Donald Trump's Contract With The American Voter [Archive]

Fallen

11-10-2016, 10:51 AM

I'm not sure if this has been posted here in full, but it is certainly worth discussing now that he is the president elect.

----
What follows is my 100-day action plan to Make America Great Again. It is a contract between myself and the American voter — and begins with restoring honesty, accountability and change to Washington

Therefore, on the first day of my term of office, my administration will immediately pursue the following six measures to clean up the corruption and special interest collusion in Washington, DC:

* FIRST, propose a Constitutional Amendment to impose term limits on all members of Congress;

* SECOND, a hiring freeze on all federal employees to reduce federal workforce through attrition (exempting military, public safety, and public health);

* THIRD, a requirement that for every new federal regulation, two existing regulations must be eliminated;

* FOURTH, a 5 year-ban on White House and Congressional officials becoming lobbyists after they leave government service;

* FIFTH, a lifetime ban on White House officials lobbying on behalf of a foreign government;

* SIXTH, a complete ban on foreign lobbyists raising money for American elections.

On the same day, I will begin taking the following 7 actions to protect American workers:

* FIRST, I will announce my intention to renegotiate NAFTA or withdraw from the deal under Article 2205

* SECOND, I will announce our withdrawal from the Trans-Pacific Partnership

* THIRD, I will direct my Secretary of the Treasury to label China a currency manipulator

* FOURTH, I will direct the Secretary of Commerce and U.S. Trade Representative to identify all foreign trading abuses that unfairly impact American workers and direct them to use every tool under American and international law to end those abuses immediately

* FIFTH, I will lift the restrictions on the production of $50 trillion dollars' worth of job-producing American energy reserves, including shale, oil, natural gas and clean coal.

* SIXTH, lift the Obama-Clinton roadblocks and allow vital energy infrastructure projects, like the Keystone Pipeline, to move forward

* SEVENTH, cancel billions in payments to U.N. climate change programs and use the money to fix America's water and environmental infrastructure

Additionally, on the first day, I will take the following five actions to restore security and the constitutional rule of law:

* FIRST, cancel every unconstitutional executive action, memorandum and order issued by President Obama

* SECOND, begin the process of selecting a replacement for Justice Scalia from one of the 20 judges on my list, who will uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States

* THIRD, cancel all federal funding to Sanctuary Cities

* FOURTH, begin removing the more than 2 million criminal illegal immigrants from the country and cancel visas to foreign countries that won't take them back

* FIFTH, suspend immigration from terror-prone regions where vetting cannot safely occur. All vetting of people coming into our country will be considered extreme vetting.

Next, I will work with Congress to introduce the following broader legislative measures and fight for their passage within the first 100 days of my Administration:

Middle Class Tax Relief And Simplification Act. An economic plan designed to grow the economy 4% per year and create at least 25 million new jobs through massive tax reduction and simplification, in combination with trade reform, regulatory relief, and lifting the restrictions on American energy. The largest tax reductions are for the middle class. A middle-class family with 2 children will get a 35% tax cut. The current number of brackets will be reduced from 7 to 3, and tax forms will likewise be greatly simplified. The business rate will be lowered from 35 to 15 percent, and the trillions of dollars of American corporate money overseas can now be brought back at a 10 percent rate.

End The Offshoring Act. Establishes tariffs to discourage companies from laying off their workers in order to relocate in other countries and ship their products back to the U.S. tax-free.

American Energy & Infrastructure Act. Leverages public-private partnerships, and private investments through tax incentives, to spur $1 trillion in infrastructure investment over 10 years. It is revenue neutral.

School Choice And Education Opportunity Act. Redirects education dollars to give parents the right to send their kid to the public, private, charter, magnet, religious or home school of their choice. Ends common core, brings education supervision to local communities. It expands vocational and technical education, and make 2 and 4-year college more affordable.

Repeal and Replace Obamacare Act. Fully repeals Obamacare and replaces it with Health Savings Accounts, the ability to purchase health insurance across state lines, and lets states manage Medicaid funds. Reforms will also include cutting the red tape at the FDA: there are over 4,000 drugs awaiting approval, and we especially want to speed the approval of life-saving medications.

Affordable Childcare and Eldercare Act. Allows Americans to deduct childcare and elder care from their taxes, incentivizes employers to provide on-side childcare services, and creates tax-free Dependent Care Savings Accounts for both young and elderly dependents, with matching contributions for low-income families.

End Illegal Immigration Act Fully-funds the construction of a wall on our southern border with the full understanding that the country Mexico will be reimbursing the United States for the full cost of such wall; establishes a 2-year mandatory minimum federal prison sentence for illegally re-entering the U.S. after a previous deportation, and a 5-year mandatory minimum for illegally re-entering for those with felony convictions, multiple misdemeanor convictions or two or more prior deportations; also reforms visa rules to enhance penalties for overstaying and to ensure open jobs are offered to American workers first.

Restoring Community Safety Act. Reduces surging crime, drugs and violence by creating a Task Force On Violent Crime and increasing funding for programs that train and assist local police; increases resources for federal law enforcement agencies and federal prosecutors to dismantle criminal gangs and put violent offenders behind bars.

Restoring National Security Act. Rebuilds our military by eliminating the defense sequester and expanding military investment; provides Veterans with the ability to receive public VA treatment or attend the private doctor of their choice; protects our vital infrastructure from cyber-attack; establishes new screening procedures for immigration to ensure those who are admitted to our country support our people and our values

Clean up Corruption in Washington Act. Enacts new ethics reforms to Drain the Swamp and reduce the corrupting influence of special interests on our politics.

On November 8th, Americans will be voting for this 100-day plan to restore prosperity to our economy, security to our communities, and honesty to our government.

This is my pledge to you.

And if we follow these steps, we will once more have a government of, by and for the people.

Fallen

11-10-2016, 10:56 AM

Mitch McConnell's response:

On Wednesday, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell mostly made nice with Trump but also shot down or expressed little enthusiasm in some of his plans. On Trump's proposal to impose term limits on Congress, McConnell said, "It will not be on the agenda in the Senate." McConnell has been a long-standing opponent of term limits, as NPR's Susan Davis reports. "I would say we have term limits now — they're called elections."

McConnell also threw some cold water on Trump's infrastructure plans, calling it not a top priority.

McConnell did say repealing Obamacare is a "pretty high item on our agenda" along with comprehensive tax reform and achieving border security "in whatever way is the most effective." But he also declined to discuss the Senate's immigration agenda further.

----
I don't really see term limits happening as it has to go through Congress.

Taernath

11-10-2016, 11:04 AM

Viekn

11-10-2016, 11:05 AM

Maerit

11-10-2016, 11:30 AM

I don't really see term limits happening as it has to go through Congress.

This underlines the primary problem with the US Congress and Senate. The people of the country don't get to decide if something like term limits is important to them - the people protecting their own interests gets to decide instead. You could have a massive majority of the population declaring that they want term limits imposed on Congress, but it never gets any traction because the Congress actually gets to make that decision. Broken system right there. Give the people the right to vote for decisions that impact Congress, and take Congress' power away from deterring that decision.

Allereli

11-10-2016, 11:34 AM

I think Congress needs to go back to their jobs being part time.

they barely work that, yet receive full benefits.

Ashliana

11-10-2016, 11:39 AM

time4fun

11-10-2016, 12:19 PM

Term limits aren't the answer, IMO. They spend the first term(s) mostly focused on self-preservation.

Want people to make the hard choices? No consecutive terms. That way a person is free to vote their conscience, but if they prove effective, they should be eligible for a future, non-consecutive term.

Agreed. Term-limits are a bad idea. The wave of freshman Congresspeople in 2010 destroyed whatever was left of Government's ability to function. Congress only works if you have people who have a deep respect for the institution, and that comes with time and investment. Congress also requires people who actually understand how governance works- both technically and conceptually.

The real issues is Congressional districts. The reason why Congresspeople never lose their jobs is that their districts are drawn to ensure that they never have a credible threat. That also means they are able to function with very little accountability.

And let me just point out how terrifying Trump's agenda is and how little any of it does to help American workers. Ending those trade deals is going to risk putting us in recession, and it's going to drive up the cost of goods in a way that largely impacts lower income Americans. Once upon a time, being anti-free trade was actually a progressive stance. I've always been very skeptical of free trade, but the reality is that is has huge benefits- a billion people around the world have been lifted out of poverty in large part from them. The real issue is we never invested in education and job-creating infrastructure to give people new career options. Screwing with trade deals won't bring manufacturing jobs back to these areas.

Congress will happily pass everything in there that's pro-business and kills the government (I love how their first order of business is to start downsizing America's largest employer), and they will block everything else. They'll repeal Health Care no problem, but they won't be able to pass anything new- despite how inspiring their plan of "Save up and then pay for healthcare that way!" is.

The one silver lining- if you can call it that- is that this plan is a massive overreach that will anger the electorate and cause some huge infighting among Republicans (Trump and the Freedom Caucus are going to be making some serious headlines- the Dems may not need to do too much to keep some of this from happening). They're going to make the same mistake the Dems made in 2008, and it's going to bite them in the mid-terms- I hope.

Allereli

11-10-2016, 12:28 PM

https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/266038556504494082?refsrc=email&s=11

Nathala Crane

11-10-2016, 12:32 PM

https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/266038556504494082?refsrc=email&s=11

http://i2.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/897/718/c5f.gif
I wonder what his opinion of it is now.

time4fun

11-10-2016, 12:45 PM

https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/266038556504494082?refsrc=email&s=11

The absence of the Electoral College might have saved us this time, but this is the result of a lot of things that have gone wrong. There's a lot of blame to go around here.

And we'll all spend a lot of time trying to figure out how we ignored all reason or sense of self-preservation as a nation.

It wasn't that long ago that we could all agree that electing someone chosen by Putin and supported by illegal foreign interference in our democracy is insane.

Once upon a time, we could all agree that an authoritarian candidate who singles out a religious minority group for persecution is so inherently dangerous as to be objectively unqualified for office. Because we've seen how that ends.

Not that long ago, a candidate who was actively on trial for fraud and racketeering wouldn't be allowed anywhere near the White House.

And someone who bragged about sexual assault and who was accused by almost a dozen women of doing exactly what he bragged about would be run out of town in a heartbeat.

Words can't express how dangerous this political moment is. When we're at a point when we can't agree that a person who embodies any- let alone all- of these things shouldn't be allowed anywhere near the kind of power this Presidency offers, then we open ourselves up to the kind of ending that once upon a time we thought we were immune from.

For a lot of us, we just don't recognize this country any longer. The dread we feel isn't some made up, hypothetical "What if they take our guns?!?" moment. It's the genuine, rational fear that this candidate will do exactly what he said he would, and that this candidate- who loves power and seeks to undermine any person or institution he feels threatens that power- will become more terrifying as he gets more power, not less. And those people who voted for him and are saying "Oh, that was all just talk, I'm sure he won't actually do it"- you played Russian roulette (very appropriate) with our lives and our democracy.

The next few years are going to be one of the greatest tests of our system of checks and balances and its ability to inherently prevent authoritarian rule.

Fallen

11-10-2016, 01:10 PM

Term limits are one way of coming at the problem, but public funding for elections and barring most forms of fundraising would be another. Politicians spend an insane amount of their time attempting to get money for their campaigns, let alone actually running for reelection. Limiting the length of campaigns would also be a good idea. I understand the need to educate a populace, but an 18 month campaign is a bit much.

Jhynnifer

11-10-2016, 01:17 PM

The absence of the Electoral College might have saved us this time, but this is the result of a lot of things that have gone wrong. There's a lot of blame to go around here.

Instead of spreading blame around. Instead of pointing fingers and burying our heads in the sand for the next four years. Instead of chalking the election results up to the uneducated whites, the misogynists, racists, homophobic population. Perhaps we should stop and look at the why Hillary lost. The fact that Americans are willing to put their faith, and their vote into a candidate as obviously unfit and ridiculous as Trump instead. Take away the scandals, take away all the email bullshit and look at the bottom line. Clearly what once worked for the democratic party no longer does and we should take this on the chin and as a learning lesson and start listening to the middle class, the lower class and the people who were so desperate for change, for a voice, to vote Trump.

You want to rail against the country you live in for it's poor choices. Stop a moment and look at the irrational, emotional and genuine reasons behind them.

Gelston

11-10-2016, 01:20 PM

I wouldn't mind them limiting terms to two terms per house. That'd still be a total of 24 years if you won successful election twice in both.

Jhynnifer

11-10-2016, 01:21 PM

I wouldn't mind them limiting terms to two terms per house. That'd still be a total of 24 years if you won successful election twice in both.

I'm not sure I'd be OK with 24 years. That's still pretty much a career. =p

Allereli

11-10-2016, 01:21 PM

I wouldn't mind them limiting terms to two terms per house. That'd still be a total of 24 years if you won successful election twice in both.

terms are 2 in the House, 6 in the Senate. It would be a total of 16.

Gelston

11-10-2016, 01:26 PM

terms are 2 in the House, 6 in the Senate. It would be a total of 16.

Doh! Give them 8 years total then, making it 20 total.

I'm not sure I'd be OK with 24 years. That's still pretty much a career. =p

Yeah, but it is generally harder to switch between the houses, people would drop due to attrition or have gaps in their time, which would be part of the goal.

Taernath

11-10-2016, 01:45 PM

There's a lot of blame to go around here.

The blame is entirely on the Democratic party, the DNC, and Clinton.

time4fun

11-10-2016, 01:57 PM

Instead of spreading blame around. Instead of pointing fingers and burying our heads in the sand for the next four years. Instead of chalking the election results up to the uneducated whites, the misogynists, racists, homophobic population. Perhaps we should stop and look at the why Hillary lost. The fact that Americans are willing to put their faith, and their vote into a candidate as obviously unfit and ridiculous as Trump instead. Take away the scandals, take away all the email bullshit and look at the bottom line. Clearly what once worked for the democratic party no longer does and we should take this on the chin and as a learning lesson and start listening to the middle class, the lower class and the people who were so desperate for change, for a voice, to vote Trump.

You want to rail against the country you live in for it's poor choices. Stop a moment and look at the irrational, emotional and genuine reasons behind them.

You're making some really big assumptions about where I feel the blame lies. Like I said, there's a lot to go around. A lot of institutions and people failed on their watch. And a lot of them succeeded where they shouldn't have been allowed to.

And for the record- I've long blamed the Democrats for becoming too pro-business. But that's not to say that Dems didn't try, or that they abandoned their labor roots. Remember that the House held the government hostage over the Obama administration and Democrats refusing to stop giving people unemployment insurance payments after the recession. Remember that Democrats have been fighting for minimum wage hikes, and they fought the attacks on collective bargaining that have gone on in a lot of Rust belt states. They tried to get taxes raised on the wealthy and investments in infrastructure, and they tried to fight the tax cuts that instantly made Social Security insolvent. They tried to stop the GOP from laying off thousands of government employees in the wake of a massive unemployment crisis in 2008. They're the ones who managed to get millions of people health care.

But at the same time they were rolling back regulations and often offered up the aforementioned policies as concessions to the GOP to get other things passed They stopped actively supporting unions in any situation where they weren't directly under attack, and they shrugged their shoulders in GOP-controlled states- deciding that the fact that their labor agenda had slim chances of passing was reason enough not to fight as hard as they could. And Democrats yelled and screamed when not one single banker or Wall Street exec was held accountable for the reckless behavior that led to the meltdown but then with few exceptions did nothing to press the issue in action. No one bothered trying to lobby the SEC to make stock buy-backs illegal again- which is a HUGE contributor to income inequality.

There's lots of blame to go around with Dems. But it's not that Dems stopped being pro-labor, it's that they started being pro-business as well and played way too nicely with Wall Street in back rooms even when they were lambasting them in interviews. And the GOP fought these policies every step of the way. They created a lot of anger and did a great job harnessing it. Dems, for their part, just assumed they had these votes in the bag.

RichardCranium

11-10-2016, 02:06 PM

That's a lot of projection you have going on, there.

Jhynnifer

11-10-2016, 03:20 PM

You're making some really big assumptions about where I feel the blame lies. Like I said, there's a lot to go around. A lot of institutions and people failed on their watch. And a lot of them succeeded where they shouldn't have been allowed to.

And for the record- I've long blamed the Democrats for becoming too pro-business. But that's not to say that Dems didn't try, or that they abandoned their labor roots. Remember that the House held the government hostage over the Obama administration and Democrats refusing to stop giving people unemployment insurance payments after the recession. Remember that Democrats have been fighting for minimum wage hikes, and they fought the attacks on collective bargaining that have gone on in a lot of Rust belt states. They tried to get taxes raised on the wealthy and investments in infrastructure, and they tried to fight the tax cuts that instantly made Social Security insolvent. They tried to stop the GOP from laying off thousands of government employees in the wake of a massive unemployment crisis in 2008. They're the ones who managed to get millions of people health care.

But at the same time they were rolling back regulations and often offered up the aforementioned policies as concessions to the GOP to get other things passed They stopped actively supporting unions in any situation where they weren't directly under attack, and they shrugged their shoulders in GOP-controlled states- deciding that the fact that their labor agenda had slim chances of passing was reason enough not to fight as hard as they could. And Democrats yelled and screamed when not one single banker or Wall Street exec was held accountable for the reckless behavior that led to the meltdown but then with few exceptions did nothing to press the issue in action. No one bothered trying to lobby the SEC to make stock buy-backs illegal again- which is a HUGE contributor to income inequality.

There's lots of blame to go around with Dems. But it's not that Dems stopped being pro-labor, it's that they started being pro-business as well and played way too nicely with Wall Street in back rooms even when they were lambasting them in interviews. And the GOP fought these policies every step of the way. They created a lot of anger and did a great job harnessing it. Dems, for their part, just assumed they had these votes in the bag.

I got a sentence in, then stopped. Nowhere did I say "You" in that paragraph. I said "we", as upset voters, as democrats, as people with the ability to approach an issue objectively once we've had our little fits over Trump winning.

You're still not getting the very basic point I'm trying to make here. The Dems chose to get into bed with businesses, wall street and the upper class... and to simplify things: they dun did pissed off the middle and lower class people.. enough that they chose to vote Trump. We chose to put forward a candidate who embodied EVERYTHING about the Democrats the people hated and expected her to win. This is where we failed. THIS is what the focus should be on for the next four years. Fixing our shit, so the next time there's an election on the horizon, we can offer up a candidate who actually understands the people and what they want.

kutter

11-10-2016, 03:45 PM

Jhynnifer

11-10-2016, 03:55 PM

Thondalar

11-10-2016, 04:05 PM

Personally I think Mitch McConnell is a piece of shit and stating unilaterally that term limits are not going to be considered is the perfect reason why they need to be considered. They are supposed to represent us, not act in what is their own best interest. There is a clear feeling in the country that term limits would be a good thing, even if they would not be. Although I am inclined to think they would.

Been calling for term limits in Congress for a long time. We have them for many other Federal offices, including the main one...it is unreal we don't have them for Congress.

But thankfully the founding fathers built into the Constitution a vehicle, a way to override these assholes like Chuck Schumer and Mitch McConnell, a constitutional Convention. Easy, no way, but when people have had enough, it may happen. What concerns me is that before it can happen, people will say to hell with it and just burn the whole thing down.

Eh, yes and no. I mean, we passed the 18th amendment without "burning the whole thing down", so I don't see why we couldn't get this done. Naturally, it's an unpopular topic on Capitol Hill, but if anyone can maneuver to get it done, I'm thinking Trump might just be the guy. We'll see.

The Founding Fathers never intended to have professional politicians, they could never conceive of a time when elected officials would live exclusively in DC and have only the most tenuous of connections to their constituents.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The article someone posted about how the elites are talking only to themselves was so profound. All you have to do is look at how much HRC won DC by to see how detached the people that live there are from the rest of the country. They are all establishment people that will DO ANYTHING to preserve the power they hold. This is not a partisan thing, both sides are guilty, even the minority party knows that they still wield a lot of power when they are not in the majority.

DC, California, and New York. That's sort of a big deal atm, has been for a while, but I think this election really put it into focus. A lot has been made of the Electoral College, but this is a very good example of why we have it. If you look at the voting map, it is red. Very, very red. The fact that Clinton took the popular vote (by a slim margin, but still) with only a very small AREA of the Nation voting blue...these happened to be very densely populated areas. The founders recognized the fact that we can't allow large-population States to control the National election. While we have a Democracy, it is a Constitutional Democracy, and for very good reason. A true Democracy allows for the subjugation of the minority. Modern Democrats would do well to realize that this system has helped them many times in the past.

Hell, maybe it is time to call it quits and just blow up the whole damn system.

Well, no, have to disagree with you there. Our system is solid, as it was built. My hope is that Trump will be able to cut out some of the bullshit and get back to somewhere near how the system was originally intended, and how it worked for decades, before career politicians started fucking with it.

I think back to when I started working for the State of Florida, after many years in private business. It was a culture shock. In business, we have very clear gains and losses. We have very clear oversight. We HAVE to be efficient, or the business fails. Government has no such requirements. Waste is acceptable and failure is tolerated in State and Federal government, it simply is not in private business. My main hope for the Trump presidency will be that he gets to Washington and has the same shock I had, and does something to fix it.

time4fun

11-10-2016, 04:28 PM

I got a sentence in, then stopped. Nowhere did I say "You" in that paragraph. I said "we", as upset voters, as democrats, as people with the ability to approach an issue objectively once we've had our little fits over Trump winning.

You're still not getting the very basic point I'm trying to make here. The Dems chose to get into bed with businesses, wall street and the upper class... and to simplify things: they dun did pissed off the middle and lower class people.. enough that they chose to vote Trump. We chose to put forward a candidate who embodied EVERYTHING about the Democrats the people hated and expected her to win. This is where we failed. THIS is what the focus should be on for the next four years. Fixing our shit, so the next time there's an election on the horizon, we can offer up a candidate who actually understands the people and what they want.

You and I aren't actually disagreeing here. I basically said what you just said- except to point out that the Dems never abandoned their labor rights stances, they just adopted too many pro-business attitudes (and magically only the latter ever managed to happen).

In a lot of ways Clinton represented that exact issue, but I have to point out here that Clinton was very much advocating for the things that, in theory, workers want. And Trump was always advocating for the exact opposite. He just said he cared about the working class- while presenting tax plans and policies that will hit them the hardest. So it's more complicated than just saying Dems forgot the working class- it's more that they stopped talking to the working class.

Exit polls, by the way, seem to indicate that it wasn't lower income people who were voting for Trump. It was people making more than 50k a year. Boiling this down to a working class revolt is part of the truth but not all of it- or even most of it.

Where we DO differ though is on Clinton. I'm not going to demonize the one person who stood between us and a terrifying authoritarian. She's had more than enough of that.

Parkbandit

11-10-2016, 04:46 PM

You and I aren't actually disagreeing here. I basically said what you just said- except to point out that the Dems never abandoned their labor rights stances, they just adopted too many pro-business attitudes (and magically only the latter ever managed to happen).

In a lot of ways Clinton represented that exact issue, but I have to point out here that Clinton was very much advocating for the things that, in theory, workers want. And Trump was always advocating for the exact opposite. He just said he cared about the working class- while presenting tax plans and policies that will hit them the hardest. So it's more complicated than just saying Dems forgot the working class- it's more that they stopped talking to the working class.

Exit polls, by the way, seem to indicate that it wasn't lower income people who were voting for Trump. It was people making more than 50k a year. Boiling this down to a working class revolt is part of the truth but not all of it- or even most of it.

Where we DO differ though is on Clinton. I'm not going to demonize the one person who stood between us and a terrifying authoritarian. She's had more than enough of that.

You keep using the term "terrifying"... you either have no fucking idea what terrifying really is or you are just using hyperbole because that and bullshit made up stories are all you are left with.

kutter

11-10-2016, 04:51 PM

Thondalar

11-10-2016, 04:55 PM

You keep using the term "terrifying"... you either have no fucking idea what terrifying really is or you are just using hyperbole because that and bullshit made up stories are all you are left with.

Gonna go with the former. Spoiled Americans have no memory of the things the Constitution was created to defeat. Centuries of easy living has created people like Time4fun.

Jhynnifer

11-10-2016, 05:00 PM

You and I aren't actually disagreeing here. I basically said what you just said- except to point out that the Dems never abandoned their labor rights stances, they just adopted too many pro-business attitudes (and magically only the latter ever managed to happen).

In a lot of ways Clinton represented that exact issue, but I have to point out here that Clinton was very much advocating for the things that, in theory, workers want. And Trump was always advocating for the exact opposite. He just said he cared about the working class- while presenting tax plans and policies that will hit them the hardest. So it's more complicated than just saying Dems forgot the working class- it's more that they stopped talking to the working class.

Exit polls, by the way, seem to indicate that it wasn't lower income people who were voting for Trump. It was people making more than 50k a year. Boiling this down to a working class revolt is part of the truth but not all of it- or even most of it.

Where we DO differ though is on Clinton. I'm not going to demonize the one person who stood between us and a terrifying authoritarian. She's had more than enough of that.

Democrats didn't just stop talking about the working class, they did FAR worse. They mistakenly thought they understood us, and had our best interests at heart. Which is -why- this needs to be a wake up call. If -anything- good comes from this, perhaps it'll be that the people are tired of the status quo and want better.

I'm not demonizing her. I'm being fairly realistic here. She was not the right candidate to put up against Trump because she is a through-and-through Democrat. Full up on all the bullshit the entire party is guilty of.

RichardCranium

11-10-2016, 05:03 PM

I'm not demonizing her. I'm being fairly realistic here. She was not the right candidate to put up against Trump because she is a through-and-through Democrat. Full up on all the bullshit the party is guilty of.

Sanders would have annihilated Trump, and I honestly believe Clinton would have won if she had chosen Sanders as VP.

Thondalar

11-10-2016, 05:06 PM

I guess I need to clarify, I should have indicated I was being sarcastic when I said it might be time to burn the whole thing down. Having said that, there are some, and here is an article about it: http://www.mediaite.com/tv/people-have-to-die-anti-trump-protester-calls-for-violence-on-cnn/ that are advocating violence.

So lets think about that rationally for a moment. Assuming the military does not get involved, and I can tell you the vast majority of military members support Trump over Clinton, who do you think is more likely to win a violent confrontation, some group of hippie liberals who support gun control and do not even own one, or the persons like me that own, well lets just say, more than one.

But here is the irony, the people that could impose their will are not the ones screaming for violence. I want to be left alone, to go to work, to live my life, to take care of my family, but when you tell me that people have to die because you are butt hurt that someone wants to ENFORCE US LAWS THAT ARE ALREADY ON THE BOOKS, well, yeah, I get sort of peeved, and hell, I did not even vote for Trump, I think he is a bombastic asshat, but he is a better chance than Clinton, maybe only a little, but that may be enough, at least for now.

This country needs to find a way to come together because if not, well, I will have to park may happy butt on my 115 acres and keep my family safe until it is over.

Time to go to work, stay safe out there.

Too true. My family plot is about half yours, but if shit hits the fan I'd be heading to the farm. Do I believe that will happen? Of course not. Do I want it to happen? Hell no. What I'd like is for the disgruntled young adults of the country to look at the fact that they've come to adulthood under an Obama presidency, and to place the blame for their malcontent where it should properly go. At some point people have to understand that actions speak louder than words. Attempts to squash the 1st amendment under the guise of PC is just that. You can scream and holler about misogyny and racism and homophobia but you're screaming into a vacuum. There will always be a group of people who are going to be racist and misogynist and homophobic. That isn't going to change, and it never has changed in the history of mankind. (oh, shit, did I say MANkind? I'm sorry, uh...peoplekind)

What you have to look at is the constant change of the general culture to one that is much more accepting of individual rights and freedoms, as the Constitution intended for us to be. This has steadily gained traction since the 1960's, and I applaud the left for championing these movements in the right way. We ARE all created equal, and it is good to see that larger and larger percentages of the general population are believing this and living this.

In MY opinion, the main issue with these things now is the segment that continues to blame every little thing that happens on some bogey man movement of "underground" haters. I've asked several times what the "end game" is, like...what would be the tipping point where you finally say "alright, we've won". I can't get an answer to that, and a movement without a goal is doomed to failure.

Jhynnifer

11-10-2016, 05:08 PM

Sanders would have annihilated Trump, and I honestly believe Clinton would have won if she had chosen Sanders as VP.

I can agree with this. Sanders, while not my cup of tea, definitely had enough whacky, fresh ideas to be a real challenge for Trump. Had he been able to back up -any- of his campaign "promises" I would have backed him. But telling me that the way to keep college students in state for school was to make tuition free, then turning around and telling me that the way to do that was to tell the states to "figure out" how to take on that tuition bill.... nope. You have to be able to logically state how you think it could work.

Warriorbird

11-10-2016, 05:19 PM

I want to be left alone, to go to work, to live my life, to take care of my family

If only you wanted other people to do that... and I don't believe the folks who suggested hanging journalists were liberals.

Jeril

11-10-2016, 05:25 PM

I can agree with this. Sanders, while not my cup of tea, definitely had enough whacky, fresh ideas to be a real challenge for Trump. Had he been able to back up -any- of his campaign "promises" I would have backed him. But telling me that the way to keep college students in state for school was to make tuition free, then turning around and telling me that the way to do that was to tell the states to "figure out" how to take on that tuition bill.... nope. You have to be able to logically state how you think it could work.

This seems to be a big problem for democrats. They have some nice ideas but no clue on how to get anything to work. I don't think the republicans are much better but at least they tend to put forth some plan, even if it is the wrong one.

Warriorbird

11-10-2016, 05:27 PM

This seems to be a big problem for democrats. They have some nice ideas but no clue on how to get anything to work. I don't think the republicans are much better but at least they tend to put forth some plan, even if it is the wrong one.

What actual plan that wasn't mostly for dramatic effect have Republicans had in years?

I expect they'll push through a lot of extremist nonsense, Trump will enable himself a big payout, then bounce when/before the crash comes.

Unless they're talking about building a wall and making Mexico pay for it. :lol2:

Pretty much it!

Jhynnifer

11-10-2016, 05:27 PM

time4fun

11-10-2016, 05:27 PM

Gonna go with the former. Spoiled Americans have no memory of the things the Constitution was created to defeat. Centuries of easy living has created people like Time4fun.

You have a lot of nerve supporting a candidate who ran on a platform of forcibly deporting millions of people, banning a religious group from entering the country, overturning gay marriage, allowing gay people to be discriminated against based on religious preferences, rescinding transgender bathroom protection, taking away health insurance from 22 million people, banning abortion, and calling Mexicans rapists and then scoffing at the idea that people are terrified.

If you can't at least comprehend why people would be so terrified that this man will do exactly what he said he he would do- then you are fundamentally broken as a human being. If you want to vote for a guy either because or despite the threats he's made to the civil liberties of millions of lives, that's your right. But give the people whose lives you're playing Russian roulette with at least enough human dignity as to acknowledge their new realities.

You can love the idea of deportation all you want, for example, but there is nothing inherent in that which would make you incapable of understanding the pain and loss that comes with someone breaking up your family and taking away the people you love most in this world. You can stand by the opinion that gay people shouldn't have the right to marry and still understand how painful and terrifying it would be for a human being to wander around wondering if and when they're going to lose that civil right, or understanding the fundamental way a U.S Citizen has been robbed of the fundamental feeling of security and safety when they know their rights are subject to political whims of people hostile to them. These may be abstract concepts to you, but they are reality for others.

Be human. Treat people like humans.

Warriorbird

11-10-2016, 05:29 PM

You have a lot of nerve supporting a candidate who ran on a platform of forcibly deporting millions of people, banning a religious group from entering the country, overturning gay marriage, allowing gay people to be discriminated against based on religious preferences, rescinding transgender bathroom protection, taking away health insurance from 22 million people, banning abortion, and calling Mexicans rapists and then scoffing at the idea that people are terrified.

If you can't at least comprehend why people would be so terrified that this man will do exactly what he said he he would do- then you are fundamentally broken as a human being. If you want to vote for a guy either because or despite the threats he's made to the civil liberties of millions of lives, that's your right. But give the people whose lives you're playing Russian roulette with at least enough human dignity as to acknowledge their new realities.

You can love the idea of deportation all you want, for example, but there is nothing inherent in that which would make you incapable of understanding the pain and loss that comes with someone breaking up your family and taking away the people you love most in this world. You can stand by the opinion that gay people shouldn't have the right to marry and still understand how painful and terrifying it would be for a human being to wander around wondering if and when they're going to lose that civil right, and the fundamental way you rob a U.S Citizen of security and safety when they know their rights are subject to political winds. These may be abstract concepts to you, but they are reality for others.

Be human. Treat people like humans.

Thondalar doesn't approve of the Bill of Rights or Marbury vs Madison. He thinks people will magically treat other people well and slavery/segregation would have magically ended.

Jeril

11-10-2016, 05:29 PM

You have a lot of nerve supporting a candidate who ran on a platform of forcibly deporting millions of people, banning a religious group from entering the country, overturning gay marriage, allowing gay people to be discriminated against based on religious preferences, rescinding transgender bathroom protection, taking away health insurance from 22 million people, banning abortion, and calling Mexicans rapists and then scoffing at the idea that people are terrified.

If you can't at least comprehend why people would be so terrified that this man will do exactly what he said he he would do- then you are fundamentally broken as a human being. If you want to vote for a guy either because or despite the threats he's made to the civil liberties of millions of lives, that's your right. But give the people whose lives you're playing Russian roulette with at least enough human dignity as to acknowledge their new realities.

You can love the idea of deportation all you want, for example, but there is nothing inherent in that which would make you incapable of understanding the pain and loss that comes with someone breaking up your family and taking away the people you love most in this world. You can stand by the opinion that gay people shouldn't have the right to marry and still understand how painful and terrifying it would be for a human being to wander around wondering if and when they're going to lose that civil right, and the fundamental way you rob a U.S Citizen of security and safety when they know their rights are subject to political winds. These may be abstract concepts to you, but they are reality for others.

Be human. Treat people like humans.

LOL. Have you actually read what Thond posted? Because to me it sounds like you think he supported Trump and not Garry Johnson.

Jeril

11-10-2016, 05:30 PM

Be human. Treat people like humans.

I am going to give this one an extra LOL. Look at the way you treat people when you post, honey.

Androidpk

11-10-2016, 05:31 PM

This underlines the primary problem with the US Congress and Senate. The people of the country don't get to decide if something like term limits is important to them - the people protecting their own interests gets to decide instead. You could have a massive majority of the population declaring that they want term limits imposed on Congress, but it never gets any traction because the Congress actually gets to make that decision. Broken system right there. Give the people the right to vote for decisions that impact Congress, and take Congress' power away from deterring that decision.

Yes! Elections are not term limits.

Wrathbringer

11-10-2016, 05:31 PM

You have a lot of nerve supporting a candidate who ran on a platform of forcibly deporting millions of people, banning a religious group from entering the country, overturning gay marriage, allowing gay people to be discriminated against based on religious preferences, rescinding transgender bathroom protection, taking away health insurance from 22 million people, banning abortion, and calling Mexicans rapists and then scoffing at the idea that people are terrified.

If you can't at least comprehend why people would be so terrified that this man will do exactly what he said he he would do- then you are fundamentally broken as a human being. If you want to vote for a guy either because or despite the threats he's made to the civil liberties of millions of lives, that's your right. But give the people whose lives you're playing Russian roulette with at least enough human dignity as to acknowledge their new realities.

You can love the idea of deportation all you want, for example, but there is nothing inherent in that which would make you incapable of understanding the pain and loss that comes with someone breaking up your family and taking away the people you love most in this world. You can stand by the opinion that gay people shouldn't have the right to marry and still understand how painful and terrifying it would be for a human being to wander around wondering if and when they're going to lose that civil right, or understanding the fundamental way a U.S Citizen has been robbed of the fundamental feeling of security and safety when they know their rights are subject to political whims of people hostile to them. These may be abstract concepts to you, but they are reality for others.

Be human. Treat people like humans.

Lol so you think those are bad things? I'm hoping even half of those things get done.

Androidpk

11-10-2016, 05:33 PM

Agreed. Term-limits are a bad idea. The wave of freshman Congresspeople in 2010 destroyed whatever was left of Government's ability to function. Congress only works if you have people who have a deep respect for the institution, and that comes with time and investment. Congress also requires people who actually understand how governance works- both technically and conceptually.

The real issues is Congressional districts. The reason why Congresspeople never lose their jobs is that their districts are drawn to ensure that they never have a credible threat. That also means they are able to function with very little accountability.

And let me just point out how terrifying Trump's agenda is and how little any of it does to help American workers. Ending those trade deals is going to risk putting us in recession, and it's going to drive up the cost of goods in a way that largely impacts lower income Americans. Once upon a time, being anti-free trade was actually a progressive stance. I've always been very skeptical of free trade, but the reality is that is has huge benefits- a billion people around the world have been lifted out of poverty in large part from them. The real issue is we never invested in education and job-creating infrastructure to give people new career options. Screwing with trade deals won't bring manufacturing jobs back to these areas.

Congress will happily pass everything in there that's pro-business and kills the government (I love how their first order of business is to start downsizing America's largest employer), and they will block everything else. They'll repeal Health Care no problem, but they won't be able to pass anything new- despite how inspiring their plan of "Save up and then pay for healthcare that way!" is.

The one silver lining- if you can call it that- is that this plan is a massive overreach that will anger the electorate and cause some huge infighting among Republicans (Trump and the Freedom Caucus are going to be making some serious headlines- the Dems may not need to do too much to keep some of this from happening). They're going to make the same mistake the Dems made in 2008, and it's going to bite them in the mid-terms- I hope.

Still not understanding how government and politics works I see. Don't worry honey, maybe you'll understand someday.

Androidpk

11-10-2016, 05:36 PM

The absence of the Electoral College might have saved us this time, but this is the result of a lot of things that have gone wrong. There's a lot of blame to go around here.

And we'll all spend a lot of time trying to figure out how we ignored all reason or sense of self-preservation as a nation.

It wasn't that long ago that we could all agree that electing someone chosen by Putin and supported by illegal foreign interference in our democracy is insane.

Once upon a time, we could all agree that an authoritarian candidate who singles out a religious minority group for persecution is so inherently dangerous as to be objectively unqualified for office. Because we've seen how that ends.

Not that long ago, a candidate who was actively on trial for fraud and racketeering wouldn't be allowed anywhere near the White House.

And someone who bragged about sexual assault and who was accused by almost a dozen women of doing exactly what he bragged about would be run out of town in a heartbeat.

Words can't express how dangerous this political moment is. When we're at a point when we can't agree that a person who embodies any- let alone all- of these things shouldn't be allowed anywhere near the kind of power this Presidency offers, then we open ourselves up to the kind of ending that once upon a time we thought we were immune from.

For a lot of us, we just don't recognize this country any longer. The dread we feel isn't some made up, hypothetical "What if they take our guns?!?" moment. It's the genuine, rational fear that this candidate will do exactly what he said he would, and that this candidate- who loves power and seeks to undermine any person or institution he feels threatens that power- will become more terrifying as he gets more power, not less. And those people who voted for him and are saying "Oh, that was all just talk, I'm sure he won't actually do it"- you played Russian roulette (very appropriate) with our lives and our democracy.

The next few years are going to be one of the greatest tests of our system of checks and balances and its ability to inherently prevent authoritarian rule.

Actually I take that back. You clearly have no idea WTF you are talking about and I don't think you ever will.

Thondalar

11-10-2016, 05:48 PM

You have a lot of nerve supporting a candidate who ran on a platform of forcibly deporting millions of people

I like my candidates to follow Federal Laws.

banning a religious group from entering the country

Not all groups, just one. Just the one that regularly says they want to destroy America, and actively, regularly makes attempts to do so. In before "fringe groups"...goose and gander. If you can blame mine, I can blame yours.

overturning gay marriage

This will go away once we remove the idiotic notion of giving any group Federal benefits.

allowing gay people to be discriminated against based on religious preferences

Not sure what you mean by this. "Congress shall make no laws regarding an establishment of religion."

rescinding transgender bathroom protection

It's a toilet. If you have an identity crisis every time you go to the bathroom, you've got issues no government can fix. As a woman, I'd think you would be nervous about something that would let a man enter a woman's restroom just because he's wearing a dress.

taking away health insurance from 22 million people

Random numbers mean something!

banning abortion

Ok, you got me here. I'm pro-abortion...note that is not the same as pro-choice. I'm in full support of not bringing more low-income babies into the world...also the hidden reason Dems are for it.

calling Mexicans rapists

To be fair, he never once called all Mexican people rapists...he noted that a lot of illegal immigrants go on to do other illegal things, something that is backed up by statistical proof. Is that even a majority of illegal immigrants? Nope. It is a minority. But in the realm of illegal immigration, it really is a zero sum game. If even one of these rapes or murders could have been prevented by enforcing the immigration laws already in place, then we have direct causation. You believe this maxim for gun laws, why not this?

If you can't at least comprehend why people would be so terrified that this man will do exactly what he said he he would do- then you are fundamentally broken as a human being.

I know this wasn't originally directed at me, but I can say I do see why people would be terrified...they've been fed bullshit for so long they actually believe it. Talk about fear-mongering...maybe once the dust settles we can get a solid grasp of what this actually means...kinda like Obamacare...although hopefully we'll have better results from this.

If you want to vote for a guy either because or despite the threats he's made to the civil liberties of millions of lives, that's your right.

Our civil liberties are ingrained in the Constitution. We all have equal rights under the law. I don't know of any liberties Trump has threatened for actual US citizens.

But give the people whose lives you're playing Russian roulette with at least enough human dignity as to acknowledge their new realities.

If you understood reality, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

You can love the idea of deportation all you want, for example, but there is nothing inherent in that which would make you incapable of understanding the pain and loss that comes with someone breaking up your family and taking away the people you love most in this world.

He has said this wouldn't happen exactly like that, and that his focus is on unaffiliated illegals, but I guess we'll see. The hardened heart part of me would say something along the lines of "well I guess these people should have thought of that before they came here illegally in the first place", but I won't.

You can stand by the opinion that gay people shouldn't have the right to marry and still understand how painful and terrifying it would be for a human being to wander around wondering if and when they're going to lose that civil right

Marriage isn't a civil right. Never has been. Only reason it means anything at all is because married couples get tax breaks. I'm all for removing those tax breaks. That would solve this issue completely.

or understanding the fundamental way a U.S Citizen has been robbed of the fundamental feeling of security and safety when they know their rights are subject to political whims of people hostile to them. These may be abstract concepts to you, but they are reality for others.

In this case, I'd think you'd be more of a champion of a literal interpretation of the Constitution.

Be human. Treat people like humans.

I agree wholeheartedly.

Edit: oh, also, I didn't support Trump, I didn't vote for Trump. But I will support my President.

ClydeR

11-10-2016, 05:48 PM

Words can't express how dangerous this political moment is.

Never underestimate words!

Warriorbird

11-10-2016, 05:52 PM

Libertarians... rent-seeking for white dudes who love weed.

Tgo01

11-10-2016, 06:05 PM

Be human. Treat people like humans.

It's been amusing watching your posts the last couple of days.

Just 2 short weeks ago you posted this gem:

Dear God I am so tired of entitled straight white men over 35 being so angry all the time.

Sorry that the black guy has been in charge of you for 8 years. Sorry that a white woman is about to be in charge of you for 8 years.

(But not really)

The truly amazing part is you and your ilk still don't seem to have learned your lesson. A rational human being would be doing some deep introspection right now; how could my party's candidate lose to Donald Trump of all people? Where did we as a party go wrong? Maybe we should change our tactics? Maybe we should try to appeal to a broader base? Maybe we should cut loose some of these radical fringe groups that have popped up lately instead of openly embracing them? Maybe we should stop trying to blame literally everyone but ourselves when we lose?

But what do you guys do instead? You double down on your absurdity.

Let's blame everything on the majority (you know the majority still being white people as of right now in case you forgot), that's the ticket! Let's accuse all whites of being racist assholes! Let's accuse all men of being misogynists and rape apologists!

Let's call all women who voted for Trump traitors and sluts! Let's support a terrorist group like Black Lives Matter and attack the police as a whole!

Half the country is just filled with people who hate gays and brown people! Let's support Muslims, the religion whose core ideals go counter with just about everything Democrats claim to stand for these days, but let's attack Christians, the most generous and giving religion in the entire world at the moment, because the Westboro Baptist Church truly represents all Christians!

Let's coddle our college students who need safe spaces from the "horror" of a REPUBLICAN! winning the presidency.

Let's make sure we attack everyone else who doesn't agree 100% with all of our stances. Let's make sure we water down words like racist, sexist, and rape to the point where no one even takes the words seriously anymore.

Anything but take personal responsibility because the government we want takes care of our irresponsibility!

Shaps

11-10-2016, 06:14 PM

Time4Fun,
I know the results of the election have been an emotional event for you. I wonder though, and this is me actually interested in hearing the answer...

Your family, and apparently your Mother for the majority of the time... immigrated from the Philippines and settled in the US. That is awesome and I applaud your Mother for making that decision if that is what she wanted for your family. I applaud that some members of your family have become legal residents. Glad that you all have decided to make this your home.

With all of your fears that you express here... with your perception of the US being so horribly racist and against immigrants... what does your Mother think? What were her experiences in the Philippines that she sought to immigrate? From what you said, you came here when you were very young, so you never grew up in the environment that she did.

Does she think the US is horrible as well? Does she think that the citizenry asking it's Government to simply enforce the laws of the land as abhorrent? I've never seen you mention her viewpoint on this matter (of course I haven't read everything), but the answer would intrigue me. Thanks.

Thondalar

11-10-2016, 06:27 PM

Libertarians... rent-seeking for white dudes who love weed.

The Libertarian platform is the most inclusive. The noted Libertarians in public life, like the CEO of Whole Foods, regularly do things that the left should be completely supportive of, like posting signs asking their customers to be gender-neutral in their speech while shopping there. But the left continues to bash them for being "overwhelmingly white male", like its their fault. If anything, that should be a sign that maybe white people aren't as bad as you've been taught. The Libertarian ideal is completely equal rights for all people, regardless of anything. I'm not sure why we can't get behind that.

Warriorbird

11-10-2016, 06:32 PM

The Libertarian platform is the most inclusive. The noted Libertarians in public life, like the CEO of Whole Foods, regularly do things that the left should be completely supportive of, like posting signs asking their customers to be gender-neutral in their speech while shopping there. But the left continues to bash them for being "overwhelmingly white male", like its their fault. If anything, that should be a sign that maybe white people aren't as bad as you've been taught. The Libertarian ideal is completely equal rights for all people, regardless of anything. I'm not sure why we can't get behind that.

It can be difficult to see your party from an outside perspective. It tends to seem like a party for people who've experienced some success and want to cut off as many avenues for other people to have success as possible (or smoke weed.)

Androidpk

11-10-2016, 06:35 PM

Warriorbird

11-10-2016, 06:36 PM

Because the Libertarian party is only interested in marijuana.. :jerkit:

Because you can only read the end of a sentence.

Androidpk

11-10-2016, 06:40 PM

Because you can only read the end of a sentence.

You've posted the same inference multiple times within the last couple of days.

Warriorbird

11-10-2016, 06:42 PM

You've posted the same inference multiple times within the last couple of days.

So obviously only one of them is what I believe. Riight.

Parkbandit

11-10-2016, 07:10 PM

I am going to give this one an extra LOL. Look at the way you treat people when you post, honey.

In her defense.. she's a lunatic liberal. These rules are more of things other people should follow. Her job isn't to actually practice what she preaches.. just to let you know you should be doing it.

Parkbandit

11-10-2016, 07:11 PM

Taernath

11-10-2016, 07:12 PM

It can be difficult to see your party from an outside perspective. It tends to seem like a party for people who've experienced some success and want to cut off as many avenues for other people to have success as possible (or smoke weed.)

Pretty much. There are a handful of positions I support them on, but they fall back on too many 'states rights' arguments which seem a disingenuous way of toeing the conservative line without actually saying it.

Thondalar

11-10-2016, 07:42 PM

It can be difficult to see your party from an outside perspective. It tends to seem like a party for people who've experienced some success and want to cut off as many avenues for other people to have success as possible (or smoke weed.)

I'm not sure where you get that from. Libertarians believe that success is gained by hard work and doing the right thing, and (our) policies would seek to provide that opportunity for all people.

I should probably note I've not always been a Libertarian. I was raised a Republican, but I first registered as a Democrat. I voted for Gore in 2000 (first election I was old enough), but Bush Jr. in 2004, because I really didn't like John Kerry, and I didn't think Bush Jr. had done too terrible of a job first 4 years. I voted for Obama in '08. Somewhere around '10 or so...around my 30th B-day, I guess...I took a good look at things in general. My political stance was something I analyzed during that time. I stepped back and looked at things objectively, ignoring party bias. That's when I first started to see the tribalism...the abandoning of basic principle on both sides. The "screw the facts, I hate what you say because you're not on my side". I looked for another option.

Yes, I'm a well-off white guy. I still believe that every Citizen of the US, regardless of race, creed, sex, or sexual orientation, should be afforded the same rights under our Constitution. I furthermore believe that every living person on the planet should be afforded certain unalienable human rights. This message shouldn't be ignored just because it comes from a white man.

Warriorbird

11-10-2016, 07:45 PM

I'm not sure where you get that from. Libertarians believe that success is gained by hard work and doing the right thing, and (our) policies would seek to provide that opportunity for all people.

I should probably note I've not always been a Libertarian. I was raised a Republican, but I first registered as a Democrat. I voted for Gore in 2000 (first election I was old enough), but Bush Jr. in 2004, because I really didn't like John Kerry, and I didn't think Bush Jr. had done too terrible of a job first 4 years. I voted for Obama in '08. Somewhere around '10 or so...around my 30th B-day, I guess...I took a good look at things in general. My political stance was something I analyzed during that time. I stepped back and looked at things objectively, ignoring party bias. That's when I first started to see the tribalism...the abandoning of basic principle on both sides. The "screw the facts, I hate what you say because you're not on my side". I looked for another option.

Yes, I'm a well-off white guy. I still believe that every Citizen of the US, regardless of race, creed, sex, or sexual orientation, should be afforded the same rights under our Constitution. I furthermore believe that every living person on the planet should be afforded certain unalienable human rights. This message shouldn't be ignored just because it comes from a white man.

Paul Ryan gets to go to college based on Social Security benefits to reach his position as Speaker of the House. Now he wants to destroy the possibility for anybody else. Pretty standard Libertarian stuff.

Thondalar

11-10-2016, 07:54 PM

Paul Ryan gets to go to college based on Social Security benefits to reach his position as Speaker of the House. Now he wants to destroy the possibility for anybody else. Pretty standard Libertarian stuff.

You're assuming he wouldn't have got to college otherwise. Also, you're assuming what you say is actually true.

Social Security is a very, very broken system. Much like our national debt standing at roughly 20 trillion, a reckoning will eventually come. Either we deal with it now, or we keep our heads firmly buried in the sand, until we suffocate.

Warriorbird

11-10-2016, 07:58 PM

You're assuming he wouldn't have got to college otherwise. Also, you're assuming what you say is actually true.

Social Security is a very, very broken system. Much like our national debt standing at roughly 20 trillion, a reckoning will eventually come. Either we deal with it now, or we keep our heads firmly buried in the sand, until we suffocate.

His Father was the sole breadwinner for two other adults and Paul. Gifted as he was, it would've been a struggle.

You naturally think Social Security is broken because it gives people benefits... part of the whole rent-seeking successful white guy bit.

Thondalar

11-10-2016, 08:05 PM

His Father was the sole breadwinner for two other adults and Paul. Gifted as he was, it would've been a struggle.

You naturally think Social Security is broken because it gives people benefits... part of the whole rent-seeking successful white guy bit.

I'm a person who once received benefits. When my wife and I started out young and broke...she didn't have a job, I was still a line cook back then, making like 10 bucks an hour...food stamps helped us out quite a bit. I think these are good things. I think Social Security is a good thing.

The Libertarian Platform agrees with this. Nothing there says we should remove all social safety net programs, just that we should rework them. Restructure them to be fiscally tenable. This fear-mongering falls in line with killing old people and homeless people. Stop just eating the bullshit you're fed.

Warriorbird

11-10-2016, 08:18 PM

I'm a person who once received benefits. When my wife and I started out young and broke...she didn't have a job, I was still a line cook back then, making like 10 bucks an hour...food stamps helped us out quite a bit. I think these are good things. I think Social Security is a good thing.

The Libertarian Platform agrees with this. Nothing there says we should remove all social safety net programs, just that we should rework them. Restructure them to be fiscally tenable. This fear-mongering falls in line with killing old people and homeless people. Stop just eating the bullshit you're fed.

So I should stop reading the central political philosophy books of your party? That seems dangerous.

drauz

11-10-2016, 08:24 PM

You have a lot of nerve supporting a candidate who ran on a platform of forcibly deporting millions of people, banning a religious group from entering the country, overturning gay marriage, allowing gay people to be discriminated against based on religious preferences, rescinding transgender bathroom protection, taking away health insurance from 22 million people, banning abortion, and calling Mexicans rapists and then scoffing at the idea that people are terrified.

If you can't at least comprehend why people would be so terrified that this man will do exactly what he said he he would do- then you are fundamentally broken as a human being. If you want to vote for a guy either because or despite the threats he's made to the civil liberties of millions of lives, that's your right. But give the people whose lives you're playing Russian roulette with at least enough human dignity as to acknowledge their new realities.

You can love the idea of deportation all you want, for example, but there is nothing inherent in that which would make you incapable of understanding the pain and loss that comes with someone breaking up your family and taking away the people you love most in this world. You can stand by the opinion that gay people shouldn't have the right to marry and still understand how painful and terrifying it would be for a human being to wander around wondering if and when they're going to lose that civil right, or understanding the fundamental way a U.S Citizen has been robbed of the fundamental feeling of security and safety when they know their rights are subject to political whims of people hostile to them. These may be abstract concepts to you, but they are reality for others.

Be human. Treat people like humans.

I have to wonder if you would be this worried about people enforcing the laws that are already there if they didn't personally affect you. This is something we will literally never know though.

drauz

11-10-2016, 08:25 PM

I like my candidates to follow Federal Laws.

If you voted for Gary Johnson... then no you don't

time4fun

11-10-2016, 09:58 PM

LOL. Have you actually read what Thond posted? Because to me it sounds like you think he supported Trump and not Garry Johnson.

Maybe this is naive. But I thought you were a better person than this.

time4fun

11-10-2016, 10:00 PM

I have to wonder if you would be this worried about people enforcing the laws that are already there if they didn't personally affect you. This is something we will literally never know though.

Apparently you've never paid attention to my posts. I wonder though- does the answer to that alter in any way what this is doing to millions of families, which happens to include my own? And if not- what does it say when that's the focal point?

Is the human part of this that difficult to engage with?

Gelston

11-10-2016, 10:01 PM

Maybe this is naive. But I thought you were a better person than this.

I am going to give this one an extra LOL. Look at the way you treat people when you post, honey.

Yeah, hit the nail on the head, Jeril.

time4fun

11-10-2016, 10:05 PM

I'm not sure where you get that from. Libertarians believe that success is gained by hard work and doing the right thing, and (our) policies would seek to provide that opportunity for all people.

I should probably note I've not always been a Libertarian. I was raised a Republican, but I first registered as a Democrat. I voted for Gore in 2000 (first election I was old enough), but Bush Jr. in 2004, because I really didn't like John Kerry, and I didn't think Bush Jr. had done too terrible of a job first 4 years. I voted for Obama in '08. Somewhere around '10 or so...around my 30th B-day, I guess...I took a good look at things in general. My political stance was something I analyzed during that time. I stepped back and looked at things objectively, ignoring party bias. That's when I first started to see the tribalism...the abandoning of basic principle on both sides. The "screw the facts, I hate what you say because you're not on my side". I looked for another option.

Yes, I'm a well-off white guy. I still believe that every Citizen of the US, regardless of race, creed, sex, or sexual orientation, should be afforded the same rights under our Constitution. I furthermore believe that every living person on the planet should be afforded certain unalienable human rights. This message shouldn't be ignored just because it comes from a white man.

Here's (http://prri.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/110613.Libertarians1.jpg) a nice info graphic of the demographics.

94% white and 2/3's male. There's literally no way this comment is going to be processed realistically by you, but I guess I'll say it: not everyone has the same relationship with the government. There are important reasons why libertarianism appeals to such a narrow demographic. You have a few ways to interpret that, but I'll encourage you not to fall back on the "They don't understand our superior philosophy" as it replicates the problem.

Tgo01

11-10-2016, 10:17 PM

Maybe this is naive. But I thought you were a better person than this.

You don't agree with me therefore you're a bad person!!!!!

How many more elections do Democrats have to lose before they realize what a losing strategy this is?

Ardwen

11-10-2016, 10:17 PM

So reading a list of the transition team, so much for cleaning the swamp, unless he meant to clean it by hiring them all.

drauz

11-10-2016, 10:18 PM

Apparently you've never paid attention to my posts. I wonder though- does the answer to that alter in any way what this is doing to millions of families, which happens to include my own? And if not- what does it say when that's the focal point?

Is the human part of this that difficult to engage with?

The emotional part is tough to engage with on most any topic. I can see your side of it, but I can also see the other sides point as well. I do generally read your posts in full and try to engage with the full argument. Since I believe you said you learned about this in college or right after college (I can't remember exactly which) and I don't know your age its hard for me to take you (on this subject) as anything but biased. You have a personal stake in this. I don't really know your exact stance on immigration, I'm sure you've said it before but I just don't remember it. I agree though that its going to create hardships for families but that is generally the consequence of breaking the law. I understand that your brother didn't really have a choice in breaking the law and I wouldn't really support jail time for it, but we have laws for a reason and we shouldn't be in the business of selectively dismissing laws that are on the books. Don't like a law? Get is repealed, we have systems in place for exactly these reasons.

Back

11-10-2016, 10:25 PM

So reading a list of the transition team, so much for cleaning the swamp, unless he meant to clean it by hiring them all.

Enlightening nuggets like these get missed in the day to day bickering here on the PC so I am quoting it for posterity and the hope that more people will let it sink in.

Androidpk

11-10-2016, 10:27 PM

Enlightening nuggets like these get missed in the day to day bickering here on the PC so I am quoting it for posterity and the hope that more people will let it sink in.

No one should really be surprised about this, even Obama did the same.

Neveragain

11-10-2016, 11:18 PM

Pretty much. There are a handful of positions I support them on, but they fall back on too many 'states rights' arguments which seem a disingenuous way of toeing the conservative line without actually saying it.

Here is my life time presidential voting record:

Dukakis '88

Clinton '92 / '96

Gore '00

Kerry '04

Obama '08

Ron Paul '12

Nobody '16

Rand Paul 2020

Take note of the trend change that took place at the same time as Thondalar and I would be willing to bet you would find the same trend among many Libertarians today. We are former Democrats that could no longer stomach the far left and knew the Republican party was ripe for reformation. You can expect a yuuuuge war in the Republican party in 2020, my guess is the Libertarians won't be there for Trump and the Christian conservatives will get real cuddly with Trump.

If the Democrats were smart (lol) they would drop this bullshit 'ism crap and start kissing Libertarian ass, we are in charge now and you can't buy our vote with promises of free shit.

Warriorbird

11-10-2016, 11:23 PM

Here is my life time presidential voting record:

Dukakis '88

Clinton '92 / '96

Gore '00

Kerry '04

Obama '08

Ron Paul '12

Nobody '16

Rand Paul 2020

Take note of the trend change that took place at the same time as Thondalar and I would be willing to bet you would find the same trend among many Libertarians today. We are former Democrats that could no longer stomach the far left and knew the Republican party was ripe for reformation. You can expect a yuuuuge war in the Republican party in 2020, my guess is the Libertarians won't be there for Trump and the Christian conservatives will get real cuddly with Trump.

If the Democrats were smart (lol) they would drop this bullshit 'ism crap and start kissing Libertarian ass, we are in charge now and you can't buy our vote with promises of free shit.

Sadly the party shafted Dennis Kucinich vigorously and I think Ron Wyden is too old now.

drauz

11-10-2016, 11:24 PM

Sadly the party shafted Dennis Kucinich vigorously and I think Ron Wyden is too old now.

You still have O'Malley for next time.

time4fun

11-11-2016, 12:53 AM

The emotional part is tough to engage with on most any topic. I can see your side of it, but I can also see the other sides point as well. I do generally read your posts in full and try to engage with the full argument. Since I believe you said you learned about this in college or right after college (I can't remember exactly which) and I don't know your age its hard for me to take you (on this subject) as anything but biased. You have a personal stake in this. I don't really know your exact stance on immigration, I'm sure you've said it before but I just don't remember it. I agree though that its going to create hardships for families but that is generally the consequence of breaking the law. I understand that your brother didn't really have a choice in breaking the law and I wouldn't really support jail time for it, but we have laws for a reason and we shouldn't be in the business of selectively dismissing laws that are on the books. Don't like a law? Get is repealed, we have systems in place for exactly these reasons.

Here's what I'll say- if you're having a hard time engaging with the emotional angle of this as an unaffected bystander- then maybe this is more than you're making it out to be. Have the bravery to go through a fraction of what you expect others to handle. Then multiply it by literally millions. Mom called me crying today- she wants to know what's going to happen to him. I'm used to her calling me about computer issues. I don't even know how to process his situation, let alone comfort someone else about it.

But let's not take the easy way out and treat this like it's nothing but an "immigration issue". (Funny how it doesn't get to be a "family" issue)

Donald Trump stated that it would be a good idea to ban Muslims from entering the country. He also mused that putting them on a register might make sense at one point. Take a second- be the Muslim American who hears that. Be the parent whose terrified child asks, in all sincerity, if he knows where to find her. This actually happened to a friend of mine yesterday (and a hell of a lot of other people).

Be the immigrant who hears him parade a small group of women around who talk about how their loved ones were killed by evil immigrants. Be the parent whose little girl asks them if they have to move now that he's President, or if she has to go to a new school now. Happened to a friend of mine today. They're all documented- but try consoling a child by explaining why some immigrants are in danger, but they're not.

Be the LGBTQ person who has had to read articles quoting Mike Pence discussing all of the rights he wants to take back. To hear Trump say he wants to appoint a judge to overturn gay marriage. Be the millions of people who are walking around realizing that their basic rights are in the hands of people who resent them. Be their sibling. Imagine feeling sick and powerless. Imagine trying to console them- what would you even say?

Be the woman who relies on Planned Parenthood for basic health care in their rural area after hearing about how the House GOP is looking to de-fund them.

Be the victim of sexual assault who has to watch someone accused by about a dozen women of doing just that and who was caught on tape bragging about it suddenly become her President. Be the mother who has to explain to her daughter what this means.

Be the person who relies on the Affordable Care Act to pay for the medication they need to survive. Imagine sitting in your living room and wondering- will they take away the pre-existing conditions protections the ACA gave? Can I afford my rent AND this medication? Now imagine it's your kid who needs the medication. Imagine that pit in your stomach thinking about what might happen in the worst-case scenario.

Here's my challenge to you- how much pain and fear is too much for what you've gained? How many people is too many people? If you have to measure how much fear, pain, and risk other people can be expected to pay for this Presidency- what is that amount? What's the line where it's no longer acceptable- what's too much?

If you can't answer that question concretely, then maybe it's dangerous to be looking at millions of people in pain and making a blanket determination that it's acceptable political loss. There are endless examples across time and space where people got that wrong. Do you know for sure that you aren't one of them? Could you sit in front of a room full of the people who are terrified and sick with grief over the situation they find themselves in and explain to them with confidence that the insecurity they are being asked to live with is an acceptable amount of human suffering?

If the answer is no- maybe it's time to rethink things.

Laugh, judge, and dismiss. But this is the world a LOT of people woke up to Wed. Their President-elect cast them aside for political expediency and told them that their nightmare situation is America being great. And you can't boil this down to people like my brother. My family is here legally- we're citizens. And we're being put through an experience that no family should ever go through. And there are millions of us. How do you know that we're in morally acceptable territory?

Allereli

11-11-2016, 01:08 AM

Adapted from my favorite tweet of the day

8215

Back

11-11-2016, 02:10 AM

No one should really be surprised about this, even Obama did the same.

Please provide specific examples of how he did. Otherwise your statement has no weight.

drauz

11-11-2016, 02:16 AM

Please provide specific examples of how he did. Otherwise your statement has no weight.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidential_transition_of_Barack_Obama#Transition _team

Hope and change with more of the same.

Latrinsorm

11-12-2016, 04:20 PM

he noted that a lot of illegal immigrants go on to do other illegal things, something that is backed up by statistical proof. source?

Latrinsorm

11-12-2016, 04:23 PM

Instead of spreading blame around. Instead of pointing fingers and burying our heads in the sand for the next four years. Instead of chalking the election results up to the uneducated whites, the misogynists, racists, homophobic population. Perhaps we should stop and look at the why Hillary lost. The fact that Americans are willing to put their faith, and their vote into a candidate as obviously unfit and ridiculous as Trump instead. Take away the scandals, take away all the email bullshit and look at the bottom line. Clearly what once worked for the democratic party no longer does and we should take this on the chin and as a learning lesson and start listening to the middle class, the lower class and the people who were so desperate for change, for a voice, to vote Trump. You want to rail against the country you live in for it's poor choices. Stop a moment and look at the irrational, emotional and genuine reasons behind them.I think it's dangerous to make sweeping judgments about what works and doesn't work after an election decided by 70,000 Pennsylvanians and 30,000 Wisconsinites (and perhaps 50 Michiganders or whatever the margin turns out to be there). This was not a sweeping denouncement of the Democratic Party.
Personally I think Mitch McConnell is a piece of shit and stating unilaterally that term limits are not going to be considered is the perfect reason why they need to be considered. They are supposed to represent us, not act in what is their own best interest. There is a clear feeling in the country that term limits would be a good thing, even if they would not be. Although I am inclined to think they would. But thankfully the founding fathers built into the Constitution a vehicle, a way to override these assholes like Chuck Schumer and Mitch McConnell, a constitutional Convention. Easy, no way, but when people have had enough, it may happen. What concerns me is that before it can happen, people will say to hell with it and just burn the whole thing down. The Founding Fathers never intended to have professional politicians, they could never conceive of a time when elected officials would live exclusively in DC and have only the most tenuous of connections to their constituents. The authors of the Founding Fathers were professional politicians. Men like Washington and Hamilton were the exception, men like Jefferson and Franklin were the rule.
The article someone posted about how the elites are talking only to themselves was so profound. All you have to do is look at how much HRC won DC by to see how detached the people that live there are from the rest of the country. They are all establishment people that will DO ANYTHING to preserve the power they hold. This is not a partisan thing, both sides are guilty, even the minority party knows that they still wield a lot of power when they are not in the majority. Hell, maybe it is time to call it quits and just blow up the whole damn system.Clinton and every Democrat win the District of Columbia by resounding margins because it is 50% black.
Sanders would have annihilated Trump, and I honestly believe Clinton would have won if she had chosen Sanders as VP.One of the many bigotries President Trump campaigned on was anti-Semitism. With that in mind, I would be very cautious assuming that a Jew would defeat him.
In MY opinion, the main issue with these things now is the segment that continues to blame every little thing that happens on some bogey man movement of "underground" haters. I've asked several times what the "end game" is, like...what would be the tipping point where you finally say "alright, we've won". I can't get an answer to that, and a movement without a goal is doomed to failure.I know for a fact that you have gotten an answer on that, because I personally gave you one. :D
Yes! Elections are not term limits.If elections are not term limits, then voters cannot tell the difference between a good candidate and one corrupted by their time in office; that is, one with a track record. If voters cannot do so, then they cannot possibly tell the difference between a good candidate and one corrupted before being in office; that is, one without a track record.

Kronius

11-12-2016, 04:26 PM

So reading a list of the transition team, so much for cleaning the swamp, unless he meant to clean it by hiring them all.

Pretty much. After being adamant about repealing/replacing Obamacare and backing out of the Paris Climate agreement, he's now "reconsidering" both of those promises.

Wonder how many more campaign promises have to be "reconsidered" before people take notice. He better be fighting HARD for Term Limits.

Gelston

11-12-2016, 04:28 PM

Latrin, it was decided by far more than that. Both Trump and Hillary got less votes than Romney did, and Romney lost. What does that say for Hillary Clinton? This is a denouncement. There should have been overwhelming numbers of democrats voting for Hillary, there weren't. You can't go based on the numbers there were, you have to look at the numbers that weren't.

Parkbandit

11-12-2016, 04:29 PM

You still have O'Malley for next time.

If he can't fix Maryland, what makes you believe he can fix America?

Tgo01

11-12-2016, 04:34 PM

I think it's dangerous to make sweeping judgments about what works and doesn't work after an election decided by 70,000 Pennsylvanians and 30,000 Wisconsinites (and perhaps 50 Michiganders or whatever the margin turns out to be there). This was not a sweeping denouncement of the Democratic Party.

Sure it was, the Democrats lost the presidency, the senate, the house, the governorship, and state control of several states while Republicans ended up gaining full control of the federal government as well as several state governments. I think something like 24 states now have complete Republican control.

So, yeah. The Democrats didn't just lose by a few thousand votes like you are laughably trying to claim, they lost big time, everywhere, forever and ever.

Parkbandit

11-12-2016, 04:35 PM

His Father was the sole breadwinner for two other adults and Paul. Gifted as he was, it would've been a struggle.

You're kidding, right? It's not a struggle.. he could have done what I did.. scholarships, grants and loans.

But the struggle is real!

You naturally think Social Security is broken because it gives people benefits... part of the whole rent-seeking successful white guy bit.

It's broken Ponzi scheme because the game has changed.

Parkbandit

11-12-2016, 04:41 PM

Sure it was, the Democrats lost the presidency, the senate, the house, the governorship, and state control of several states while Republicans ended up gaining full control of the federal government as well as several state governments. I think something like 24 states now have complete Republican control.

So, yeah. The Democrats didn't just lose by a few thousand votes like you are laughably trying to claim, they lost big time, everywhere, forever and ever.

306 to 228 is a mandate, especially since the GOP holds the Presidency, the House, the Senate and eventually the Supreme Court. He should realize this and go forth with the agenda he campaigned on.

Warriorbird

11-12-2016, 05:10 PM

Pretty much. After being adamant about repealing/replacing Obamacare and backing out of the Paris Climate agreement, he's now "reconsidering" both of those promises.

Wonder how many more campaign promises have to be "reconsidered" before people take notice. He better be fighting HARD for Term Limits.

Given Congress I suspect that one is the least likely to happen.

Latrinsorm

11-12-2016, 05:23 PM

Latrin, it was decided by far more than that.Eh? The margins I described changing would have resulted in a Clinton presidency, and then we'd be hearing about how the GOP is a party destroyed by changing demographics, how they'll never win another Presidency, etc.
Both Trump and Hillary got less votes than Romney did, and Romney lost.They have at this moment only because 30% of California remains to be counted. Clinton will certainly have more votes than Romney at that point, I suspect President Trump will as well. Surely we agree that no one will match President Obama, but that just means no one is as good a candidate as President Obama was.
Sure it was, the Democrats lost the presidency, the senate, the house, the governorship, and state control of several states while Republicans ended up gaining full control of the federal government as well as several state governments. I think something like 24 states now have complete Republican control. So, yeah. The Democrats didn't just lose by a few thousand votes like you are laughably trying to claim, they lost big time, everywhere, forever and ever.One hundred is not a few. You fail to read at your own peril.
306 to 228 is a mandate, especially since the GOP holds the Presidency, the House, the Senate and eventually the Supreme Court. He should realize this and go forth with the agenda he campaigned on.Loses the popular vote, calls it a mandate. Literally Parkbandit, everyone! :lol:

Gelston

11-12-2016, 05:30 PM

Tgo01

11-12-2016, 05:32 PM

Loses the popular vote, calls it a mandate. Literally Parkbandit, everyone! :lol:

The popular vote has exactly zero to do with winning so why do you keep bringing it up, Mr. Republican?

Gelston

11-12-2016, 05:35 PM

The popular vote has exactly zero to do with winning so why do you keep bringing it up, Mr. Republican?

And people don't campaign to win the popular vote. The electoral college exists, people campaign to win the electoral college. If it went off popular votes, camaigns would run a lot differently. Trump/Clinton/Whoever would plant themselves in Texas, California, NYC, etc. But that isn't how it is run, no one cares about winning the popular vote.

Latrinsorm

11-12-2016, 05:45 PM

Reread what I said. I'm aware of what would have happened had those voters gone a different way, I'm also aware that there were 6 million less voters this year as opposed to the Romney/Obama race. That 6 million would have made a shit ton of a difference. That those 6 million, 5 of which were Democrat voters, didn't come out to vote is a condemnation of Hillary itself, IMO.Reread what I said. A condemnation of Hilary is not a denouncement of the Democratic Party. Also, and I can't stress this point enough because I keep seeing people comparing 2012 turnout to 2016, 30% of California's votes are outstanding - that's 4 million votes. Don't take my word for it, compare the listed votes for 2016 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2016#Results_ by_state) and 2012 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2012#Results_ by_state). It's not a coincidence that by far and away the two biggest apparent turnout drops are California and Washington - it just takes a long time to count those votes. (Third place biggest turnout drop? Utah, naturally.) Florida and Texas turnouts were up almost a million votes. Surely we can agree that jibes more with my theory than yours, no?

Latrinsorm

11-12-2016, 05:47 PM

The popular vote has exactly zero to do with winning so why do you keep bringing it up, Mr. Republican?I have brought up the popular vote exactly twice. Once when a poster declared a "mandate", and I hope, I honestly really hope you won't pretend to not know the term "popular mandate". The other was when discussing the accuracy of polls, which is to say those measurements of how many people will vote for a given candidate, which is to say a measurement of the popular vote.

Tgo01

11-12-2016, 06:28 PM

I have brought up the popular vote exactly twice. Once when a poster declared a "mandate", and I hope, I honestly really hope you won't pretend to not know the term "popular mandate".

Except the term used wasn't "popular mandate" so you fail. Again.

The other was when discussing the accuracy of polls, which is to say those measurements of how many people will vote for a given candidate, which is to say a measurement of the popular vote.

And the polls were wrong.

Methais

11-12-2016, 09:10 PM

Here's what I'll say- if you're having a hard time engaging with the emotional angle of this as an unaffected bystander- then maybe this is more than you're making it out to be. Have the bravery to go through a fraction of what you expect others to handle. Then multiply it by literally millions. Mom called me crying today- she wants to know what's going to happen to him. I'm used to her calling me about computer issues. I don't even know how to process his situation, let alone comfort someone else about it.

But let's not take the easy way out and treat this like it's nothing but an "immigration issue". (Funny how it doesn't get to be a "family" issue)

Donald Trump stated that it would be a good idea to ban Muslims from entering the country. He also mused that putting them on a register might make sense at one point. Take a second- be the Muslim American who hears that. Be the parent whose terrified child asks, in all sincerity, if he knows where to find her. This actually happened to a friend of mine yesterday (and a hell of a lot of other people).

Be the immigrant who hears him parade a small group of women around who talk about how their loved ones were killed by evil immigrants. Be the parent whose little girl asks them if they have to move now that he's President, or if she has to go to a new school now. Happened to a friend of mine today. They're all documented- but try consoling a child by explaining why some immigrants are in danger, but they're not.

Be the LGBTQ person who has had to read articles quoting Mike Pence discussing all of the rights he wants to take back. To hear Trump say he wants to appoint a judge to overturn gay marriage. Be the millions of people who are walking around realizing that their basic rights are in the hands of people who resent them. Be their sibling. Imagine feeling sick and powerless. Imagine trying to console them- what would you even say?

Be the woman who relies on Planned Parenthood for basic health care in their rural area after hearing about how the House GOP is looking to de-fund them.

Be the victim of sexual assault who has to watch someone accused by about a dozen women of doing just that and who was caught on tape bragging about it suddenly become her President. Be the mother who has to explain to her daughter what this means.

Be the person who relies on the Affordable Care Act to pay for the medication they need to survive. Imagine sitting in your living room and wondering- will they take away the pre-existing conditions protections the ACA gave? Can I afford my rent AND this medication? Now imagine it's your kid who needs the medication. Imagine that pit in your stomach thinking about what might happen in the worst-case scenario.

Here's my challenge to you- how much pain and fear is too much for what you've gained? How many people is too many people? If you have to measure how much fear, pain, and risk other people can be expected to pay for this Presidency- what is that amount? What's the line where it's no longer acceptable- what's too much?

If you can't answer that question concretely, then maybe it's dangerous to be looking at millions of people in pain and making a blanket determination that it's acceptable political loss. There are endless examples across time and space where people got that wrong. Do you know for sure that you aren't one of them? Could you sit in front of a room full of the people who are terrified and sick with grief over the situation they find themselves in and explain to them with confidence that the insecurity they are being asked to live with is an acceptable amount of human suffering?

If the answer is no- maybe it's time to rethink things.

Laugh, judge, and dismiss. But this is the world a LOT of people woke up to Wed. Their President-elect cast them aside for political expediency and told them that their nightmare situation is America being great. And you can't boil this down to people like my brother. My family is here legally- we're citizens. And we're being put through an experience that no family should ever go through. And there are millions of us. How do you know that we're in morally acceptable territory?

QQ

Latrinsorm

11-12-2016, 09:13 PM

Except the term used wasn't "popular mandate" so you fail. Again. And the polls were wrong.In fact 3 ± 3 overlaps 0. You can tell because 3 - 3 = 0.

Tgo01

11-12-2016, 10:03 PM

In fact 3 ± 3 overlaps 0. You can tell because 3 - 3 = 0.

The popular mandate says you're wrong.

Androidpk

11-16-2016, 07:34 AM

http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-transition-team-lobbyists-2016-11

Parkbandit

11-17-2016, 04:57 PM

I have to say.. so far, I'm pretty surprised by President Elect Trump.

5 year lobbyist ban if you become someone in his Cabinet.. lifelong ban from lobbying for another country.
Meeting with people like Nikki Haley, Kelly Ayotte and even Mitt Romney for appointments. For someone who usually lashes out at his "enemies" the way he does, these interviews really surprised me.

Ardwen

11-17-2016, 05:13 PM

Lobby ban needs to also be a consulting ban, because thats how the rule is abused now, And he's meeting a heck of a lot of insiders and lobbyists for someone thats supposed to be draining the swamp.

Parkbandit

11-17-2016, 05:26 PM

Lobby ban needs to also be a consulting ban, because thats how the rule is abused now,

Agreed.

And he's meeting a heck of a lot of insiders and lobbyists for someone thats supposed to be draining the swamp.

Dealing with government is very detailed oriented.. so having some people who have an intimate knowledge of these processes will help. Otherwise, the learning curve would prevent Trump from getting shit done.

I'm just surprised he's even speaking with Mitt Romney about the possibility of him joining the Administration. I doubt I would be able to and I certainly didn't think Trump would ever do it.

Ardwen

11-17-2016, 05:31 PM

whats your thought on people that ran places like Goldman Sachs being a part of the government? Maybe that a hidden bonus of the massive bailout we had to give banks.

Mighty Nikkisaurus

11-17-2016, 06:08 PM

Agreed.

Dealing with government is very detailed oriented.. so having some people who have an intimate knowledge of these processes will help. Otherwise, the learning curve would prevent Trump from getting shit done.

I'm just surprised he's even speaking with Mitt Romney about the possibility of him joining the Administration. I doubt I would be able to and I certainly didn't think Trump would ever do it.

I was pleasantly surprised by that. Romney has a lot of experience/expertise with how to bridge the gap as far as partisan politics go, given he was a red governor here in deep blue MA, so I hope he seeks out advice on that too.

Mighty Nikkisaurus

11-17-2016, 06:42 PM

whats your thought on people that ran places like Goldman Sachs being a part of the government? Maybe that a hidden bonus of the massive bailout we had to give banks.

You didn't ask me BUT since I do work in a financial institution.. right now I'm personally just sort of watching and waiting.

The Dodd Frank act is IMO a failure. It really fucks up smaller banks and especially fucks up credit unions, which is ass backwards because credit unions are non-profits and tend to be ran accordingly. For instance a teller where I work won't be given a quota of credit cards or loans to sell and then shit canned if they don't sell that many, where as at say, TD Bank, if you don't meet your quota in that first 6 months they show you the door and wish you good luck on your job search. Similarly when you're trained on running various checks on people and attempting to protect people, large banks have actuaries who crank out the difference between cost of saving the customer and the cost of litigation for forgoing the check and balance, and then have their employees do whatever creates more profit for shareholders, even if that means customers will suffer. Personally I'm really happy that Trump outright stated they're going to go over Dodd Frank with a fine toothed comb.

I know Goldman Sachs is like... evil incarnate... to most people but if someone is a higher up at Goldman Sachs my own personal feeling is that a) they are likely sharp and b) know our financial system in and out. I'd need to see exactly how and why they plan to de-regulate or regulate things to form an opinion on their role. One of the big things I want to see change is the fine system.. for instance if a financial institution makes an OFAC violation it's a straight fine of 1 million dollars. That's great for like.. non profits, community banks.. but massive banks like BOA routinely violate it and essentially launder money because it's cheaper to just pay the fine than to check the transaction and deny it. It needs to be a percentage calculation so that it hurts every financial institution equally, IMO. As it stands the flat rate penalty fee means some consumers are protected a LOT more than others depending on the risk of their bank, which isn't a good thing. But a person from GS is going to know all of this and can probably provide the most comprehensive advice. Now if a year from now we're having to do a training week on more and more regulations for non-profits and small banks, while big banks are being de-regulated, I'll be pissy. But IMO it's impossible to gauge at this point how it will play out. There's a legitimate reason for him to consult or even include someone like that, but it could go either way.

Parkbandit

11-17-2016, 06:53 PM

whats your thought on people that ran places like Goldman Sachs being a part of the government? Maybe that a hidden bonus of the massive bailout we had to give banks.

I don't view Goldman Sachs as the devil like liberals do. I view them as a big business.. so hopefully whoever comes from there has a good head on their shoulders and will help run the government like a business who is fiscally responsible to it's shareholders (ie taxpayers). I don't believe we should have given any of the banks a bailout, but we ended up making money on it.. so I can't be too pissed about it I guess.

time4fun

11-17-2016, 06:53 PM

You didn't ask me BUT since I do work in a financial institution.. right now I'm personally just sort of watching and waiting.

The Dodd Frank act is IMO a failure. It really fucks up smaller banks and especially fucks up credit unions, which is ass backwards because credit unions are non-profits and tend to be ran accordingly. For instance a teller where I work won't be given a quota of credit cards or loans to sell and then shit canned if they don't sell that many, where as at say, TD Bank, if you don't meet your quota in that first 6 months they show you the door and wish you good luck on your job search. Similarly when you're trained on running various checks on people and attempting to protect people, large banks have actuaries who crank out the difference between cost of saving the customer and the cost of litigation for forgoing the check and balance, and then have their employees do whatever creates more profit for shareholders, even if that means customers will suffer. Personally I'm really happy that Trump outright stated they're going to go over Dodd Frank with a fine toothed comb.

I know Goldman Sachs is like... evil incarnate... to most people but if someone is a higher up at Goldman Sachs my own personal feeling is that a) they are likely sharp and b) know our financial system in and out. I'd need to see exactly how and why they plan to de-regulate or regulate things to form an opinion on their role. One of the big things I want to see change is the fine system.. for instance if a financial institution makes an OFAC violation it's a straight fine of 1 million dollars. That's great for like.. non profits, community banks.. but massive banks like BOA routinely violate it and essentially launder money because it's cheaper to just pay the fine than to check the transaction and deny it. It needs to be a percentage calculation so that it hurts every financial institution equally, IMO. As it stands the flat rate penalty fee means some consumers are protected a LOT more than others depending on the risk of their bank, which isn't a good thing. But a person from GS is going to know all of this and can probably provide the most comprehensive advice. Now if a year from now we're having to do a training week on more and more regulations for non-profits and small banks, while big banks are being de-regulated, I'll be pissy. But IMO it's impossible to gauge at this point how it will play out. There's a legitimate reason for him to consult or even include someone like that, but it could go either way.

Dodd-Frank is ridiculously watered down, but it also targeted some of the practices that led to the 2008 Recession. It doesn't need to be repealed, it needs to be enhanced.

While I get the validity of some of your complaints- they're from the perspective of the employee, not the economy and none of them touch on the core tenants of Dodd-Frank. Repealing Dodd Frank allows Banks to go right back into the risky lending practices that got us into this mess, and it means they no longer need to have a funeral plan if they go south. It also removes new whistle-blower protections and incentives, and it kills off FSOC and the CSPB.

2008 was 100% the result of the gradual removal of regulation of financial institutions that started in the 90s. When you hear people say "Regulations are killing the economy!", it's actually the exact opposite. We need to bulk up Dodd-Frank, not gut it even further.

Ardwen

11-17-2016, 06:58 PM

Mighty Nikkisaurus

11-17-2016, 07:11 PM

Dodd-Frank is ridiculously watered down, but it also targeted some of the practices that led to the 2008 Recession. It doesn't need to be repealed, it needs to be enhanced.

While I get the validity of some of your complaints- they're from the perspective of the employee, not the economy and none of them touch on the core tenants of Dodd-Frank. Repealing Dodd Frank allows Banks to go right back into the risky lending practices that got us into this mess, and it means they no longer need to have a funeral plan if they go south. It also removes new whistle-blower protections and incentives, and it kills off FSOC and the CSPB.

2008 was 100% the result of the gradual removal of regulation of financial institutions that started in the 90s. When you hear people say "Regulations are killing the economy!", it's actually the exact opposite. We need to bulk up Dodd-Frank, not gut it even further.

Uh, as it currently stands this just.. isn't true in practice. I understand why Dodd-Frank was pushed through and in the context of 2008 it makes complete sense why, it's basically plugging up the dike that's about to burst. But once you get down into the nitty gritty, there is a ton of legislation and regulations that look great on paper and totally fuck over consumers/taxpayers and small banks/non-profits alike, not to mention the burdens it places on small business.

Also.. no, my position is not "as an employee" considering the field I'm working at transferring into overwhelmingly looks at (in my case) the member, and the local economy. Nowhere do I champion de-regulation, but then Trump has clarified that they're going to go piece by piece through Dodd-Frank, which is a good thing. I don't want the member walking in to be vulnerable to me selling them shit to make my employer money, I want to know that if I deny them a loan or check cashing that they can't walk down the street and get fucked over royally because Citizens or BOA has no such policy due to regulations being shitty or non-existent and they literally don't give a flying fuck about the actual person standing in front of them. SOME regulations actually ARE killing the economy though and need to be dealt with, there are seriously problematic parts of Dodd-Frank that need to be addressed and some need to be dismantled entirely.

Mighty Nikkisaurus

11-17-2016, 07:21 PM

I don;t view the big banks that needed massive bailouts as fiscally responsible which is likely the difference between us, if they were in almost any other industry a lot of those bankers would have been unemployed or jailed depending on the level of personal malfeasance.

Actually, agreed. The issue here is that the possible punishment for violation is so vague (there is a provision for a jail sentence with OFAC violations, to beat on a dead horse) that execs just pass the risk on to their lowest and most vulnerable employees and call it a day. "Well send that teller to jail!" and not the fuck tons of people over them who basically trained them to not run people through the system, etc and do things correctly. Executives need to be held accountable and their corporations need to be spanked when they fuck up the US Government. And not a "teehee" fun spanking but a "holy fuck, let's NOT do that again" type.

And while Dodd Frank has issues, allowing the bankers to run amok again seems foolish. Bankrupting clients while pocketing millions isn't in any way responsible by any definition I would use. Lots of perfectly good CEOs out there, I am just not sure how many of them should be working in the government instead, the goals are nowhere near the same between a corporation and a government.

No one is running amok though, at least now. And Trump hasn't indicated that his plan is just to repeal Dodd-Frank and let bankers get to town fucking the taxpayer in the ass (they would though if that happened, haha). And no, the goals aren't the same between a corporation and Government. Actually I'd say a non-profit is probably the closer analogy. But I GET why a president elect would tap someone intimately aware of how banking and our financial system works for advice and more, even if they're from GS, than going to someone else.

Gelston

11-17-2016, 07:22 PM

Ardwen

11-17-2016, 07:27 PM

Lots of people that know banking and financial industry without going to the people that helped caused a recession though, hell even after the issues we've had, we keep seeing more idiotic bank scandals. Hell some of these CEOs are making a fortune on our bailouts and stockholders eat the penalties. Plenty of issues on all sides, but you can't possibly say before DoDd Frank the bankers weren't running amok.

time4fun

11-17-2016, 07:29 PM

Uh, as it currently stands this just.. isn't true in practice. I understand why Dodd-Frank was pushed through and in the context of 2008 it makes complete sense why, it's basically plugging up the dike that's about to burst. But once you get down into the nitty gritty, there is a ton of legislation and regulations that look great on paper and totally fuck over consumers/taxpayers and small banks/non-profits alike, not to mention the burdens it places on small business.

Also.. no, my position is not "as an employee" considering the field I'm working at transferring into overwhelmingly looks at (in my case) the member, and the local economy. Nowhere do I champion de-regulation, but then Trump has clarified that they're going to go piece by piece through Dodd-Frank, which is a good thing. I don't want the member walking in to be vulnerable to me selling them shit to make my employer money, I want to know that if I deny them a loan or check cashing that they can't walk down the street and get fucked over royally because Citizens or BOA has no such policy due to regulations being shitty or non-existent and they literally don't give a flying fuck about the actual person standing in front of them. SOME regulations actually ARE killing the economy though and need to be dealt with, there are seriously problematic parts of Dodd-Frank that need to be addressed and some need to be dismantled entirely.

I've got good friends who work in mortgage banking and one who is the Dodd-Frank specialist for one of the biggest tech companies in the US. They'd agree with you that DF has some oddities- including provisions that are more intended to look like there's more oversight without actually introducing oversight- but I think we can all agree that Trump is not going to go into DF with any MO other than gutting it. He's not going to look in and say "Holy god, there are huge holes to plug in here re: risky derivatives and entanglement between investment and commercial banking". He's going to say "what can we get rid of?"

That's not a safe way to approach what is already nothing more than a ghost of Glass-Steagall.

FWIW, I do absolutely agree that enforcement right now is a massive problem. Fines are costs of business, and obviously our government is unwilling to go anywhere near criminal indictment for the people who helped obliterate our economy.

Mighty Nikkisaurus

11-17-2016, 07:43 PM

I've got good friends who work in mortgage banking and one who is the Dodd-Frank specialist for one of the biggest tech companies in the US. They'd agree with you that DF has some oddities- including provisions that are more intended to look like there's more oversight without actually introducing oversight- but I think we can all agree that Trump is not going to go into DF with any MO other than gutting it.

Some of it needs to be gutted, and beyond that, it's pure conjecture at this point. We don't know what his intention is, so again, just sit and watch for a bit. That being said... I'm not referring to oddities, I'm referring to why small banks and every credit union has a huger risk management staff than some of the goliaths out there. Trump's intention means fuck all when that's the every day working reality AS IS, under someone like Obama (who I am a shameless fangirl of, sorry PB :P)

He's not going to look in and say "Holy god, there are huge holes to plug in here re: risky derivatives and entanglement between investment and commercial banking". He's going to say "what can we get rid of?"

That's not a safe way to approach what is already nothing more than a ghost of Glass-Steagall.

Are you seriously so naive that you think that this wasn't going on under Democratic "oversight"? I'm not calling for a reversion to Glass-Steagall, I'm saying Dodd-Frank is broken and needs to get over ridden by something that makes actual sense. In the meantime, the stupider parts need to get struck the fuck down.

You realize if there are massive gaps and holes, an economic crisis will hit sooner rather than later and the Repubs can count on losing all of their government ground this last election cycle, including losing a presidency and ill will towards a future election. The past decade and a half has proven the American public to be fickle as fuck. So no, they're not going to tear it all down for short term profits and let's fuck over everyday Joe because again, numbers wise, that doesn't make sense. It's in their best interest to maximize profit WITHOUT making your average person who votes really angry. There is no way in fucking HELL that Trump or the GOP is going to allow something that makes short term profits go balls to the wall with long term pay off being a pissed off voter base who doesn't turn up or worse, flips.

Parkbandit

11-18-2016, 08:14 AM

2008 was 100% the result of the gradual removal of regulation of financial institutions that started in the 90s. When you hear people say "Regulations are killing the economy!", it's actually the exact opposite. We need to bulk up Dodd-Frank, not gut it even further.

Someone is as clueless about this as she was about how Presidents are elected.

Parkbandit

11-18-2016, 08:28 AM

I don;t view the big banks that needed massive bailouts as fiscally responsible which is likely the difference between us, if they were in almost any other industry a lot of those bankers would have been unemployed or jailed depending on the level of personal malfeasance.

You are incorrect... we are in total agreement here.

And while Dodd Frank has issues, allowing the bankers to run amok again seems foolish. Bankrupting clients while pocketing millions isn't in any way responsible by any definition I would use.

I believe we disagree on why the crash of 2008 happened. To me, it's far less about bankers running amok and more about our government buying/backing worthless mortgages that the bank had no business making. A bank, if left to it's own devices, will not give someone a loan that it knows it can't pay back a few years down the line. It would go bankrupt. BUT, if know that you can sell a worthless mortgage to a government entity and not have to worry about the consequences years down the road.. well then.. you have what happened in 2008.

Lots of perfectly good CEOs out there, I am just not sure how many of them should be working in the government instead, the goals are nowhere near the same between a corporation and a government.

The problem with government is that it's not "their" money, so they have very little regard on how it's wasted. I wonder how many CEOs would last by showing a loss every single year?

I'm not asking that the government make money every year.. I'm just asking them to spend within their means and break even once in a while.

Parkbandit

11-18-2016, 08:31 AM

I am a shameless fangirl of PB

Sorry, that's all I got out of your post.

ClydeR

11-18-2016, 09:20 AM

Dealing with government is very detailed oriented.. so having some people who have an intimate knowledge of these processes will help. Otherwise, the learning curve would prevent Trump from getting shit done.

He's already appointing people with the right kinds of experience..

President-elect Donald Trump is expected to announce later on Friday that he has offered the job of attorney general to Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions, while retired Lt. Gen. Mike Flynn has been offered the post of White House national security adviser, and Rep. Mike Pompeo has been offered CIA director, according to transition official Sean Spicer.

More... (http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/trump-taps-sessions-for-attorney-general-pompeo-for-cia-231599)

This is good news for Certain People. Sessions was almost named a federal judge back when Reagan was President. Reagan nominated him at a time when Republicans controlled the Senate. In a very rare move Republicans rejected their own president's nominee because they thought Sessions was too racist. This new appointment to the highest legal position in the country is vindication for Sessions. It is a vindication for Flynn too, since he was basically forced out of the Defense Intelligence Agency because he could not get along with his colleagues. And Pompeo believes that Muslims in the US who fail to publicly denounce terrorism are complicit, and he wants the death penalty for Snowden.