|
|
Post by Crystal on Nov 10, 2016 17:53:04 GMT -5
And sometimes when we humans get very angry about something, we feel the need to direct it towards someone or something. "It's someone or something's fault that I'm in this mess." Unfortunately, that someone or something ended up being the groups that Mr. Trump derided on the campaign trail. Can't blame the disillusioned blue-collar workers too much for being human. :/ It's sad that this is just resulting in people digging the divide deeper. On the Trump side, he laid a precedent for being aggressive to minorities and succeeded despite it, and people are emulating his example. On the Clinton side, everyone is lobbing words like "racist, sexist xenophobic bigot" at the other side without considering whether they might be disillusioned for other reasons. |
|
|
|
Post by Geodude 🌻 on Nov 10, 2016 18:05:43 GMT -5
I don't think everyone that voted for Trump is racist, xenophobic, etc. I think the "basket of deplorables" comment was a bit too strong and while I'm glad Clinton apologized, I think by then it was too late. I would argue that we could point to that moment as something that could have contributed to her loss with the Rust Belt working class folks. Maybe the worst part is that the DNC divided the electorate into large monolithic (White men, White women Hispanic, African-American, etc) chunks without looking at a more granular data and they were overconfident that some of these demographics would automatically support them. I didn't see this mentioned, but I think Mr. Trump will also gut net neutrality by removing FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler. To oversimplify, the basic premise of net neutrality is that all data traveling on an Internet provider's network should be treated as equal, regardless of source or destination. That means as an ISP, say AT&T, I should not give priority to my DirecTV streaming service over Netflix. I should not allow DirecTV data to travel faster than Netflix data. Some see this as more regulation from the feds. Others see this as a necessity because the Internet should be a free (as in speech) network. To complicate things, there's a trend called zero-rating. The best example is T-Mobile exempting services from data caps. T-Mobile doesn't charge for this but they only have an incentive to zero-rate popular services, not brand new services nobody's heard of. Is that a violation of net neutrality? Speaking of this: arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/11/att-zero-rating-of-directv-data-may-violate-net-neutrality-fcc-says/Yeah anything the FCC says now can be overturned by a Trump presidency. In some other countries, ISPs are regulated as a utility and are dumb-pipes for data. In America ISPs are allowed to be content providers too and that creates what I argue is a conflict of interest. |
|
|
|
Post by Komori on Nov 10, 2016 18:44:42 GMT -5
Maybe the worst part is that the DNC divided the electorate into large monolithic (White men, White women Hispanic, African-American, etc) chunks without looking at a more granular data and they were overconfident that some of these demographics would automatically support them. Except that most of these chunks DID support them.  www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/11/08/us/politics/election-exit-polls.html?_r=0POC were (obviously) against Trump, overwhelmingly so. |
|
|
|
Post by doctortomoe on Nov 10, 2016 19:03:40 GMT -5
A few things:
1: Filibuster is a Parliamentary rule, not a stone rule. If the Republican Senate wishes to do away with it so the Dem minority couldn't use it, all they need is a simple majority rule vote when the new congress reconvenes. Think of it this way. If you had the power to completely shut out all of your political opposition to anything that you wanted, wouldn't you? Especially with how easy they bowed and cowtowed to Trump once he won, even with all the horrible things he said and did? They have no guts, but now they have the power, so count on them bullying the minority out of any voice at all. Don't count on the filibuster staying at all. Everything Obama tried to do will likely be repealed and overturned in a matter of weeks, if not days.
2: If people were sick of the status quo, they wouldn't have re-elected 90% of their congressmen back. AKA, the ones who were causing all the gridlock in DC with their unpresedented obstruction. Well, get ready to see what full GOP power will do to this country.
3: Net Neutrality is likely dead. So is any hope for work on climate change. He's already stated to appoint a climate change denier as EPA head.
4: This was the first national election with the Voting Rights Act gutted. Look what happened. And since R's strengthened their hold on states, and will now have the courts, don't expect it to return. Fully expect more roadblocks to voting, since, as Clinton won the popular vote, but not the EC vote, more people wanted her to be president. In the midterms, expect less turnout, less chances to vote, and more losses to the Dem party. After all, they don't vote GOP, there's no reason to make it easier for them. That was exactly what happened in North Carolina.
So yeah, call me an alarmist or a debbie downer or whatever. But, have they done anything so far to prove that this isn't what they would do? No. Unless the Dem's manage to find someone truly inspiring, or unless Trump ruins the country so badly that there is practically an armed uprising against him, expect the GOP to be in power for decades. If they don't, the gerrymandering of 2010 will be even worse, and they will have solidified one party rule for at least a century.
But, in the short term, a lot of people are going to be hurt, and many will likely lose their lives, especially with the blanket repeal of the ACA. Not to mention the Ryan budget, which will now pass, eliminates food stamps, medicaid, and concentrates 99.6% of the wealth of the country to the top 1%.
I really, desperately want to be proven wrong though. I will happily accept being proven wrong.
I just don't see the evidence of the contrary.
|
|
|
|
Post by Geodude 🌻 on Nov 10, 2016 19:04:35 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Komori on Nov 10, 2016 20:08:40 GMT -5
I mean, that just shows that Hillary did worse with blacks and Hispanics than Obama did. That's not really surprising news; Obama was very appealing to those groups, whereas Clinton was just the "not-Trump" option. |
|
|
|
Post by Geodude 🌻 on Nov 10, 2016 20:09:58 GMT -5
I just don't think the Democratic Party saw that one coming or had no idea how to fix or mitigate it.
Anyways, this ACA uncertainty is hitting the healthcare industry, including the healthcare IT sector, very hard so I'm starting to feel a bit worried about job uncertainty. Hopefully we'll weather the storm :/.
I guess software development itself is still a good job market so maybe I'll be okay...I like my job though.
|
|
|
|
Post by Blueysicle on Nov 10, 2016 20:13:54 GMT -5
Stuff from my state, looks like marijuana referendum passed by a narrow margin, though I fully expect our governor to fight it. (Wouldn't be the first time that he threw a fit and denied the will of the people because he didn't like what they decided) Tax on the top 2% of earners to go towards funding education, minimum wage increase, and ranked choice voting passed too. (And I think a pretty generic infrastructure question too) Only thing that got turned down was background checks on gun sales.
On the other hand, the GOP congressman that was up for re-election this year won. This is the guy that had ocean-front property that he used loopholes to get away with spending a whopping $30 in taxes on. So can't say I'm terribly happy about that. I heard that overall Maine is starting to turn red, which... doesn't make me feel much at ease. On one hand, Maine has produced the likes of Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe, both moderate Republicans that have a history of bipartisanship and generally some sense of moral fiber and backbone. On the other, we have LePage. Enough said.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tara on Nov 10, 2016 20:21:41 GMT -5
Stuff from my state, looks like marijuana referendum passed by a narrow margin, though I fully expect our governor to fight it. (Wouldn't be the first time that he threw a fit and denied the will of the people because he didn't like what they decided) Tax on the top 2% of earners to go towards funding education, minimum wage increase, and ranked choice voting passed too. (And I think a pretty generic infrastructure question too) Only thing that got turned down was background checks on gun sales. On the other hand, the GOP congressman that was up for re-election this year won. This is the guy that had ocean-front property that he used loopholes to get away with spending a whopping $30 in taxes on. So can't say I'm terribly happy about that. I heard that overall Maine is starting to turn red, which... doesn't make me feel much at ease. On one hand, Maine has produced the likes of Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe, both moderate Republicans that have a history of bipartisanship and generally some sense of moral fiber and backbone. On the other, we have LePage. Enough said. I'm happy that your state got an increase in minimum wage and more funds for education. Education really needs a lot of funding right now, so hopefully more states will follow suit  . |
|
|
|
Post by Moni on Nov 11, 2016 0:20:43 GMT -5
thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/305530-kkk-to-hold-parade-in-north-carolina-celebrating-trumpThis is what happens when you elect the guy who courts white supremacy. ALSO! A major Al-Qaeda operative just unleashed a twitter storm declaring Donald Trump a victory for their cause. He's 100% right--why did all those national security people denounce him, I wonder? I understand that many Trump supporters voted because they were sick of the establishment, but from a consequential point of view, the fact that they let this brainless clown into the white house and will have allowed every sick thing this administration will do is mind boggling--it won't even help them. They'll get poorer, less trained, and less educated when his policies come to pass. Not all Trump voters are bigots of course, but all the bigots voted for Trump--and I feel sorry for those decent people who thought he was going to help them. To be honest, I can't help but feel contempt for the people that put us here. The RNC, DNC, the media for not spotlighting his awfulness, Trump's core white supremacy base--this result is disgusting.
|
|
|
|
Post by Geodude 🌻 on Nov 11, 2016 7:41:25 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Huntress on Nov 11, 2016 9:37:51 GMT -5
We'd like to issue a general reminder to everyone that Discussions and Debates is a forum for the calm discourse of opinions, not a place to post general rants or air fearful speculation. Emotionally charged posts should be kept to either diaries or the Banter Board. While we understand everyone's concerns, and encourage an intellectual discourse on this subject, we ask that everyone remember that these speculations are not healthy or helpful, especially to those who may be looking for reassurance in their own time of unease. Now more than ever it is important not to give in to fear, and to think logically about the points being brought to the table here.
Sincerely,
The Mods
|
|
|
|
Post by Crystal on Nov 11, 2016 11:59:59 GMT -5
Also, let's have some good news! Maine passed ranked choice voting.Explanation: (people correct me if my understanding is flawed) When casting your vote, you rank candidates. For instance, if you're a NeverTrumper but don't care much for Clinton either, then in this election you had the unpleasant duty of either voting third party (essentially throwing away your vote), staying home (literally throwing away your vote), or sucking it up and voting Clinton (bleargh). Under the new system, you might vote: 1) Gary Johnson (agree with some of his policies but don't think he'll win) 2) Clinton (well, I don't like her, but she's better than...) 3) Trump And your opinion will be taken into account. So this is a pretty cool overhaul of the current system in that it allows people to vote for who they actually want (like a third party, or a Republican in a predominantly blue state) without worrying that "their vote won't count". So a candidate who got a majority of #2s but not a lot of #1s (indicating that they're not everyone's first choice, but most people can live with them) might trump someone who got more #1s but also a lot of #3s (indicating that there's a huge divide in public opinion). The downside is that it's not as simple to understand as the current system, since there's a lot of math behind who actually wins. But it seems a lot fairer in general and will definitely be good for third-parties and for bridging divisive public opinion gaps, like what happened in this election. |
|
|
|
Post by Blueysicle on Nov 11, 2016 13:12:08 GMT -5
Also, let's have some good news! Maine passed ranked choice voting.Explanation: (people correct me if my understanding is flawed) When casting your vote, you rank candidates. For instance, if you're a NeverTrumper but don't care much for Clinton either, then in this election you had the unpleasant duty of either voting third party (essentially throwing away your vote), staying home (literally throwing away your vote), or sucking it up and voting Clinton (bleargh). Under the new system, you might vote: 1) Gary Johnson (agree with some of his policies but don't think he'll win) 2) Clinton (well, I don't like her, but she's better than...) 3) Trump And your opinion will be taken into account. So this is a pretty cool overhaul of the current system in that it allows people to vote for who they actually want (like a third party, or a Republican in a predominantly blue state) without worrying that "their vote won't count". So a candidate who got a majority of #2s but not a lot of #1s (indicating that they're not everyone's first choice, but most people can live with them) might trump someone who got more #1s but also a lot of #3s (indicating that there's a huge divide in public opinion). The downside is that it's not as simple to understand as the current system, since there's a lot of math behind who actually wins. But it seems a lot fairer in general and will definitely be good for third-parties and for bridging divisive public opinion gaps, like what happened in this election. Mainer here. Like I posted in this very thread months ago, we got a mini-Trump as governor because of third-party candidates splitting the vote, and a lot of people are quite sick of him. (He's been demanded to resign/be impeached at least twice now, but neither instance went very far) I'm really hopeful that this new system will make it a lot less likely that we wind up with someone like him again. Speaking of, said governor is currently blasting one of our Senators, Susan Collins, for not supporting Trump. I said in my previous post that Collins is a Republican, but she's one of the most moderate ones in Congress today. She's still pretty popular here in Maine, but her approval rating among Republicans did take a hit after coming out in opposition to Trump. So I'm concerned that the few GOP Congresspeople that would be willing to stand up to Trump are going to be at risk come their re-elections, and instead encourage Republicans that would give him carte blanche to do whatever he wants to challenge them. |
|
|
|
Post by Jae on Nov 11, 2016 13:14:18 GMT -5
Also, let's have some good news! Maine passed ranked choice voting.Explanation: (people correct me if my understanding is flawed) When casting your vote, you rank candidates. For instance, if you're a NeverTrumper but don't care much for Clinton either, then in this election you had the unpleasant duty of either voting third party (essentially throwing away your vote), staying home (literally throwing away your vote), or sucking it up and voting Clinton (bleargh). Under the new system, you might vote: 1) Gary Johnson (agree with some of his policies but don't think he'll win) 2) Clinton (well, I don't like her, but she's better than...) 3) Trump And your opinion will be taken into account. So this is a pretty cool overhaul of the current system in that it allows people to vote for who they actually want (like a third party, or a Republican in a predominantly blue state) without worrying that "their vote won't count". So a candidate who got a majority of #2s but not a lot of #1s (indicating that they're not everyone's first choice, but most people can live with them) might trump someone who got more #1s but also a lot of #3s (indicating that there's a huge divide in public opinion). The downside is that it's not as simple to understand as the current system, since there's a lot of math behind who actually wins. But it seems a lot fairer in general and will definitely be good for third-parties and for bridging divisive public opinion gaps, like what happened in this election. That's an interesting system but I have a question: How do write-ins work? Like do they get added after the 'official' rankings? Or can you slot them in wherever? Like (to amend your list): 1. Gary Johnson 2. Clinton 3. My cat 4. Markiplier 5. Corey Kluber 6. Trump To add to the discussion in the rest of the thread, I also feel let down by the Democratic party. I am a swing demographic - white (Trump) woman (Clinton) - in a swing county in a major swing state. And from the advertisements I got the impression that the DNC was just expecting Trump to ruin his own campaign and they would coast in easily. The advertisements I saw (and I watched all 7 World Series games - not one pro-Hillary ad was shown during any of those commercial breaks) said nothing about Hillary's policies - they were essentially "Americans React to Trump's Speeches" compilations. Trump lost the popular vote; over half the country did not want him elected. The DNC was selling 'don't vote Trump' which did happen - again, over half the country didn't vote for him - but it didn't work because they never sold those people on Hillary. The non-Trump votes were split between Clinton, Johnson, Stein, the guy from Utah, and write-ins. |
|
