10 ms·

It's Going to Be Okay

138 points by forrestbrazeal 10y ago

nunez 10y ago
This was a refreshing read. Thanks.
a_humean 10y ago
The author is delusional. This isn't a re-run of Bush 2000 for liberals or Obama 2008 for conservatives. At a time of greatest institutional weakness, a demagogue with authoritarian tendencies that considers the norms of a liberal democracy to be a inconvenience and subordinate to the needs of order has just been elected on a wave of hate, lies, racism, and bigotry with the promise of locking up his political opponents and abandoning international allies and obligations. This is potentially a game changer from which there is no return and everyone is a loser.
- joeblow9999 10y ago
  "a demagogue with authoritarian tendencies that considers the norms of a liberal democracy to be a inconvenience and subordinate to the needs of order " You know she lost right?
  - elsurudo 10y ago
    Every politician must be a demagogue to some degree, but Trump appeared to say one thing to one group, and then the next day, say the direct opposite to another group. It's a matter of degree. What does he _actually_ stand for? Nobody truly knows.
    - mikeash 10y ago
      The next day? Trump wasn't afraid to say the opposite in the next sentence.
      - TheSpiceIsLife 10y ago
        He just has a faster release cycle, more iterations. I seem to recall at least a few threads on HN over the past couple of years that suggested politics needs to be more agile.
    - munificent 10y ago
      > What does he _actually_ stand for? Nobody truly knows. Sure, we do. It's easy. Just look at someone's actions and ignore what they say. Trump's entire career very clearly about making things better for Trump. Simple extrapolation indicates that's what his presidency is going to be about too. If you happen to be like Trump -- a wealthy US business owner -- you may get some improvement in your life as a sort of halo effect. But otherwise, a Trump presidency is good news for no one whose name doesn't rhyme with "Ronald Rump".
- devonkim 10y ago
  The most apt analysis I've read was that from a historical standpoint Clinton was trying to do something even very strong candidates have trouble doing - keeping a party three terms in a row for the White House. There's only one president that's done it to date and it was George Bush, Sr following Reagan. It implies that Americans' desire for party change may be among the strongest of predictors. On the other hand, this party streak breaking is completely irrelevant for any other elected branch of the government as seen by the unending cycle of easy defense for incumbents in office.
  - eli_gottlieb 10y ago
    >The most apt analysis I've read was that from a historical standpoint Clinton was trying to do something even very strong candidates have trouble doing - keeping a party three terms in a row for the White House. There's only one president that's done it to date and it was George Bush, Sr following Reagan. The Democrats actually managed it back after the Great Depression. Three terms of Franklin Delano Roosevelt followed by one of Harry Truman.
    - kjbflsudfb 10y ago
      Technically FDR was elected to 4 terms (not 3), but died in the 4th.
      - rpeden 10y ago
        Didn't he die in his 3rd term? Truman was re-elected on his own in 1948.
        Jtsummers 10y ago
        FDR in 1932, 1936, 1940, 1944 (death, succeeded by Truman); Truman in 1948.
        rpeden 10y ago
        Thanks. I should've looked that up before commenting!
- WillPostForFood 10y ago
  Whether you are liberal or conservative, it is hard to argue that 2016 is more a time of institutional weakness than 2008.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - Terr_ 10y ago
    How so? What makes 2008 more politically dysfunctional than 2016? Are you referring solely to the economic situation with the housing bubble?
    - larrik 10y ago
      Economic crash and burn? Major financial institutions going under? GM? Edit: parent edited his comment, so now mine seems off.
  - a_humean 10y ago
    If I had to guess your definition of what counts as an institution is much narrower and fairly specific to banking and international finance. When I say institutions I mean the political institutions that support and enforce the norms liberal democracy which make the key difference between say Russia and Egypt vs the US or France as models of democracy, specifically in these cases of presidential democracies.
- lap421 10y ago
  "This is potentially a game changer from which there is no return and everyone is a loser." You'd better to swallow your loser vote instead of preaching false prophecies. "promise of locking up his political opponents" He will not lockup any political oponentes. Justice will, if the law is applied. "abandoning international allies and obligations" Contracts are contracts. Are you an adult? "hate, lies, racism, and bigotry" This. Exactly that. One of the biggest losers of the election is this hate speech, "ain, he is ugly, boring". Grow up. Never in the American history a candidate was such a liar as Hillary. People were killed because of that. She protected a pedophily rapist.
LeifCarrotson 10y ago
> it turns out that there are just as many people who are thrilled by last night’s election as there are people who are devastated by it. For every single American who voted for Hillary yesterday and who watched last night’s events unfold in horror, there’s another American out there who rejoiced. It’s a 1-to-1 ratio. This has never been more incorrect than in this election. Many people who voted for Trump only because they didn't want Hillary to be president. And many who voted for Hillary because they didn't want Trump to be president. When you get to pick your poison, that doesn't imply you're going to like the poison you pick. It's still poison.
- Retric 10y ago
  Ehh, Trump lost the popular vote by a significant margin. Trump won due to 64,252 voters in Florida. Alternatively, Hillary lost due to 8,693 voters in Michigan and 34,006 voters in Pennsylvania. PS: It really was a tight race, but thinking in national terms is completely misleading. And no I did not vote for Hillary or Trump or more importantly live in a state that mattered.
  - briHass 10y ago
    > Trump lost the popular vote by a significant margin I'm not sure the facts support that statement. As of this comment: Trump: 59,341,446 Clinton: 59,578,989 That's a difference of just 237,543 votes, out of about 125 million votes. Or, less than 1/5th of a percent difference.
    - Retric 10y ago
      He got 47.5% of the popular vote. Which is slightly lower than 47.7% for Hillary, but a long way from 50.001%. Calling 47.5:52.5 a 1:1 ratio is rather far off it's 1:1.105.
      - briHass 10y ago
        I suppose what you're saying is that Johnson (3%), Stein (1%) and other (0.7%) means that not everyone in the country voted for one of the two. While true, the relative difference between the two main contenders is what matters. According to Wikipedia's chart, this is the 3rd closest popular vote elections in history. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_elections_by_popular_vote_margin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presiden...
drops 10y ago
Articles like this are sadly mostly useless because people who need to read them the most are not going to. Hardcore liberals who blame Trump and his supporters for "bigotry" usually refuse to accept or even take a look at any other points of view, which is, ironically, the definition of bigotry.
- threatofrain 10y ago
  Don't blame people for not being able to see other people's perspectives. That takes very hard physical work, and when you perhaps write down the kinds of things that would be required to explore even a few divergent perspectives, most people are simply not cut out for the task. Additionally, most people are not even cut out for the task of coming up with a credible narrative of what selfish rationality means to them. They have difficulty describing even their own interests. Heaven forbid they have to model the rationality of others! Heaven forbid a model should have more than 3 factors in interaction!
nsxwolf 10y ago
In 2008, McCain voters were very disappointed but didn't experience the total loss of emotional control I've witnessed last night and this morning. This article is a rare expression of maturity.
- sp332 10y ago
  Sorry if I misunderstood, but you're saying maturity means being unemotional?
  - TeMPOraL 10y ago
    Maturity is feeling right emotions at the right time for the right reasons.
    - Volt 10y ago
      Nah, it's expressing the right emotions at the right time for the right reasons.
    - eximius 10y ago
      No? Maturity is about what you DO, not what you feel.
  - inimino 10y ago
    Maturity means perspective. This is extremely difficult for everyone after a campaign with as much fear and fear-mongering on both sides. The voices calling for moderation and composure are not unemotional, they may just have a different perspective.
    - mikeash 10y ago
      I don't think the fears we currently face can be dismissed as fear-mongering. When someone says, "My opponent will start a war over a rude gesture," that is fear-mongering. When someone says "I will start a war over a rude gesture," well, I feel like I should believe them.
wwwdonohue 10y ago
> “Easy for you to say, white male blogger. I’m brown and I don’t feel safe here anymore.” > Here’s what I’ll say to that: > This country had your back yesterday and it’ll have your back tomorrow. The whole point of not feeling safe is that the country doesn't have their back.
sp332 10y ago
I think this is missing the part where Pence claimed, yesterday, that Trump will be repealing many LGBT rights. That's not a political opinion, that's a threat.
- norea-armozel 10y ago
  Well let's see what he thinks of Minnesota or California basically tell him to fly a kite.
  - Mickydtron 10y ago
    If Minnesota or California can protect the rights of their citizens, then good for them, but it does not protect LGBT individuals in Texas or the Midwest.
    - norea-armozel 10y ago
      No doubt and I'm open to helping them anyway I can.
  - danso 10y ago
    That state of affairs existed before 2015. Several states had approved gay marriage but it was still a clusterfuck of legal issues.
  - sp332 10y ago
    Ordinarily I think this should have been handled at the state level. But when states fail so badly that citizens are living in daily fear of violence, I think it's appropriate for the federal government to step in. And it's irresponsible to repeal those protections when the issue has not been resolved at the state level.
davexunit 10y ago
It's not going to be okay. A lot of marginalized people are going to be hurt even more, and yes, the people that voted for Trump are racists, sexists, etc., or at the very least they are fine with a president who is all of those things.
- balabaster 10y ago
  This is not strictly true... I think for a lot of people, this vote represented two main issues: 1. The establishment has long been sticking up for big commercial interests with lobbyists controlling Washington, lining the pockets of the 1% at the cost of those living at or below the poverty line, who struggle to find work and put food on the table every day of their lives. Ever since Wikileaks, sentiment has been growing against this form of corruption, and then Snowden added fuel to the fire, and now this. 2. For better or for worse, Trump represents hope of jobs they can do returning to the country and a way out of the hole. When you have to put food on the table right now, or see your hard earned cash walking out of the door every day into the pockets of the 1% while you struggle - EVERY SINGLE DAY, racism, bigotry and sexism can take a back seat to feeding your kids and keeping a roof over your head - for right or wrong. If I were American, if I lived in America, I couldn't in good conscience have voted for Hillary. I also couldn't in good conscience have voted for racism, bigotry and sexism. But then, as someone in the software industry, I guess I'm part of the 1% and I'll always find a way to be okay. The only way I could have voted in good conscience would have been to vote for myself - an un-nominated candidate with no platform other than try and do what's right by people... and because the electoral college is fucked, it would have been an entirely wasted vote. This was a giant fuck you to the establishment, and on that, I resoundingly agree. But I'm also unhappy that Trump won. With this in mind, with the fact that many have the perception that Trump cannot be bought because Trump only gives a shit about one thing - what Trump wants; and the fact that Hillary's entire platform is held afloat by big commercial interests, I think this vote was already made a long time before the election. Figure out what's good for Trump post presidency, buy stocks in that. You'll be fine. Of course, there's always the 25th Amendment and the CIA standing between here and there... so who knows what the future holds. Either way, I'm gonna need more popcorn.
  - 10y ago
danso 10y ago
> But Trump can still do a huge amount of damage.” > Yes he can. And that sucks. But every president can do a lot of damage, and many of them do, and we’re still standing. And remember, the president is seriously limited in what he can do without the approval of other parts of the government, so he’s unlikely to be able to carry out anything that crazy. Not every one is in the situation to sit back and take this with stride. I'm happy that the author is, and all things considered, I'm probably in that position, too. But if I were in a group that faced potential disenfranchisement, I wouldn't be laid back at the prospect of Republicans controlling all 3 branches of government.
- deadringerr 10y ago
  You're correct - I am directly negatively affected by Supreme Court nominations that favour the removal of Roe v Wade, legal same-sex marriage, and the Affordable Care act. I will not be laid back.
  - masonic 10y ago
    that favour the removal of Roe v Wade You seem to be totally unfamiliar with the actual case and the justices' opinions. Five of the seven who supported the plaintiff (e.g. to uphold abortion rights) were Republican appointees.
    - deadringerr 10y ago
      I wouldn't say totally unfamiliar, but I suppose I'm biased to my own understanding. Correct, Republican appointees did support and continue to reaffirm constitutional protections for abortion rights. However, it is not clear to me that the Republicans making those appointments made a clear statement vowing that they would appoint those who would be in favor of removing Roe v Wade [0]. The seat currently open will be unlikely to overturn Roe v Wade regardless of who was appointed. However, should Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Kennedy, or Stephen Breyer leave the court (All >=78yrs) [1] and be replaced by Trump's appointees. I understand it's not an immediate ability with the appointment of one justice in that favour, but there's still reason for concern. [0] http://www.cnbc.com/2016/10/19/trump-ill-appoint-supreme-court-justices-to-overturn-roe-v-wade-abortion-case.html http://www.cnbc.com/2016/10/19/trump-ill-appoint-supreme-cou... [1] http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-trump-supreme-court-20161109-story.html http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-trump-supreme-court-2016...
DubiousPusher 10y ago
I think the mistake this post makes is that this revultion isn't just about the politics. It's also and much more so for me, and the person.
mmanfrin 10y ago
This isn't about losing an election, this is about the next 40 years. Trump will sit one justice immediately, setting the lean of the court, and likely 3 more over his presidency. He is setting the SCOTUS for the next 40 years. He has all 3 branches.
ky738 10y ago
the hillary circlejerk here is humongous
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
eli_gottlieb 10y ago
I don't see how you can realistically claim that public policy just doesn't matter. Republicans just claimed control of the Presidency, the House, and the Senate in a clean sweep, while the Supreme Court has a vacancy and numerous federal judicial and executive positions remain unfilled. They are going to be able to implement whatever they can come to consensus about within their own ranks. This isn't Windows versus Macintosh. This is life and death. You can hold the opinion that the Republican policy platform is acceptable while acknowledging that your party just got near-total power over a heavily divided, regionalized, racialized country in an incredibly narrow victory. There is going to be conflict over this.
preordained 10y ago
I voted for Obama and I voted for Trump. I am not alone. The "other side" is not the mythical homogenous group of zealots so many have painted it to be. A lot of supposedly rational open-minded people are interpreting this in an overly simplistic, frankly emotional way. I commend the message here. Just stop and breathe. Take it in, don't jump to conclusions based on your knee-jerk reaction/feelings.
Animats 10y ago
Right now, we have no clue if it will be OK. We have no idea what Trump will do on foreign policy. Harry Truman once said "domestic policy can only hurt you, but foreign policy can kill you". He'd been in charge for the end of WWII, after all. It will matter a lot who Trump picks as Secretary of State. They'll probably determine more of foreign policy than Trump does.
preordained 10y ago
On another note, I find it really interesting that people are up in arms about the "social damage" implications, as if that was the only thing at stake. What about the damage potential of Hilary's desire to enforce a no-fly-zone over Syria, unambiguously escalating tensions with Russia and moving us closer to a potential WWIII? Acceptable for the sake of the former? A minor detail?
wangii 10y ago
couldn't agree more. Imagine this election is a startup. You have this wonderful/magical/great product but just not sell. Then what? Back to development and try again!
- artmageddon 10y ago
  Sure, but the unfinished product can severely impact your life regardless of how it's going.
lamontcg 10y ago
Yeah, I was voting age through the Clinton and Bush Presidencies. I view the Bush Presidency as a complete disaster. What we have here, however, is setup to be worse, because the Republican Party has shifted even more to the right with the rise of the Tea Party. They can most immediately do massive damage through appointment of Supreme Court justices. While its true that the open seat was an arch conservative and having a Republican appointment to that seat will not change the balance of power in the court much, Kennedy, Ginsburg and Breyer are all 78-83 and mortality will be catching up with them soon. That puts Roe v. Wade legitimately in jeopardy like never before. When it comes to one of the biggest issues of our time -- climate change -- we just elected the candidate who claimed that it was a chinese hoax. The House is full of candidates who believe similarly. The most moderate of Republicans are likely to dismiss the magnitude of the concerns over the climate and vote in favor of protecting carbon based industries. It really is fairly black and white on this issue and the fact that there's a few moderates who won't straight up deny the science doesn't help when they form a coalition with the anti-science tea partiers, the effect is going to be the same. Its also likely that the ACA gets repealed now. It might take triggering the "nuclear option" in the senate to override a fillibuster, but I can see that happening now. About the only upside to this is that when 10 million or so Americans wake up the next day and find they've lost their healthcare they might think twice about voting Republican. Conceivably the possibility of that backlash might cause some Republicans to defect and not consider the nuclear option and this may not happen, but that is teetering on a hugely sharp knife edge. Then there's just rolling back all the progress over the past 8 years in civil rights. At the very least it will solidly block progress for the next 4-8 years. It won't be getting any better. I can't imagine that the issues with police shootings of black males will improve and that BLM will be going away. If anything, I could see even more incidents like the Dallas shootings and movements springing up that really were more like the Blank Panthers. Riots in major cities, etc. And then there's foreign involvement. I suspect that everyone who voted for Trump thinking that was the anti-war vote is going to be shocked pretty soon at how many boots we wind up with on the ground in Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria. I would never defend Obama's drone strikes or Hillary's penchant for bombing, but the Republican party is the one that likes to see Abrams battle tanks rolling across sand dunes in the Middle East, which is orders of magnitude worse. There was one anti-war candidate in this election and it was Bernie Sanders. What we got was the Hawk in Dove's clothing. And when it comes to financial crisis we're going to see the repeal of Dodd-Frank almost certainly. The problem here is that while during the 2008 crisis you saw George Bush's administration rescue the financial industry (and the entire country) there's no assurances that we won't see the Trump administration and the Republican congress blow up the US financial industry. Last time there was that awkward picture of Treasury Secretary Paulson getting down on one knee and begging Nancy Pelosi to stop the financial crisis. What we've elected since then is the whole Tea Party wing who think the solution to financial crisis is not regulation before it happens and instead is just letting a financial crisis unwind with maximum possible destruction. Next time we might see money market accounts lock up, short term credit evaporate and literally ATMs and monthly paychecks from otherwise solvent industries stop. We peered over that abyss in 2008 and now we've put all the people who thought going over that cliff sounded like a great idea into power. And even if you discount those last two arguments I made as being unlikely, its still not remotely going to be okay.

138 points by forrestbrazeal 10y ago

nunez 10y ago

This was a refreshing read. Thanks.

The author is delusional. This isn't a re-run of Bush 2000 for liberals or Obama 2008 for conservatives. At a time of greatest institutional weakness, a demagogue with authoritarian tendencies that considers the norms of a liberal democracy to be a inconvenience and subordinate to the needs of order has just been elected on a wave of hate, lies, racism, and bigotry with the promise of locking up his political opponents and abandoning international allies and obligations. This is potentially a game changer from which there is no return and everyone is a loser.

joeblow9999 10y ago
"a demagogue with authoritarian tendencies that considers the norms of a liberal democracy to be a inconvenience and subordinate to the needs of order " You know she lost right?
- elsurudo 10y ago
  Every politician must be a demagogue to some degree, but Trump appeared to say one thing to one group, and then the next day, say the direct opposite to another group. It's a matter of degree. What does he _actually_ stand for? Nobody truly knows.
  - mikeash 10y ago
    The next day? Trump wasn't afraid to say the opposite in the next sentence.
    - TheSpiceIsLife 10y ago
      He just has a faster release cycle, more iterations. I seem to recall at least a few threads on HN over the past couple of years that suggested politics needs to be more agile.
  - munificent 10y ago
    > What does he _actually_ stand for? Nobody truly knows. Sure, we do. It's easy. Just look at someone's actions and ignore what they say. Trump's entire career very clearly about making things better for Trump. Simple extrapolation indicates that's what his presidency is going to be about too. If you happen to be like Trump -- a wealthy US business owner -- you may get some improvement in your life as a sort of halo effect. But otherwise, a Trump presidency is good news for no one whose name doesn't rhyme with "Ronald Rump".
devonkim 10y ago
The most apt analysis I've read was that from a historical standpoint Clinton was trying to do something even very strong candidates have trouble doing - keeping a party three terms in a row for the White House. There's only one president that's done it to date and it was George Bush, Sr following Reagan. It implies that Americans' desire for party change may be among the strongest of predictors. On the other hand, this party streak breaking is completely irrelevant for any other elected branch of the government as seen by the unending cycle of easy defense for incumbents in office.
- eli_gottlieb 10y ago
  >The most apt analysis I've read was that from a historical standpoint Clinton was trying to do something even very strong candidates have trouble doing - keeping a party three terms in a row for the White House. There's only one president that's done it to date and it was George Bush, Sr following Reagan. The Democrats actually managed it back after the Great Depression. Three terms of Franklin Delano Roosevelt followed by one of Harry Truman.
  - kjbflsudfb 10y ago
    Technically FDR was elected to 4 terms (not 3), but died in the 4th.
    - rpeden 10y ago
      Didn't he die in his 3rd term? Truman was re-elected on his own in 1948.
      - Jtsummers 10y ago
        FDR in 1932, 1936, 1940, 1944 (death, succeeded by Truman); Truman in 1948.
        rpeden 10y ago
        Thanks. I should've looked that up before commenting!
WillPostForFood 10y ago
Whether you are liberal or conservative, it is hard to argue that 2016 is more a time of institutional weakness than 2008.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- Terr_ 10y ago
  How so? What makes 2008 more politically dysfunctional than 2016? Are you referring solely to the economic situation with the housing bubble?
  - larrik 10y ago
    Economic crash and burn? Major financial institutions going under? GM? Edit: parent edited his comment, so now mine seems off.
- a_humean 10y ago
  If I had to guess your definition of what counts as an institution is much narrower and fairly specific to banking and international finance. When I say institutions I mean the political institutions that support and enforce the norms liberal democracy which make the key difference between say Russia and Egypt vs the US or France as models of democracy, specifically in these cases of presidential democracies.
lap421 10y ago
"This is potentially a game changer from which there is no return and everyone is a loser." You'd better to swallow your loser vote instead of preaching false prophecies. "promise of locking up his political opponents" He will not lockup any political oponentes. Justice will, if the law is applied. "abandoning international allies and obligations" Contracts are contracts. Are you an adult? "hate, lies, racism, and bigotry" This. Exactly that. One of the biggest losers of the election is this hate speech, "ain, he is ugly, boring". Grow up. Never in the American history a candidate was such a liar as Hillary. People were killed because of that. She protected a pedophily rapist.

LeifCarrotson 10y ago

> it turns out that there are just as many people who are thrilled by last night’s election as there are people who are devastated by it. For every single American who voted for Hillary yesterday and who watched last night’s events unfold in horror, there’s another American out there who rejoiced. It’s a 1-to-1 ratio. This has never been more incorrect than in this election. Many people who voted for Trump only because they didn't want Hillary to be president. And many who voted for Hillary because they didn't want Trump to be president. When you get to pick your poison, that doesn't imply you're going to like the poison you pick. It's still poison.

Retric 10y ago
Ehh, Trump lost the popular vote by a significant margin. Trump won due to 64,252 voters in Florida. Alternatively, Hillary lost due to 8,693 voters in Michigan and 34,006 voters in Pennsylvania. PS: It really was a tight race, but thinking in national terms is completely misleading. And no I did not vote for Hillary or Trump or more importantly live in a state that mattered.
- briHass 10y ago
  > Trump lost the popular vote by a significant margin I'm not sure the facts support that statement. As of this comment: Trump: 59,341,446 Clinton: 59,578,989 That's a difference of just 237,543 votes, out of about 125 million votes. Or, less than 1/5th of a percent difference.
  - Retric 10y ago
    He got 47.5% of the popular vote. Which is slightly lower than 47.7% for Hillary, but a long way from 50.001%. Calling 47.5:52.5 a 1:1 ratio is rather far off it's 1:1.105.
    - briHass 10y ago
      I suppose what you're saying is that Johnson (3%), Stein (1%) and other (0.7%) means that not everyone in the country voted for one of the two. While true, the relative difference between the two main contenders is what matters. According to Wikipedia's chart, this is the 3rd closest popular vote elections in history. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_elections_by_popular_vote_margin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presiden...

drops 10y ago

Articles like this are sadly mostly useless because people who need to read them the most are not going to. Hardcore liberals who blame Trump and his supporters for "bigotry" usually refuse to accept or even take a look at any other points of view, which is, ironically, the definition of bigotry.

threatofrain 10y ago
Don't blame people for not being able to see other people's perspectives. That takes very hard physical work, and when you perhaps write down the kinds of things that would be required to explore even a few divergent perspectives, most people are simply not cut out for the task. Additionally, most people are not even cut out for the task of coming up with a credible narrative of what selfish rationality means to them. They have difficulty describing even their own interests. Heaven forbid they have to model the rationality of others! Heaven forbid a model should have more than 3 factors in interaction!

nsxwolf 10y ago

In 2008, McCain voters were very disappointed but didn't experience the total loss of emotional control I've witnessed last night and this morning. This article is a rare expression of maturity.

sp332 10y ago
Sorry if I misunderstood, but you're saying maturity means being unemotional?
- TeMPOraL 10y ago
  Maturity is feeling right emotions at the right time for the right reasons.
  - Volt 10y ago
    Nah, it's expressing the right emotions at the right time for the right reasons.
  - eximius 10y ago
    No? Maturity is about what you DO, not what you feel.
- inimino 10y ago
  Maturity means perspective. This is extremely difficult for everyone after a campaign with as much fear and fear-mongering on both sides. The voices calling for moderation and composure are not unemotional, they may just have a different perspective.
  - mikeash 10y ago
    I don't think the fears we currently face can be dismissed as fear-mongering. When someone says, "My opponent will start a war over a rude gesture," that is fear-mongering. When someone says "I will start a war over a rude gesture," well, I feel like I should believe them.

wwwdonohue 10y ago

> “Easy for you to say, white male blogger. I’m brown and I don’t feel safe here anymore.” > Here’s what I’ll say to that: > This country had your back yesterday and it’ll have your back tomorrow. The whole point of not feeling safe is that the country doesn't have their back.

sp332 10y ago

I think this is missing the part where Pence claimed, yesterday, that Trump will be repealing many LGBT rights. That's not a political opinion, that's a threat.

norea-armozel 10y ago
Well let's see what he thinks of Minnesota or California basically tell him to fly a kite.
- Mickydtron 10y ago
  If Minnesota or California can protect the rights of their citizens, then good for them, but it does not protect LGBT individuals in Texas or the Midwest.
  - norea-armozel 10y ago
    No doubt and I'm open to helping them anyway I can.
- danso 10y ago
  That state of affairs existed before 2015. Several states had approved gay marriage but it was still a clusterfuck of legal issues.
- sp332 10y ago
  Ordinarily I think this should have been handled at the state level. But when states fail so badly that citizens are living in daily fear of violence, I think it's appropriate for the federal government to step in. And it's irresponsible to repeal those protections when the issue has not been resolved at the state level.

davexunit 10y ago

It's not going to be okay. A lot of marginalized people are going to be hurt even more, and yes, the people that voted for Trump are racists, sexists, etc., or at the very least they are fine with a president who is all of those things.

balabaster 10y ago
This is not strictly true... I think for a lot of people, this vote represented two main issues: 1. The establishment has long been sticking up for big commercial interests with lobbyists controlling Washington, lining the pockets of the 1% at the cost of those living at or below the poverty line, who struggle to find work and put food on the table every day of their lives. Ever since Wikileaks, sentiment has been growing against this form of corruption, and then Snowden added fuel to the fire, and now this. 2. For better or for worse, Trump represents hope of jobs they can do returning to the country and a way out of the hole. When you have to put food on the table right now, or see your hard earned cash walking out of the door every day into the pockets of the 1% while you struggle - EVERY SINGLE DAY, racism, bigotry and sexism can take a back seat to feeding your kids and keeping a roof over your head - for right or wrong. If I were American, if I lived in America, I couldn't in good conscience have voted for Hillary. I also couldn't in good conscience have voted for racism, bigotry and sexism. But then, as someone in the software industry, I guess I'm part of the 1% and I'll always find a way to be okay. The only way I could have voted in good conscience would have been to vote for myself - an un-nominated candidate with no platform other than try and do what's right by people... and because the electoral college is fucked, it would have been an entirely wasted vote. This was a giant fuck you to the establishment, and on that, I resoundingly agree. But I'm also unhappy that Trump won. With this in mind, with the fact that many have the perception that Trump cannot be bought because Trump only gives a shit about one thing - what Trump wants; and the fact that Hillary's entire platform is held afloat by big commercial interests, I think this vote was already made a long time before the election. Figure out what's good for Trump post presidency, buy stocks in that. You'll be fine. Of course, there's always the 25th Amendment and the CIA standing between here and there... so who knows what the future holds. Either way, I'm gonna need more popcorn.
- 10y ago

danso 10y ago

> But Trump can still do a huge amount of damage.” > Yes he can. And that sucks. But every president can do a lot of damage, and many of them do, and we’re still standing. And remember, the president is seriously limited in what he can do without the approval of other parts of the government, so he’s unlikely to be able to carry out anything that crazy. Not every one is in the situation to sit back and take this with stride. I'm happy that the author is, and all things considered, I'm probably in that position, too. But if I were in a group that faced potential disenfranchisement, I wouldn't be laid back at the prospect of Republicans controlling all 3 branches of government.

deadringerr 10y ago
You're correct - I am directly negatively affected by Supreme Court nominations that favour the removal of Roe v Wade, legal same-sex marriage, and the Affordable Care act. I will not be laid back.
- masonic 10y ago
  that favour the removal of Roe v Wade You seem to be totally unfamiliar with the actual case and the justices' opinions. Five of the seven who supported the plaintiff (e.g. to uphold abortion rights) were Republican appointees.
  - deadringerr 10y ago
    I wouldn't say totally unfamiliar, but I suppose I'm biased to my own understanding. Correct, Republican appointees did support and continue to reaffirm constitutional protections for abortion rights. However, it is not clear to me that the Republicans making those appointments made a clear statement vowing that they would appoint those who would be in favor of removing Roe v Wade [0]. The seat currently open will be unlikely to overturn Roe v Wade regardless of who was appointed. However, should Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Kennedy, or Stephen Breyer leave the court (All >=78yrs) [1] and be replaced by Trump's appointees. I understand it's not an immediate ability with the appointment of one justice in that favour, but there's still reason for concern. [0] http://www.cnbc.com/2016/10/19/trump-ill-appoint-supreme-court-justices-to-overturn-roe-v-wade-abortion-case.html http://www.cnbc.com/2016/10/19/trump-ill-appoint-supreme-cou... [1] http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-trump-supreme-court-20161109-story.html http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-trump-supreme-court-2016...

DubiousPusher 10y ago

I think the mistake this post makes is that this revultion isn't just about the politics. It's also and much more so for me, and the person.

mmanfrin 10y ago

This isn't about losing an election, this is about the next 40 years. Trump will sit one justice immediately, setting the lean of the court, and likely 3 more over his presidency. He is setting the SCOTUS for the next 40 years. He has all 3 branches.

ky738 10y ago

the hillary circlejerk here is humongous

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

eli_gottlieb 10y ago

I don't see how you can realistically claim that public policy just doesn't matter. Republicans just claimed control of the Presidency, the House, and the Senate in a clean sweep, while the Supreme Court has a vacancy and numerous federal judicial and executive positions remain unfilled. They are going to be able to implement whatever they can come to consensus about within their own ranks. This isn't Windows versus Macintosh. This is life and death. You can hold the opinion that the Republican policy platform is acceptable while acknowledging that your party just got near-total power over a heavily divided, regionalized, racialized country in an incredibly narrow victory. There is going to be conflict over this.

preordained 10y ago

I voted for Obama and I voted for Trump. I am not alone. The "other side" is not the mythical homogenous group of zealots so many have painted it to be. A lot of supposedly rational open-minded people are interpreting this in an overly simplistic, frankly emotional way. I commend the message here. Just stop and breathe. Take it in, don't jump to conclusions based on your knee-jerk reaction/feelings.

Animats 10y ago

Right now, we have no clue if it will be OK. We have no idea what Trump will do on foreign policy. Harry Truman once said "domestic policy can only hurt you, but foreign policy can kill you". He'd been in charge for the end of WWII, after all. It will matter a lot who Trump picks as Secretary of State. They'll probably determine more of foreign policy than Trump does.

preordained 10y ago

On another note, I find it really interesting that people are up in arms about the "social damage" implications, as if that was the only thing at stake. What about the damage potential of Hilary's desire to enforce a no-fly-zone over Syria, unambiguously escalating tensions with Russia and moving us closer to a potential WWIII? Acceptable for the sake of the former? A minor detail?

wangii 10y ago

couldn't agree more. Imagine this election is a startup. You have this wonderful/magical/great product but just not sell. Then what? Back to development and try again!

artmageddon 10y ago
Sure, but the unfinished product can severely impact your life regardless of how it's going.

lamontcg 10y ago

Yeah, I was voting age through the Clinton and Bush Presidencies. I view the Bush Presidency as a complete disaster. What we have here, however, is setup to be worse, because the Republican Party has shifted even more to the right with the rise of the Tea Party. They can most immediately do massive damage through appointment of Supreme Court justices. While its true that the open seat was an arch conservative and having a Republican appointment to that seat will not change the balance of power in the court much, Kennedy, Ginsburg and Breyer are all 78-83 and mortality will be catching up with them soon. That puts Roe v. Wade legitimately in jeopardy like never before. When it comes to one of the biggest issues of our time -- climate change -- we just elected the candidate who claimed that it was a chinese hoax. The House is full of candidates who believe similarly. The most moderate of Republicans are likely to dismiss the magnitude of the concerns over the climate and vote in favor of protecting carbon based industries. It really is fairly black and white on this issue and the fact that there's a few moderates who won't straight up deny the science doesn't help when they form a coalition with the anti-science tea partiers, the effect is going to be the same. Its also likely that the ACA gets repealed now. It might take triggering the "nuclear option" in the senate to override a fillibuster, but I can see that happening now. About the only upside to this is that when 10 million or so Americans wake up the next day and find they've lost their healthcare they might think twice about voting Republican. Conceivably the possibility of that backlash might cause some Republicans to defect and not consider the nuclear option and this may not happen, but that is teetering on a hugely sharp knife edge. Then there's just rolling back all the progress over the past 8 years in civil rights. At the very least it will solidly block progress for the next 4-8 years. It won't be getting any better. I can't imagine that the issues with police shootings of black males will improve and that BLM will be going away. If anything, I could see even more incidents like the Dallas shootings and movements springing up that really were more like the Blank Panthers. Riots in major cities, etc. And then there's foreign involvement. I suspect that everyone who voted for Trump thinking that was the anti-war vote is going to be shocked pretty soon at how many boots we wind up with on the ground in Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria. I would never defend Obama's drone strikes or Hillary's penchant for bombing, but the Republican party is the one that likes to see Abrams battle tanks rolling across sand dunes in the Middle East, which is orders of magnitude worse. There was one anti-war candidate in this election and it was Bernie Sanders. What we got was the Hawk in Dove's clothing. And when it comes to financial crisis we're going to see the repeal of Dodd-Frank almost certainly. The problem here is that while during the 2008 crisis you saw George Bush's administration rescue the financial industry (and the entire country) there's no assurances that we won't see the Trump administration and the Republican congress blow up the US financial industry. Last time there was that awkward picture of Treasury Secretary Paulson getting down on one knee and begging Nancy Pelosi to stop the financial crisis. What we've elected since then is the whole Tea Party wing who think the solution to financial crisis is not regulation before it happens and instead is just letting a financial crisis unwind with maximum possible destruction. Next time we might see money market accounts lock up, short term credit evaporate and literally ATMs and monthly paychecks from otherwise solvent industries stop. We peered over that abyss in 2008 and now we've put all the people who thought going over that cliff sounded like a great idea into power. And even if you discount those last two arguments I made as being unlikely, its still not remotely going to be okay.