[mikeh]

MrAce, on 2016-November-08, 20:34, said:

Ok our ass is being kicked badly so far.
Oh well...

Your signature block has never been so appropriate

[mike777]

Kaitlyn S, on 2016-November-07, 19:00, said:

Funny you ask, because I've made these positions well known in another group and am still considered an alt-right wing nut.

I consider "right" to be the ideology put forth by conservatives. I'm lumped in that group because I am in favor of small government, people's power > states' power > federal power, few regulations, and the idea that those who work and/or innovate should be rewarded, and that the Constitution should be interpreted the way our Founding Fathers would be expected to interpret it, and the whole idea of government "taking care of people" is not at all appealing to me. (Yes, I see the contradiction - I support UBI because I feel automation will make it so that there aren't enough jobs to go around; but the UBI level should be low enough such that those that never work are going to have a fairly low standard of living.)

I consider "left" to be the ideology put forth by progressives.

thank you for your response.


Your response is muddled at best and at worst meaningless. Please read what you post.


my point is left or right at best is meaningless so feel free to claim whatever

[1eyedjack]

Went to bed confident of Trexit. Never thought I would wake up to Clexit.

[mike777]

at midnight it looks like my prediction of clinton with 350 is not best, 538 with 302 is not best.

[mike777]

I hope i posted this before but in any case I wanted to repost it before any election results just so I am on record:

" demagogue /ˈdɛməɡɒɡ/ (from Greek δημαγωγός, a popular leader, a leader of a mob, from δῆμος, people, populace, the commons + ἀγωγός leading, leader)[1] or rabble-rouser is a leader in a democracy who gains popularity by exploiting prejudice and ignorance among the common people, whipping up the passions of the crowd and shutting down reasoned deliberation.[1][2][3][4] Demagogues have usually advocated immediate, violent action to address a national crisis while accusing moderate and thoughtful opponents of weakness or disloyalty. Demagogues violate established rules of political conduct; most who were elected to high office changed their democracy into some form of dictatorship.

Demagogues have appeared in democracies since ancient Athens. They exploit a fundamental weakness in democracy: because ultimate power is held by the people, nothing stops the people from giving that power to someone who appeals to the lowest common denominator of a large segment of the population."

[hrothgar]

What we just saw happen is absolutely horrific. I fear that the results of this election will have a profound and lasting negative effect on this country and this planet. I am genuinely worried about the potentially for a major war in the middle east, a catastrophic acceleration in global warming, and a world wide recession. (Not to mention the absolutely tragic human cost for so many people who live in this country). Through the Supreme Court, the impacts of this decision will be felt for generations to come.

The best that we can do is not to look for ways to make things worse. Refusing to recognize the results of the election would do just that. Ultimately, the process is more important than either of the two candidates. Time to pick ourselves up, hope that nothing too catastrophic happens in the next four years, and muddle through the best that we can.

I know that things are going to suck. I know that things are going to be much much worse for a whole bunch of people who don't look like me. I'm very sorry for what many of you are about to go through.

[andrei]

I thought I read it here that this election was over a long time ago.

L
M
F
A
O

[onoway]

The answer to the thread title is , unfortunately, yes. Going to be a scary time for the next four years, maybe longer.

[onoway]

Phil, on 2016-November-08, 20:49, said:

"Alexa, book me a one-way ticket to Canada".

I laughed at this ad.

As I sit scared sh!tless.....

Canada Immigration and citizenship site crashed tonight about two hours after results started coming in.

[cherdano]

I just want to point out that, in the most important news of this morning, England are 174-3 against India.

[mike777]

I just want to point out i predict:

1) war in the middle east
2) global warning
3) recession


feel free to blame trump or reps....now

IN fact I expect posters some posters to blame today i go on record tht posters predict above.......

[kenberg]

I cannot imagine this going well. I make no specific prediction. If I were to make a prediction, I cannot imagine what a good one would be.
It will take me a while to absorb this. For the moment, there seems to be nothing else to say.

[y66]

Now what? First we grieve.

[kenberg]

y66, on 2016-November-09, 05:50, said:

Now what? First we grieve.

Yes. But we also must accept. And Hillary Clinton must give, as soon as at all possible, a concession speech. She must. It need not be long. It must clearly concede that the election is over, and it must express her best wishes for the country that has chosen her opponent.
This is really important.

[hrothgar]

Until my dying day, my deep and abiding regret will be that there is no way to contain this contagion to the those segments of the population who just dug us into this hole. A small majority of the American people just placed this country and the whole world on a much much worse long term path and they will suffer for it. Sadly, a whole bunch of other folk are being dragged along for the ride.

[Al_U_Card]

We live in interesting times.
And time will tell if DT is the evil demon that you all make him out to be. At least you still have your guns and ideologies to cling to...

[kenberg]

Al_U_Card, on 2016-November-09, 06:49, said:

We live in interesting times.
And time will tell if DT is the evil demon that you all make him out to be. At least you still have your guns and ideologies to cling to...

Maybe, just for a day or two, you could take it easy on the snark. I don't cling to guns, everyone has a worldview but I don't see myself as clinging to an ideology. As to "evil demon", those are your words not mine. I do think the country has made a very serious error, perhaps the most serious error that we have made during my lifetime. We will see where this takes us. Or, of course, just continue on with your comments as you see fit. Right now, that's the least of our worries.

[helene_t]

Back in the 70s, my mother's friends all belonged to the radical political wing of the flower power movement. They called themselves a "workers' party" and dreamed of the revolution and something called the "proletarian revolution", a concept that didn't sound very democratic but I believe one of the marxist scholars at some point explained to my why it actually was.

Anyway, on one day an actual worker (I think he was a mason or maybe a plumber) showed up at one of the party meetings. An actual worker at a meeting of the exclusively academic "workers'" party was a strange animal in the zoo. People tried to welcome him by pronouncing the marxist jargon in mothereese. Needless to say it was the first and last time a worker showed up at the meeting.

Things have moved on a bit since then. Today, left winged academics try to address issues which are of interest to people outside the ivory tower, such as health care and housing. It remains difficult to compete with the right wing's message, though.

Maybe about half of the electorate really want racism, and tax breaks for the rich. If so, then there isn't much else to say than that we get the governments we deserve. But polls in the USA generally show that the majority is with us when it comes to gun control, income distribution and health care. Similarly, over here, it should be possible to win on a platform for national health care, public ownership of utilities, access to the EU free market and a more fair income distribution.

But obviously something is not working. Maybe the democrats should have felt the public demand for an anti-establishment figure and chosen someone other than Clinton? Is there anything else that could be done? It is amazing that it was possible for Clinton to lose to such an unpopular republican candidate. I don't know what was wrong with Clinton (other than that she had been in Washington for too long, but so has Sanders). But it was known for a long time that she was not very popular.

[Al_U_Card]

kenberg, on 2016-November-09, 07:09, said:

Maybe, just for a day or two, you could take it easy on the snark. I don't cling to guns, everyone has a worldview but I don't see myself as clinging to an ideology. As to "evil demon", those are your words not mine. I do think the country has made a very serious error, perhaps the most serious error that we have made during my lifetime. We will see where this takes us. Or, of course, just continue on with your comments as you see fit. Right now, that's the least of our worries.

Snark? Ĺook thru this thread (and many others) to see the tone, disregard and vitriol directed at any and all that reject the "consensus" of this august group. Snark indeed..

[y66]

Guest post from another Minnesotan:

Quote

I am one of millions of Republicans who voted for Hillary Clinton because much of what I heard Donald J. Trump say on the campaign trail was nonsensical as well as hurtful to many Americans. But I take some comfort in thinking, while he will have to overcome many hurdles to be a good president, he can avoid being a bad president for two reasons.

First, he would not have gotten this far — he is the first non-politician to be elected president since Dwight Eisenhower — if he were lacking in intelligence.

Second, he very likely knows what the rest of us know: Most of the things he promised to do in order to get elected make no sense. And for that reason alone he may not do them. There is also the fact that even a Republican Congress may very well resist his policies, by, for instance, refusing to fund construction of the proposed wall bordering Mexico

Lets start with Mr. Trump’s trade policy. He may not negotiate new trade agreements as president, but it is highly unlikely that he will back out of existing agreements. He probably knows enough economic history to want to avoid the disastrous protectionism of the 1930s that prolonged the Great Depression and doomed the Republican Party to oblivion for two decades. China, Mexico and the Middle East are places where American businessmen, including Mr. Trump himself, make money. He knows, as just about every economist knows, that global trade creates far more jobs than it destroys, and that growing the middle class while cutting off trade is impossible.

Same for immigration. Mr. Trump pandered to nativist instincts, but he knows, as most American businessmen know, that immigration fuels our economy. The United States is the richest country in the world in large part because immigrants, including Mr. Trump’s own grandfather, came here to build businesses and work for businesses, including those owned by Mr. Trump himself. Indeed his wife, our future First Lady, is herself a recent immigrant.

As for foreign policy, Mr. Trump has already rejected the interventionist agenda of spreading “American values.” That was one of the few areas where his campaign positions made sense. He will hopefully not get the United States involved in new quagmires that cost money and lives. His willingness to work with important allies — such as NATO and Israel — has yet to be tested, and his confrontational talk is not encouraging. But he has also spoken of getting America’s allies to share more of the burden of global security. In order to do that he will have to work with them, just as any businessman would work with partners to get the job done.

In order to stay out of trouble in the Middle East and much of Asia, he will also have to be far more accommodating, and respectful, of the Muslim world than he has been on the campaign trail. Discerning between a vast majority of Muslims who want to live in peace, and a small minority who support extremism, is the work of diplomats, generals and presidents, even if opportunistic politicians can hurl bigoted insults at Muslims on the campaign trail.

The last good news from a Trump presidency is that it marks the decline of “religious conservatism” in American politics, which has done much damage to the Republican Party among well-educated voters, particularly women. Not only did Mr. Trump soundly defeat the hero of religious conservatives, Ted Cruz, at the polls; he also does not personally believe, or at least he certainly does not live by, religious conservatives’ agenda.

The fact that religious conservatives backed Mr. Trump in such large numbers shows how desperate they are. Many voters — including myself — attend church regularly but have no interest in using government to deny civil rights to gays and lesbians, control women’s health care choices, or tell people where to go to the bathroom. Aspiring bathroom police hoping for jobs in the Trump administration will be disappointed; he has already said that people can use whatever bathroom they please in the Trump Tower.

Many of us who voted against Mr. Trump because of what he said during the campaign — and his appeal to voters who have a very different vision for our country than we do — will have to wait and see. Our hope is that he will run the country in the practical, if far from perfect, manner that he has run his businesses. (He will certainly need to have a better relationship with the nation’s creditors than he has had with his own.)

We also hope that he will not use government to antagonize and discriminate against the very people, including Latinos, with whom he has made money for so many years. We hope that if anyone has been conned by Mr. Trump, it is the people who deserved to be conned, because their own agenda is so antithetical to the national interest.

Mr. Trump knows that America is already a great country and that, for better or worse, we will survive his presidency. He just needs to forget what he said, and do what he knows are the right things to do.

Richard W. Painter, a professor at the University of Minnesota Law School, was the chief White House ethics lawyer from 2005 to 2007.