that 1 or 2 terms of Donald Trump was better than perpetuating the cycle of being taken advantage of by the DNC.

[Flash]

Wow. this some really really good thoughtful discussion. You guys impress me.

I was considering voting for trump for exactly what Oddnerd described. I wanted the parties to reconstitute themselves and an outsider candidate was the only way to make that happen. I ended up voting for Hillary because I don't agree with Trump/republican policies. I had hoped to one day work for the EPA or a similar environmental group. They're gonna take a hit next budget.

I can't fault the people who voted for trump. He is a rejection of the current system. I just wish that republicans hadn't gained the house, senate, presidency and now the supreme court. The court will be conservative for the next 20 years.

Atlas is also right, there will be forward progress on policy. I think the economic impact will be ... bad for everybody, but hit the group that elected him the hardest.

[Atlas]

Are we seriously buying the logic that the Democratic loss in 2016 has been because people were fed up with the way the DNC ran things? Where were you guys in 2012 and 2008 then? Were the Democratic challengers that got completely clobbered in local elections part of the conspiracy too? Ditto for many of the left-leaning state amendments.

I don't know about you, but both McCain and Romney looked like much safer protest candidates to me. The message is clear imo - the Democrats will only win elections if they completely polarize their platform. Otherwise, the opponent can be a monkey for all it matters.

I am personally very very concerned now with the apparent death of the moderate in our politics. It's like demanding that you get everything on your platform, then getting angry you didn't get it and subsequently blaming the government for it when they really can't make any compromise or coalition-building effort effectively because you just filled the seats with extreme left and right leaning characters and if they budge even a little, they'll get kicked out of office because they failed the ideological purity test.

You're trying to come up with some kind of rational explanation for why people voted the way they did when it's far simpler - the people have the memory span of a goldfish and just went with what they thought sounded good to them.

Trump's our President and I wish him well. But let's not misrepresent things.

[Wise Windu]

Not sure that's entirely true. It isn't that people are fed up with the DNC in particular, and liberals are not the only ones voting for Trump in protest. The RNC is pretty torn up right now, too. One of the big reasons Trump seems to be popular is that he isn't really tied to either party. He talks shit to everyone. He is a funnel for both disillusioned Republicans and Democrats, and a chance at potential change, regardless of which way it's going.

This election had two potential candidates like that, Sanders being the second, where previously there really weren't any promising options. Romney and McCain still represented "establishment" politics, so they weren't really viable "protest candidates" because a vote to them wouldn't be a protest. And most people see third party candidates as a wasted vote, or basically a vote for the person they dislike more.

I am personally very very concerned now with the apparent death of the moderate in our politics. It's like demanding that you get everything on your platform, then getting angry you didn't get it and subsequently blaming the government for it when they really can't make any compromise or coalition-building effort effectively because you just filled the seats with extreme left and right leaning characters and if they budge even a little, they'll get kicked out of office because they failed the ideological purity test.

And many politicians have done that to themselves. They consistently take advantage of peoples' fears and insecurities to get people riled up to vote and believe in their message. Just look at the Republican National Convention. Newt Gingrich even spoke to a reporter about facts vs. feelings and basically said that as long as people "feel" a certain way, the facts don't matter when discussing policy. He'll run on feelings every time. It's fucking insanity, but it's something that politicians are as much responsible for as voters.

Where were you guys in 2012 and 2008 then? Were the Democratic challengers that got completely clobbered in local elections part of the conspiracy too? Ditto for many of the left-leaning state amendments.

Sometimes the reason for votes going a certain way is that, just as a general thing, Republicans voters are more likely to be whipped into action because their concerns are much simpler to define in vote form. "Vote no to this bill that would disrupt your second amendment rights", "Vote no to prevent your marriage from being attacked", "Vote against this person because he/she will trample on your rights". Things like that are very clear and direct, and it's been proven again and again that voters will mobilize for these things and feel strongly about them. It's been consistently exploited by politicians. The NRA is also a huge source of this kind of thing. Democrats, on the other hand, tend to have a more passive approach, which obviously doesn't work as well at mobilizing voters, although they generally seem less militant. They still do it, though. Just to a lesser extent most of the time. In that sense, what you said

The message is clear imo - the Democrats will only win elections if they completely polarize their platform.

is kind of true to some extent, depending on where and who you're trying to convince. Which sucks. The other option is to demonize the other guy, which also sucks. And that didn't work for Clinton, clearly.

Some of the state level Republican victories may have been due to party association with Trump, the "protest" candidate, or even just against Hillary, who are also two very polarizing topics that can mobilize voters for or against. It's hard to say definitively, though.

[Swift]

I get why people say Americans should make the pragmatic choice, but you have to see it from the perspective of disenfranchised liberals.

I think the average young liberal in the USA and Canada are basically identical. If you live in Canada and are a young liberal, you can choose the center-left party that is the Liberal party, or you can go more far left and vote NDP. In the USA the best you can hope for is the center-right democrats who have cynically been putting out candidates who have little appeal to serious left wingers. They count on the fact that as long as they are less right wing than the Republicans then they can expect liberals to vote for them as a way of voting negatively against the Republicans. The end result is that democrats have had to make little-to-no effort to actually appeal to left wing voters. It has been this way pretty much as far back as the 60s when the democrats went from being the white southern christian party to being the "liberal" party.

This election season, the american left wingers got a taste of what it feels like to vote for someone who actually speaks to their values (I'm not particularly hardcore socialist, but I appreciate Bernie as a genuine guy). Of course, he ended up losing what was a rigged nomination process, and then the liberal voters were basically told it was time to fall back in line and vote for the lesser of two evils once again. I imagine if I was in that position I would seriously consider that the only way to make the Democrats actually start putting up serious left wing candidates was to let them know they could not count on me voting for whatever heavily manufactured, focus group-tested, centrist robot they created simply because I don't like the Republicans. Some people who did not like Donald Trump may have even felt that 1 or 2 terms of Donald Trump was better than perpetuating the cycle of being taken advantage of by the DNC.

I had not actually considered that, and it's a rather interesting take on it - a dangerous take perhaps, but yes, makes a lot of sense, now the Democrats will actually need to try to win the next election.

I'm a socialist voter over here, not hardline Corbyn socialist, more like a moderate, liberal end to things, and Sanders seemed like the perfect choice for America. But why is there still such a scare about socialism in the US?

[Gorbles]

Cultural leftover from the Cold War. Socialism is equated to Communism with a capital 'C' (as supposed to communism with a lowercase 'c' which is an idealistic if impractical extreme form of socialism).

Stuff like free healthcare is a major red flag (no pun intended), etc. As is higher taxation (hence the overlap with the libertarian platform) even to benefit the state, and so on. I'm speaking in very general terms of course, I have no idea what anyone in this thread is like.

"better dead than Red" is still unironically quoted amongst certain American demographics (I know some Alaskan conservatives, etc).

[Swift]

Cultural leftover from the Cold War. Socialism is equated to Communism with a capital 'C' (as supposed to communism with a lowercase 'c' which is an idealistic if impractical extreme form of socialism).

Stuff like free healthcare is a major red flag (no pun intended), etc. As is higher taxation (hence the overlap with the libertarian platform) even to benefit the state, and so on. I'm speaking in very general terms of course, I have no idea what anyone in this thread is like.

"better dead than Red" is still unironically quoted amongst certain American demographics (I know some Alaskan conservatives, etc).

Yeah, I understand it's the leftover Cold War sentiment, I just don't understand how the view of it has been eroding so slowly over time, when plenty of countries employ a centre-left/left government that in most cases, works.

I've heard the argument that "Why should I pay for another person's healthcare" etc, I'm just intrigued to hear it from a American socialist's perspective rather than... a Texan's.

[Gorbles]

At a guess, because America has been pulling itself right, culturally as well as politically (as one informs the other) at a faster rate than other countries. The UK is slowly heading that way too, which leads to a further polarised set of poles (in terms of ideology) as well as a "centre" platform that has also been shifting right.

[Forestradio]

I am personally very very concerned now with the apparent death of the moderate in our politics. It's like demanding that you get everything on your platform, then getting angry you didn't get it and subsequently blaming the government for it when they really can't make any compromise or coalition-building effort effectively because you just filled the seats with extreme left and right leaning characters and if they budge even a little, they'll get kicked out of office because they failed the ideological purity test.

And many politicians have done that to themselves. They consistently take advantage of peoples' fears and insecurities to get people riled up to vote and believe in their message. Just look at the Republican National Convention. Newt Gingrich even spoke to a reporter about facts vs. feelings and basically said that as long as people "feel" a certain way, the facts don't matter when discussing policy. He'll run on feelings every time. It's fucking insanity, but it's something that politicians are as much responsible for as voters.

I remember that... violent crime is down according to the FBI but oh noes people feel less safe! So clearly it is less safe because their feelings trump (huehue) whatever actually has a basis in reality.

Also fuck Newt Gringrich.

The death of the moderate can also be attributed to the gerrymandering of congressional districts, which means politicians can be extreme as they want with fuck-all consequences. Also attributable to the social media/interconnected world we are in now where people can get their news from only sources/people that agree with them in an echo chamber of super partisanship. Pretty sure if you asked Hillary supporters if they thought Trump was literally Hitler, a lot of them would say yes. And if you asked Trump supporters if they thought Hillary was literally Satan, a lot of them would also say yes. Why? Because "everybody says so."

Socialism and things like that also carry a stigma in America because we're supposed to be big on things like individualism and personal responsibility. And also people resent any attempt at establishing a welfare state--that goes back to Reagan. But I would argue that the most pro-Russia candidate in history just became President. So it's not entirely a red scare anymore. Most people are probably more scared of ISIS.

We're definitely going much more conservative politically in the next two years at the minimum... it scares me either way when one party dominates all levels of federal government like that. We'll see how the culture follows. A lot of millennials are pretty culturally liberal.

I can't speak for how American socialists feel since I'm not one and don't really know them... we don't really have a lot of self-proclaimed socialists out here.

[Broodwich]

At a guess, because America has been pulling itself right, culturally as well as politically (as one informs the other) at a faster rate than other countries. The UK is slowly heading that way too, which leads to a further polarised set of poles (in terms of ideology) as well as a "centre" platform that has also been shifting right.

I think this is off the mark. In my opinion, granted I'm a Seattlite, it had been doing the opposite. Younger people are overwhelmingly liberal. What has happened is older generations' resentment has been building higher and higher for various reasons, which inspires higher turnout.

Consequently, Hilary has been less than inspiring with her various scandals and more importantly, using her leverage to steal the nomination from Bernie. Who would have whooped trump's ass btw. This decreases liberal turnout.

Only half the electorate actually votes in most elections. Getting your side to the polls and suppressing the other's is what wins elections

[Oddnerd]

Cultural leftover from the Cold War. Socialism is equated to Communism with a capital 'C' (as supposed to communism with a lowercase 'c' which is an idealistic if impractical extreme form of socialism).

Stuff like free healthcare is a major red flag (no pun intended), etc. As is higher taxation (hence the overlap with the libertarian platform) even to benefit the state, and so on. I'm speaking in very general terms of course, I have no idea what anyone in this thread is like.

"better dead than Red" is still unironically quoted amongst certain American demographics (I know some Alaskan conservatives, etc).

Yeah, I understand it's the leftover Cold War sentiment, I just don't understand how the view of it has been eroding so slowly over time, when plenty of countries employ a centre-left/left government that in most cases, works.

I've heard the argument that "Why should I pay for another person's healthcare" etc, I'm just intrigued to hear it from a American socialist's perspective rather than... a Texan's.

Once the cold war generations finally keel over and die things will change much more quickly I imagine.

The ironic thing is that plenty of wealthy americans believe in socialism if it is the kind of socialism that lets irresponsible companies get bailed out with public money, but putting poor kids in college is still a bit too communist.

Only half the electorate actually votes in most elections. Getting your side to the polls and suppressing the other's is what wins elections

This is pretty much it, and it ties in with what I was saying. If the democrats could motivate young people to come out and vote they would practically own the country, but instead of letting Bernie the populist candidate take the nomination they put up an establishment candidate with all the charisma of a dumpster fire.

[Forestradio]

http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/national ... 11591.html

When this becomes a response (on both sides) to an election, there is something rotten in the state of our political process.

[Flash]

There's an economic theory makes its way around that says that the rise of outsider/extreme candidates is the result of the wealth/income inequality in the US. Such candidates will continue to become more prominent until the system restores to balance or implodes.

We've become more polarized as the middle class in America has been shrinking and the top and bottom have been expanding. This has been ongoing since the 80s really. Is this the sole cause of polarization? Doubtful, this is way to complex to being explained with only one factor. There certainly is an element of class and education in play regarding our politics.

I don't know if I'd call myself a socialist (not calling for state owned means of production/property), but others have been calling me that. I think anything to the left of Bush would be painted as socialist by a good chunk of people. In addition to the leftover from the cold war, many people reacting negatively against it don't seem to know that much about it, nor why/how it would benefit them.

There's the cultural aspect of rugged individualism that several of you have already mentioned. "Why should I have to pay more in taxes for Joe Shmoe poor unemployed person to make poor decisions?". For many, lack of financial success is see as a moral failing. If you just work harder you'll make it. A hold over from even farther back than the cold war; the protestant work ethic. Schooling and economics has not done it's job in explaining why this is not the case. Many people seem to lack, or unable to put together a big picture analysis. Short term vs. long term gain. I've heard many people say we shouldn't raise minimum wage because a person in that job will just spend their increase in wages on illegal drugs. The US is very much individualist as a culture compared to Europe which is more collectivist. I think that is product of population density. When you have more people living together, you have to give up some individual liberties in order to keep civilization functioning properly. Ex: getting a drivers license. Your ability to harm some one else through your own incompetence is great enough that we collectively think the state should intervene and mandate a test for ability.

[Lost Son of Nikhel]

I think this image describes some reasons (ignoring Economic reason I don't know enough about USA economy) why Trump won.



A lot of people its simply tired of all that Tumblr thinking. Everything is racist, everything is a homophobic, everything is misogynist, everyone's opinion which don't match with the SJW one is a fucking nazi and/or a fascist and should die. The political correctness being a powerful censorship tool.

And now comes a new challenger with seems doesn't gives a fuck about this. A possibility of change. And there it goes! Simply as that.

This is also one of the main reasons the "extreme right wing" politic parties starts to win more supporters in Europe. When the "good politics" (for example) says need more inmigrants when already have a 20% of unemployment... Well, isn't strange that a politic party that IS in fact a problem starts to win more supporters.

Seriously, I'm a bit shocked about the reactions of the people in the world when Trump won. The social networks BURNING with this. All that people CRYING because a guy win a democratic elections. And not only the Tumblr population, even UNIVERSITIES. What kind of madness is this?

Really that people are democratics? Or only democracy rules when MY choice is the winner one?

[Adeptus Noobus]

Off topic here: Show me one european country where the issue of unemployment has a direct link to refugees. As far as I know, there is none. And people not knowing these simple things is why we have a right-wing uprise in europe. If you want I can go on and on and on about why the downfall of europe and the EU would be the single worst thing in this century for europeans.

[Carnevour]

Off topic here: Show me one european country where the issue of unemployment has a direct link to refugees. As far as I know, there is none. And people not knowing these simple things is why we have a right-wing uprise in europe. If you want I can go on and on and on about why the downfall of europe and the EU would be the single worst thing in this century for europeans.

The fall of EU is evident. Its really obvious actually, the retarded elites that pander to the left while simultaneously selling out to international corporations, the cucked people of europe in general that lost their balls and allowed the cancer of multiculturalism to spread and completely nulify any traditional values that the European nations had. And of course the influx of refugees the majority of which dindu nuffin except for rape, murder and ask for welfare (exceptions apply). I dont believe in Europe anymore to uncuck itself except for some Eastern European countries.
If by some miracle Marine LePen wins the presidency in France next year then i can see Europe surviving instead of becoming some Tier shit EUnistan.

[Adeptus Noobus]

I am at a loss here....How is the EU falling apart? How has it been bad for anybody? Tell me one thing that has not brought postive aspects into the lifes of each and every EU citizen apart from the currency problems (keep in mind: not ever EU member is a member of the € group).

[Forestradio]

Seriously, I'm a bit shocked about the reactions of the people in the world when Trump won. The social networks BURNING with this. All that people CRYING because a guy win a democratic elections. And not only the Tumblr population, even UNIVERSITIES. What kind of madness is this?

Really that people are democratics? Or only democracy rules when MY choice is the winner one?

People are upset because they are scared, it's that simple. Why? Gee, maybe because the KKK is holding a victory parade about the election?

Ofc whining and protesting at this point is totally useless and ignores the reality of the situation (Trump is president regardless so better get used to it) but go back and read my posts about how facts don't really matter anymore.

Minor nitpick: The USA is not a democracy. It's a constitutional republic. And that constitution gives the people the right to peacefully assemble, although I will say all the violent rioting and looting is despicable and people who do that should be in jail.

[Oddnerd]

I admit I am getting kind of sick of the melodrama on my Facebook feed. People have been signalling some serious virtue in the most obnoxious ways possible. There really is nothing worse than someone who can't write or speak attempting to sound poetic. I have people on my feed who woke up on the morning of the 9th acting like half the country had been raped in its sleep and needed counselling. One Facebook friend even offered LGBT and minority friends a chance to come live at her place (In Canada) in case they didn't feel safe in America in general. Seriously, people are acting like Trump is going to start paying roving gangs of white trash to beat up anyone who isn't an ethnic/religious/cultural majority member.

The only violence I have seen on video so far is a white Trump supporter getting beaten up by a bunch of black people, but I don't imagine there is much of a yearning for calling out that kind of bigotry in the American media. Could be seen as bigoted.

[The Licking Boogyman]

I just leave this one here:
#GGtrump

I would have voted for Mr. Sanders but welp, lets see what the future brings us.

[Flash]

A little perspective should be brought in here. When Obama was elected both times, there were conservative elements that protested and commented all over social media that he would bring about ruin, that'd he'd take all your guns and that he'd attack your Christianity. not to mention that he was a Muslim terrorist. People have the right to protest and boo-hoo however much they want. Complaining about it is just a silly as some of the protests are.

There however legitimate reasons to be uncertain and nervous about the future.

Now I'm upset and yes worried about what comes next under a completely republican government. I expect environmental regulations, business, wall street, banking, and bunch of others are going to get shredded. Along with education and healthcare. Now could all those things be improved from where they are now? Yes. Frankly some of those are a cluster fuck. Is some regulation ludicrous? Yes. However, by and large regulation serves a purpose. Republicans have been campaigning for years about dismantling the EPA, the FDA, or at least limiting the latter significantly. Both of those serve incredibly important functions. Some of my classes have looked at why those organizations came to be in the first place. FDA: because people were literally selling piss in a bottle with mercury and other toxic chemicals in as a cure all in the 20s. EPA: it seem like it's probably a bad thing if we can light a river on fire. Both of those sound like hyperbole, but both of those were actual incidents which saw a public demand for these organizations. I would not like to go back to those times. Also Trump just appointed an individual who doesn't believe in climate change as the head of the EPA.

Now the supreme court also will shift to conservative under red leadership. So that means essentially back sliding on things such a abortion rights, possibly gay marriage, election reform/ citizens united, separation of church and state, and federalism. Originalism/strict constructionist philosophies are not reasonable in a time 200+ years after the drafting of the constitution.

Republicans have historically been the party that caters to the wealthy. While trump rose on a populist message, congress is a separate issue entirely. We will see whether they see eye to eye on economics.

So to sum up. This really isn't madness. There are legitimate reasons for it. Some/much of it is overblown. It will however pass. The polarizing generational/class/educational divide will likely spell further trouble unless addressed.

Now on to the EU. The EU is not falling apart. The EU is under stress yes, the migrant issue as has been talked about to death. Not to mention the problems of having a joint monetary policy but not a fiscal one. Interestingly, a Trump presidency might mean a resurgent Europe on the world stage. Trump is correct that the many member nations of NATO have not been full filling their military duties under treaty and letting the US shoulder that burden instead. As such you now have talks of unifying and re-militarizing Europe even more in response to Russia. I actually think this would be a good thing, a uni-polar (USA = only superpower) geopolitical world isn't to most people's benefit.

[Adeptus Noobus]

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/11/13/us/tr ... index.html

#ithasbegun

[Gorbles]

I admit I am getting kind of sick of the melodrama on my Facebook feed. People have been signalling some serious virtue in the most obnoxious ways possible. There really is nothing worse than someone who can't write or speak attempting to sound poetic. I have people on my feed who woke up on the morning of the 9th acting like half the country had been raped in its sleep and needed counselling. One Facebook friend even offered LGBT and minority friends a chance to come live at her place (In Canada) in case they didn't feel safe in America in general. Seriously, people are acting like Trump is going to start paying roving gangs of white trash to beat up anyone who isn't an ethnic/religious/cultural majority member.

The only violence I have seen on video so far is a white Trump supporter getting beaten up by a bunch of black people, but I don't imagine there is much of a yearning for calling out that kind of bigotry in the American media. Could be seen as bigoted.

I've seen far more violence than that, maybe you're just not looking in the right places?

Also, Trump has just committed to deporting between 2 and 3 million people. So, uh, I'd say concerns about the existence of minorities within the US is a legitimate concern. You might not think it is, but other people have the right to disagree.

[Oddnerd]

I've seen far more violence than that, maybe you're just not looking in the right places?

Also, Trump has just committed to deporting between 2 and 3 million people. So, uh, I'd say concerns about the existence of minorities within the US is a legitimate concern. You might not think it is, but other people have the right to disagree.

Definitely, I've since heard of violence and intimidation from both sides.

Trump has stated multiple times he wants to deport illegal immigrants. Nothing inherently racist about wanting to enforce borders. The fact that most of the USA's illegal immigrants are non-white is inconvenient though, because now wanting to legally enforce your borders means instant racism apparently.