[kenberg]

I actually am fine with Jon's idea that I can send him a message congratulating him on being right all along, as it becomes clear that he was.And perhaps he is. We will see. I understand, Trump has explained often enough, that business bankruptcies are part of the way you get rich in his business. I accept that, and he did get rich (even if not at his bragging level he is incomparably richer than I am) so that seems to work for him in his business. I don't see that most of those skills transfer at all into what has to be done in a national economy. Maybe he can do it, maybe not, I have no trouble admitting I was wrong when it turns out that I am. I had/have quite a few objections to Trump, fundamentally it comes to that I don't like him and I wouldn't trust him for a moment. This was instantaneous and visceral, and I have not all that often been wrong when I have such a reaction to a person. No reason at all that anyone else should share my viscera.

As I have mentioned to the point of being boring, education is important to me. At all levels. I want the best to develop their prodigious talents and I want the kid in a poor neighborhood to have a decent shot at a better life, even if he lacks athletic or musical ability. Trump promises to get rid of Common Core. I am not even sure what it would mean to get rid of Common Core (forbid students to think in the way Common Core recommends?) but at any rate getting rid of something is not a program. If he has something to offer, and if it works, i will be delighted to acknowledge it. I realize many regard education s a local responsibility but it takes money, and the people that are most in need of help are the ones with the least money.

My financial life is pretty simple. I am not broke and I am not rich, I hope not to become broke and I have no plans to do what has to be done to make myself rich. I understand that I am supposed to think through the personal financial implications of the election but I haven't and I don't have any plans to do so.

We will see how it goes.

[Al_U_Card]

onoway, on 2016-November-09, 14:10, said:

As a side note; since every First Lady has some sort of agenda or pet project, apparently Ms Trump has as her project putting an end to bullying on the Internet. You might want to reconsider the idea of
"unfettered free speech" which generally translates into wanting people to be able to spout all sorts of hateful vitriol about others without consequence. Supposedly the next First Lady isn't agreeing with you there. uh oh.

Clearly, she reads the WC and is as equally unimpressed by certain cyber-bullies.

[hrothgar]

Al_U_Card, on 2016-November-09, 15:58, said:

Clearly, she reads the WC and is as equally unimpressed by certain cyber-bullies.

More likely it is a kinder, gentler face on Trump's stated desire to reform the US laws around libel...

[Kaitlyn S]

hrothgar, on 2016-November-09, 01:03, said:

I know that things are going to be much much worse for a whole bunch of people who don't look like me.

I really hope this is not true. For if it is true, I am one that contributed to the mistake. However, the minorities that seem to be the worst off are those that are living in cities that have been under Democratic control for at least a few decades. Donald Trump says he's going to try to work for all Americans, and I have to hope that he means it. I know that Hillary Clinton was going to be indebted to the large banks and Wall Street, so that didn't seem like the right choice. If Donald Trump is as big of a sh*t as you think he is, then I will have to console myself that there just wasn't a right choice.

Now, if by "don't look like me" you mean jihadists, then I hope you are right. But I genuinely hope that Donald Trump does not crap all over the minorities in the USA. Personally, I think you have more to fear from the Republican Congress than from Trump. In his post-election speech, Trump spoke of improving infrastructure. This will greatly benefit low-skilled workers, including minorities, at the expense of expanding the debt. If he really can grow the economy enough to make the expanding debt irrelevant, that's great. However, I'm not sure that the Republican Congress will let him try.

[Kaitlyn S]

helene_t, on 2016-November-09, 07:31, said:

Maybe about half of the electorate really want racism, and tax breaks for the rich.

That is one possibility and let me try to show that I don't believe this is true.

I am one of the people that Hillary calls deplorable.

However, I am against tax breaks and subsidies of almost any kind. I think many other deplorables are too. Many times some Republican candidates will suggest a tax form that you can put on a post card, or wiping out the IRS and the tax code and replacing with a very simple tax, or a fair tax (national sales tax, possibly with a rebate of such tax to low-income workers), or a flat tax (again with a possible rebate.) These proposals get a lot of support from fellow deplorables. (I'm defining "deplorable" here as somebody that didn't want to vote for Clinton.)

Also, I'd like to think I'm typical in that I don't support forced segregation, discrimination based on race, sex, or religion, or racist laws. I'm in another thread on BBO supporting censorship of BBO chat that would block racist terms, and the people arguing against me probably would not be considered "deplorables". None of my conservative friends have indicated that they want to segregate or discriminate either.

Yes, there are some less sophisticated Americans that are truly racist. I don't think their numbers are that high. Yesterday, I heard the outrageous statement that Republicans could never elect a woman. I retorted that I would have picked Carly Fiorina or Michele Bachmann over either one of the candidates that were offered, and many male conservative posters agreed that they would do the same. About the racist thing: I would have taken Ben Carson over either of the candidates and got support for that statement also. People call us deplorables racist because we disagree with Obama. That's bull****. I disagree with Obama on policy - his skin color is irrelevant. I disagree with Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch because they made decisions for political reasons and that's just wrong; not because they are black - in fact, I am just as unhappy with Lois Lerner for doing the same thing and she's white.

[Winstonm]

jonottawa, on 2016-November-09, 13:37, said:

Saved from economic ruin. Saved from unnecessary wars. Saved from a tyrannical government that serves the donor class to the detriment of everyone else. Saved from limits on free speech. Saved from a North-Korean type media (& social media.) Saved from pervasive corruption & nepotism. Saved from a Supreme Court that completely disregards the constitution. Among other things.

Anyway, y'all won't be convinced by me & I CERTAINLY won't be drinking your Koolaid so hopefully we can agree to disagree & at some point in the future you can send me a private note commending me for my wisdom and foresight.

In other words, saved from your interpretation of what you think is wrong. Let me paraphrase. I know what is right; your way is wrong. Are you unable to recognize that your argument mirrors the reasons given by the very radicals whom you fear?

[Kaitlyn S]

barmar, on 2016-November-09, 10:14, said:

Politicians say lots of things to get elected, much of it falls by the wayside. Much of what Trump said was nonsense. Let's hope that he realizes that it was just political rhetoric, not realistic policies.

When Bill Clinton got to the White House, he is reported to have this revelation early in his Presidency:

"You mean to tell me that the success of the economic program and my re-election hinges on the Federal Reserve and a bunch of f**king bond traders?"

For all the crap that my fellow deplorables and I give Bill Clinton, we have to admit that his was a decent presidency. He learned of fiscal responsibility which helped him accomplish things with Newt Gingrich and was somewhat responsible for getting the USA running at a surplus. In short, he was a pretty smart guy.

Donald Trump is a pretty smart guy too. While he is untested in public office, I believe he'll learn quickly and will also do a decent job. He's too much of a narcissist to allow his presidency to be a failure - he just won't let it happen, just like he wouldn't let losing the election happen.

[Winstonm]

Kaitlyn S, on 2016-November-09, 16:50, said:

That is one possibility and let me try to show that I don't believe this is true.

I am one of the people that Hillary calls deplorable.

However, I am against tax breaks and subsidies of almost any kind. I think many other deplorables are too. Many times some Republican candidates will suggest a tax form that you can put on a post card, or wiping out the IRS and the tax code and replacing with a very simple tax, or a fair tax (national sales tax, possibly with a rebate of such tax to low-income workers), or a flat tax (again with a possible rebate.) These proposals get a lot of support from fellow deplorables. (I'm defining "deplorable" here as somebody that didn't want to vote for Clinton.)

Also, I'd like to think I'm typical in that I don't support forced segregation, discrimination based on race, sex, or religion, or racist laws. I'm in another thread on BBO supporting censorship of BBO chat that would block racist terms, and the people arguing against me probably would not be considered "deplorables". None of my conservative friends have indicated that they want to segregate or discriminate either.

Yes, there are some less sophisticated Americans that are truly racist. I don't think their numbers are that high. Yesterday, I heard the outrageous statement that Republicans could never elect a woman. I retorted that I would have picked Carly Fiorina or Michele Bachmann over either one of the candidates that were offered, and many male conservative posters agreed that they would do the same. About the racist thing: I would have taken Ben Carson over either of the candidates and got support for that statement also. People call us deplorables racist because we disagree with Obama. That's bull****. I disagree with Obama on policy - his skin color is irrelevant. I disagree with Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch because they made decisions for political reasons and that's just wrong; not because they are black - in fact, I am just as unhappy with Lois Lerner for doing the same thing and she's white.

I urge you to consider that your vote for Trump also places you squarely on the side of the Aryan Nation, the Neo-Nazis, the KKK, and other white supremacy groups like the one that just a week of so ago fire-bombed a black church and wrote "Vote Trump" on the side of the building; you are also squarely on the side of Vladimir Putin, an ex-KGB officer who is ruthless and cunning and a tyrant, and you are against the Syrian rebels fighting Assad. Your vote also makes you for eliminating health insurance for 10,000,000 Americans who cannot afford it, while deporting the mothers and fathers of legal American citizens born in the U.S. to illegal parents, breaking up homes instead of looking for alternative solutions.

Now if such good company allows you to sleep well at night simply because you "didn't vote for Hillary", good luck to you and to us.

[hrothgar]

Kaitlyn S, on 2016-November-09, 16:30, said:

I really hope this is not true. For if it is true, I am one that contributed to the mistake. However, the minorities that seem to be the worst off are those that are living in cities that have been under Democratic control for at least a few decades. Donald Trump says he's going to try to work for all Americans, and I have to hope that he means it. I know that Hillary Clinton was going to be indebted to the large banks and Wall Street, so that didn't seem like the right choice. If Donald Trump is as big of a sh*t as you think he is, then I will have to console myself that there just wasn't a right choice.

Now, if by "don't look like me" you mean jihadists, then I hope you are right. But I genuinely hope that Donald Trump does not crap all over the minorities in the USA.

Probably the simplest counter narrative is Pence's announcement that Trump would be revoking protections extended to LGBTQ indivduals.

Our, if you prefer, we can talk about mass deportations of "dreamers"

Or perhaps you would prefer discussions about voter suppression?

[Kaitlyn S]

kenberg, on 2016-November-09, 11:09, said:

Hillary's concession speech was not only good, it was important. I believe it will be remembered.

Agreed. She did very well considering the fact that her hopes to become the USA president have been dashed - I can't see her running in 2020.

I was impressed with Obama's speech also.

[Kaitlyn S]

billw55, on 2016-November-09, 12:09, said:

I disagree. Scrapping the ACA is going to be agenda #1, and will succeed. The R majorities in congress have been after that since day 1. I see no evidence that taking coverage away from people is on their list of concerns.

I really hope you're wrong. There are so many more important things to do.

[hrothgar]

Kaitlyn S, on 2016-November-09, 17:02, said:

Donald Trump is a pretty smart guy too. While he is untested in public office, I believe he'll learn quickly and will also do a decent job. He's too much of a narcissist to allow his presidency to be a failure - he just won't let it happen, just like he wouldn't let losing the election happen.

Just like he wouldn't drive his casinos into bankruptcy...
Or his airline...

[Kaitlyn S]

onoway, on 2016-November-09, 13:43, said:

Goodbye environment though.

Not so sure. We just passed our Conservation 2020 amendment, so environmentally conscious people at the state and local level may slow down the raping of the land.

Funny that I've been arguing for state's rights and about the overreach of the Federal Government for years now, and now I might finally get some agreement from the other side.

[barmar]

Kaitlyn S, on 2016-November-09, 16:30, said:

Now, if by "don't look like me" you mean jihadists, then I hope you are right.

I'm pretty sure he means African-Americans, Latinos, and Muslims who are all just trying to live normal lives and purse the American dream.

If someone is a terrorist, of course we should deal with them. But treating ALL Muslims as terrorists because there's an extremist faction in their religion is the very definition of racism.

[y66]

From Gail Goodwin's 10 step program for adjusting to President-elect Trump

Quote

The question today is how to deal with the reality of Donald Trump, next president of the United States. Remember, we’re doing this for your mental health, not his.

The bottom line is to presume the best while preparing for the worst. “They killed us but they ain’t whooped us yet,” said Tim Kaine, channeling Faulkner in one of the losing team’s biggest applause lines.

Forget about moving abroad. Of course it sounds tempting, but you’d be surprised how many countries are unenthusiastic about acquiring new former-American citizens. The Canadians will just keep telling you about their terrific, sensible, well-adjusted young prime minister. Plus there’s that terrible housing bubble in New Zealand.

Let’s get more practical. Here goes:

A 10-Step Program for Adjusting to President-Elect Donald Trump

1) Start with a night of heavy drinking. Already done that? Good, you’re on your way.

2) Acknowledge that Donald Trump is not crazy. Obviously, he has been known to act crazy in public. But if you met him at a private social occasion you would probably find him to be a fairly pleasant person.

I say that as someone who once got a letter from Trump telling me I had the face of a dog. But the next time I saw him at a lunch meeting he was fine. Told interesting jokes about how much money he got for product placement on his TV show. Obviously, this isn’t the equivalent of “Theodore Roosevelt reincarnated.” But we’re trying to work with what we have here.

3) Trump has the attention span of a gnat, but if he appoints reasonable and intelligent people to his cabinet, the government could run O.K.

It will be easy to tell if this is not going to happen: Attorney General Rudy Giuliani.

4) Ditto with foreign affairs. Trump has seemed pretty hands-off when it comes to international involvement, so perhaps with the right advisers, he might take a moderate approach that would disappoint the Republican hawks.

Tip-off that this one’s a non-starter: Secretary of State Newt Gingrich.

5) If you’re worried about social issues, remember that until fairly recently, Trump was a rather liberal Manhattanite.

But just in case, you might want to write out a large check to Planned Parenthood.

6) When it comes to big domestic policy questions, to Trump they’re just applause lines or bargaining chips. Anything could go either way.

While that’s not necessarily calming, it’s better than assuming he actually believes all the stuff he says. What kind of program could he really, really get his heart and soul behind? The only thing I can imagine is a multitrillion-dollar Donald Trump Historic Biggest Ever Infrastructure and 50-State Golf Course Building Program.

7) About the election results: Don’t let people tell you that the vote proves half the American population is racist. There’s another reasonable explanation for Trump’s victory. In most presidential elections, people decide between change and continuity. Hillary Clinton was running to continue the Obama legacy. After a president serves two terms, Americans generally vote for change, and the other party’s nominee.

Yeah, I know — those people yelling the N-word or “Sieg heil!” at the rallies. But if you dwell on them, you’re not going to want to go out of the house anymore. Think of it as basically a change/no change election. Plus some deplorables rattling around the basket.

8) We ought to give anybody a second chance, even if it’s Donald Trump. “We now are all rooting for his success,” said President Obama. Really, you do not want to be one of those people like, um, Omarosa Manigault, Trump’s director of African-American outreach, who told a reporter on election night that when it came to enemies, “Mr. Trump has a long memory and we’re keeping a list.”

Now that’s the kind of attitude that might come in handy if you’re a repeat contestant on a cheesy reality show like “The Celebrity Apprentice.” But obviously that has nothing to do with being chief executive of the United States.

9) Try to think about some of the other election results on Tuesday that were more positive. Some states passed new gun control initiatives. Others raised the minimum wage, and several legalized recreational marijuana. Which will definitely come in handy over the next few years.

10) At Thanksgiving, if your family keeps trying to trade Trump insults, redirect the conversation to that great Chicago Cubs World Series win.

It may be a hard meal to get through, but remind yourself that a couple of days later, our president-elect is scheduled to take the witness stand in a Trump University fraud trial.

There’s always a silver lining.

[barmar]

While I'm extremely unhappy with the result, I don't think the sky has fallen, either. America has had bad presidents before, and we've weathered them. Our ship of state is too big to turn radically due to one man's agenda. The president is not a dictator, we have checks and balances.

As far as repealing Obamacare, Congress only managed to pass that bill once in 60 tries, that was when Obama vetoed it. I wouldn't be surprised if the Congressmen who voted for the bill were counting on it. People don't really want to lose affordable health care, but Republicans didn't like it because it was Obama's bill. By passing a bill they knew would be vetoed, they got to have their cake and eat it. They could say that they were following Republican principles and look good to the party, but no one would actually be hurt by it. Yet they could still point to Obama as the villain for obstructing them. Win-win situation.

But now that they have a president who would actually sign the bill, will they actually go through with it and screw millions of people?

[Winstonm]

Kaitlyn S, on 2016-November-09, 16:50, said:

That is one possibility and let me try to show that I don't believe this is true.

I am one of the people that Hillary calls deplorable.

However, I am against tax breaks and subsidies of almost any kind. I think many other deplorables are too. Many times some Republican candidates will suggest a tax form that you can put on a post card, or wiping out the IRS and the tax code and replacing with a very simple tax, or a fair tax (national sales tax, possibly with a rebate of such tax to low-income workers), or a flat tax (again with a possible rebate.) These proposals get a lot of support from fellow deplorables. (I'm defining "deplorable" here as somebody that didn't want to vote for Clinton.)

Also, I'd like to think I'm typical in that I don't support forced segregation, discrimination based on race, sex, or religion, or racist laws. I'm in another thread on BBO supporting censorship of BBO chat that would block racist terms, and the people arguing against me probably would not be considered "deplorables". None of my conservative friends have indicated that they want to segregate or discriminate either.

Yes, there are some less sophisticated Americans that are truly racist. I don't think their numbers are that high. Yesterday, I heard the outrageous statement that Republicans could never elect a woman. I retorted that I would have picked Carly Fiorina or Michele Bachmann over either one of the candidates that were offered, and many male conservative posters agreed that they would do the same. About the racist thing: I would have taken Ben Carson over either of the candidates and got support for that statement also. People call us deplorables racist because we disagree with Obama. That's bull****. I disagree with Obama on policy - his skin color is irrelevant. I disagree with Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch because they made decisions for political reasons and that's just wrong; not because they are black - in fact, I am just as unhappy with Lois Lerner for doing the same thing and she's white.

Bigots who truly think themselves fair-minded are the most insidious challenge to a just society.

[Winstonm]

barmar, on 2016-November-09, 23:26, said:

While I'm extremely unhappy with the result, I don't think the sky has fallen, either. America has had bad presidents before, and we've weathered them. Our ship of state is too big to turn radically due to one man's agenda. The president is not a dictator, we have checks and balances.

As far as repealing Obamacare, Congress only managed to pass that bill once in 60 tries, that was when Obama vetoed it. I wouldn't be surprised if the Congressmen who voted for the bill were counting on it. People don't really want to lose affordable health care, but Republicans didn't like it because it was Obama's bill. By passing a bill they knew would be vetoed, they got to have their cake and eat it. They could say that they were following Republican principles and look good to the party, but no one would actually be hurt by it. Yet they could still point to Obama as the villain for obstructing them. Win-win situation.

But now that they have a president who would actually sign the bill, will they actually go through with it and screw millions of people?

When like minds occupy all the positions of power, there are no more checks and balances and much damage can result from one person's vision. In a very short time there will be a right wing Congress, President, and a politically active right wing Supreme Court.

The ball is totally in Trump's hands.

[Cyberyeti]

barmar, on 2016-November-09, 23:17, said:

I'm pretty sure he means African-Americans, Latinos, and Muslims who are all just trying to live normal lives and purse the American dream.

If someone is a terrorist, of course we should deal with them. But treating ALL Muslims as terrorists because there's an extremist faction in their religion is the very definition of racism.

Yup, treating all Muslims as potential terrorists is like treating all Christians as potential WBC or KKK members.

[helene_t]

A few random thoughts:

- The pollers didn't really get it wrong. As 538 notes, if you move 1% of the valid votes from Trump to Clinton (which is within the normal error margin of polls), Clinton would have won comfortably and the polls would have gotten all states bar NC right.
- The narrative that floods my facebook news feed is all kinds of generalizations of Americans, white Americans, old Americans, Working class Americans, American men. But within all these segments there is room for considerable disagreement. About half would vote for Trump and about half for Clinton, somewhat more in some segments than in others. Largely as expected. The differences between segments might in some ways be a bit bigger than usual. Anyway, a 1% deviation from the forecasts, while hugely significant in terms of political consequences, doesn't really justify a completely reversed narrative about the zeitgeist or of the mental health of Americans in general.
- For someone like me who never watches TV and very rarely clicks on a political video link on the internet, it feels incomprehensible that so many would consider Trump more trustworthy than Clinton. But maybe it is understandable considering that most voters will make there assessment largely based on TV. I have only seen Hillary a couple of times on video so it doesn't have that much influence on my opinion about her, but the little I have seen looks like fake smiles. The kind of facial expression that wouldn't pass a lie detector. If I place myself in the shoes of someone who suspects NYT of being about as biased as Fox News, and spends a lot more time watching politics on TV than reading about politics, then it is maybe not so surprising.