Welp

[Lysergic]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vau2hG22DoQ

[Orpz]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eWxyQlWolTI

[PowersThatBe]

America RN.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FywSzjRq0e4

[Elixir]

I am sorry for all of your losses.

[BananaCucho]

I even voted for Clinton cause they said the state would be close

Fuck this shit

[Shifty]

After all the things he has said and done, it really happens? Unbelievable.

[BananaCucho]

After all the things he has said and done, it really happens? Unbelievable.

ANY OTHER DEMOCRAT would have slaughtered him. But dems chose the most hated, politically scandalous candidate to run this year and threw their support behind her. Like really what the fuck were they thinking.

Time for them to be humbled big time. Realize they can't just continue to prop up their elitist friends and go against the will of the people in the party.

[Yukitaka Oni]

Wut happen on the voting day?

[Lysergic]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2vjmgtD1_A

[BananaCucho]

Wut happen on the voting day?

Your fuckboi Trump won

[Yukitaka Oni]

Your fuckboi Trump won
TRUMP 4life ^)O.o)^ ^(O.o(^
Now build a wall.....and then through the course of history....crash it.....like Berlin Wall....so we can teach the world that America learn nothing from history....

[Cryptonic]

ANY OTHER DEMOCRAT would have slaughtered him. But dems chose the most hated, politically scandalous candidate to run this year and threw their support behind her. Like really what the fuck were they thinking.

Time for them to be humbled big time. Realize they can't just continue to prop up their elitist friends and go against the will of the people in the party.

It truly is the DNC fault. She might have stood a chance if they didn't do everything they could to piss off every republican enough and motivate them to go vote.

[PowersThatBe]

I think all of us Bernie supporters are saying told you so right now, and are extremely pissed.

[Gyrlander]

I guess things are going to get both horrible and interesting now.

[Bunny]

I'm sure it will all be fine. It's like when the liberals were voted in and everyone whined just like this.

[Cryptonic]

I'm sure it will all be fine. It's like when the liberals were voted in and everyone whined just like this.

Trudeu is the worst President Canada has ever had.

[Yukitaka Oni]

Trudeu is the worst President Canada has ever had.
His dad ftw but his son....eh......hm.....dunno v(x.o(<

[Bunny]

Trudeu is the worst President Canada has ever had.

Don't shame me for voting for our glorious president justin

[DarknessB]

It truly is the DNC fault. She might have stood a chance if they didn't do everything they could to piss off every republican enough and motivate them to go vote.

Not even just Republicans -- independents broke for Trump fairly heavily (at least relative to the overall popular vote totals). The combination of an extremely uncharismatic / unpopular candidate, a bunch of scandals that kept popping up, and general malaise over the existing state of affairs (with Hillary being viewed as continuation of that) was a fatal combination. I agree that if the Democrats had run just about anyone else, they probably would have won, and fairly easily too.

[DarknessB]

ANY OTHER DEMOCRAT would have slaughtered him. But dems chose the most hated, politically scandalous candidate to run this year and threw their support behind her. Like really what the fuck were they thinking.

Time for them to be humbled big time. Realize they can't just continue to prop up their elitist friends and go against the will of the people in the party.

The whole thing was pretty bad karma for the Democrats. Republicans used to be the party of "it's my turn" (nominating candidates out of long-term loyalty to the party vs. who would be best going forward) -- that usually doesn't work out too well, and for good reason. People don't like a candidate shoved down their throats. The DNC, entire media, etc. were so invested in Hillary winning that it pissed off enough people and galvanized the anti-Hillary voters.

Even the most ardent Trump supporter probably doesn't think he's great substantively, but they viewed him as the lesser of evils compared to Hillary. That's what happened in a nutshell.

[Orpz]

Clinton getting blown the fuck out in the Rust Belt is pretty much the only indication anyone should need of how awful of a candidate she was.

[DarknessB]

Clinton getting blown the fuck out in the Rust Belt is pretty much the only indication anyone should need of how awful of a candidate she was.

Last time Republicans won Pennsylvania or Michigan was 1988 (28 years!). Last time Republicans won Wisconsin was in the 1984 blowout (32 years!). Those are some core blue states to choke away, not to mention losing Florida (which went for Obama twice), Ohio (ditto), and North Carolina (once).

Hillary didn't even visit Wisconsin during the campaign, I believe. Just didn't have an understanding of the map really, or was too confident in the polling leads. There was an inordinate amount of time wasted trying to make red states blue like Arizona and the like. Given the way the map looked, Hillary needed to sure up the rust belt / swing states above instead of going for the equivalent of FPS.

[Cryptonic]

Last time Republicans won Pennsylvania or Michigan was 1988 (28 years!). Last time Republicans won Wisconsin was in the 1984 blowout (32 years!). Those are some core blue states to choke away, not to mention losing Florida (which went for Obama twice), Ohio (ditto), and North Carolina (once).

Hillary didn't even visit Wisconsin during the campaign, I believe. Just didn't have an understanding of the map really, or was too confident in the polling leads. There was an inordinate amount of time wasted trying to make red states blue like Arizona and the like. Given the way the map looked, Hillary needed to sure up the rust belt / swing states above instead of going for the equivalent of FPS.

Yea, she got too comfortable looking @ the polls she asked MSM to oversample on.

[DarknessB]

Yea, she got too comfortable looking @ the polls she asked MSM to oversample on.

Yeah, I get that there are more registered Democrats than registered Republicans in the country overall, but the oversampling effect is becoming pretty pronounced in many of polls, and ones that aren't as one-sided, are deemed to be Republican-biased pollsters. I think half of the idea of polls is to influence how others are going to vote -- in terms of, Hillary is going to win so you'd better get on that bandwagon. Looks like people saw through it though.

[Sino]

instead of going for the equivalent of FPS.


you'd better get on that bandwagon.

So in short, this election was the biggest and longest mafia game ever played.

[DarknessB]

So in short, this election was the biggest and longest mafia game ever played.

Nah, we tried an Election Day S-FM, but it got canceled due to the host getting sick:
http://www.sc2mafia.com/forum/showthread.php/32919-Canceled-S-FM-Election-Day

There are some great one-liners from that game though, including a strangely prescient post by Orpz (#226 in that game):


People are taking Donald Trump seriously. I have no faith in the democratic system.

[PowersThatBe]

I'm sure it will all be fine. It's like when the liberals were voted in and everyone whined just like this.

This is not the same! The republicans have the power and want to take marriage equality away, planned parenthood will be taken away, and everything Obama has done will be overturned. This is not politics as usual.

[Sino]

Nah, we tried an Election Day S-FM, but it got canceled due to the host getting sick:
http://www.sc2mafia.com/forum/showthread.php/32919-Canceled-S-FM-Election-Day

There are some great one-liners from that game though, including a strangely prescient post by Orpz (#226 in that game):

Lol, FB's comments #230 and #232 may also apply now.

[Orpz]

This is not the same! The republicans have the power and want to take marriage equality away, planned parenthood will be taken away, and everything Obama has done will be overturned. This is not politics as usual.

And America will thank them for it. I mean, Michigan voted for the party responsible for one of its towns' water supply being poisoned with lead.

http://i.imgur.com/LXHRvDvr.png

[Gyrlander]

This is not the same! The republicans have the power and want to take marriage equality away, planned parenthood will be taken away, and everything Obama has done will be overturned. This is not politics as usual.

This is similar to Spain politics in respect to the education reform.

[Mugy]

It's looking like Hilary won the popular vote, even with minor parties spoiling her.

Your electoral college is doing a great job ^_^


This is not the same! The republicans have the power and want to take marriage equality away, planned parenthood will be taken away, and everything Obama has done will be overturned. This is not politics as usual.

It's like a perfect storm. The first time politics in the US won't be in deadlock for years with a republican supreme court, senate, and house of representatives. With Trump as president.


I'm now glad the Australian senate is making it impossible for the current Australian government to do anything. I prefer gridlock now after seeing what has happened in the US.

[PLZLEAVEDUCKK]

Trump was without a doubt the better candidate over Clinton.

Losing both the house and the senate sucks though.

Wonder who's gonna get elected to the SC.

[Mugy]

Hypothetically, if there wasn't a two term limit? Would Obama have won vs Trump?

[PLZLEAVEDUCKK]

Hypothetically, if there wasn't a two term limit? Would Obama have won vs Trump?

easily, and he was a garbage president.

[Orpz]

Hypothetically, if there wasn't a two term limit? Would Obama have won vs Trump?

I doubt it, actually. He was cool as fuck but his presidency was still pretty flawed. Trump's campaign would have more ammo on him than Clinton, and this would be made even worse by the fact that everyone voting is old enough to remember Obama's presidency.

Joe Biden would have probably stomped Trump though.

[DarknessB]

It's looking like Hilary won the popular vote, even with minor parties spoiling her.

Your electoral college is doing a great job ^_^

Eh, the U.S. is, through its founding and by its very nature, a coalition of states. A straight popular vote would result in no one giving a shit about most of the states and only focusing on votes in urban areas and surrounding suburbs. I know most of us are probably city dwellers but that doesn't do anyone any favors in terms of having everyone's voice heard. At the end of the day, Hillary lost 30/50* states to Trump including eminently winnable states in the Midwest. As much as it's unsettling that Trump won while losing the popular vote, it'd be similarly unsettling if Hillary had won with only majority support in the northeast and west coast.

* The District of Columbia is filled with bureaucratic hacks and ends up voting Democratic by something like 95-5 each year (this year it was 93-4) so I'm not even counting that in my totals, but if you so insist, lost 30/51 states.

[Mugy]

Eh, the U.S. is, through its founding and by its very nature, a coalition of states. A straight popular vote would result in no one giving a shit about most of the states and only focusing on votes in urban areas and surrounding suburbs. I know most of us are probably city dwellers but that doesn't do anyone any favors in terms of having everyone's voice heard. At the end of the day, Hillary lost 30/50* states to Trump including eminently winnable states in the Midwest. As much as it's unsettling that Trump won while losing the popular vote, it'd be similarly unsettling if Hillary had won with only majority support in the northeast and west coast.

* The District of Columbia is filled with bureaucratic hacks and ends up voting Democratic by something like 95-5 each year (this year it was 93-4) so I'm not even counting that in my totals, but if you so insist, lost 30/51 states.

That reasoning is inherently flawed as it ignores the reality of population distribution. Even if you take the population of the 100 largest cities it is still only 19.4% of the popular vote.

What has been demonstrated, time and time again in reality is that candidates become obsessed with swing states.

[Mugy]

Another issue I see is why do imaginary state lines, a lot of them straight arbitrary lines determine how much power a person has in voting?

Even if you ignore population distribution, and say they only become interested in 50% of the population which in theory live in big cities, why is that a bad thing? Are you saying places where population density is less, people should have more power? To me that argument is ludicrous. People are still people, whether or not they live closer or farer from each other.

[yzb25]

Eh, the U.S. is, through its founding and by its very nature, a coalition of states. A straight popular vote would result in no one giving a shit about most of the states and only focusing on votes in urban areas and surrounding suburbs. I know most of us are probably city dwellers but that doesn't do anyone any favors in terms of having everyone's voice heard. At the end of the day, Hillary lost 30/50* states to Trump including eminently winnable states in the Midwest. As much as it's unsettling that Trump won while losing the popular vote, it'd be similarly unsettling if Hillary had won with only majority support in the northeast and west coast.

* The District of Columbia is filled with bureaucratic hacks and ends up voting Democratic by something like 95-5 each year (this year it was 93-4) so I'm not even counting that in my totals, but if you so insist, lost 30/51 states.

Yeah, pop. minorities get shit on in true democracies, but you don't solve that by trying to indirectly inflate the votes of minorities. I thought the constitution existed to make sure minorities don't get shit on too hard, anyway.

Also, what special representation do smaller pop. states need? Like, the needs of each state are mainly determined by the post-globalism, culturally-indistinguishable individuals within the state - their needs have little to do with the local geography or culture of the state. In other words, by representing the needs of the individuals in the big pop. states, surely you mostly represent the individuals in the small states? I'm viewing this as a Briton though - I don't know if it's accurate to view the low-pop states as microcosms of the big-pop states lol.

I respect your shitty voting system has a history and stuff, but as far as I can tell it's not amendment-tier stuff. You guys should seriously consider an actual democracy =P. It's just if someone suggested men should get their votes amplified by 1% or blacks should get their votes amplified by 5/6 times or the rich should have their votes amplified by a 100 times there would be an outcry lulz.

P.S. Not disputing the Hillary part.

[Mugy]

Yeah, pop. minorities get shit on in true democracies, but you don't solve that by trying to indirectly inflate the votes of minorities. I thought the constitution existed to make sure minorities don't get shit on too hard, anyway.

Also, what special representation do smaller pop. states need? Like, the needs of each state are mainly determined by the post-globalism, culturally-indistinguishable individuals within the state - their needs have little to do with the local geography or culture of the state. In other words, by representing the needs of the individuals in the big pop. states, surely you mostly represent the individuals in the small states? I'm viewing this as a Briton though - I don't know if it's accurate to view the low-pop states as microcosms of the big-pop states lol.

I respect your shitty voting system has a history and stuff, but as far as I can tell it's not amendment-tier stuff. You guys should seriously consider an actual democracy =P. It's just if someone suggested men should get their votes amplified by 1% or blacks should get their votes amplified by 5/6 times or the rich should have their votes amplified by a 100 times there would be an outcry lulz.

P.S. Not disputing the Hillary part.

If the issue is majority rule, then minority rule is better?
???

[DarknessB]

Another issue I see is why do imaginary state lines, a lot of them straight arbitrary lines determine how much power a person has in voting?

Even if you ignore population distribution, and say they only become interested in 50% of the population which in theory live in big cities, why is that a bad thing? Are you saying places where population density is less, people should have more power? To me that argument is ludicrous. People are still people, whether or not they live closer or farer from each other.

There's significant historical and cultural meaning to states (particularly non-western ones) and power being dispersed among them. Plus, you'd need a constitutional amendment to change the system and good luck getting the smaller states to vote en made to make themselves meaningless.

[Mugy]

There's significant historical and cultural meaning to states (particularly non-western ones) and power being dispersed among them. Plus, you'd need a constitutional amendment to change the system and good luck getting the smaller states to vote en made to make themselves meaningless.

I accept that in reality, it's never gonna change.

I'm just on the side of the argument that's saying there SHOULD be change :)

[DarknessB]

Yeah, pop. minorities get shit on in true democracies, but you don't solve that by trying to indirectly inflate the votes of minorities. I thought the constitution existed to make sure minorities don't get shit on too hard, anyway.

Also, what special representation do smaller pop. states need? Like, the needs of each state are mainly determined by the post-globalism, culturally-indistinguishable individuals within the state - their needs have little to do with the local geography or culture of the state. In other words, by representing the needs of the individuals in the big pop. states, surely you mostly represent the individuals in the small states? I'm viewing this as a Briton though - I don't know if it's accurate to view the low-pop states as microcosms of the big-pop states lol.

I respect your shitty voting system has a history and stuff, but as far as I can tell it's not amendment-tier stuff. You guys should seriously consider an actual democracy =P. It's just if someone suggested men should get their votes amplified by 1% or blacks should get their votes amplified by 5/6 times or the rich should have their votes amplified by a 100 times there would be an outcry lulz.

P.S. Not disputing the Hillary part.

The electoral college is in the Constitution, son -- so it's the definition of amendment-tier stuff. And, the U.S. isn't a democracy, it's a constitutional republic.

[yzb25]

The electoral college is in the Constitution, son -- so it's the definition of amendment-tier stuff. And, the U.S. isn't a democracy, it's a constitutional republic.

Woahhhhh "constitutional republic"? Wikipedia time.

Bah you guys shit all over your constitution and your amendments all the time. You may as well compromise your integrity for the greater good LOL

[DarknessB]

Woahhhhh "constitutional republic"? Wikipedia time.

Bah you guys shit all over your constitution and your amendments all the time. You may as well compromise your integrity for the greater good LOL

It's really not complicated stuff, certainly not requiring Wikipedia. In fact, the U.S. founders were afraid of direct democracy (having the unwashed masses decide things -- wow, that's some dangerous stuff that only the ancient Greeks would be dumb enough to do) and originally, the state legislatures voted for President, not the people themselves. In turn, the people's direct voice was to elect the state legislatures -- i.e. you pick the people to represent you and trust their decisions. This is all a long way of saying that direct popular voting isn't necessarily the best system. Your country uses the parliamentary system, for example.

[DarknessB]

Re: the differences in states point, the states in different regions of the U.S. have very different needs from economic, social, and cultural perspectives. Wyoming is nothing like New York, for example, in terms of just about anything. There are lots of different interests in terms of investments in infrastructure, different industries, the value of regulations, etc. If you think the U.S. is divisive now, it'd be far worse if those smaller population states had literally no role to play geopolitically.

Suggesting the 20 Hillary states have more of a legitimate right to appoint a leader than the 30 Trump states is a questionable premise merely because Hillary got 0.2% more votes nationally (something like 200,000 overall). Also, if you exclude California, where Hillary got something like 2.5 million more votes, Trump lead the popular vote by 2.3 million votes. I.e. it's literally all California and then some.

[yzb25]

It's really not complicated stuff, certainly not requiring Wikipedia. In fact, the U.S. founders were afraid of direct democracy (having the unwashed masses decide things -- wow, that's some dangerous stuff that only the ancient Greeks would be dumb enough to do) and originally, the state legislatures voted for President, not the people themselves. In turn, the people's direct voice was to elect the state legislatures -- i.e. you pick the people to represent you and trust their decisions. This is all a long way of saying that direct popular voting isn't necessarily the best system. Your country uses the parliamentary system, for example.

Yeah, definitions seem vague anyway - it's basically just saying it's a system where the big boy (head of state) and the politicians represent the people, in some subjective sense. That's the case in a democracy anyway, which suggests democracy can be seen as a subtype of constitutional republics.

I don't know which system is the best system, but there are ideals worth appealing for. For example, I think most people share the ideal that every individual should get an equally small choice in determining some kind of ultimate decision regarding government, in some abstract sense - like who will be the next president. And that's what people generally refer to when they go "bu-bu-but it's a democracy!" - they're not actually envisioning mob rule.

Anyway, our parliamentary system sucks pretty hard, honestly.

[Mugy]

Re: the differences in states point, the states in different regions of the U.S. have very different needs from economic, social, and cultural perspectives. Wyoming is nothing like New York, for example, in terms of just about anything. There are lots of different interests in terms of investments in infrastructure, different industries, the value of regulations, etc. If you think the U.S. is divisive now, it'd be far worse if those smaller population states had literally no role to play geopolitically.

Suggesting the 20 Hillary states have more of a legitimate right to appoint a leader than the 30 Trump states is a questionable premise merely because Hillary got 0.2% more votes nationally (something like 200,000 overall). Also, if you exclude California, where Hillary got something like 2.5 million more votes, Trump lead the popular vote by 2.3 million votes. I.e. it's literally all California and then some.

Maybe it's a different culture, but from where I am(New Zealand, and I imagine, most of the west), we don't have that kind of difference between places to the point where places with larger population need less representation to make the country happy.

Maybe you shouldn't be the "United" states of America :P

[Orpz]

http://puu.sh/scWO4/1959253bc6.png

Really makes you think

[DarknessB]

Yeah, definitions seem vague anyway - it's basically just saying it's a system where the big boy (head of state) and the politicians represent the people, in some subjective sense. That's the case in a democracy anyway, which suggests democracy can be seen as a subtype of constitutional republics.

I don't know which system is the best system, but there are ideals worth appealing for. For example, I think most people share the ideal that every individual should get an equally small choice in determining some kind of ultimate decision regarding government, in some abstract sense - like who will be the next president. And that's what people generally refer to when they go "bu-bu-but it's a democracy!" - they're not actually envisioning mob rule.

Anyway, our parliamentary system sucks pretty hard, honestly.

Sure, everyone should get to have some influence in the decision, but a straight popular vote doesn't take place in many context and the whole system doesn't fall apart. The entire premise of districts within a state or states for that matter are two good examples. How about cities? If you live on the border between two cities, two states, or two districts, you're essentially assigned to vote in one, but have no influence in the other, even if you're greatly affected by what happens in both.

This is all to say, it's never completely equal and people should get over that IMO. Popular voting doesn't make sense in all contexts, especially where you're talking about hundreds of millions of votes.

[DarknessB]

Maybe it's a different culture, but from where I am(New Zealand, and I imagine, most of the west), we don't have that kind of difference between places to the point where places with larger population need less representation to make the country happy.

Maybe you shouldn't be the "United" states of America :P

Sure, we've had entire Civil Wars over regional differences, lol. Given the U.S. is a very large country, there are very divergent interests in different states / regions. Even some states themselves have very different parts like California, etc. It's far easier to govern a smaller country because you don't have nearly as many differences (geographical and otherwise) that have to be considered.

[DarknessB]

http://puu.sh/scWO4/1959253bc6.png

Really makes you think

Two points -- this chart has to do more with the fact that there aren't great revenues in rural southern states, for one, and also, yes, people vote against their economic interests a lot.

[yzb25]

Sure, everyone should get to have some influence in the decision, but a straight popular vote doesn't take place in many context and the whole system doesn't fall apart. The entire premise of districts within a state or states for that matter are two good examples. How about cities? If you live on the border between two cities, two states, or two districts, you're essentially assigned to vote in one, but have no influence in the other, even if you're greatly affected by what happens in both.

This is all to say, it's never completely equal and people should get over that IMO. Popular voting doesn't make sense in all contexts, especially where you're talking about hundreds of millions of votes.

Err, I don't think your example really undermines the ideal much as, in regards to this "ultimate decision", we're talking about countries rather than cities and states. If you live right next to the border of another country, you're still not affected much by the laws of a country next door. The ideal I said was "Everyone having an equally significant role in one ultimate decision".

Besides, the whole point of ideals is that they're idealistic but we strive for them anyway, cuz that's what it means to be human n shit. So poking holes in the ideal is rather meaningless =P

[Orpz]

Iowa voted for this guy:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36fD-ssrbEs

Really makes you think

[DarknessB]

Err, I don't think your example really undermines the ideal much as, in regards to this "ultimate decision", we're talking about countries rather than cities and states. If you live right next to the border of another country, you're still not affected much by the laws of a country next door. The ideal I said was "Everyone having an equally significant role in one ultimate decision".

Besides, the whole point of ideals is that they're idealistic but we strive for them anyway, cuz that's what it means to be human n shit. So poking holes in the ideal is rather meaningless =P

Serious yikes re: the teal sentence -- please go to the border parts of Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and tell them that the issues Mexico is having don't have any effect on their lives, lol. I get that you wouldn't appreciate borders given you live on an island. And while I appreciate your ideal, I think there are other ideals as well, which include ensuring that interests throughout a country are represented, which are just as important as your point.

[DarknessB]

Iowa voted for this guy:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36fD-ssrbEs

Really makes you think

Heh, to be fair, the point of that quote in context was more like saying, how stupid are you to believe this terrible lie by another candidate. Also, no one is innocent at this level -- there are tons of damning Hillary comments in her e-mails regarding pandering for votes among the Hispanic community, being happy that domestic shooters were white and not Muslim in terms of her agenda / message, etc. That's not even getting around to the whole basket of deplorables type deal. Sure, it was funny, but people don't tend to take that well either.

[Klingoncelt]

Not even just Republicans -- independents broke for Trump fairly heavily (at least relative to the overall popular vote totals). The combination of an extremely uncharismatic / unpopular candidate, a bunch of scandals that kept popping up, and general malaise over the existing state of affairs (with Hillary being viewed as continuation of that) was a fatal combination. I agree that if the Democrats had run just about anyone else, they probably would have won, and fairly easily too.

The problem is that there wasn't really anyone else to run.

Bernie is great, I think very highly of him, but he is a member of the Socialist Party that switched to Democrat to run for President. Had he quietly switched several months before he started running, well, things would have gone better for him.

We can't ignore the industrial strength smear campaign run against Hillary. The phony Benghazi scandal, the Wikileaks (do you think that the RNC emails would be any better?,) the FBI innuendo over Wiener's laptop... Hillary was buried in bullshit.

[yzb25]

Serious yikes re: the teal sentence -- please go to the border parts of Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and tell them that the issues Mexico is having don't have any effect on their lives, lol. I get that you wouldn't appreciate borders given you live on an island. And while I appreciate your ideal, I think there are other ideals as well, which include ensuring that interests throughout a country are represented, which are just as important as your point.

Damn my island privilege.

Like many conversations, this has diverged in a direction completely unrelated to the original points, with people only indirectly countering one another lol. Thanks for informing me anyway.

[Klingoncelt]

This is not the same! The republicans have the power and want to take marriage equality away, planned parenthood will be taken away, and everything Obama has done will be overturned. This is not politics as usual.

Public services, healthcare, mail delivery, schools, and Social Security will be privatized.

Violence against nonwhites, non-xtians, LGBTQs, and women will increase noticeably.

People are going to die.

[DarknessB]

The problem is that there wasn't really anyone else to run.

Bernie is great, I think very highly of him, but he is a member of the Socialist Party that switched to Democrat to run for President. Had he quietly switched several months before he started running, well, things would have gone better for him.

We can't ignore the industrial strength smear campaign run against Hillary. The phony Benghazi scandal, the Wikileaks (do you think that the RNC emails would be any better?,) the FBI innuendo over Wiener's laptop... Hillary was buried in bullshit.

To be fair, isn't this the fault of the Democrats for not helping to groom candidates to run after Obama? Everyone just assumed that Hillary was going to be the nominee (certainly, the DNC made sure that happened) and it took all the air out of the room and probably scared other prospects into passing on this election. At the very least, the Republicans had a bench of possible candidates (some more sideshow than others for sure), but any of Bush, Rubio, or Kasich would have been perfectly average Republicans.

Eh, I honestly find the "conspiracy against Hillary" argument to be very unpersuasive given the disparate media coverage between them (Wikileaks barely got any coverage whereas people couldn't stop talking about Trump's taxes or the Access Hollywood clip). The entire pop culture machine (musicians, celebrities, etc.) were backing up Hillary, as well as lawyers, banks, etc. Not really sure that Trump had much institutional support aside from a couple of prominent Republican donors.

[PowersThatBe]

Hillary was buried in bs...but where there is smoke there is fire. It is a shame she was a candidate no one could trust. The time to fight is now. 2018 we need to take the house.

[Klingoncelt]

Certainly Hillary could have done with lessons on acting like a human.

Trump was a whiny little diva bitch, but in the Age of Kardashian that's normal.

Hillary was pretty robotic.

And the pantsuits weren't attractive. People pay attention to looks these days.

[DarknessB]

Certainly Hillary could have done with lessons on acting like a human.

Trump was a whiny little diva bitch, but in the Age of Kardashian that's normal.

Hillary was pretty robotic.

And the pantsuits weren't attractive. People pay attention to looks these days.

Whether it's silly or not, charisma is a very important characteristic to many voters -- it's the whole "who would you rather have a beer with" test. Hillary came off wooden and rehearsed, which turned off a lot of voters, in terms of believing that she was just telling them what they wanted to hear and wasn't being authentic.

As much of a diva as Trump was, he was seen as willing to speak his mind (whether many of us agree or not is another story), which tends to energize people more than cold logic.

And yes, female politicians have it tougher in terms of their clothing / looks being judged more harshly for sure. Trump's suits were rather sloppy and that got very little coverage, but people were far more inclined to judge what Hillary was wearing.

[Klingoncelt]

Hillary was buried in bs...but where there is smoke there is fire. It is a shame she was a candidate no one could trust. The time to fight is now. 2018 we need to take the house.

I have some ideas on that... stay tuned...

[BananaCucho]

In the information age, fuck state representation through electoral votes. People cam educate themselves on the issues easily if they so please.

The only silver lining of this election (other than continued trump memes) is that Harambe got over 15k votes. He lives on and will take the white house in 2020!!

[BananaCucho]

Am I the only one that voted Hillary and also thought she got stomped in the debates? They asked her about emails leaked and she just points fingers at Russia. She was such a bad candidate.

[MasterNinja]

glad i wasn't able to vote on either.
just gonna sit here in norway and watch over the horizon.
obama already made the speech for hillary and trump, next is trump meeting up with obama to discuss their plans.

[Mugy]

glad i wasn't able to vote on either.
just gonna sit here in norway and watch over the horizon.
obama already made the speech for hillary and trump, next is trump meeting up with obama to discuss their plans.

"Say bye bye to your 8 years of work"

[Yukitaka Oni]

Vote for communist USA party

[MasterNinja]

Ranked 6 worlds richest country at the moment.
hopefully trump wont crush norway.

[Yukitaka Oni]

Ranked 6 worlds richest country at the moment.
hopefully trump wont crush norway.
Loan a millions of dollar

[MasterNinja]

Loan a millions of dollar

Welp

[deathworlds]

It feels like someone let his little brother play his civ 5 save.

[Lysergic]

"Say bye bye to your 8 years of work"

I feel horrible for Obama. He's about to watch everything he did during his time in office be undone. ACA will be repealed, Trump has said he wants to pull us out of the Paris Accords because he thinks climate change is a "Chinese hoax," and Congress is refusing to do their duty to vote on Obama's Supreme Court appointment so that Trump will get to pick instead. It's just a giant middle finger to a man who has done a good job as president and has enjoyed a high approval rating as a result. I can't imagine how he's feeling right now.

[PowersThatBe]

I feel horrible for Obama. He's about to watch everything he did during his time in office be undone. ACA will be repealed, Trump has said he wants to pull us out of the Paris Accords because he thinks climate change is a "Chinese hoax," and Congress is refusing to do their duty to vote on Obama's Supreme Court appointment so that Trump will get to pick instead. It's just a giant middle finger to a man who has done a good job as president and has enjoyed a high approval rating as a result. I can't imagine how he's feeling right now.

Also, imagine you're the first black president, and the man who said you weren't born in the USA and therefore unqualified for president is your replacement? Also, said guy was endorsed by the KKK.

Republicans became the party of obstructionism because they bet that if they did so they could stop Obama from a second term. That didn't work, so they doubled down, hoping to get a republican in office. Well, it kinda worked, except Donald Trump came out of nowhere and used the anger we felt the past 8 years watching these clowns do nothing.

Obama had to fight to get everything he got done, and it's all going to go up in smokes. It'll be like he was never even president. And that is just so sad.

[Lysergic]

Also, imagine you're the first black president, and the man who said you weren't born in the USA and therefore unqualified for president is your replacement? Also, said guy was endorsed by the KKK.

Republicans became the party of obstructionism because they bet that if they did so they could stop Obama from a second term. That didn't work, so they doubled down, hoping to get a republican in office. Well, it kinda worked, except Donald Trump came out of nowhere and used the anger we felt the past 8 years watching these clowns do nothing.

Obama had to fight to get everything he got done, and it's all going to go up in smokes. It'll be like he was never even president. And that is just so sad.

Yeah, it's brutal. And the fact that there are people out here cheering that 8 years of work will simply vanish is appalling to me.

Whether you liked his policies or not, turning back the clock is not the answer. It turns the last 8 years into a complete waste of time and just reinforces what I've always suspected: that a good chunk of the government (and by extension the people who vote that part into power) actively want to do nothing.

[MasterNinja]

obama did do alot of terrible deals, and all those subjects has been spoken about during this election.

obama just has a great voice and is a nice person, but all the things, deals with other countries and such, i dont know about all that. and their military is kinda oversized too, its like a wannabe stuffed with weapons, and what happends? crimes with weapons everywhere and people are getting killed.

and usa has the most debt in the world, specially to china, thats were trump wants to do changes to put america on the right foot again.

USA = Can we borrow some trillion dollars from everyone else but we wont give u none back = Debt.

[Lysergic]

obama did do alot of terrible deals, and all those subjects has been spoken about during this election.

obama just has a great voice and is a nice person, but all the things, deals with other countries and such, i dont know about all that. and their military is kinda oversized too, its like a wannabe stuffed with weapons, and what happends? crimes with weapons everywhere and people are getting killed.

and usa has the most debt in the world to other countries like china, thats were trump wants to do changes to put america on the right foot again.

Which ones?

Because from where I'm sitting, unemployment is down since Obama took office, the economy is growing (as opposed to being in a recession, as it was when Obama first took office), and things are generally better in most departments. Hence his high approval rating.

[Yukitaka Oni]

Which ones?

Because from where I'm sitting, unemployment is down since Obama took office, the economy is growing (as opposed to being in a recession, as it was when Obama first took office), and things are generally better in most departments. Hence his high approval rating.
I heard Obamacare is (almost) success. Right? Or it's a failure?!?!?

[PLZLEAVEDUCKK]

I heard Obamacare is (almost) success. Right? Or it's a failure?!?!?

Failure. Big failure.

[PowersThatBe]

It failed bigly.

[Yukitaka Oni]

K.den.....

[Klingoncelt]

Not exactly a big failure.

The ACA was created almost entirely on the republican model, also Big Pharma acted like Mafia bully-boys, and to get the thing passed at all it had to be watered down.

Everyone knew that at the time, but memories are short, especially when half the government is screaming that it's a catastrophic failure without pointing out any of the alleged problems. (They're lying, in other words.)

The idea was that over the years the program would be quietly tweaked and upgraded until by the mid 2020s we'd be at single-payer.

Unfortunately some brainless constituents elected a few teabaggers that didn't do anything, in fact they shut the entire government down.

So nothing got improved or tweaked.

Currently there are complaints of rate increases, which is unspeakably stupid. If we were on the old private system the rate increases would happen anyway, insurance companies raise their rates every fukkin' year. The claims that it's the ACA's fault are completely fabricated.

[Tossangel]

The unemployment numbers are misleading. The millions of Americans who are out of work and have given up looking aren't included in that number. A full time job with great benefits counts the same as a part-time job only working a few hours per week. We are losing lots of full time jobs and many of the new jobs are part-time. The majority of the media is in the tank for the Prez O so of course you hear the positive spin on the numbers while the full picture is not being revealed.

21614

[Brendan]

The unemployment numbers are misleading. The millions of Americans who are out of work and have given up looking aren't included in that number. A full time job with great benefits counts the same as a part-time job only working a few hours per week. We are losing lots of full time jobs and many of the new jobs are part-time. The majority of the media is in the tank for the Prez O so of course you hear the positive spin on the numbers while the full picture is not being revealed.

21614

:noose::thinking:

[Yukitaka Oni]

:noose::thinking:
21615

[oops_ur_dead]

The unemployment numbers are misleading. The millions of Americans who are out of work and have given up looking aren't included in that number.

That's literally the definition of unemployment. It isn't misleading lmao.


le meme

lmfao if you had common core when you were in school you'd probably be able to realize that the majority of those are minors, retirees, and people who don't need/want a job.

[Tossangel]

People who don't want to work are still unemployed.

[oops_ur_dead]

People who don't want to work are still unemployed.

No they aren't. That isn't what the word "unemployed" means. The term you're looking for is "not in the labor force".

I can't even tell what your point was with that statement.

[Tossangel]

Check Webster...the definition of unemployed is "having no job, not employed, not engaged in a gainful occupation".

[PowersThatBe]

Check Webster...the definition of unemployed is "having no job, not employed, not engaged in a gainful occupation".

You're conflating unemployment (which in this case deals with people who cannot find gainful employment.) and choosing not to join the work force. Not in the labor force referring to people who don't want to work, if people aren't looking for a job, you cant hold that against the president.

"Unemployment occurs when people who are without work are actively seeking paid work.[1] The unemployment rate is a measure of the prevalence of unemployment and it is calculated as a percentage by dividing the number of unemployed individuals by all individuals currently in the labor force."

Also, since you challenged us to check out webster. Here's the actual definition.

http://i.imgur.com/nk8FMvV.png

For context. We're talking about about unemployment, you said people who are unemployed. Your definition is correct that you are unemployed if you do not have a job. But if you are trying to refer that to the definition of unemployment while using people who DO not choose to work, you are wrong. While the two words share a lot commonalities, their definitions mean two totally different things. As one is a general definition and the other is a specific term used to describe a factor of our economic issues in the USA.

[Exeter350]

You're conflating unemployment (which in this case deals with people who cannot find gainful employment.) and choosing not to join the work force. Not in the labor force referring to people who don't want to work, if people aren't looking for a job, you cant hold that against the president.

"Unemployment occurs when people who are without work are actively seeking paid work.[1] The unemployment rate is a measure of the prevalence of unemployment and it is calculated as a percentage by dividing the number of unemployed individuals by all individuals currently in the labor force."

Also, since you challenged us to check out webster. Here's the actual definition.

*IMAGE*

For context. We're talking about about unemployment, you said people who are unemployed. Your definition is correct that you are unemployed if you do not have a job. But if you are trying to refer that to the definition of unemployment while using people who DO not choose to work, you are wrong. While the two words share a lot commonalities, their definitions mean two totally different things. As one is a general definition and the other is a specific term used to describe a factor of our economic issues in the USA.

This is correct. In economics, we do not consider people who don't want to work as being part of the labour force, therefore they do not contribute to unemployment rate. The unemployment rate only considers people who want to work but cannot find a job. Economists have means of distinguishing and quantifying the different groups of people involved in the concept of employment.

Since the issue is that of economics, we should go by the economics definition.

Although I do wonder how accurate their measures are, and how reliable the results are. Even if people want to work, they're not going to go hunting for a job their entire lives. Things like human emotion (frustration) and economic complications that arise from long-term unemployment are not factored into the numbers.

At some point people give up for whatever reason (not necessarily laziness), and once they do, they are considered to be outside the labour force, and the unemployment rate numbers magically go down. I believe this is what Toss is saying, and I agree.


The millions of Americans who are out of work and have given up looking aren't included in that number.

DISCLAIMER: I do not have a Masters in Economics. If there are "advanced" definitions and arguments regarding the technicalities of unemployment, I am not aware of them yet LOL. I should probably have stayed out of this discussion...

[oops_ur_dead]

Check Webster...the definition of unemployed is "having no job, not employed, not engaged in a gainful occupation".

Okay let's pretend your definition of unemployed is right. What's your point?

[BananaCucho]

Hey guys I have a great idea. Remember how the economy crashed in 2008 after 7 years of a Republican pres who was aggressive in the middle east and cut taxes for the wealthy? Remember how he had a Republican majority in the house and senate from 2005-2007?

Remember how afterwards Obama was blocked by Republicans since 2011? And Republicans held the majority in both the House and the senate for the last two years?

I have a great idea... Lets elect a Republican who wants to spend even more money in the middle east, cut taxes for the rich again, and hey, that should get us out of this mess right? Also lets give him a republican majority in the house and senate too. I mean democrats crashed the economy in 08 amirite?

Pff. Watch those who blamed Obama for 8 years for Bush's mess continue to blame him after things get worse and not better.

[Orpz]

Hey guys I have a great idea. Remember how the economy crashed in 2008 after 7 years of a Republican pres who was aggressive in the middle east and cut taxes for the wealthy? Remember how he had a Republican majority in the house and senate from 2005-2007?

Remember how afterwards Obama was blocked by Republicans since 2011? And Republicans held the majority in both the House and the senate for the last two years?

I have a great idea... Lets elect a Republican who wants to spend even more money in the middle east, cut taxes for the rich again, and hey, that should get us out of this mess right? Also lets give him a republican majority in the house and senate too. I mean democrats crashed the economy in 08 amirite?

Pff. Watch those who blamed Obama for 8 years for Bush's mess continue to blame him after things get worse and not better.

The three times in modern history that Republicans had 3 branches of government was 1921-1929, 1953, and 2000-2007. Eisenhower did nothing wrong but I can remember some rather great and depressing events taking place in 1929 and 2007.

[BananaCucho]

The three times in modern history that Republicans had 3 branches of government was 1921-1929, 1953, and 2000-2007. Eisenhower did nothing wrong but I can remember some rather great and depressing events taking place in 1929 and 2007.

Naw man that's just the media lying to you. That was when America was great! But under Obama its not great! 👍

[Exeter350]

I heard that there are lots of Anti-Trump protests and riots going on in the US now? What gives? It was a democratic process, and Trump won. That's the end of the story, isn't it?

[DarknessB]

I heard that there are lots of Anti-Trump protests and riots going on in the US now? What gives? It was a democratic process, and Trump won. That's the end of the story, isn't it?

It's a bunch of ultraleft radicals who are too dumb / lazy to vote or direct their anger appropriately (i.e. toward stuff that could make a difference in the future). Basically, the Occupy Wall Street type community. Protesting makes them feel like they're making a difference or something like that.

[Exeter350]

It's a bunch of ultraleft radicals who are too dumb / lazy to vote or direct their anger appropriately (i.e. toward stuff that could make a difference in the future). Basically, the Occupy Wall Street type community. Protesting makes them feel like they're making a difference or something like that.

Lol damn. Let's just hope they don't overturn the vote and make Trump step down. It was an informed decision, everyone had the information they needed to cast their votes, and they did. Fighting against the result means fighting against the democratic process... and therefore fighting American ideals. The votes have been counted, and Trump won. They need to get over it.

[Helz]

216222162321626
21625

I liked these pictures. : )

I really don't get why everyone is so mad. We got one shithead in the office instead of different one. It was loose loose either way. I just hope all those people saying they would leave the country will do it. It would be even better if Justin Beiber takes his music with him when he leaves.

[DarknessB]

Lol damn. Let's just hope they don't overturn the vote and make Trump step down. It was an informed decision, everyone had the information they needed to cast their votes, and they did. Fighting against the result means fighting against the democratic process... and therefore fighting American ideals. The votes have been counted, and Trump won. They need to get over it.

Trump isn't stepping down and just think about the type of precedent that would be struck if any time you didn't like the results of an election, just protest until the person resigns. Part of living in a civilized society is accepting the results of elections whether you like them or not. Doing more next time is the answer, not turning into a baby.

[Orpz]

Lol damn. Let's just hope they don't overturn the vote and make Trump step down. It was an informed decision, everyone had the information they needed to cast their votes, and they did. Fighting against the result means fighting against the democratic process... and therefore fighting American ideals. The votes have been counted, and Trump won. They need to get over it.

The vote won't be overturned, and anyone who's unironically putting their hopes in that is deluded tbqh. I will accept Trump as my president and I hope he does better than my expectations.


(Name one modern Republican presidency that wasn't complete shit)

[Helz]

The vote won't be overturned, and anyone who's unironically putting their hopes in that is deluded tbqh. I will accept Trump as my president and I hope he does better than my expectations.


(Name one modern Republican presidency that wasn't complete shit)
Lol Should not be hard for him to do. Nobody has very high expectations. With this attitude you will probably be very happy

[PowersThatBe]

It's a bunch of ultraleft radicals who are too dumb / lazy to vote or direct their anger appropriately (i.e. toward stuff that could make a difference in the future). Basically, the Occupy Wall Street type community. Protesting makes them feel like they're making a difference or something like that.

SLOWWWWW THIS DOWN. First, it's not a bunch of too dumb and too lazy to vote people. It is made up of people who feel that their rights, gay, black, latina, muslim etc are going to disappear under this regime. They are angry, confused, sad, and don't know how else to get their anger out. A lot of them, if not most, if not all of them voted. So please do not drop them in a box and call them stupid or lazy or ill-informed. You have probably no idea what if feels like to live in an america where you are only guaranteed another 2 months of protection before everything around you might crash and burn.

Yes I agree, protesting is great because it gives a literal and visual voice to all those who would otherwise complain online. People getting out and exercising their right to protest are doing a hell of a lot more than us. We're talking back and forth, they're out there mobilizing.

Riots, I do not agree with or support. Nor do I support violence. But what everyone here needs to understand is that this Trump presidency has already embolden the racist, homophobes, xenophobes, and the sexists to act. One of my friends from grad school was attacked today for no other reason than being gay, in Philadelphia, which is widely more liberal than not. I've seen other stories of voice and mistreatment to latino/a's and muslims, chanting build the wall or tearing a muslims religious headwear off.

Protests are where this begins, but unlike occupy, this cannot become all it is. We need to mobilize for 2018, we need to start working with our council members, local and state reps. Some of us might even need to step up and run for office. We cannot count on others to protect us anymore, we need to get more heavily involved. That means using social media to mobilize and not to just complain.

This is the beginning of a revolution. Join us.

[Helz]

Legit question- I am totally one of those 'uninformed' people which is why I did not vote. But every time I hear people say things like "Trump is going to get rid of the gay, black, latina, muslim" groups I wonder why they feel that way. Sure Trump may be an old white racist clown but what president besides Obama was not? He is just less hidden about it. And I have never seen anyone point to some outlined policy from Trump that suggests he will do anything of the sort. I rarely watch the mainstream news but I was under the impression that he is just championing removing illegal immigrates. So many people are saying this same thing that it makes me wonder.. What am I missing?

[SuperJack]

http://ichef-1.bbci.co.uk/news/1024/cpsprodpb/E099/production/_89779475_89779474.jpg

[Helz]

http://ichef-1.bbci.co.uk/news/1024/cpsprodpb/E099/production/_89779475_89779474.jpg

This makes sense. Trump is secretly gay

[BananaCucho]

Legit question- I am totally one of those 'uninformed' people which is why I did not vote. But every time I hear people say things like "Trump is going to get rid of the gay, black, latina, muslim" groups I wonder why they feel that way. Sure Trump may be an old white racist clown but what president besides Obama was not? He is just less hidden about it. And I have never seen anyone point to some outlined policy from Trump that suggests he will do anything of the sort. I rarely watch the mainstream news but I was under the impression that he is just championing removing illegal immigrates. So many people are saying this same thing that it makes me wonder.. What am I missing?

Just off the top of my head he said he would consider appointing a supreme court justice that would specifically overturn the marriage equality decision, and he also did mention a Muslim database for Muslim Americans and that he would consider closing down mosques even though that stance isn't very popular cause freedom of religion.

He also said he would try to censor parts of the internet and said something to the effect of "those who counter this with 'freedom of speech' are silly" or something like that

[PowersThatBe]

Legit question- I am totally one of those 'uninformed' people which is why I did not vote. But every time I hear people say things like "Trump is going to get rid of the gay, black, latina, muslim" groups I wonder why they feel that way. Sure Trump may be an old white racist clown but what president besides Obama was not? He is just less hidden about it. And I have never seen anyone point to some outlined policy from Trump that suggests he will do anything of the sort. I rarely watch the mainstream news but I was under the impression that he is just championing removing illegal immigrates. So many people are saying this same thing that it makes me wonder.. What am I missing?

It's not trump. Well trump said things about latinos and muslims, and his party might support those ideas. Let's hope not. -- He's already planned to undo a lot of Obama's executive orders dealing with immigration and such.

In regards to LGBTQ rights. Mike Pence is arguably one of the most anti gay figures in politics. #1 guy in senate, a heart beat away from the presidency. He wants to make being gay illegal, he would like to fund conversion therapy, he is for taking away marriage equality. He is going to try and strip our rights. The republicans will more than likely not fight this because they all are pretty much unified on this front.

Trump will appoint conservative judges to the supreme court, this court will lean conservative, and perhaps in a few years will have a super majority of judges. At some point, Marriage Equality could and probably will go out the window. Congress is already working with hate groups like NOM (National Organization for Marriage) to get this shit done. Also, Obama had executive orders protecting gays and transgendered people. Trump is going to undo all of that.

You all will see a major shift in this country in which many americans will not be safe or feel included anymore. It's great that some of you can be apathetic because it'll never affect your life. But for many of us, shit is going to get real bad, and this country will not look like america anymore.

I am trying to keep an open mind, but I do not trust the republican party and they are going to do what they can to roll back my rights. It's so pitiful.

[DarknessB]

"Elections have consequences and at the end of the day, I won."
- Donald Trump

Oh wait -- that was actually Obama in 2009!

[oops_ur_dead]

It's a bunch of ultraleft radicals who are too dumb / lazy to vote or direct their anger appropriately (i.e. toward stuff that could make a difference in the future). Basically, the Occupy Wall Street type community. Protesting makes them feel like they're making a difference or something like that.

It leaves a bad taste in people's mouths when Trump got less votes than Hillary but won due to an antiquated election process.

[BananaCucho]

It leaves a bad taste in people's mouths when Trump got less votes than Hillary but won due to an antiquated election process.

The last two elected Republicans won this way O.O

[DarknessB]

It leaves a bad taste in people's mouths when Trump got less votes than Hillary but won due to an antiquated election process.

Except there are very few people in those protests talking about electoral politics. They're talking about the Trump boogeyman who is going to magically roll back civil rights / civil liberties. Good luck winning the electorate back with that type of whining and fearmongering. Pretty sure constantly being called racists / sexists / homophobes is part of why the rust belt turned against Hillary.

[PowersThatBe]

Except there are very few people in those protests talking about electoral politics. They're talking about the Trump boogeyman who is going to magically roll back civil rights / civil liberties. Good luck winning the electorate back with that type of whining and fearmongering. Pretty sure constantly being called racists / sexists / homophobes is part of why the rust belt turned against Hillary.

HE'S NOT MAGICALLY DOING ANYTHING. A LOT OF WHAT OBAMA DID WAS EXECUTIVE ACTION, WHICH TRUMP HAS THE AUTHORITY TO TAKE AWAY WITHOUT CONSULTING WITH CONGRESS. HE HAS EXPRESSED DESIRE TO DO THIS. It is part of his first 100 days.

Look into the FIRST AMENDMENT DEFENSE ACT.


Also, see post above about NOM and other shit.

When the KKK endorses the candidate what do you expect people to think?

[DarknessB]

HE'S NOT MAGICALLY DOING ANYTHING. A LOT OF WHAT OBAMA DID WAS EXECUTIVE ACTION, WHICH TRUMP HAS THE AUTHORITY TO TAKE AWAY WITHOUT CONSULTING WITH CONGRESS. HE HAS EXPRESSED DESIRE TO DO THIS. It is part of his first 100 days.

Look into the FIRST AMENDMENT DEFENSE ACT.


Also, see post above about NOM and other shit.

When the KKK endorses the candidate what do you expect people to think?

Somehow, executive actions were this undemocratic abusive tool to end-run around Congress when Bush was president, but are now this amazing blessing from the heavens when Obama became president. Convince people you're right without yelling, hysteria, and calling them bigots and you will have a better shot in 2018. Keep demonizing half the population and the Dems will continue to lose elections.

[Tossangel]

I saw a video of a high school girl getting beat up because she posted to Twitter that she hoped Trump won. A girl approached her and said "Do you hate Mexicans?" She said "No". The girl replied "You support Trump. You hate Mexicans" then proceeded to physically attack her. The girl never said she hated Mexicans and Trump didn't either. Just because he does not agree with illegal immigration does not equate to hating Mexicans. I guess we can put some of the blame on the hateful campaigns that used fear to try to get people to vote. There is disgusting the violence coming from both sides. This is way out of control. I hope this calms down soon.

[Orpz]

Somehow, executive actions were this undemocratic abusive tool to end-run around Congress when Bush was president, but are now this amazing blessing from the heavens when Obama became president. Convince people you're right without yelling, hysteria, and calling them bigots and you will have a better shot in 2018. Keep demonizing half the population and the Dems will continue to lose elections.

Voting for someone you normally wouldnt vote for just because the other side hurt your fee-fees

200 iq move

[PowersThatBe]

Somehow, executive actions were this undemocratic abusive tool to end-run around Congress when Bush was president, but are now this amazing blessing from the heavens when Obama became president. Convince people you're right without yelling, hysteria, and calling them bigots and you will have a better shot in 2018. Keep demonizing half the population and the Dems will continue to lose elections.

Look at what Obama used his for and look at what Bush used his for. There is no comparison. And sure, each side will complain when someone does something.

But you trivializing voters/protestors and calling them stupid or un-informed and then try to flip back and say democrats demonize people?

We only yell when we're talked over, and it's hilarious because I never met a right winger who ever let me finish a sentence. That's not true, I know two of them.

And maybe if your side didn't support people and policies that were offensive/destructive to the lives of LGBTQ, black, latino Americans etc. Maybe they wouldn't get that label. When you support a candidate that wants to upend the 1st amendment by banning people based on religion, and wants to put them into a data base and take down mosques, we have a problem. When you support a candidate that says he wants to grab women by their genitals, calls them all sorts of names and rates them on scales. We think you're sexist. When you support a candidate endorsed by the KKK, we think you support racism.

So now it's demonizing to call people by the names of thing things that they either are complicit in supporting or either apathetic in not denouncing. Those of us who already feel marginalized feel even worse now because we know our rights could and probably will go out the window with an un checked congress and president.

Anyhow. We're going to win in 2018. You'll be begging for a democrat after these idiots are in office.

Kiss America goodbye.

[PowersThatBe]

I saw a video of a high school girl getting beat up because she posted to Twitter that she hoped Trump won. A girl approached her and said "Do you hate Mexicans?" She said "No". The girl replied "You support Trump. You hate Mexicans" then proceeded to physically attack her. The girl never said she hated Mexicans and Trump didn't either. Just because he does not agree with illegal immigration does not equate to hating Mexicans. I guess we can put some of the blame on the hateful campaigns that used fear to try to get people to vote. There is disgusting the violence coming from both sides. This is way out of control. I hope this calms down soon.

There's a difference between belonging to an oppressed group and striking back against people who support oppressor. Violence is never the answer. But i think it's different when someone attacks you because you're gay. It's different when someone attacks you win you're muslim. If someone is attacking you for supporting trump, it's because they know someone who is losing something or everything and they don't know how to handle their anger. People who attack other people because of race, sexual orientation etc. are any number of ism that applies.

I don't condone violence and I hope both sides do calm down. But if trump and congress do half the things we fear they're going to do, hold on to your hats kids. It's going to be very bad.

[DarknessB]

In 2018, Democrats are defending 23 Senate seats and Republicans only 8 (7 in red states and 1 in a swing state). In other words, good luck with taking the Senate back then. Dems had their big chance this year and they choked.

[PowersThatBe]

In 2018, Democrats are defending 23 Senate seats and Republicans only 8 (7 in red states and 1 in a swing state). In other words, good luck with taking the Senate back then. Dems had their big chance this year and they choked.

Ha, the house is up in 2018. We're taking it back. Trust me, the anger and frustration we feel now is not going away. We're stopping this man and this congress.

[DarknessB]

Ha, the house is up in 2018. We're taking it back. Trust me, the anger and frustration we feel now is not going away. We're stopping this man and this congress.

Good luck with that -- Dems haven't won the house since 2008 (that Obama enthusiasm isn't coming back) and Democrats don't turn out during midterm elections nearly as much as in presidential years. It's much more fun to argue with facts than raw emotion.

[PowersThatBe]

Good luck with that -- Dems haven't won the house since 2008 (that Obama enthusiasm isn't coming back) and Democrats don't turn out during midterm elections nearly as much as in presidential years. It's much more fun to argue with facts than raw emotion.

Sure, I'll give you that. But you have no idea how deeply damaging and hurtful this election was...and it's result. All I can say, just like every poll and every bit of empirical data that said trump would lose was wrong. You cannot trust history. We're awake now. In 2008 we had the WH and people didn't think there was much to lose, so they didn't go out. Now we're not in the WH and our rights are directly in danger you will see liberal turn out spikes.

We're already mobilizing. All I can say is the people who elected trump will regret it, and just be ready for 2018 and 2020 when we take this back and get everything back on track and moving forward. Also, Republicans will vote for democratic house once they see how shitty repubs do controlling all both houses and the wh.

I vote every election. I'm getting more involved at the local and state level now. No one can protect me but me.

[PLZLEAVEDUCKK]

People people calm down. Trump has the potential to be a good president, and in no way is going to "take away" anybody's rights.

To the very intelligent left side, if you want to stand a chance in the next election get your shit together. All your mindless protesting/rioting and whining is truly deplorable.

[DarknessB]

There's a difference between belonging to an oppressed group and striking back against people who support oppressor. Violence is never the answer. But i think it's different when someone attacks you because you're gay. It's different when someone attacks you win you're muslim. If someone is attacking you for supporting trump, it's because they know someone who is losing something or everything and they don't know how to handle their anger. People who attack other people because of race, sexual orientation etc. are any number of ism that applies.

I don't condone violence and I hope both sides do calm down. But if trump and congress do half the things we fear they're going to do, hold on to your hats kids. It's going to be very bad.

Let me guess -- you're one of those people who thinks it's impossible for a minority to commit a hate crime against a non-minority? You basically just said violence is ok if someone supports a candidate / party that you personally find racist / sexist / homophobic. You also basically just said you don't support violence but people would deserve it if they enact changes you don't like...

[DarknessB]

People people calm down. Trump has the potential to be a good president, and in no way is going to "take away" anybody's rights.

To the very intelligent left side, if you want to stand a chance in the next election get your shit together. All your mindless protesting/rioting and whining is truly deplorable.

I'm terrified that I agree with you for once.

[PLZLEAVEDUCKK]

I'm terrified that I agree with you for once.

Did we just become best friends?

[PowersThatBe]

Let me guess -- you're one of those people who thinks it's impossible for a minority to commit a hate crime against a non-minority? You basically just said violence is ok if someone supports a candidate / party that you personally find racist / sexist / homophobic. You also basically just said you don't support violence but people would deserve it if they enact changes you don't like...

That's not what i said. Any one can be guilty of committing a hate crime. But you need to realize I was saying I don't personally support violence AGAINST anyone. But I can understand why someone who is about to lose everything in their mind might strike out against someone who supported the person who is going to take away everything they love. They can't hit Trump so they hit the Trump supporter. They're rationalizing it in their mind. Does that mean I find that OK? No. Does it mean I can understand how someone can become so angry, confused, frustrated, and anxious that they don't know what to do.. sure.. I can understand how someone went down a path they went down. Does that mean I in any way condone, or endorse it? No.

I do like how you preach all this shit about not demonizing people but you try to tell me what I do and don't think. Ha. Hilarious. You'll see what a disaster electing Trump will be.

[Orpz]

It leaves a bad taste in people's mouths when Trump got less votes than Hillary but won due to an antiquated election process.

It definitely doesn't feel good when the rural areas get affirmative action to beat out the city areas.

[PowersThatBe]

People people calm down. Trump has the potential to be a good president, and in no way is going to "take away" anybody's rights.

To the very intelligent left side, if you want to stand a chance in the next election get your shit together. All your mindless protesting/rioting and whining is truly deplorable.

You realize it's not trump. Its the house and senate and the very conservative supreme court justices he will appoint. Mike Pence has already confirmed Trump is going to be anti LGBTQ, and the NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR MARRIAGE. Which goal is to get rid of gay marriage is already "looking forward to working with President Trump." to overturn Marriage Equality. Trump said marriage is between man and woman. This is also a majority of republicans stance as well. So yes, those rights are going out the window.

[DarknessB]

You realize it's not trump. Its the house and senate and the very conservative supreme court justices he will appoint. Mike Pence has already confirmed Trump is going to be anti LGBTQ, and the NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR MARRIAGE. Which goal is to get rid of gay marriage is already "looking forward to working with President Trump." to overturn Marriage Equality. Trump said marriage is between man and woman. This is also a majority of republicans stance as well. So yes, those rights are going out the window.

Dude, there was a Supreme Court case legalizing gay marriage. There's not going to be a constitutional amendment changing that and most Republicans realize that culture war is long over and don't really care about the issue (other than appealing to idiots). You really need to lay off the paranoia -- gay marriage is here to stay and just about everyone accepts that. Insanity like this does not win votes.

[PLZLEAVEDUCKK]

You realize it's not trump. Its the house and senate and the very conservative supreme court justices he will appoint. Mike Pence has already confirmed Trump is going to be anti LGBTQ, and the NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR MARRIAGE. Which goal is to get rid of gay marriage is already "looking forward to working with President Trump." to overturn Marriage Equality. Trump said marriage is between man and woman. This is also a majority of republicans stance as well. So yes, those rights are going out the window.

I'll agree with your pence concerns, that guy is lol, but I find it hard to fathom gay marriage gets repealed.

[PowersThatBe]

Dude, there was a Supreme Court case legalizing gay marriage. There's not going to be a constitutional amendment changing that and most Republicans realize that culture war is long over and don't really care about the issue (other than appealing to idiots). You really need to lay off the paranoia -- gay marriage is here to stay and just about everyone accepts that. Insanity like this does not win votes.

Ha, I wish I had the privilege to not worry or care about that happening or not. Supreme court cases can and do get retried. And you will see it get brought back to the supreme court. Mike Pence is very anti gay and believes in conversion "treatments" for gays.

You are so ignorant if you really don't think they're not going to roll back LGBTQ rights, including marriage. They'll get it overturned in the Supreme Court.

It's not paranoia when it's very likely to happen. Will you apologize to me personally if it does?

[DarknessB]

Ha, I wish I had the privilege to not worry or care about that happening or not. Supreme court cases can and do get retried. And you will see it get brought back to the supreme court. Mike Pence is very anti gay and believes in conversion "treatments" for gays.

You are so ignorant if you really don't think they're not going to roll back LGBTQ rights, including marriage. They'll get it overturned in the Supreme Court.

It's not paranoia when it's very likely to happen. Will you apologize to me personally if it does?

When was the last time a landmark Supreme Court granting civil rights was rolled back? Roe v. Wade? Nope. Brown v. Board? Nope. It hasn't happened and won't change.

Yes, if the Supreme Court literally overturns gay marriage, I will apologize to you. I expect the same thing if it doesn't happen within the next 4-8 years.

[Orpz]

Will you apologize to me personally if it does?

Funny story...I was talking to my cousin before the election and he was telling me about how "it's all over, the Jews in DC that control the world have already decided Hillary will be President. All the voting machines have been rigged to ensure this will happen". Being my cousin and the fact that I love him, I fought back the urge to call his thought fucking retarded.

He apologized personally after and we laughed about it and it was bit of joy after a crushing defeat.

[Sino]

As an outsider, it looks like Trump was the better choice because he seems the less encline to go to war, now of course, this could be false, but i'd like to have your opinion about it, do you think Hillary would have meant some kind of new world war ?

[Lysergic]

Dude, there was a Supreme Court case legalizing gay marriage. There's not going to be a constitutional amendment changing that and most Republicans realize that culture war is long over and don't really care about the issue (other than appealing to idiots). You really need to lay off the paranoia -- gay marriage is here to stay and just about everyone accepts that. Insanity like this does not win votes.

Also it's not like the make up of the Supreme Court will change if Trump gets to nominate a conservative instead of Congress voting on Garland. Scalia was the most conservative justice; even if Trump puts someone just as conservative in place, the Supreme Court will be roughly the same as the one that ruled on gay marriage.

While Pence is undoubtedly an asshole (and I fully expect he and Trump to pull other shenanigans in regards to gay people - for example defunding HIV programs or whatnot), neither he nor Trump has the power to do anything about the gay marriage ruling, and they certainly don't have the power to make homosexuality a crime. If they tried, they would get smacked down by the Supreme Court (and the Democrats + moderate Republicans in Congress who have come around to a more enlightened way of thinking) so incredibly fast. Plus the American public would just not stand for it.

There is a lot to be nervous about from a Trump/Pence administration (especially in regards to the environment, foreign policy, nuclear policy, immigration, and the economy), but the idea that they are going to put gays in death camps is not one of them.

[Orpz]

As an outsider, it looks like Trump was the better choice because he seems the less encline to go to war, now of course, this could be false, but i'd like to have your opinion about it, do you think Hillary would have meant some kind of new world war ?

Nobody benefits from starting a new world war. Saying your opponent wants to start WW3 is a time-tested tactic that has been around since at least the 1964 election.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDTBnsqxZ3k

[Lysergic]

As an outsider, it looks like Trump was the better choice because he seems the less encline to go to war, now of course, this could be false, but i'd like to have your opinion about it, do you think Hillary would have meant some kind of new world war ?

Eh; I think it's too early to say. Trump has historically not reacted well to criticism (filing frivolous lawsuits to bully opponents, generally getting pissed off and saying idiotic shit in response to minor slights) and has made some disturbing remarks on the campaign trail especially in regards to his views on nukes ("if they have them, why shouldn't we use them?"). He also has repeatedly said that he will go to war with ISIS, though has not gone into specifics. Simply that under him America would destroy ISIS, but somehow not actually put boots on the ground.


Honestly, the main fear with Trump is that he's a big question mark. During the campaign, his opinions on policy changed with the wind and were often contradictory. Nobody has any idea if he's going to be a complete isolationist or if he's going to declare a bunch of wars. It could go either way.


The uncertainty with Trump is what is fueling market crashes around the world right now.

[Lysergic]

Ha, I wish I had the privilege to not worry or care about that happening or not. Supreme court cases can and do get retried. And you will see it get brought back to the supreme court. Mike Pence is very anti gay and believes in conversion "treatments" for gays.

You are so ignorant if you really don't think they're not going to roll back LGBTQ rights, including marriage. They'll get it overturned in the Supreme Court.

It's not paranoia when it's very likely to happen. Will you apologize to me personally if it does?

Which justices do you think will change their opinion?

[Sino]

Eh; I think it's too early to say. Trump has historically not reacted well to criticism (filing frivolous lawsuits to bully opponents, generally getting pissed off and saying idiotic shit in response to minor slights) and has made some disturbing remarks on the campaign trail especially in regards to his views on nukes ("if they have them, why shouldn't we use them?"). He also has repeatedly said that he will go to war with ISIS, though has not gone into specifics. Simply that under him America would destroy ISIS, but somehow not actually put boots on the ground.


Honestly, the main fear with Trump is that he's a big question mark. During the campaign, his opinions on policy changed with the wind and were often contradictory. Nobody has any idea if he's going to be a complete isolationist or if he's going to declare a bunch of wars. It could go either way.


The uncertainty with Trump is what is fueling market crashes around the world right now.

Well, as long as tensions between the US and Russia get reduced, there might be some hope.

[DarknessB]

Also it's not like the make up of the Supreme Court will change if Trump gets to nominate a conservative instead of Congress voting on Garland. Scalia was the most conservative justice; even if Trump puts someone just as conservative in place, the Supreme Court will be roughly the same as the one that ruled on gay marriage.

While Pence is undoubtedly an asshole (and I fully expect he and Trump to pull other shenanigans in regards to gay people - for example defunding HIV programs or whatnot), neither he nor Trump has the power to do anything about the gay marriage ruling, and they certainly don't have the power to make homosexuality a crime. If they tried, they would get smacked down by the Supreme Court (and the Democrats + moderate Republicans in Congress who have come around to a more enlightened way of thinking) so incredibly fast. Plus the American public would just not stand for it.

There is a lot to be nervous about from a Trump/Pence administration (especially in regards to the environment, foreign policy, nuclear policy, immigration, and the economy), but the idea that they are going to put gays in death camps is not one of them.

There's also a fundamental legal doctrine called "stare decisis" which basically says "adhere to previous cases". There's no way in hell the Supreme Court, having just decided for gay marriage, is going to flip flop and say "oops, we messed up -- it's actually not allowed".

It'd make them look foolish and undermine public faith in the Supreme Court as an impartial interpreter of the constitution. Roberts, in particular, is very sensitive toward this criticism, which is largely seen as one of the main reasons he voted to uphold Obamacare. Kennedy is moderate conservative at best. The only hardcore votes against gay marriage might be Thomas and Alito. Even if you add in Mystery Trump Appointee, at the absolute worst, the case goes down 6-3, if not more because those three might not want to look foolish given the case was just heard and decided.

[Lysergic]

Well, as long as tensions between the US and Russia get reduced, there might be some hope.

I mean, it's a little more complicated then that.

His "why can't we use nukes?" comment was in relation to North Korea, who is a close strategic ally of China. If the US nukes the DPRK, it means nuclear war with China. Even if nukes are not involved, it seems as though Trump is willing to take a violent approach to keeping North Korea's nuclear program from advancing. That will bring us into direct conflict with China.

Same goes for Russia. "Reducing tensions" with Russia means pulling out of commitments with NATO. It means pulling missile defense systems away from Russia's borders. It means essentially giving Putin a blank check to annex his neighbors. And we know for a fact that he is interested in doing this because he's already done it - twice. He annexed Crimea and he has waged an undeclared and illegal war against Ukraine. I have a lot of friends in Russia and other Balkan states, and they are all extremely nervous about a Trump presidency because it indicates that there might be war in the near future.

That's the problem; we don't have to GO to war to cause wars elsewhere in the world. The US projects military power all over the world, and that has been a lynchpin in reducing international conflicts of all kinds. If NATO is kept strong and the US stands by its commitment to treat an attack on one NATO country as an attack on ALL NATO countries, it limits Russian aggression - Putin will not go to war with NATO countries in the Balkans if he thinks it means war with the US.

The same goes for the Middle East.

And again, none of this is set in stone; it is simply based on the statements that Trump made when he was running for office. So the people who are assuming that Trump will be a peaceful president are also assuming that Trump lied on the campaign trail. That in itself is troubling, because it means we really have no idea WHAT he's going to do.

The optimistic part of me wants to think that Trump's campaign trial comments were bluster - propaganda to stir up the xenophobes and get their votes. The optimistic part of me wants to think that Trump will be rational and peaceful in office.

But if that happens, then it means we've elected someone who flat out lied on the campaign trail, which means we will never really be sure what he will do or what he wants to accomplish.

If we assume Trump was telling the truth about his goals on the campaign trail, then it pretty much directly translates to Russian wars of aggression in the Balkans, nuclear strikes on Korea, war with China, war in Syria (perhaps in an alliance with Russia), and a crumbling NATO.

And this is ignoring other statements he made on other policy issues like the economy (trade wars with China, Mexico, and Canada that will tank the global economy - perhaps to the benefit of the U.S. economy, perhaps not) or immigration (a massively expensive border wall and a massively expensive deportation of 11 million illegal immigrants - things that we cannot afford when our national debt is already high).

[PowersThatBe]

Which justices do you think will change their opinion?

it's not so much this one seat that worries me. Its the fact that we have some very old judges, and his picks are very very conservative. If good ol ruth doesn't make it in the next 4 years, and trump get's a second pick. You can kiss marriage equality good bye.

It goes from 5 to 4 to legalize it to 5 to 4 to make it illegal. My concern isn't even for me necessarily. I live in a state that still legalized it before supreme court made it nationwide.

It's more than marriage equality, but that's our biggest fear. An unchecked congress could do damage. You might not take away marriage, but there's other things you can do to undermine the marriage using religious liberty as a citation.

Think I'm being paranoid? Read this: cwww.lgbtqnation.com/2016/09/donald-trump-pledges-sign-anti-lgbtq-first-amendment-defense-act/

[Suntax]

Im happy trump was elected, so was my family and friends.
Im happy relations may now improve and maybe NATO will stop posturing on our borders.
i say to you liberals that you give trump a chance, see what he does.

My 2 cents, as a Russian im happy, im also patriotic and feel that Russia should take back the Ukraine, Belarus, the lil countries we used own near the middle east.

They once we're part of Russia.
lots of Russians there, we just gave it away.

And now I wait to be called a facist

[PowersThatBe]

There's also a fundamental legal doctrine called "stare decisis" which basically says "adhere to previous cases". There's no way in hell the Supreme Court, having just decided for gay marriage, is going to flip flop and say "oops, we messed up -- it's actually not allowed".

It'd make them look foolish and undermine public faith in the Supreme Court as an impartial interpreter of the constitution. Roberts, in particular, is very sensitive toward this criticism, which is largely seen as one of the main reasons he voted to uphold Obamacare. Kennedy is moderate conservative at best. The only hardcore votes against gay marriage might be Thomas and Alito. Even if you add in Mystery Trump Appointee, at the absolute worst, the case goes down 6-3, if not more because those three might not want to look foolish given the case was just heard and decided.

it was 5 v 4 last time. And you're just looking at the immediate circumstance. Stare Decisis is in terms of precedent. However, does not mean it cannot and will not be overturned later. Especially since Roberts wrote such a strong dissent. God, I hope someone from the more liberal side doesn't step down or anything happen to them because if they get two seats during his presidency, then it's all caput. There was enough people who fought against it on the grounds of harming their religious freedom that it can happen again.

You need to understand, marriage was passed in california then it was overturned. Then it was made legal again by supreme court. We've seen and have had it given to us and taken away, so it is not a illegitimate fear when the group that voted to take it away before has all of the power.

I am not looking at the immediate, I am looking at the next 20 years of supreme court decisions and what a second seat might mean. Hopefully my fears are for nought.

But there are other areas he can undermine our rights and marriage without going through the supreme court decision.

Stare Decisis: "Although courts seldom overrule precedent, Justice Rehnquist explained that stare decisis is not an “inexorable command.” On occasion, the Court will decide not to apply the doctrine if a prior decision is deemed unworkable. In addition, significant societal changes may also prompt the Court to overrule precedent; however, any decision to overrule precedent is exercised cautiously."

[Lysergic]

it's not so much this one seat that worries me. Its the fact that we have some very old judges, and his picks are very very conservative. If good ol ruth doesn't make it in the next 4 years, and trump get's a second pick. You can kiss marriage equality good bye.

It goes from 5 to 4 to legalize it to 5 to 4 to make it illegal. My concern isn't even for me necessarily. I live in a state that still legalized it before supreme court made it nationwide.

It's more than marriage equality, but that's our biggest fear. An unchecked congress could do damage. You might not take away marriage, but there's other things you can do to undermine the marriage using religious liberty as a citation.

Think I'm being paranoid? Read this: cwww.lgbtqnation.com/2016/09/donald-trump-pledges-sign-anti-lgbtq-first-amendment-defense-act/

You're not wrong to be nervous, but it's certainly a time will tell thing. And DB makes an excellent point in regards to stare decisis. I do not think that the Supreme Court skewing more conservative in the future will mean that they will roll back their past decisions, simply because it undermines the overall authority of the court and degrades the validity of their decisions. It is a bad precedent for them to set that judges should use their personal politics to undermine past case law. I genuinely am not concerned on the Supreme Court front.

Regarding Congress, the only way for them to roll back marriage equality after the Supreme Court decision is pretty much through a constitutional amendment, and that requires a supermajority. Even with their wins in this election, Democrats still have enough presence in Congress to prevent an amendment.

[Orpz]

Im happy trump was elected, so was my family and friends.
Im happy relations may now improve and maybe NATO will stop posturing on our borders.
i say to you liberals that you give trump a chance, see what he does.

My 2 cents, as a Russian im happy, im also patriotic and feel that Russia should take back the Ukraine, Belarus, the lil countries we used own near the middle east.

They once we're part of Russia.
lots of Russians there, we just gave it away.

And now I wait to be called a facist

I'm pretty sure your country has bigger problems than a reconquest war.

Isn't Russia planning to block access to LinkedIn? (Internet freedom being threatened)

[PowersThatBe]

You're not wrong to be nervous, but it's certainly a time will tell thing. And DB makes an excellent point in regards to stare decisis. I do not think that the Supreme Court skewing more conservative in the future will mean that they will roll back their past decisions, simply because it undermines the overall authority of the court and degrades the validity of their decisions. It is a bad precedent for them to set that judges should use their personal politics to undermine past case law. I genuinely am not concerned on the Supreme Court front.

Regarding Congress, the only way for them to roll back marriage equality after the Supreme Court decision is pretty much through a constitutional amendment, and that requires a supermajority. Even with their wins in this election, Democrats still have enough presence in Congress to prevent an amendment.

Listen, I hope so. I am trying to give Trump the benefit of the doubt. But the First Amendment Defense Act. NOM coming out and being excited, and many other things does not bode well for me and my fears. I hope I am just freaking out for no reason, and I hope that the supreme court wouldn't go back.

But y'all need to realize that there are some judge outs there that are very very very conservative and they think that marriage between a man and a woman is exactly what the constitution refers to in terms of marriage, and to them it would not be setting dangerous precedent because it is their sincerely held belief that the court got it wrong at the time, or the judges at that time were using the court to make political policy.

I don't know what their argument is going to be, but logically, after seeing how this thing has gone back and forth, it is very luckily they can appoint judges that can and will overturn it and wont think twice about it. Just look at Trumps shortlist now. I think a number of them said the supreme court was wrong on marriage. If you put judges in with the opinion that the previous decision was wrong, then I mean, we'll see.

But please don't be surprised if it happens. It's not like it is set in stone that it wont ever at all. Because it can and will if they're able.

[Suntax]

I'm pretty sure your country has bigger problems than a reconquest war.

Isn't Russia planning to block access to LinkedIn? (Internet freedom being threatened)

Currently we need trade (trump might help with both calming NATO and UN sanctions and opening deals) we get better trade we can make some money.

Not sure about LinkedIn, even if it's so I don't care

[PowersThatBe]

The way people are saying gay rights wont go away or be over turned is the same to me as when people said Donald Trump will never be president. Anything can happen, so please be mindful that our fears are legitimate.

[Suntax]

Im not gonna go in depth on this gay rights fear debate, but did'nt trump say at the RNC he was gonna protect the LGBT community?

[PowersThatBe]

Im not gonna go in depth on this gay rights fear debate, but did'nt trump say at the RNC he was gonna protect the LGBT community?

"From foreign powers." But he picked an Anti LGBTQ running mate, he believes in marriage between man and woman only, he has gone to anti lgbtq events. Saying you'll protect them, and then doing literally everything the opposite is not good.

He's also a puppet, congress will make the legislation and he'll sign it. He's already filling his cabinet with insiders and big wall street money people. He's not draining and swamp.

[oops_ur_dead]

Btw, what I feel a lot of Trump supporters, and people lamenting jobs leaving the US in general, don't realize regarding these "lost jobs", especially those in the manufacturing sector, is that these jobs will never come back to the US no matter how many trade restrictions get implemented. The reason for that is simple: automation is taking over the market, and replaces millions of jobs. The reason companies outsource to China and Mexico is because it's cheaper than automation technology, not because it's cheaper than hiring American workers, and restricting trade to these countries would mean that American companies shift production to automated factories in the US, creating little to no jobs in the process (besides possibly skilled work). This isn't just a theory; it's been observed with a lot of "Made in America" products and those companies that already have shifted production away from Mexico and China back to the US.

Automation threatens to remove many industries, with driving jobs being a very near goal. That means at least 10 million jobs will be made completely obsolete within the next 10-20 years. This is by no means a bad thing. Automation makes life safer for everyone, allows us to get more products with less inputs, and lowers prices of goods. But automation is why we need economically-liberal governments now more than ever. By implementing early social safety nets, especially things such as basic guaranteed income, we can expand these social nets as unskilled labor, and even some skilled labor, is made obsolete by automation. Automation will be the next major paradigm shift in economics, and we cannot handle it with the current form of capitalism that exists in most countries. This is something that is already happening, and will continue to happen in our lifetimes at an increasing rate, and we need to be ready for it.

[thedougler]

LGBTQIABCDEFGHIJKLMNOP rights are a distracting side issue that affect a truly miniscule (but LOUD) fringe of the population. Most gays are NOT monogamous and the institution of marriage for the purposes of child rearing is basically a joke to most of them. I think they are driven mostly by jealousy and an exhibitionist desire to flaunt their lifestyle.

Pence was simply a strategic pawn to draw in the Evangelical vote which worked masterfully, but never forget that Trump himself is a twice divorced Manhattanite. I think if anything he's driven by simple apathy toward gays, not overt hatred. Might I remind you this apathy that Trump and I share was extremely common (>70% of the population) even less than ten years ago. Hillary herself was against gay marriage until 2013, and Obama didn't publically support it until well into his second term.

As for automation, we are a far cry from that point, but if it is on the horizon doesn't it make sense to stop importing unskilled labor, legal and illegal, just as Trump has advocated? The utopia that I envision is a world in which the benefits of automation acrue to a shrinking but increasingly educated and culturally cohesive US labor force. The US has been able to stave the off trend of automation for so long precisely because labor has been kept cheap through massive legal and illegal immigration, and productivity growth has flatlined since the 1995-2001 investment boom.

[oops_ur_dead]

As for automation, we are a far cry from that point,

Automation isn't something that'll be flicked on one day and suddenly all jobs are gone. The manufacturing sector has been decimated by automation already. Driving jobs are next, and this will happen within 10-20 years. There's huge incentive to replace drivers with self-driving vehicles.


but if it is on the horizon doesn't it make sense to stop importing unskilled labor, legal and illegal, just as Trump has advocated?

Probably. That's not really my point, and I partially agree with Trump there. However, a big reason why companies might go for unskilled illegal immigrants over automation is due to lower costs, and high start-up costs for small companies if they want to replace workers with automation.


The utopia that I envision is a world in which the benefits of automation acrue to a shrinking but increasingly educated and culturally cohesive US labor force.

Sure enough, although I think that automation threatens skilled labor as well, but in the much longer term. That's why programs such as free, universal education and guaranteed minimum income are important. Once there are no unskilled jobs left, people will have to get educated in order to find work, and having expensive education creates a caste of people who perpetually cannot find work because they aren't educated because they don't have money because they can't find work etc. In addition, guaranteed minimum income allows the economy to continue functioning, as people who can't get education (either because they are unwilling to, or they just don't have a useful skillset in this new economy) can still survive, as well as prop up the economy by consuming and thus keeping competition and innovation relevant.


The US has been able to stave the off trend of automation for so long precisely because labor has been kept cheap through massive legal and illegal immigration, and productivity growth has flatlined since the 1995-2001 investment boom.

Yep, though I'd add outsourcing to that list. My point was more that the jobs the US lost to outsourcing will never come back, and that the oft-repeated plan to introduce tariffs and restrict free trade won't decrease unemployment in the US.

[PowersThatBe]

LGBTQIABCDEFGHIJKLMNOP rights are a distracting side issue that affect a truly miniscule (but LOUD) fringe of the population. Most gays are NOT monogamous and the institution of marriage for the purposes of child rearing is basically a joke to most of them. I think they are driven mostly by jealousy and an exhibitionist desire to flaunt their lifestyle.

Pence was simply a strategic pawn to draw in the Evangelical vote which worked masterfully, but never forget that Trump himself is a twice divorced Manhattanite. I think if anything he's driven by simple apathy toward gays, not overt hatred. Might I remind you this apathy that Trump and I share was extremely common (>70% of the population) even less than ten years ago. Hillary herself was against gay marriage until 2013, and Obama didn't publically support it until well into his second term.

As for automation, we are a far cry from that point, but if it is on the horizon doesn't it make sense to stop importing unskilled labor, legal and illegal, just as Trump has advocated? The utopia that I envision is a world in which the benefits of automation acrue to a shrinking but increasingly educated and culturally cohesive US labor force. The US has been able to stave the off trend of automation for so long precisely because labor has been kept cheap through massive legal and illegal immigration, and productivity growth has flatlined since the 1995-2001 investment boom.

UMMM....what you said about the LGBTQ is categorically FALSE. Most of us want to be able to get married and have kids. There is no data to suggest we are any more promiscuous than straights. Coming in here and making those false generalizations is largest problem we have. You say all gays are this. Granting people equal protection under the constitution is not a distraction from anything. So let's get that straight right away.

We're not talking about Hillary or Obama, She didn't win and Obama is out of office come January. They both ended up supporting it, and Obama actually took steps in his presidency to clear the path for us. That is his ACTIONS speaking LOUDER than his words. So I accept people might not accept it but then eventually do, but you need to realize, we're not talking about moderate republicans or democrats with religious qualms.

We are talking about a far right sect of the repub party that is very very anti gay, and they are already working to undo protections Obama put in place. Forget Transgender rights thats for sure.

I'm sorry Dougler that our existence is a nuisance to you. But we'll keep it up :)

[BananaCucho]

LGBTQIABCDEFGHIJKLMNOP rights are a distracting side issue that affect a truly miniscule (but LOUD) fringe of the population. Most gays are NOT monogamous and the institution of marriage for the purposes of child rearing is basically a joke to most of them. I think they are driven mostly by jealousy and an exhibitionist desire to flaunt their lifestyle.

Pence was simply a strategic pawn to draw in the Evangelical vote which worked masterfully, but never forget that Trump himself is a twice divorced Manhattanite. I think if anything he's driven by simple apathy toward gays, not overt hatred. Might I remind you this apathy that Trump and I share was extremely common (>70% of the population) even less than ten years ago. Hillary herself was against gay marriage until 2013, and Obama didn't publically support it until well into his second term.

As for automation, we are a far cry from that point, but if it is on the horizon doesn't it make sense to stop importing unskilled labor, legal and illegal, just as Trump has advocated? The utopia that I envision is a world in which the benefits of automation acrue to a shrinking but increasingly educated and culturally cohesive US labor force. The US has been able to stave the off trend of automation for so long precisely because labor has been kept cheap through massive legal and illegal immigration, and productivity growth has flatlined since the 1995-2001 investment boom.

This deserves to be negrepped for the first paragraph alone. Didn't even read the rest.

[PowersThatBe]

This deserves to be negrepped for the first paragraph alone. Didn't even read the rest.

Yup considering that small amount of us is 7,340,433 men and women who identify as either gay, bi, or lesbian. I didn't even try to figure out trans #'s, but consider that to be another couple million. And if I went across the spectrum of gender identity, this number would grow.

I guess we can just write off 7 million people because you know, their problems don't matter.

[oops_ur_dead]

Yup considering that small amount of us is 7,340,433 men and women who identify as either gay, bi, or lesbian. I didn't even try to figure out trans #'s, but consider that to be another couple million. And if I went across the spectrum of gender identity, this number would grow.

I guess we can just write off 7 million people because you know, their problems don't matter.

Uh, that's actually much smaller than I thought it was. Isn't the rate of gay/bi people among the population at around 10%?

[PowersThatBe]

Uh, that's actually much smaller than I thought it was. Isn't the rate of gay/bi people among the population at around 10%?

No I think the 10% is a misnomer.

According to google.

1.8% of men are gay
0.4% are bi

1.5% of women are gay
0.9% of them are bi

[Klingoncelt]

I heard that there are lots of Anti-Trump protests and riots going on in the US now? What gives? It was a democratic process, and Trump won. That's the end of the story, isn't it?

Hillary won the popular vote, so there's that, but the larger issue is that the Alt Right and other Deplorables think that the Trump win gives them carte blanche for acts of hatred. Add to that Trump's crystal clear plans to return to the Bushreich policies and then some, including rollbacks on civil rights.

Those people are convinced - and with excellent reason - that America is going to tailspin into the feudal Dark Ages. They're terrified that nonwhites, non-xtians, non-heteros, and non-wealthy citizens are now all dispensible non-entities.

[PowersThatBe]

Hillary won the popular vote, so there's that, but the larger issue is that the Alt Right and other Deplorables think that the Trump win gives them carte blanche for acts of hatred. Add to that Trump's crystal clear plans to return to the Bushreich policies and then some, including rollbacks on civil rights.

Those people are convinced - and with excellent reason - that America is going to tailspin into the feudal Dark Ages. They're terrified that nonwhites, non-xtians, non-heteros, and non-wealthy citizens are now all dispensible non-entities.

Yup since the election one of my friends was attacked by a group celebrating. They called him a bunch of derogatory names. such as faggot.

A UPENN students added a groupme where they added all of the black students in the class of 2020 and sent out lynching schedules.

So this is our country now.

[Klingoncelt]

In 2018, Democrats are defending 23 Senate seats and Republicans only 8 (7 in red states and 1 in a swing state). In other words, good luck with taking the Senate back then. Dems had their big chance this year and they choked.

Dems gained a seat.

[Klingoncelt]

As an outsider, it looks like Trump was the better choice because he seems the less encline to go to war, now of course, this could be false, but i'd like to have your opinion about it, do you think Hillary would have meant some kind of new world war ?

We're far more likely to go to war with Trump at the helm.

[Cryptonic]

We're far more likely to go to war with Trump at the helm.

Hard to say. Hillary has started wars, Trump has never had the chance.

[Klingoncelt]

The gay marriage laws can be eroded just like abortion rights.

For example, a stat can pass a law stating that all engaged couple must go through marriage counseling. On paper that's not the worst idea, but it won't be equal in practice. Gay couples can be tagged for further "counseling", since lawmakers insist that it's possible to pray away the gay. Should the praying away not work, then they don't get their graduation certificate, therefore they can't get a marriage license.

Think that won't happen?

It will.

[Klingoncelt]

Women, non-white women, non xtian women, bi/lesbian women, poor women, ALL women are at high risk for assaults and discrimination.

[thedougler]

We can agree to disagree. I wish for gays, lesbians and bisexuals to be free to publicly practice their lifestyle without molestation from the majority, but that does not extend to so called "marriage equality". Marriage as recognized by the state should promote child rearing and family formation. And no, don't tread the example of childless hetero couples here, because I agree the state has no business incentivizing their marriage through tax policy. I think tax deductions should only come for married couples WITH children. If the gays want to found their own sects and religions to recognize their marriage that's fine, but I don't think the state has any business doing so and don't ask MY church to do it.

I wasn't quite so radicalized on this issue a few years back, but the wedding cake baker controversy, the Brendan Eich purge, and all the media fawning over "Caitlyn" Jenner have really hardened my views against the current crop of activists. It's a shame because I know a lot of them have had to live through ACTUAL persecution 40+ years ago yet can still get along quite well with the hetero 99%.

[Klingoncelt]

So you feel that you have the right to decide for others, based on completely dishonest talking points.

Congratulations on your candidate's win, Deplorable.

I hope you enjoy the Amerikkka you're creating.

[thedougler]

So you feel that you have the right to decide for others, based on completely dishonest talking points.

Congratulations on your candidate's win, Deplorable.

I hope you enjoy the Amerikkka you're creating.

Yes? All politics is deciding for others to one extent or another. IDK what about my talking points seems dishonest, but to be honest with you I've taken far more flak here for honestly stating my views than you have. In case you haven't noticed, being anti-gay marriage in 2016 kind of makes you a pariah, and people have lost jobs and been sued for saying less than I have.

And the whole "deplorable" comment really encapsulates why Trump won. Flyover country is sick of the constant derision from out of touch urbanites and has finally staged its coup. The way people in Cali and NYC today talk about the rural white underclass is almost as bad as blacks under Jim Crow, but also tinged with a classist undercurrent.

[BananaCucho]

Yes? All politics is deciding for others to one extent or another. IDK what about my talking points seems dishonest, but to be honest with you I've taken far more flak here for honestly stating my views than you have. In case you haven't noticed, being anti-gay marriage in 2016 kind of makes you a pariah, and people have lost jobs and been sued for saying less than I have.

And the whole "deplorable" comment really encapsulates why Trump won. Flyover country is sick of the constant derision from out of touch urbanites and has finally staged its coup. The way people in Cali and NYC today talk about the rural white underclass is almost as bad as blacks under Jim Crow, but also tinged with a classist undercurrent.

You just compared white struggles to what blacks went through under Jim Crow. Really? Holy shit.

[Mateo]

Yes? All politics is deciding for others to one extent or another. IDK what about my talking points seems dishonest, but to be honest with you I've taken far more flak here for honestly stating my views than you have. In case you haven't noticed, being anti-gay marriage in 2016 kind of makes you a pariah, and people have lost jobs and been sued for saying less than I have.

And the whole "deplorable" comment really encapsulates why Trump won. Flyover country is sick of the constant derision from out of touch urbanites and has finally staged its coup. The way people in Cali and NYC today talk about the rural white underclass is almost as bad as blacks under Jim Crow, but also tinged with a classist undercurrent.

Aww I'm so sorry your wittle feelings got hurt, it must be sooo difficult being a white hetero male with an archaic opinion in 2016.

Ffs you people have persecuted everyone for centuries, then when the chickens come home to roost you cry like little bitches.

[PowersThatBe]

We can agree to disagree. I wish for gays, lesbians and bisexuals to be free to publicly practice their lifestyle without molestation from the majority, but that does not extend to so called "marriage equality". Marriage as recognized by the state should promote child rearing and family formation. And no, don't tread the example of childless hetero couples here, because I agree the state has no business incentivizing their marriage through tax policy. I think tax deductions should only come for married couples WITH children. If the gays want to found their own sects and religions to recognize their marriage that's fine, but I don't think the state has any business doing so and don't ask MY church to do it.

I wasn't quite so radicalized on this issue a few years back, but the wedding cake baker controversy, the Brendan Eich purge, and all the media fawning over "Caitlyn" Jenner have really hardened my views against the current crop of activists. It's a shame because I know a lot of them have had to live through ACTUAL persecution 40+ years ago yet can still get along quite well with the hetero 99%.

Except you're wrong. And plenty of gay couples adopt children or go through surrogacy.

See Matt Dallas and Blu Hamilton: Married gay couple who adopted a child and live is Arizona. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oq1iajRFbMs

Your points are stupid and invalid.

Also, according to a study done. As it stands now, gays are less likely than straights to get divorced. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/15/same-sex-divorce-rates-williams-_n_6328102.html

And your point about gays not wanting to be together is completely false. In fact most gay couples were together for 10 or 15 years before marriage equality was even a dream. Doug, it's ok to have a dissimilar opinion, but don't state retarded ass shit you made up.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2013/06/27/_gay_couples_aren_t_monogamous_people_saying_this_ have_no_idea_what_they.html

https://www.queerty.com/monogamy-making-comeback-among-younger-gay-couples-study-finds-20160922

[Orpz]

And the whole "deplorable" comment really encapsulates why Trump won. Flyover country is sick of the constant derision from out of touch urbanites and has finally staged its coup. The way people in Cali and NYC today talk about the rural white underclass is almost as bad as blacks under Jim Crow, but also tinged with a classist undercurrent.

Not really, Trump got less votes than 2004 Bush.

[PowersThatBe]

Not really, Trump got less votes than 2004 Bush.

The real problem was that both candidates sucked so much that people voted for Gary Johnson or wrote in bullshit.

Also, a large number of people stayed home because the "polls" showed Hillary winning comfortably. News Media has been talking about their mistakes the past couple of days and how they got it way wrong.

[BananaCucho]

The real problem was that both candidates sucked so much that people voted for Gary Johnson or wrote in bullshit.

Also, a large number of people stayed home because the "polls" showed Hillary winning comfortably. News Media has been talking about their mistakes the past couple of days and how they got it way wrong.

Gary Johnson only got 3% of the votes. Jill Stein only 1%. A lot of people polled said they were going to vote for them but in reality didn't. They threw their votes for Hillary or Trump.

[PLZLEAVEDUCKK]

Aww I'm so sorry your wittle feelings got hurt, it must be sooo difficult being a white hetero male with an archaic opinion in 2016.

Ffs you people have persecuted everyone for centuries, then when the chickens come home to roost you cry like little bitches.

I think his point was that in today's pathetic PC world if you say almost anything everyone instantly gets offended because it does not fit their views that nobody cares about.

[PowersThatBe]

Gary Johnson only got 3% of the votes. Jill Stein only 1%. A lot of people polled said they were going to vote for them but in reality didn't. They threw their votes for Hillary or Trump.

You need to look at state by state data. In some cases Johnson got like 10k to 60k votes. Trump only beat hillary by like 10 to 45k votes. Gary Johnson leeching votes really really hurt Clinton.

[oops_ur_dead]

I think his point was that in today's pathetic PC world if you say almost anything everyone instantly gets offended because it does not fit their views that nobody cares about.

You realize both conservatives and liberals are guilty of that? Just look at how butthurt conservatives get if you say anything against the military, or if you say white people have done some pretty shitty stuff. Everyone gets offended at stupid shit.

[Mateo]

I think his point was that in today's pathetic PC world if you say almost anything everyone instantly gets offended because it does not fit their views that nobody cares about.

and i think my point was the pathetic hypocrisy of saying offensive shit then getting butthurt when called out for it.

you see, i think you should kill yourself, but im not gonna get offended when im infracted for it, cuz thats just stupid

[PowersThatBe]

BananaCucho -- for example look at Florida.

100% reporting
Votes

Donald Trump
Republican Party
49%
4,605,515

Hillary Clinton
Democratic Party
48%
4,485,745

Gary Johnson
Libertarian Party
2%
206,007

Jill Stein
Green Party
0.7%
64,019

Hillary probably would have won that state had johnson and stein not pulled almost 300k votes.

[PLZLEAVEDUCKK]

and i think my point was the pathetic hypocrisy of saying offensive shit then getting butthurt when called out for it.

you see, i think you should kill yourself, but im not gonna get offended when im infracted for it, cuz thats just stupid

dad of the year award~

[PowersThatBe]

Johnson and Stein together got 5,438,247 votes. if you divide their combined votes together and assume majority of them go to Hillary. That's an extra 108,764.94 votes. She lost many key states by wayyyyyy less than that.

I'd go state by state but I'm too lazy to extrapolate that data.

Nevermind, found a table. You can see. In key states, Johnson leeched the all to important votes.

http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/data.php?ev=1&rnk=1&mar=1&per=1&vot=1&sort=tbl_v.totalvote%3ATotal+Vote&fips=0&search=&search_name=&datatype=national&f=0&off=0&year=2016&sort_dir=&submit=Submit

Right hand side shows you how many votes each candidate got per state.

[PLZLEAVEDUCKK]

You realize both conservatives and liberals are guilty of that? Just look at how butthurt conservatives get if you say anything against the military, or if you say white people have done some pretty shitty stuff. Everyone gets offended at stupid shit.

Yeah I agree, I was just trying to point out how silly we have gotten with the pitchforking and getting people fired over social media posts that are not bad.

[Mateo]

dad of the year award~

agreed. maybe if your dad hadnt been such a mild mannered faggot he coulda raised a son that didnt let a chick trigger him into threatening her kids.

[PLZLEAVEDUCKK]

agreed. maybe if your dad hadnt been such a mild mannered faggot he coulda raised a son that didnt let a chick trigger him into threatening her kids.

Sorry he was too busy making billions of dollars. You might want to place the blame on my mother for that one....

[Brendan]

Sorry he was too busy making billions of dollars. You might want to place the blame on my mother for that one....

link

[PLZLEAVEDUCKK]

link

zelda.

[BananaCucho]

BananaCucho -- for example look at Florida.

100% reporting
Votes

Donald Trump
Republican Party
49%
4,605,515

Hillary Clinton
Democratic Party
48%
4,485,745

Gary Johnson
Libertarian Party
2%
206,007

Jill Stein
Green Party
0.7%
64,019

Hillary probably would have won that state had johnson and stein not pulled almost 300k votes.

Stop blaming third parties. I voted for Hillary in the end but she was a shit candidate.

[oops_ur_dead]

Johnson and Stein together got 5,438,247 votes. if you divide their combined votes together and assume majority of them go to Hillary. That's an extra 108,764.94 votes. She lost many key states by wayyyyyy less than that.

I'd go state by state but I'm too lazy to extrapolate that data.

Nevermind, found a table. You can see. In key states, Johnson leeched the all to important votes.

http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/data.php?ev=1&rnk=1&mar=1&per=1&vot=1&sort=tbl_v.totalvote%3ATotal+Vote&fips=0&search=&search_name=&datatype=national&f=0&off=0&year=2016&sort_dir=&submit=Submit

Right hand side shows you how many votes each candidate got per state.

Why are you assuming third parties only pulled votes from Hillary? I imagine Johnson voters would have been more likely to vote for Trump than Hillary, and he got many more votes than Stein.

[Mateo]

Sorry he was too busy making billions of dollars. You might want to place the blame on my mother for that one....

nah, i blame him for not being around and teaching u how to be a man. i blame ur mom for not getting an abortion.

[BananaCucho]

I like this Mateo guy

[DarknessB]

Why are you assuming third parties only pulled votes from Hillary? I imagine Johnson voters would have been more likely to vote for Trump than Hillary, and he got many more votes than Stein.

This. Libertarians tend to have more in common with Republicans than Democrats ideologically speaking. The party ticket also consisted of two Republican governors (Johnson and Weld), which further bolsters the theory that more votes were pulled from Trump than from Clinton.

[BananaCucho]

I know a ton of people in Jill Steins dank meme stash that preferred Trump to Hillary. She's just not very liked at all.

[PowersThatBe]

Why are you assuming third parties only pulled votes from Hillary? I imagine Johnson voters would have been more likely to vote for Trump than Hillary, and he got many more votes than Stein.

I don't know. I mean, if you look at his policies.

Pro weed, pro choice, pro gay rights, anti interventionist.

His economic policies were probably more closer to republicans, but really, he probably pulled more Hillary supports in the long run.

[PowersThatBe]

Stop blaming third parties. I voted for Hillary in the end but she was a shit candidate.

Of course she was a shit candidate. But I voted for her too. Doesn't mean it's not possible that 3rd party candidate had an effect on the election. I don't blame him for running, I blame Hillary and her people for running knowing she was such a controversial choice.

[Brendan]

libertarians can lean either way, it's a super broad platform.


zelda.

ur japanese?

[Mateo]

This. Libertarians tend to have more in common with Republicans than Democrats ideologically speaking. The party ticket also consisted of two Republican governors (Johnson and Weld), which further bolsters the theory that more votes were pulled from Trump than from Clinton.


I don't know. I mean, if you look at his policies.

Pro weed, pro choice, pro gay rights, anti interventionist.

His economic policies were probably more closer to republicans, but really, he probably pulled more Hillary supports in the long run.

I agree with Powers, Trump might have been the repub nominee but his policies are more like national socialism (both with and without nazi connotations). Johnson was the protest vote for those that couldnt stand Hillary but couldnt vote for a fascist.

[Yukitaka Oni]

libertarians can lean either way, it's a super broad platform.



ur japanese?
I'm communist v(x.o(<

[PowersThatBe]

I just compared all 3 of their policies. Johnson and Hillary agreed on 6 of 20 issues. Trump and Johnson agreed on 10 of 20. Clinton and Johnson agreed on more of some of the hot button issues like immigration, abortion, gay rights (while trump apparently agreed on ssm too). All 3 agreed about Marijuana.

As always: http://presidential-candidates.insidegov.com/compare/39-40-70/Gary-Johnson-vs-Hillary-Clinton-vs-Donald-Trump

[PowersThatBe]

I agree with Powers, Trump might have been the repub nominee but his policies are more like national socialism (both with and without nazi connotations). Johnson was the protest vote for those that couldnt stand Hillary but couldnt vote for a fascist.

Yup. This, exactly this.

Edit: Personal anecdote, I didn't know anything about him until his Aleppo embarrassment. I watched him on the view and he just started talking his policies and he almost swayed me from voting for Hillary. But then I knew it would have been a waste, it would have been a conscious vote. But I already got my conscious vote, and his name was Bernie Sanders. So, I think more people who would have voted Bernie, voted Johnson. I think if you wanted an "outsider" but didn't like Trump and Hillary was your only option, then you voted Johnson. Because to be honest, Republicans voted for Hillary over Trump because he was that bad in their eyes (or said that's what they were doing.) But as Trumps campaign manager pointed out, he had big rallies, and he really excited people. I think more people didn't vote for Hillary because they couldn't trust her and they did not want Trump to win.

[PLZLEAVEDUCKK]

nah, i blame him for not being around and teaching u how to be a man. i blame ur mom for not getting an abortion.

I cant tell if you are talking about me or you right now.... Please be more clear, and less projecting.

[Mateo]

I cant tell if you are talking about me or you right now.... Please be more clear, and less projecting.

holy shit, you've had all day to think of a reply and this is the best you can do? no wonder you resort to threats.

[PowersThatBe]

Lysergic and DarknessB

Please read these two articles to understand fully my fears of this presidency and marriage equality. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/mike-pence-assault-lgbtq-equality_us_58275a17e4b02d21bbc8ff9b ; http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2016/11/nom-reveals-horrifying-plan-work-trump-roll-back-lgbtq-rights/

[BananaCucho]

Lysergic and DarknessB

Please read these two articles to understand fully my fears of this presidency and marriage equality. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/mike-pence-assault-lgbtq-equality_us_58275a17e4b02d21bbc8ff9b ; http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2016/11/nom-reveals-horrifying-plan-work-trump-roll-back-lgbtq-rights/

If you've been paying attention, Trumps tone has changed already and he's already walking back some stuff he promised in the campaign. Like now instead of an immediate repeal of Obamacare, he's keeping the "good parts".

I'm fully in the "give the guy a chance" camp at this point, I mean, if he really does try to stomp on peoples liberties like his campaign rhetoric suggested, he'll be met with strong opposition. But I think what we potentially have here could the greatest con in the history of the US if he ends up completely backtracking on all the anger he tapped in to to get elected. Which would be hilarious to see if that's the case.

[PowersThatBe]

If you've been paying attention, Trumps tone has changed already and he's already walking back some stuff he promised in the campaign. Like now instead of an immediate repeal of Obamacare, he's keeping the "good parts".

I'm fully in the "give the guy a chance" camp at this point, I mean, if he really does try to stomp on peoples liberties like his campaign rhetoric suggested, he'll be met with strong opposition. But I think what we potentially have here could the greatest con in the history of the US if he ends up completely backtracking on all the anger he tapped in to to get elected. Which would be hilarious to see if that's the case.

I would hope, but I if you read the article it says he'll be giving Mike Pence more power/responsibility which is already happening with Pence taking over the transition team. I am all for giving him a chance, but I will not lull myself into a state of surrender. I fear what will happen and I will continue to speak out until he proves me wrong.

I hope I'm wrong, I really really do. But picking Mike Pence, boy that does not sit well with me. And he's already going to sign the FADA which will legalize discrimination against LGBTQ on the basis of religious liberty, Donald has vowed to sign it.

[BananaCucho]

I would hope, but I if you read the article it says he'll be giving Mike Pence more power/responsibility which is already happening with Pence taking over the transition team. I am all for giving him a chance, but I will not lull myself into a state of surrender. I fear what will happen and I will continue to speak out until he proves me wrong.

I hope I'm wrong, I really really do. But picking Mike Pence, boy that does not sit well with me. And he's already going to sign the FADA which will legalize discrimination against LGBTQ on the basis of religious liberty, Donald has vowed to sign it.

He's vowed and said a lot of things. Like the wall. Nobody expects that to happen.

At this point until he takes office all we are doing is speculating.

[PowersThatBe]

He's vowed and said a lot of things. Like the wall. Nobody expects that to happen.

At this point until he takes office all we are doing is speculating.

Of coruse we have to wait and see, but after he got elected congress said no basically to the wall. However, the FADA is something they all really want. But we will see.

[Lysergic]

Lysergic and DarknessB

Please read these two articles to understand fully my fears of this presidency and marriage equality. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/mike-pence-assault-lgbtq-equality_us_58275a17e4b02d21bbc8ff9b ; http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2016/11/nom-reveals-horrifying-plan-work-trump-roll-back-lgbtq-rights/

Oh, I totally get what your fears are. Pence is a piece of shit. I've been saying that since Trump picked him as a running mate.

I guess I'm not worried about it because I don't see what my worry would do, other than give me grey hairs. The election is over; at this point, all anyone can do is wait and see. If Trump's administration tries to pull some shady shenanigans in terms of walking back marriage equality, then there will be time to protest. And if all else fails, I will be speaking with my vote in 2018 and 2020. In the meantime, I don't want to live in fear; it's never suited me.

[BananaCucho]

Oh, I totally get what your fears are. Pence is a piece of shit. I've been saying that since Trump picked him as a running mate.

I guess I'm not worried about it because I don't see what my worry would do, other than give me grey hairs. The election is over; at this point, all anyone can do is wait and see. If Trump's administration tries to pull some shady shenanigans in terms of walking back marriage equality, then there will be time to protest. And if all else fails, I will be speaking with my vote in 2018 and 2020. In the meantime, I don't want to live in fear; it's never suited me.

Yup, this

[PowersThatBe]

Oh, I totally get what your fears are. Pence is a piece of shit. I've been saying that since Trump picked him as a running mate.

I guess I'm not worried about it because I don't see what my worry would do, other than give me grey hairs. The election is over; at this point, all anyone can do is wait and see. If Trump's administration tries to pull some shady shenanigans in terms of walking back marriage equality, then there will be time to protest. And if all else fails, I will be speaking with my vote in 2018 and 2020. In the meantime, I don't want to live in fear; it's never suited me.

I guess, I just want us to be aware of what might happen so we can mobilize. I am not actively sitting here and worrying, i just don't want Allies or anyone this doesn't DIRECTLY affect to become complacent. I want everyone to know what to look for so we can fight if it happens. IDK, if that makes it more clear?

[BananaCucho]

I guess, I just want us to be aware of what might happen so we can mobilize. I am not actively sitting here and worrying, i just don't want Allies or anyone this doesn't DIRECTLY affect to become complacent. I want everyone to know what to look for so we can fight if it happens. IDK, if that makes it more clear?

Sure that makes sense. But allies won't stop being allies just cause of Trump. Plus even moderate / non fanatical conservatives are coming around to being okay with marriage equality. My parents 3 years ago were against it, now they are not and they are as conservative as they come. Society is evolving and talking with a lot of people over the last few days I do believe that a majority of people who voted for Trump don't agree with most of the stuff he's said. They are just tired of establishment politics and hated Hillary more. But a lot of them won't agree with taking civil rights away.

[PowersThatBe]

Sure that makes sense. But allies won't stop being allies just cause of Trump. Plus even moderate / non fanatical conservatives are coming around to being okay with marriage equality. My parents 3 years ago were against it, now they are not and they are as conservative as they come. Society is evolving and talking with a lot of people over the last few days I do believe that a majority of people who voted for Trump don't agree with most of the stuff he's said. They are just tired of establishment politics and hated Hillary more. But a lot of them won't agree with taking civil rights away.

Sure, I agree with you. But when I brought this point up to people that I know voted for him. Their response by in large was, "they'll never do that" "it'll never happen" "no one wants that" -- I just want to give voice to the things that are already occurring. TBH, at this point, there is nothing we can do to stop it. Except vote in 2018, even then it might be too late because we'd only be able to get the House back, and attempt to block him for 2 more years after.

I'm not trying to be an alarmist, I just want people to remember the stakes, and be ready to help if and when shit like this goes down. I would love for everyone here that's an ally to to sign petitions call your reps, whatever it takes IF this stuff starts happening.

My other fear is that things like this will get sneaked through bills, as often is the cause with a lot of stuff. Hopefully Trump tells them to leave the gays alone, but a large part of the republican base does not "hate" gays, but they do think our life style is an alt life style that our constitution doesn't support.

[SuperJack]

Lol Peeps are still posting.
Hope you are enjoying your Trump endorsed Obama care.

[Klingoncelt]

Yes? All politics is deciding for others to one extent or another. IDK what about my talking points seems dishonest, but to be honest with you I've taken far more flak here for honestly stating my views than you have. In case you haven't noticed, being anti-gay marriage in 2016 kind of makes you a pariah, and people have lost jobs and been sued for saying less than I have.

And the whole "deplorable" comment really encapsulates why Trump won. Flyover country is sick of the constant derision from out of touch urbanites and has finally staged its coup. The way people in Cali and NYC today talk about the rural white underclass is almost as bad as blacks under Jim Crow, but also tinged with a classist undercurrent.

I'm from the Rust Belt. My life totally went to shit when Ronnie Ray-Gun shipped my job out of the country.

Some of my neighbors blew their brains out. A lot more fell into alcoholism. 35 years later they're still waiting on a messiah to bring back their jobs.

It ain't gonna happen.The new Boss is same as the old Boss.


All politics is deciding for others to one extent or another.

No, it's deciding for themselves and their cronies. You and I are nothing.

At least Hillary and her cronies were willing to throw us a bone. Trump/Pence will be just like Bush/Cheney.

As for the Deplorable comment, Trump won with the support of some very nasty people, the AltRight and the KKK for example. And the Infowars tards. Like it or not, they're deplorable. So is anyone that wants to prevent others from attaining basic human civil rights.

Views are views. Facts are facts. Two different things.

[thedougler]

I'm from the Rust Belt. My life totally went to shit when Ronnie Ray-Gun shipped my job out of the country.

Some of my neighbors blew their brains out. A lot more fell into alcoholism. 35 years later they're still waiting on a messiah to bring back their jobs.

It ain't gonna happen.The new Boss is same as the old Boss.



No, it's deciding for themselves and their cronies. You and I are nothing.

At least Hillary and her cronies were willing to throw us a bone. Trump/Pence will be just like Bush/Cheney.

As for the Deplorable comment, Trump won with the support of some very nasty people, the AltRight and the KKK for example. And the Infowars tards. Like it or not, they're deplorable. So is anyone that wants to prevent others from attaining basic human civil rights.

Views are views. Facts are facts. Two different things.

Amnesty (or "comprehensive immigration reform" as Hillary and her donors like to call it) is not a "basic human civil right", elsewise you guys would have billions of third worlders in your borders and your standard of living would rather quickly go to shit. If the KKK agrees with me on that then good on them for having common sense at least in that regard.

Trump was endorsed by a lot of scummy people, but also by some people I have great respect for, such as the union of a very demoralized ICE under Obama (their first presidential endorsement EVER), the Fraternal Order of Police, and the NRA.

Again, leftist derision and name-calling drove the same white working class that largely voted for Obama in 2008 into Trump's hands. This election hasn't proved that America is racist, it's just proved that the leftist tactic of crying "racist" has lost all poignancy. If you want to see a Liberal I actually have respect for explain it to you, I suggest this wonderful rant:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLG9g7BcjKs

While there are parallels between Trump and Reagan's rises, they are not the same. Trump isn't even president yet and we can't judge the full effect of his policies just yet. He may very well screw over the rust-belt voters who gave him the presidency, but I think they were probably screwed anyway due to structural forces whether Trump or Hillary won. At least Trump promised a concrete policy position (tarrifs) to preserve their jobs, whereas Hillary would have probably flipflopped on TPP and caused more manufacturing job losses. The Trump support from rust-belt workers may be selfish and short-sighted, but when you consider wages for the median male worker have been flat since the 1970s, they are eager to try just about anything at this point.

[PowersThatBe]

This is a great episode. Panel starts at 14 mins. I suggest watching that fully.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oMJvbP3yzMk

[Mateo]

This is a great episode. Panel starts at 14 mins. I suggest watching that fully.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oMJvbP3yzMk

The new rules and final monologue were great, as was the interview with Eric holder. I'm sad this was the last episode until mid January

[Klingoncelt]

Amnesty (or "comprehensive immigration reform" as Hillary and her donors like to call it) is not a "basic human civil right", elsewise you guys would have billions of third worlders in your borders and your standard of living would rather quickly go to shit. If the KKK agrees with me on that then good on them for having common sense at least in that regard.

Trump was endorsed by a lot of scummy people, but also by some people I have great respect for, such as the union of a very demoralized ICE under Obama (their first presidential endorsement EVER), the Fraternal Order of Police, and the NRA.

Again, leftist derision and name-calling drove the same white working class that largely voted for Obama in 2008 into Trump's hands. This election hasn't proved that America is racist, it's just proved that the leftist tactic of crying "racist" has lost all poignancy. If you want to see a Liberal I actually have respect for explain it to you, I suggest this wonderful rant:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLG9g7BcjKs

While there are parallels between Trump and Reagan's rises, they are not the same. Trump isn't even president yet and we can't judge the full effect of his policies just yet. He may very well screw over the rust-belt voters who gave him the presidency, but I think they were probably screwed anyway due to structural forces whether Trump or Hillary won. At least Trump promised a concrete policy position (tarrifs) to preserve their jobs, whereas Hillary would have probably flipflopped on TPP and caused more manufacturing job losses. The Trump support from rust-belt workers may be selfish and short-sighted, but when you consider wages for the median male worker have been flat since the 1970s, they are eager to try just about anything at this point.

I knew what was coming with Reagan, and I know what's coming with Trump.

And don't blame the left for name-calling. We don't want to be associated with creeps, pervs, bigots, homophobes, misogynists, other haters, and the willfully stupid. Our calling out the right's awful behavior hasn't lost its poignancy, the right simply chooses to ignore the reality and grow up.

[PowersThatBe]

The new rules and final monologue were great, as was the interview with Eric holder. I'm sad this was the last episode until mid January

I agree. I don't usually watch, but i might start. He's going to be an important voice as we move through the next few years, and I think he has great viewpoints.

[PowersThatBe]

I knew what was coming with Reagan, and I know what's coming with Trump.

And don't blame the left for name-calling. We don't want to be associated with creeps, pervs, bigots, homophobes, misogynists, other haters, and the willfully stupid. Our calling out the right's awful behavior hasn't lost its poignancy, the right simply chooses to ignore the reality and grow up.

You there, watch the youtube video I posted. It addressed this back and forth between you two, and I think it has some valuable lessons for both of you!

[Cryptonic]

Well suck it up, you only got 4 years of it.

Just be thankful you're not like Canada and have leaders serving for 20+ years.

[DarknessB]

Well suck it up, you only got 4 years of it.

Just be thankful you're not like Canada and have leaders serving for 20+ years.

I think you mean 8 years (at least likely statistically) -- U.S. presidents rarely lose reelection these days given the power of incumbency. Four out of the last five elected (and five out of the last seven -- ignoring Ford who was never elected) have been reelected, and Bush Sr. not making it was due to a perfect storm of insane factors (the most viable third party candidate ever, a weird recession, etc.).

[Orpz]

I think you mean 8 years (at least likely statistically) -- U.S. presidents rarely lose reelection these days given the power of incumbency. Four out of the last five elected (and five out of the last seven -- ignoring Ford who was never elected) have been reelected, and Bush Sr. not making it was due to a perfect storm of insane factors (the most viable third party candidate ever, a weird recession, etc.).

This.

But on the flip side, only once since WW2 has a political party held the Executive for more than 2 terms in a row. This is why I bet (and won! :) ) on a Trump victory despite my heart not wanting it to happen.

[DarknessB]

This.

But on the flip side, only once since WW2 has a political party held the Executive for more than 2 terms in a row. This is why I bet (and won! :) ) on a Trump victory despite my heart not wanting it to happen.

Agreed -- after 8 years, people tend to want a chance in the direction of the executive branch. That was the whole idea of Trump shaking things up more so than Hillary would have (given Obama is currently president). 8 years is a long time in politics.

[Yukitaka Oni]

4 year terms.....for some reason i laugh at America president because it's look like a World Cup-election

[BananaCucho]

https://scontent.fsnc1-2.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/fr/cp0/e15/q65/15036333_1215460295156083_4217408697716687099_n.jp g?efg=eyJpIjoidCJ9&oh=8397b0d59b412f93d76a1ddd43cb9ea3&oe=588F97F0

[PLZLEAVEDUCKK]

Sooo I was calling my parents to tell them when Thanksgiving break was, and Mike Pence answered the phone.... (not troll post) Now I feel bad for calling him an idiot online because we are basically like bff now.

[secondpassing]

Sooo I was calling my parents to tell them when Thanksgiving break was, and Mike Pence answered the phone.... (not troll post) Now I feel bad for calling him an idiot online because we are basically like bff now.

Was he an idiot on the phone as well?

[PowersThatBe]

https://scontent.fsnc1-2.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/fr/cp0/e15/q65/15036333_1215460295156083_4217408697716687099_n.jp g?efg=eyJpIjoidCJ9&oh=8397b0d59b412f93d76a1ddd43cb9ea3&oe=588F97F0

My fears are starting to look more and more rational? Yah?

[PLZLEAVEDUCKK]

Was he an idiot on the phone as well?

seemed nice and had a sense of humor from our brief chat, still wouldn't want him as Trump's VP.

[BananaCucho]

My fears are starting to look more and more rational? Yah?

I never said they weren't rational. I said we got your back, like I know you have Muslims back, and Hispanics, etc. Trump won't get away with stuff he previously promised he would do.

[PowersThatBe]

I never said they weren't rational. I said we got your back, like I know you have Muslims back, and Hispanics, etc. Trump won't get away with stuff he previously promised he would do.

<3 and I know Bernie has our backs too.

[Klingoncelt]

Trump won't get away with stuff he previously promised he would do.

Who do you think will stop him?

In some cases he can simply write an Executive Order.

He can make Supreme Court and Department appointments while Congress is in recess and that overrides the Senate approval process.

[Mateo]

Who do you think will stop him?

In some cases he can simply write an Executive Order.

He can make Supreme Court and Department appointments while Congress is in recess and that overrides the Senate approval process.

well to quote trump, maybe the second amendment people can do something

[DarknessB]

I never said they weren't rational. I said we got your back, like I know you have Muslims back, and Hispanics, etc. Trump won't get away with stuff he previously promised he would do.

And if he tries, Hillary 2020! Amirite? :D

http://dailycaller.com/2016/11/14/will-clinton-run-again-in-2020/
https://www.romper.com/p/will-hillary-clinton-run-for-president-in-2020-after-this-election-anything-is-possible-22298b
(https://www.romper.com/p/will-hillary-clinton-run-for-president-in-2020-after-this-election-anything-is-possible-22298)
#imwithher

[PowersThatBe]

And if he tries, Hillary 2020! Amirite? :D

http://dailycaller.com/2016/11/14/will-clinton-run-again-in-2020/
https://www.romper.com/p/will-hillary-clinton-run-for-president-in-2020-after-this-election-anything-is-possible-22298b
(https://www.romper.com/p/will-hillary-clinton-run-for-president-in-2020-after-this-election-anything-is-possible-22298)
#imwithher

I doubt she would. I also doubt he'll run for reelection if things go poorly. I wouldn't want her to run again, /she was such a toxic candidate I doubt she would be able to get the party support again.

[DarknessB]

I doubt she would. I also doubt he'll run for reelection if things go poorly. I wouldn't want her to run again, /she was such a toxic candidate I doubt she would be able to get the party support again.

The last president not to run for reelection (i.e. not term limited) was LBJ in 1968, and before that, I can't even find one who didn't run for a second term, unless you want to go back to the 1800s or count presidents who died in their first term (Kennedy, Harding, McKinley, etc.). In other words, unless Trump is literally forced out of office, he's running for reelection.

UPDATE: The answer is Hayes in 1880 who made a pledge not to run for a second term in order to resolve the electoral vote controversy in his first election. In other words, don't count on it, lol. Arthur ran for reelection in 1884 but lost the Republican nomination.

[BananaCucho]

And if he tries, Hillary 2020! Amirite? :D

http://dailycaller.com/2016/11/14/will-clinton-run-again-in-2020/
https://www.romper.com/p/will-hillary-clinton-run-for-president-in-2020-after-this-election-anything-is-possible-22298b
(https://www.romper.com/p/will-hillary-clinton-run-for-president-in-2020-after-this-election-anything-is-possible-22298)
#imwithher

Kill me now.

[Orpz]

I doubt she would. I also doubt he'll run for reelection if things go poorly. I wouldn't want her to run again, /she was such a toxic candidate I doubt she would be able to get the party support again.

If Hillary somehow gets the nomination AGAIN, then this is where I get off the train.

Unless Trump cucks his voter base really hard, ie by Expanding The Swamp (tm) or reneging on the wall, he will likely win re-election simply because incumbents have a big advantage. I mean, even Bush won re-election.

I'm pretty confident that Democrats will win 2024 though if they run a clean, young and attractive man without any huge revolutionary aims. I can see Trump's narcissism and showmanship being embarrassing enough that a 1920-esque "Return to Normalcy" platform by the Democrats will come out on top.

[Orpz]

And if he tries, Hillary 2020! Amirite? :D

http://dailycaller.com/2016/11/14/will-clinton-run-again-in-2020/
https://www.romper.com/p/will-hillary-clinton-run-for-president-in-2020-after-this-election-anything-is-possible-22298b
(https://www.romper.com/p/will-hillary-clinton-run-for-president-in-2020-after-this-election-anything-is-possible-22298)
#imwithher

Unless the DNC is secretly being run by descendants of Henry Clay who are tired of Clay being the traditional symbol of "Presidential Participation Award", I don't see a good reason for them to nominate her again.

[PowersThatBe]

The last president not to run for reelection (i.e. not term limited) was LBJ in 1968, and before that, I can't even find one who didn't run for a second term, unless you want to go back to the 1800s or count presidents who died in their first term (Kennedy, Harding, McKinley, etc.). In other words, unless Trump is literally forced out of office, he's running for reelection.

UPDATE: The answer is Hayes in 1880 who made a pledge not to run for a second term in order to resolve the electoral vote controversy in his first election. In other words, don't count on it, lol. Arthur ran for reelection in 1884 but lost the Republican nomination.

You can't say he'll run again. He is far from a traditional candidate, he also only wants to live in the whites house half time. He also cared a lot about public perception, I could definitely see him bowing out after 4 years.

[DarknessB]

You can't say he'll run again. He is far from a traditional candidate, he also only wants to live in the whites house half time. He also cared a lot about public perception, I could definitely see him bowing out after 4 years.

Sure, it's possible, but very unlikely given precedent going back to the 1800s. Being president is pretty much the most impressive thing that someone can do politically -- I don't see him just saying "I'm done now" after 4 years. He'll want to cement his legacy, especially given his ego.

[DarknessB]

Unless the DNC is secretly being run by descendants of Henry Clay who are tired of Clay being the traditional symbol of "Presidential Participation Award", I don't see a good reason for them to nominate her again.

Romney came decently close to running three times: 2008 (lost to McCain in the primary), 2012 (lost to Obama), 2016 (floated the idea of running for a while).

[PowersThatBe]

Sure, it's possible, but very unlikely given precedent going back to the 1800s. Being president is pretty much the most impressive thing that someone can do politically -- I don't see him just saying "I'm done now" after 4 years. He'll want to cement his legacy, especially given his ego.

Sure, if things are going well. But given his track record I.e. Bankruptcies, I could see him stepepijg aside if things are going very poorly. Shit if he's doing well and I still have my rights -- good on him. Idk he's so unpredictable, it's not like he needs the pres salary. He could miss doing business and want to get back to it. It's just so hard to figure him out sometimes. I think I could really go either way given how he conducts himself.

[DarknessB]

Sure, if things are going well. But given his track record I.e. Bankruptcies, I could see him stepepijg aside if things are going very poorly. Shit if he's doing well and I still have my rights -- good on him. Idk he's so unpredictable, it's not like he needs the pres salary. He could miss doing business and want to get back to it. It's just so hard to figure him out sometimes. I think I could really go either way given how he conducts himself.

Honestly man -- the odds are very low (given historical precedent and his ego) and he doesn't catch me as the type who succumbs to popular pressure (look at the entire campaign, lol). He has enough money where he's not going to care about running his businesses (if anything, more of a succession plan is going to take place given he can't be involved with them while he's in office anyway). He's not that young (~70) and this is likely the last big thing he does with his life. There's a reason why virtually every president has run for reelection. Sure, he's definitely an outlier in terms of the normal political candidate, but already, he seems to be falling in line (in terms of saying the right things about Obama and Hillary, scaling back the radical change promises like Obamacare, etc.). You could end up being right, but the odds are very low IMO.

[BananaCucho]

Romney came decently close to running three times: 2008 (lost to McCain in the primary), 2012 (lost to Obama), 2016 (floated the idea of running for a while).

Yeah but was the last time a failed nominee ran again?

[DarknessB]

Yeah but was the last time a failed nominee ran again?

I assume you mean someone who made it to the general election because otherwise, Romney is the easy example (failed in 2008, ran again in 2012). Ignoring third party candidates (who tend to run repeatedly), that would be Adlai Stevenson in 1952 and 1956. Dewey ran in 1944 and 1948. Byran ran in 1896 and 1900, etc. Cleveland won, lost, and then won between 1884 and 1892, etc. Basically, it happened a lot in the past, but no time recently.

The common pattern is that aside from Cleveland, you don't tend to break through after having lost a general election (and Cleveland won before he lost). This is to be expected to some extent, because you're branded as a "loser" in that case, and people are probably sick of you due to overexposure.

[BananaCucho]

I assume you mean someone who made it to the general election because otherwise, Romney is the easy example (failed in 2008, ran again in 2012). Ignoring third party candidates (who tend to run repeatedly), that would be Adlai Stevenson in 1952 and 1956. Dewey ran in 1944 and 1948. Byran ran in 1896 and 1900, etc. Cleveland won, lost, and then won between 1884 and 1892, etc. Basically, it happened a lot in the past, but no time recently.

The common pattern is that aside from Cleveland, you don't tend to break through after having lost a general election (and Cleveland won before he lost). This is to be expected to some extent, because you're branded as a "loser" in that case, and people are probably sick of you due to overexposure.

McCain was the nominee in 08, not Romney lol