POTUS 2016 General Election Discussion Thread

[Arles]

It's amazing to me how invested people are in these presidential elections. It's almost like they need to justify the time spent on social media, watching cable news, supporting/canvassing for candidates and even arguing on message boards . They rile themselves up to a point of actual believing the country will face dire consequences if the opponent wins. This isn't just a phenomenon for one party as we've seen it after W, Obama and Trump won.

The reality is the country will be just fine. Some policies will probably change under Trump (ACA will get a redo, less regulation on environmental issues, tax changes,...) but the changes will go nearly unnoticed by the masses. The economy will continue its president-independent ebb and flow - my guess is it goes up a bit given the recover already started on Obama. And, much like how Obama got "credit" for the unavoidable recovery that was coming after the financial crisis bottom out - Trump will get some credit for the continued recovery we are in now.

But, moving forward, this is just how it is going to be. There are going to be mass protests and sky-is-falling mania after each election. Politics has moved its "team sport" parallel from a pro baseball team losing (meh, there's always next year) to an SEC football team losing to its rival (OMG! Fire the coach, the world is Ending!!). The 24 hour news cycle + social media puts people in their own hyperbole bubble where they get so bombarded with how bad the opponent is - they literally think losing is akin to a natural disaster. I don't think this is healthy (nor even remotely accurate when you get outside of the bubble), but it is the way of the world now.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

It's inflammatory and accomplishes nothing other than handing an election to a candidate who most people had to hold their nose while voting for him. The quicker the liberal leadership realizes that, the better off they are in 2020.

So do you like when people "tell it like it is" or not?

[Hammer]

Originally Posted by AlexB

It was the same with Brexit.

The so called intelligentsia and elites protesting because they they found that the rest of the country didn't agree with them. Even started a petition to redo the referendum which meant that parliament had to waste time debating.

The problem with the Brexit vote was that is was far too deep for the average member of public to understand/have the necessary time to read in to, seeking out unbiased sources. The public should never have been asked to vote on such an important, and complex matter. Both campaigns were full of shit all the way through, start to finish.

Literally the following morning one of the major selling points of the whole campaign was admitted to be a false claim, by 1 of the 2 party leads. In such a close vote it may well have tilted the balance.

We may have arrived at the right decision, maybe not. But the whole process was a farce. Further illustrated by the ongoing court saga. It really wasn't thought through.

So no, not really the same thing at all.

[booradley]

Originally Posted by EagleFan

What are these idiots protesting? It's over, deal with it. It's like a 5 year old that didn't get their way.

No shit, right? If this is indicative of the people who supported Clinton, then maybe the right man won after all.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Arles

It's amazing to me how invested people are in these presidential elections. It's almost like they need to justify the time spent on social media, watching cable news, supporting/canvassing for candidates and even arguing on message boards . They rile themselves up to a point of actual believing the country will face dire consequences if the opponent wins. This isn't just a phenomenon for one party as we've seen it after W, Obama and Trump won.

The reality is the country will be just fine. Some policies will probably change under Trump (ACA will get a redo, less regulation on environmental issues, tax changes,...) but the changes will go nearly unnoticed by the masses. The economy will continue its president-independent ebb and flow - my guess is it goes up a bit given the recover already started on Obama. And, much like how Obama got "credit" for the unavoidable recovery that was coming after the financial crisis bottom out - Trump will get some credit for the continued recovery we are in now.

But, moving forward, this is just how it is going to be. There are going to be mass protests and sky-is-falling mania after each election. Politics has moved its "team sport" parallel from a pro baseball team losing (meh, there's always next year) to an SEC football team losing to its rival (OMG! Fire the coach, the world is Ending!!). The 24 hour news cycle + social media puts people in their own hyperbole bubble where they get so bombarded with how bad the opponent is - they literally think losing is akin to a natural disaster. I don't think this is healthy (nor even remotely accurate when you get outside of the bubble), but it is the way of the world now.

Trump is a lot less scary if you don't believe the things he says about what he wants to do as president.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Hard to lose what you never had.

True, but people post it like he's saying something profound. It's not even remotely profound.

Too often, people like him think they're rallying the troops. They're definitely rallying the troops, but it's not the troops he thinks he's rallying.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by molson

Trump is a lot less scary if you don't believe the things he says about what he wants to do as president.

That's just it. If you actually believe he wants to do what he said he wants to do, there's a lot to be terrified about. I know I'm a broken record, but he stated many times that he's willing to tear up NATO and our Pacific alliances. Maybe he won't, but he said he would and that scares the hell out of me.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

True, but people post it like he's saying something profound. It's not even remotely profound.

Too often, people like him think they're rallying the troops. They're definitely rallying the troops, but it's not the troops he thinks he's rallying.

I don't believe there's a single voter that will vote Trump solely because of a video by Van Jones. The only people that care about it either way are those that aren't persuadable.

[Subby]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

I see petitions on FB going around to abolish the electoral college and the whole #NotMyPresident cute "sit-my-chair" social media protests. Sorry, but that's how the system works. It worked against you this year, but it worked for you for the last two cycles. Blame the DNC for what the outcome was.

To be fair, this is usually the reaction whenever there is an election where the candidate that won is hugely unpopular with the other side.

This tweet is pretty famous by now:

The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 7, 2012

Things are raw right now. People are lashing out and it's exacerbated by social media and news-as-entertainment outlets. But the bottom line is that we're in this together. That might seem glib, but when you flush politics and stay off the WORLD WIDE WEB for a little while, things don't seem so terrible.

[Kodos]

Yep. The idiots who want Cal-exit are just as stupid as the Texans who wanted to secede because of Obama. The people crying about moving to Canada are crybabies too. We lost the election. The world is not ending. Figure out where we went wrong (for instance, nominating someone who would guarantee strong turnout from the opposition), fix it, get ready for the next round. America inevitably moves toward the progressive side over time. The pendulum will swing back after this setback. All these protests just make us look silly.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I don't believe there's a single voter that will vote Trump solely because of a video by Van Jones. The only people that care about it either way are those that aren't persuadable.

Thinking like that will provide Trump with the opportunity for a second term, which really shouldn't even be a possibility.

[ISiddiqui]

I think the protester realize there isn't going to be a Cal-exit. They are just expressing their anger in non-violent ways. So really, nothing too terrible. I think that some though are trying to pull in the playbook of the Tea-Party... basically reminding Democratic politicians that their base hates Trump and if they try to work with Trump they'll be sorry.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Two really good articles discussing the faulty mentality of the press and the liberal leadership.

Commentary: The unbearable smugness of the press - CBS News

The “Deplorables” Got the Last Laugh | New Republic

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

I think the protester realize there isn't going to be a Cal-exit. They are just expressing their anger in non-violent ways. So really, nothing too terrible. I think that some though are trying to pull in the playbook of the Tea-Party... basically reminding Democratic politicians that their base hates Trump and if they try to work with Trump they'll be sorry.

Denial – The first reaction is denial. In this stage individuals believe the diagnosis is somehow mistaken, and cling to a false, preferable reality.
Anger – When the individual recognizes that denial cannot continue, they become frustrated, especially at proximate individuals. Certain psychological responses of a person undergoing this phase would be: "Why me? It's not fair!"; "How can this happen to me?"; '"Who is to blame?"; "Why would this happen?".
Bargaining – The third stage involves the hope that the individual can avoid a cause of grief. Usually, the negotiation for an extended life is made in exchange for a reformed lifestyle. People facing less serious trauma can bargain or seek compromise.
Depression – "I'm so sad, why bother with anything?"; "I'm going to die soon, so what's the point?"; "I miss my loved one, why go on?"
During the fourth stage, the individual despairs at the recognition of their mortality. In this state, the individual may become silent, refuse visitors and spend much of the time mournful and sullen.
Acceptance – "It's going to be okay."; "I can't fight it, I may as well prepare for it."
In this last stage, individuals embrace mortality or inevitable future, or that of a loved one, or other tragic event. People dying may precede the survivors in this state, which typically comes with a calm, retrospective view for the individual, and a stable condition of emotions.

Let 'em get through the five steps.

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by Kodos

We lost the election.

And this is where I get befuddled.
No, no one except Hillary Clinton lost POTUS election. America elected her next President. Until everyone stops this us versus them narrative we will never see true progress.

Its become more about your chosen animal winning than it is about the policies and ideals of each.

[cuervo72]

Yes, and it's on the Ds to do this after eight years of obstructionism.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

They're definitely rallying the troops, but it's not the troops he thinks he's rallying.

Maybe he can find a way to refer to us as "deplorables" or something equally catchy.

It worked out so well last time & all.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

Until everyone stops this us versus them narrative we will never see true progress.

And this silly attempted forced 'unity' just ignores basic reality. As if you didn't have people who identified as lifelong Republicans or Democrats and couldn't stand the other guy didn't exist in the 1950s. I guess we've never seen 'true progress' then?

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

And this silly attempted forced 'unity' just ignores basic reality. As if you didn't have people who identified as lifelong Republicans or Democrats and couldn't stand the other guy didn't exist in the 1950s. I guess we've never seen 'true progress' then?

Oh sure, we had D's and R's then. No doubt. But I dont get the vitriol or the sense of divisiveness then. Maybe its because human nature is to pack and clan and we were spending our pack and clan efforts on segregation and world wars, I dont know.

But I think the conversation has definitely shifted in the last 15 years from one of backing a particular agenda because it aligned with your ideals to today where we have for/against and policy and agenda capitulates to what will get the rep of your party elected.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

And this silly attempted forced 'unity' just ignores basic reality. As if you didn't have people who identified as lifelong Republicans or Democrats and couldn't stand the other guy didn't exist in the 1950s. I guess we've never seen 'true progress' then?

People should look back at some of the vitrol in some of the Teddy Roosevelt elections. It got nasty.

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

Yes, and it's on the Ds to do this after eight years of obstructionism.

I agree with what you are saying.
I want both sides to grow the fawk up and work towards a unified vision of greatness.

But I guess I might as well just keep dreaming.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

Oh sure, we had D's and R's then. No doubt. But I dont get the vitriol or the sense of divisiveness then. Maybe its because human nature is to pack and clan and we were spending our pack and clan efforts on segregation and world wars, I dont know.

But I think the conversation has definitely shifted in the last 15 years from one of backing a particular agenda because it aligned with your ideals to today where we have for/against and policy and agenda capitulates to what will get the rep of your party elected.

This is rose colored nostalgia glasses talk, IMO. Many cities had political machines and the policy and agenda didn't matter nearly as much as who controlled the levers of politics. Heck, my dad is a Republican for that reason (though these days he votes Democrat in national and state-wide elections, but just doesn't tell the local Republicans about it).

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

I want both sides to grow the fawk up and work towards a unified vision of greatness.

As long as its based on my vision of American greatness, I agree . See the problem, now?

[jeff061]

It's on the talking heads stoking this hostility for $$ far more than the politicians themselves. Drudge, Rush, Olberman and all their clones. It peaks during election season, but that's not where it originates from.

Side effect of capitalism and a free society. It's not going anywhere and humans aren't all of a sudden going to become less emotional and more resistant to all the nonsense.

Sigh.

[rjolley]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Thinking like that will provide Trump with the opportunity for a second term, which really shouldn't even be a possibility.

Did you even watch the 3 videos I mentioned, or did you just assume it was similar to the White-lash comments? The videos are actually about having the tough conversations from both sides of the last election to come together as a country.

Maybe instead of denouncing everything he says because of that statement, you should try to understand where that idea comes from. Doesn't mean you have to agree with him.

[Arles]

Do the people on here that are "scared of Trump" really think the country is going to be significantly worse off in four years than it is right now?

[molson]

Originally Posted by jeff061

It's on the talking heads stoking this hostility for $$ far more than the politicians themselves.

That's true in every other election, but I think Trump might have broken the mold some (though he's basically a talking head himself). We've never had a presidential debate where one candidate is yelling about how he's going to throw the other candidate in jail if he wins. Trump masterfully stoked the hostility of his base to encourage turnout.

[rjolley]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

I'm quoting you but responding more to the bigger point of contest. Id love to see, but haven't yet seen it available, the demographic break down of voter turn out. I think there is a large racist component at work here, but not the one so many point to. I think many African Americans didn't vote this time that did the last two, because neither candidate was black.

Sample size is tiny and anecdotal, but I have 6 employees on my team. 2 of which are African American. Neither voted Tuesday. One I am extremely close to, and I asked him why (our current project has work hours that make it obvious who does and who doesn't.... we are working 15s so you had to leave, vote and come back...I made sure everyone knew the option was open and they didn't have to clock out to vote. 3 voted 3 didnt) he jokingly said, "Obama can't run again.".... but I think a lot of truth is spoke in jest here. There is a very large continent of multiple demographics that voted in the last two elections because they got the chance to vote for a black president. It's not PC to say that, and I expect to get some snarky retorts... but I think it's true.

CU, you're right in a way. Some African Americans voted for Obama because he was the first Black nominee that really had a chance to win. However, he also energized and inspired his base with his speeches and talks about the future he saw this country having. It was also about what him being elected represented, something that they never thought they would really see.

Clinton didn't inspire any of that. She took the African American vote for granted by having the Obamas out campaigning for her. By having popular AA stars campaigning for her. But did she really inspire anyone to vote for her? Vote for me because I'm not as vile as this guy over here is not inspiring. It's draining. And after 6 months of that, it left a lot of people feeling that they just wanted this BS to be done or feeling that they wanted better than the best of two evils.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Arles

It's amazing to me how invested people are in these presidential elections. It's almost like they need to justify the time spent on social media, watching cable news, supporting/canvassing for candidates and even arguing on message boards . They rile themselves up to a point of actual believing the country will face dire consequences if the opponent wins. This isn't just a phenomenon for one party as we've seen it after W, Obama and Trump won.

The reality is the country will be just fine. Some policies will probably change under Trump (ACA will get a redo, less regulation on environmental issues, tax changes,...) but the changes will go nearly unnoticed by the masses. The economy will continue its president-independent ebb and flow - my guess is it goes up a bit given the recover already started on Obama. And, much like how Obama got "credit" for the unavoidable recovery that was coming after the financial crisis bottom out - Trump will get some credit for the continued recovery we are in now.

But, moving forward, this is just how it is going to be. There are going to be mass protests and sky-is-falling mania after each election. Politics has moved its "team sport" parallel from a pro baseball team losing (meh, there's always next year) to an SEC football team losing to its rival (OMG! Fire the coach, the world is Ending!!). The 24 hour news cycle + social media puts people in their own hyperbole bubble where they get so bombarded with how bad the opponent is - they literally think losing is akin to a natural disaster. I don't think this is healthy (nor even remotely accurate when you get outside of the bubble), but it is the way of the world now.

I think this is true, but I also find it amusing that I've literally watched my FB feed change today into "We will fight hate with love; be nice to everybody" from the same people who were posting angry "Lynch Obama, shoot him if he's still moving afterwards, ready for a civil war to get our way" memes three days ago.

You get to be magnanimous in victory, I understand that. But I also understand it's not the same as meaning it.

(Don't misunderstand me: it's all ridiculous. Dems were doing the same thing three days ago when they had the power and wanted to shame the other side. It's just ludicrous to me to watch people who said horrible, disrespectful things about one President turn on a dime into "whether or not you like the guy or voted for the guy, the least you owe him is respect for the office or you're not a good American".)

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by Arles

Do the people on here that are "scared of Trump" really think the country is going to be significantly worse off in four years than it is right now?

It's not just the next 4 years. I'm worried about the long term damage that can be done by Trump SCOTUS appointments, which could threaten the ability of my friends to get married. I'm really worried about my mom's health if ACA is overturned and she loses her subsidies and pre-existing condition protections. I'm worried about my Muslim friends who feel like they might not be able to visit their families, because they might not be allowed back in. These aren't just nightmare fantasy what-if scenarios. These are based directly on things Trump said he would do as President.

Maybe this won't happen. Maybe he was lying to us all along and the pre-2008 Trump is the real Trump. That's the only hope right now. But since he's picked a climate change denier as his EPA transition chief, I'm not optimistic.

Edit: He also added Kris Kobach to his team. Kobach was behind the Arizona "show your papers" law. Trump is giving every indication that he is going to be exactly what he promised in his campaign.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by Subby

To be fair, this is usually the reaction whenever there is an election where the candidate that won is hugely unpopular with the other side.

This tweet is pretty famous by now:

The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 7, 2012

Things are raw right now. People are lashing out and it's exacerbated by social media and news-as-entertainment outlets. But the bottom line is that we're in this together. That might seem glib, but when you flush politics and stay off the WORLD WIDE WEB for a little while, things don't seem so terrible.

Oh,both sides do it, though do Republicans take to the streets to protest because they didn't win? The last three elections have brought out the worst in all of us.

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Two really good articles discussing the faulty mentality of the press and the liberal leadership.

Commentary: The unbearable smugness of the press - CBS News

The “Deplorables” Got the Last Laugh | New Republic

I think Bill Maher and Sarah Silverman represent what they hate about the liberal smugness. It does play a role outside of liberal circles (I say more so in flyover country), whether you want or not. It's like something coming into your home for dinner and criticizing the food or hospitality. It turns people off and they get tuned out.

Originally Posted by Drake

This is pretty much my experience. I live in a very red county with poor employment opportunities. I work in a very blue county (at a university). So I'm regularly associating with people on both sides of the ticket and hearing their gripes. I lean Dem. I'm registered Dem. I'm actually pretty Purple, but people gotta have a box, you know?

It was the constant (daily, multiple daily) barrage of stuff like Radii talks about above that completely turned me off Trump (other than, I mean, the basically ludicrous position of voting for a reality TV star for president in the first place). It was "Bring on the Second American Revolution if we lose!" It was how seamlessly my Republican friends turned the Iraq war into a Democrat thing and Republicans had been against it from the start...with literally not a single hint of irony. I might understand it if it had been like a century ago, but that was less than 15 years ago. We were all alive then, when Democrats were obstructionists who just didn't want to defend America and whining about WMDs.

So, it wasn't even so much that that I wouldn't be willing to vote for Trump as much as the fact that there's no way that I can support anything these people think is a good idea.

And then Galaxy says this later:



And I also couldn't vote for Hillary. Partly because I've never trusted her, but mostly because of shit like this. (Like I said, I work at a university, so I see *this* sort of stupid shit every day.) People who want to change pronouns and want to shout down professors who argue that legislating that sort of change -- to something as fundamental as how people use pronouns -- is foolhardy, as is expecting people just accept it.

And I think about the RFRA/gay wedding cakes issue and hear entirely too much social activism planning. It's not just that people want the right to gay cakes, they want to punish people for not crossing some magical line of tolerance into approval. When you start describing your personal social justice struggle in terms of a vendetta or teaching someone else a lesson, you've gone too far. When your solution is to start cramming social change legislation down people's throats without giving them a chance to adapt before you've moved on to the next extension of your social change agenda, you're not being very wise or empathetic or compassionate.

All of which is why I voted third party.

And why I cast these election results as something of a market correction rather than a complete mandate or a repudiation.

History seems to indicate to me that on social issues, progressives always win eventually. And I'm okay with that. But we shouldn't demean the value of conservatives slowing down the march of progress. Most of us live in the tension between the preserved traditional values of previous generations and the inexorable march into a Star Trek future. I wouldn't want to give unbridled freedom to the idiot extremes leading the progressive march any more than I would the idiots masturbating to the awesomeness of the 1950s.

Everybody loses sometimes, and I'm okay with that.

(Do have to admit that I'm curious to see how my nutball conservative friends pin congressional obstructionism on the Democrats when a completely Republican congress exercises its muscle to shoot down various Trump ideas. On Trump himself, I'm actually cautiously optimistic. I'm willing to give the guy the benefit of the doubt in the meantime, at least.)

I'll be honest, the social justice warriors are one of the biggest reasons why I hate liberalism today. They're just as bad a social conservative warriors.
I'm all for gay marriage/rights, abortion rights, understanding of the police vs African-American relations, but at some point, the social activism just kicks into overdrive. My view on someone not wanting to bake you a gay wedding fine? I disagree with the refusal, but I wouldn't go out of my way to punish them with such anger.

1) There are a gazillion bakeries out there, go find one that will work with you.

2) In today's social media, smartphone world, you can easily write a review or complaint which will get the word out. I'm okay with this. If enough people refuse to do business with the bakery, the baker will either have to close or change their policies. Market forces at work.

I tend to roll my eyes at the safe spaces, trigger warnings, the PC (there is a difference between being an outright person who crosses the line and being Politically incorrect, and Trump did cross the line at times), or people who throw tamper-tampers because they don't get their way. Snowflakes? I think to myself, how are you going to or already do deal with the real world? Employers aren't going to hire and invest in you with that attitude. Professors allowed students to miss classes and exams yesterday because they we're too distraught from the election? What?!?

[booradley]

Originally Posted by Arles

Do the people on here that are "scared of Trump" really think the country is going to be significantly worse off in four years than it is right now?

This, too. You're "scared", really? You think once the election results were in we all ran for our KKK hoods and torches, laughing maniacally all the way? Yeah, you got us. In all candor, if you can't take a setback any better than this - whining and crying and throwing a babyish tantrum - then you aren't even the man my little nephew is. (He said so)

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Arles

Do the people on here that are "scared of Trump" really think the country is going to be significantly worse off in four years than it is right now?

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

It's not just the next 4 years. I'm worried about the long term damage that can be done by Trump SCOTUS appointments, which could threaten the ability of my friends to get married. I'm really worried about my mom's health if ACA is overturned and she loses her subsidies and pre-existing condition protections. I'm worried about my Muslim friends who feel like they might not be able to visit their families, because they might not be allowed back in. These aren't just nightmare fantasy what-if scenarios. These are based directly on things Trump said he would do as President.

Yep this. Also, if Trump engages in a trade war with China (which would happen if he slaps tariffs on them as he has said he might), it's going to lead to a deep recession. The renegotiation or pulling out from NAFTA will also cause economic problems.

So yes, I do think things can and likely will be significantly worse in 4 years.

Have people really forgotten how much significantly worse the country was 2008 compared to 2000? People forgetting how folks on both sides of the aisle said Bush was one of the worst Presidents in history? A President can really fuck up things in a short amount of time.

[digamma]

I'll also sign on to larry's post. It's not me I'm worried about.

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Have people really forgotten how much significantly worse the country was 2008 compared to 2000? People forgetting how folks on both sides of the aisle said Bush was one of the worst Presidents in history? A President can really fuck up things in a short amount of time.

Have you really forgotten how much better the country was in 2009 compared to now?

See it works both ways.

[CU Tiger]

And on a much broader scale, some of our current economic prosperity are built on ill-gotten or shaky foundation gains. The right long term choices may have short term pain points. That is part of maturity, the ability to suffer through for a greater eventual good, the ability to delay pleasure. So yes, some of his economic policies may slow down current growth rates, but they may dramatically improve our long term viability.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

Have you really forgotten how much better the country was in 2009 compared to now?

Well yes, in 2009 we had President Obama and now we have President-elect Trump - so definitely better in 2009 to right now .

Did anyone think the country was in a better shape in 2008 compared to 2000? Seriously. Otherwise you may have completely missed the entire point.

[molson]

Trump's emphasis on manufacturing doesn't pass the smell test for "long-term viability" for the economy, but like with all of the other stuff he's said, I'm willing to assume that there was a lot bluster and appeal to the emotions of certain voting groups, and that he may very well have some good leadership qualities, and maybe that matters more than we think.

And is there really an argument that we're worse off now than 2009? I think if someone's life has gotten worse this then, it's probably on them. There's been lots of opportunity in the economy and work force. Isn't that how we're supposed to think as conservatives? That it's not the government's job to save us? But now we need Trump to rig things in a desperate hope that we can have a slightly less-shitty job? That's basically Bernie Sanders.

[Butter]

Originally Posted by Arles

Do the people on here that are "scared of Trump" really think the country is going to be significantly worse off in four years than it is right now?

This is a really stupid question. Why would I bother voting if I really thought it made little difference?

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Well yes, in 2009 we had President Obama and now we have President-elect Trump - so definitely better in 2009 to right now .

Did anyone think the country was in a better shape in 2008 compared to 2000? Seriously. Otherwise you may have completely missed the entire point.

Well yes.
I did think it was better in 08 compared to 00.
But even if not, there was also the first major attack on US soil in over 50 years in 01...that is convenient to forget about. Having to spend billions to protect and defend your citizens can be a bit of a financial burden. Lets just avoid it and speak German...

And we didnt have R's rioting in the streets, starting fires, destroying building and attacking media members when Obama was elected either.

It just furthers the perception that the Democratic party is the party of the idealist youth and the Republican party is the party of the mature leaders...despite however many attempts Trump has made to destroy that mage with his big meanie speeches.

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by molson

And is there really an argument that we're worse off now than 2009? I think if someone's life has gotten worse this then, it's probably on them. There's been lots of opportunity in the economy and work force. Isn't that how we're supposed to think as conservatives? That it's not the government's job to save us? But now we need Trump to rig things in a desperate hope that we can have a slightly less-shitty job? That's basically Bernie Sanders.

The ACA has cost me and my family dearly. That's my biggest complaint. I dont want the government to save me, I also dont want them to force me to run my life and my business a certain way.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

It's not just the next 4 years. I'm worried about the long term damage that can be done by Trump SCOTUS appointments, which could threaten the ability of my friends to get married.

I am not a fan of the right's social policy - that's one of the reasons I voted for Hillary. But, as of now, Trump will be replacing the slot occupied by Scalia with a similar right-wing judge. I don't see that upsetting the balance of the courts. The left just needs to make sure Ruth Bader Ginsburg takes her vitamins and has a team of doctors following her But, in all seriousness, if you don't think it will be world war 3 on Trump's nominees - you're crazy (esp after the scalia spot is flled). The dems will have chances in 2 years and 4 years to ensure his appointees don't make it. Obama named two members to the Supreme Court, I don't see an issue with Trump naming one or two. That's why we have elections.

I'm really worried about my mom's health if ACA is overturned and she loses her subsidies and pre-existing condition protections. I'm worried about my Muslim friends who feel like they might not be able to visit their families, because they might not be allowed back in. These aren't just nightmare fantasy what-if scenarios. These are based directly on things Trump said he would do as President.

There will be a ton of pressure to have some form of safety net policy for insurance if the ACA is repealed. And, if it doesn't happen, there would be one year max before democrats have a chance to retake the congress and a couple years before the next election at that point. A lot of small businesses and employees will be hurt by the ACA. They will either lose their employer subsidized care and be forced to purchase more expensive ACA coverage or they will be forced to pay for coverage/penalties that they never had to before. There's a reason many people want it redone.

The reality is a great deal of changes in the Obama adminstration have been made by executive order over the past four years. That is something that the republican congress nor voters in general had any say over. For the next four years, Trump may undo some of that - but none of these changes will be anymore of a disaster than they were when Obama put them in for the first place.

[Kodos]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

and the Republican party is the party of the mature leaders...

Holy crap. The guys who vowed obstruction from day one. The guys who tried to repeal Obamacare 67 billion times. That was done by "mature leaders"?

[molson]

Speaking of the importance of voting, this is a list of things on Colin Kaepernick's ballot that he didn't think were important enough to weigh in on, or even follow the results of. This is the modern-day Rosa Parks (mainstream media outlets made that comparison), who became the face of his version of activism.

-California's senator to Congress
-State proposition to increase school funding
-State proposition to widen the scope of parole for nonviolent offenders
-State proposition to abolish the death penalty
-State proposition for background checks on ammunition purchases + other gun control measures
-State proposition on legalizing marijuana
-State proposition on allowing bilingual education in classrooms
-State proposition to force a waiting period of 72 hours before a bill is passed, during which it must be available to be read online and in print
-Representative to Californian Assembly
-School District Board
-Community College Board
-City Measure to force businesses with 36+ employees to extend hours of current employees to full time before hiring new employees

This is just really incredible to me, and it's representative of the #1 problem liberals have right now, and the reason Trump will be president, and why conservatives dominate so many state legislatures. For people like this, and there's a lot of them, it's not really about wanting change, it's more a moral sport, a hobby of looking down on others and promoting yourself, and the positive feelings you can get from that.

[Radii]

Originally Posted by digamma

I'll also sign on to larry's post. It's not me I'm worried about.

+1

[Butter]

Obama should have named three members to the Supreme Court, but the party of the mature leaders stopped him.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by Butter

This is a really stupid question. Why would I bother voting if I really thought it made little difference?

This is my point, the president make a marginal difference - but nothing major. Whether Trump or Hillary was in power, the country would be in roughly the same economic condition four years from now. There might be a slightly different healthcare plan and different investments made - but the differences aren't that significant. Both parties cater to the same people in general and just pick a few pet areas to modify. Then, if it doesn't work or pisses people off, the other party steps in and cleans it up. Voting a president we like makes us feel better about the country, but the tangible difference between the parties is negligible in impact.

[VPI97]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

The ACA has cost me and my family dearly. That's my biggest complaint. I dont want the government to save me, I also dont want them to force me to run my life and my business a certain way.

Same here. The ACA pretty much decimated my family finances.

[molson]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

The ACA has cost me and my family dearly. That's my biggest complaint. I dont want the government to save me, I also dont want them to force me to run my life and my business a certain way.

You might not need or want the government to save you, but Trump's base does.

[TCY Junkie]

The Trump comment on election process.I feel is so many people are pissed at media slanting and crooked government. They have this feeling on some level and he.says that casuing some people to be triggered. Guy had a plan.

democrats want bigger government and more control. It is in their best interest to help the people that vote for them but keep them needing help. If you think Clinton cares about people more than Trump you crazy. I don't know how much Trump does but it can not be less than zero.