Jump to content

President-elect Trump

Politics   (45,375 Views 192 Comments)
6 Followers; 99,708 Visitors; 16,073 Posts
If you find this topic helpful leave a comment.

You are reading page 15 of President-elect Trump. If you want to start from the beginning Go to First Page.

Chare, maybe so, maybe no. For now, while I'm very conscious of the turnabout nature of the current discussions about Trump, as well as the joys of schadenfreud, I'd be careful of false equivalencies. But that's a whole 'nother thread.

As an elderly SS recipient working in a facility caring primarily for Medicaid clients (aka indigent), who is also a single earth-worshipping lesbian race traitor ... well, let's say I'm not quite as sanguine as you seem to be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sounds very familiar to what those of us on the right were told repeatedly 4 and 8 years ago, to include by many on this board.

As Timothy suggested, I'm sure that everyone will get through the next 4 years just fine.

Or 8 yrs.

And if you don't think an incumbent President with the all power of the incumbency isn't favored to get reelected, I invite you to revisit election night 2012 with me...

~faith,

Timothy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I felt the same way when Pres Obama was elected. And Re-elected.

"But it's different this time!"

I assure you, it's not.

I survived. The left will survive, too.

It's not the left that I'm worried about. If if were just the survival of the left I'd say fasten your seat belts, hold on tight, and vote him out in '20. Like we did with Reagan and Bush-squared. But that's not it at all. If you've paid attention to what the other side is saying you'll know that.

It's the survival of my gay friends and their rights in the face of a cabinet whose policy doesn't give a crap about them. It's the survival of my trans friends whose healthcare plans may no longer cover their transition. It's the survival of my immigrant friends whose green cards visas or DACA or humanitarian parole may not be renewed under a xenophobic DHS, and they go home to countries where their lives are in danger. It's their survival in a country where bigots now feel justified in their bigotry. Where a friend of mine was assaulted while outside on a smoke break and the assailants threatened to grab her by the *****, because it's Trump's America now. Where immigrants, people in hijab, non-whites, and LGBTs have been verbally and physically assaulted because Trump spent 18 months stoking the fears of straight white Christian America. It is their survival I am worried about, Tim. Their actual physical survival.

You can deny that things like internment camps will ever happen, but looking at Trump's campaign promises and the frankly alarming voting records of his cabinet, I'll be inclined to ask you whether you're blind, deaf, or crazy. The big difference is, if nothing ever comes of that and similar promises, neither you nor I have lost much. If Trump makes good on even a few of his campaign promises, you still don't stand to lose anything, while my family and I will lose a lot more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sounds very familiar to what those of us on the right were told repeatedly 4 and 8 years ago, to include by many on this board.

As Timothy suggested, I'm sure that everyone will get through the next 4 years just fine.

Please see my response to Timothy.

Obama did not spend nearly two years of a campaign explicitly promising to restrict rights of people of one religion, mocking the disabled, denigrating women, creating a culture of lugenpresse, inciting violence among supporters ("Beat the crap out of 'im, would ya?"), and stoking xenophobia by creating the Mexican = rapist/criminal association in the minds of far too many.

There is no normalization of this.

If you are straight, white, and Christian, then I am sure you will get through the next four years just fine. Please don't tell me that I am not seeing what has been explicitly placed in my face for the last two years. To pat us on the head and promise that everything will be ok is patronizing at best. It has already not been ok for many thousands of people since Election Day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Trump administration will be very very different from the Obama administration, it is not every close to being comparable. A brief scrutiny of the agenda and qualifications of the Trump appointees demonstrates the depth of just how different.

I don't think Tim and others here are saying the administrations are the same.

We are just saying that the way we who did not vote for Obama 8 and 4 years ago felt/thought is similar to the way some of y'all are feeling/thinking.

There was a huge backlash at anyone who said we hoped Obama's policies didn't come to fruition.

"Wait and see" . . . "Give him a chance" . . etc.

I completely understand and support those who don't like Trump and encourage them to make their views known and to protest (peacefully) if they wish.

It would be hypocritical of me to expect anything less than what I wish I had experienced 8 and 4 years ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Please see my response to Timothy.

Obama did not spend nearly two years of a campaign explicitly promising to restrict rights of people of one religion, mocking the disabled, denigrating women, creating a culture of lugenpresse, inciting violence among supporters ("Beat the crap out of 'im, would ya?"), and stoking xenophobia by creating the Mexican = rapist/criminal association in the minds of far too many.

There is no normalization of this.

If you are straight, white, and Christian, then I am sure you will get through the next four years just fine. Please don't tell me that I am not seeing what has been explicitly placed in my face for the last two years. To pat us on the head and promise that everything will be ok is patronizing at best. It has already not been ok for many thousands of people since Election Day.

And again I assure you that your fears, the complete destruction of your value systems with irreparable harm to those affected by it, were my fears 8 yrs ago.

And much harm was indeed done.

The ACA which turned healthcare for everybody into defacto catastrophic plans at full price. And created a part-time workforce that bends the unemployment rate but doesn't provide full employment because of the ACA's 29 hr rule.

2/3 of my twenty something boys can't find full time work because of the 29 hr rule but they're counted as employed because they work part time. Real harm.

Or Dodd-Franks and other stupid regulations holding our economy back to sub-2% growth while the Fed fans the stock market with zero interest for the entire 8 yrs of the last Administration to cover up the lack of recovery. And promptly reverses course for the incoming Administration. Real harm.

Or. The EPA killing the coal jobs and plants in my community causing my friends and neighbors to be laid off and increasing my electric bill. Real Harm.

I could go on. The point is you believe the right's agenda causes real harm while the left's agenda is just a mild annoyance because you only value the moral relevance of one side.

I assure you, the feelings of threat were mutual.

The Left vastly overreached in pushing its agenda down the throats of flyover country without concern for their opinion because their opinions weren't valid when compared to the Left's ascendant morality. "I won."

And DJT is the pushback against that attitude. "Well you see, your concerns then just aren't as valid as mine are now." I understand and so did voters.

But the Left didn't want to just win a place for their viewpoint to thrive. They wanted to nationalize it in order to force those views on everybody. By making everything an issue enforced by the national executive, you make everything subject to the incoming executive. You are staring in the face of what happens when the strategy of using the might of the federal executive to enforce your views backfires.

Wouldn't it be neat if California were free to be liberal and Texas conservative and all your friends and their concerns could seek refuge where their ideology thrives while allowing me and mine to seek the same refuge in our sphere of comfort?

Thats why my overarching political philosophy is federalism over statism. I'd be ecstatic to send everything back to the states and let California be California if California would let me be Texas.

Turns out, entrenching the day to day functions of government into the hands of the federal bureaucracy only works when your viewpoint controls the bureaucracy. When it doesn't, it's a very scary proposition.

I know. I've been there.

~faith,

Timothy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do we honestly think that the EPA killed coal jobs?

California is already free to be liberal and Texas is free to be conservative as state governments should reflect the values of the majority of the voters. Please note how that is currently working in North Carolina.

The problem isn't that the states are not allowed to be either conservative or liberal in their governance, it is the expectation that all citizens will live their personal lives as social conservatives because someone else thinks that is a good idea or necessary simply because of their geographical location.

I am a social liberal and fiscal conservative who lives smack dab in the middle of a state which has never voted Democrat. The nice thing about Alaska is that I am allowed to live my life exactly as I would prefer here. Many socially conservatives states are not so open minded, especially when it comes to the activities of women, people who are not white, not Christian, or not wealthy...small government conservatives in many states have reduced the size of government so that it is of little consequence to corporate giants but fits very nicely up the arse of the common man.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And again I assure you that your fears, the complete destruction of your value systems with irreparable harm to those affected by it, were my fears 8 yrs ago.

And much harm was indeed done.

The ACA which turned healthcare for everybody into defacto catastrophic plans at full price. And created a part-time workforce that bends the unemployment rate but doesn't provide full employment because of the ACA's 29 hr rule.

2/3 of my twenty something boys can't find full time work because of the 29 hr rule but they're counted as employed because they work part time. Real harm.

Or Dodd-Franks and other stupid regulations holding our economy back to sub-2% growth while the Fed fans the stock market with zero interest for the entire 8 yrs of the last Administration to cover up the lack of recovery. And promptly reverses course for the incoming Administration. Real harm.

Or. The EPA killing the coal jobs and plants in my community causing my friends and neighbors to be laid off and increasing my electric bill. Real Harm.

I could go on. The point is you believe the right's agenda causes real harm while the left's agenda is just a mild annoyance because you only value the moral relevance of one side.

I assure you, the feelings of threat were mutual.

The Left vastly overreached in pushing its agenda down the throats of flyover country without concern for their opinion because their opinions weren't valid when compared to the Left's ascendant morality. "I won."

And DJT is the pushback against that attitude. "Well you see, your concerns then just aren't as valid as mine are now." I understand and so did voters.

But the Left didn't want to just win a place for their viewpoint to thrive. They wanted to nationalize it in order to force those views on everybody. By making everything an issue enforced by the national executive, you make everything subject to the incoming executive. You are staring in the face of what happens when the strategy of using the might of the federal executive to enforce your views backfires.

Wouldn't it be neat if California were free to be liberal and Texas conservative and all your friends and their concerns could seek refuge where their ideology thrives while allowing me and mine to seek the same refuge in our sphere of comfort?

Thats why my overarching political philosophy is federalism over statism. I'd be ecstatic to send everything back to the states and let California be California if California would let me be Texas.

Turns out, entrenching the day to day functions of government into the hands of the federal bureaucracy only works when your viewpoint controls the bureaucracy. When it doesn't, it's a very scary proposition.

I know. I've been there.

~faith,

Timothy.

Absolutely untrue that I value the moral relevance of one side.

Not being able to find FT work is a problem, yes. Economic downturns, sure.

But if you're really convinced that those are equal to people's actual lives being in danger, I think it's YOU who isn't seeing the moral issue here.

I do think it's kind of funny that the right thinks Donald Trump who is Goldman Sachs personified is the solution to any of the problems working class America (that's me by the way, hello) faces.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tim - no one can "destroy" your values. If your values are threatened by others holding different ones, they are pretty weakly held to begin with.

The ACA is a mess, I'll agree with you there. I'm skeptical, however, of the claim that this 29 hour rule has caused significant under-employment all by itself, although I can see where a small business operating on razor thin margins to begin with would have problems with it.

Personally, I don't think Dodd-Frank went anywhere near far enough. I agree that kow-towing to the financial industry has caused a significant drag on the economy. In the ethics-free American business model, it's all good if it turns a profit. A bill to require financial advisors to operate in the interest of their clients was recently defeated. That such a rule would need to be written down is shocking enough, but it was motivated by the behavior of the financial industry itself in the run-up to the 2009 crash. Apparently, our fearless legislators decided that such behavior is perfectly ok, regardless of the dishonesty and potential consequences. Caveat emptor, right? All perfectly legal.

And the EPA didn't kill the coal industry - coal did.

And Texas is already free to be Texas and as conservative as it likes ... but not at the expense of the rights of its citizens ... all of them. It would be nice if we could all emigrate and set up our own little utopias without bothering anyone else. After all, it's been the traditional way our species has dealt with the problem of clashing values. But with 7 billion of us (and counting), and the biosphere that keeps us alive degrading rapidly, that's no longer a viable solution.

Unless, of course, you're into genocide, which is also a traditional solution to the problem of liebensraum.

No, it's not my values that are threatened - they remain my values and I will continue to live by them as best I can.

What's threatened are my human rights (freedom of speech, particularly), my physical safety (from the religious right and white racists who have repeatedly articulated an intent to kill me, not to mention antagonizing China, NATO and the entire Muslim world) and my paycheck (SS and CMS cuts).

For a start.

Edited by heron

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ask the people in Oregon who baked cakes for a living about their values.

Tim - no one can "destroy" your values. If your values are threatened by others holding different ones, they are pretty weakly held to begin with.

The ACA is a mess, I'll agree with you there. I'm skeptical, however, of the claim that this 29 hour rule has caused significant under-employment all by itself, although I can see where a small business operating on razor thin margins to begin with would have problems with it.

Personally, I don't think Dodd-Frank went anywhere near far enough. I agree that Joe-towing to the financial industry has caused a significant drag on the economy. In the ethics-free American business model, it's all good if it turns a profit. A bill to require financial advisors to operate in the interest of their clients was recently defeated. That such a rule would need to be written down is shocking enough, but it was motivated by the behavior of the financial industry itself in the run-up to the 2009 crash. Apparently, our fearless legislators decided that such behavior is perfectly ok, regardless of the dishonesty and potential consequences. Caveat emptor, right? All perfectly legal.

And the EPA didn't kill the coal industry - coal did.

And Texas is already free to be Texas and as conservative as it likes ... but not at the expense of the rights of its citizens ... all of them. It would be nice if we could all emigrate and set up our own little utopias without bothering anyone else. After all, it's been the traditional way our species has dealt with the problem of clashing values. But with 7 billion of us (and counting), and the biosphere that keeps us alive degrading rapidly, that's no longer a viable solution.

Unless, of course, you're into genocide, which is also a traditional solution to the problem of liebensraum.

No, it's not my values that are threatened - they remain my values and I will continue to live by them as best I can.

What's threatened are my human rights (freedom of speech, particularly), my physical safety (from the religious right and white racists who have repeatedly articulated an intent to kill me, not to mention antagonizing China, NATO and the entire Muslim world) and my paycheck (SS and CMS cuts).

For a start.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ask the people in Oregon who baked cakes for a living about their values.

They chose to operate a public business, and that (the licensure to do so) comes with certain responsibilities, like equal access. There was a time when a lot of people felt (and I'm sure plenty still do, but don't talk about it as much) that mixing of the races was a violation of their sincerely held religious beliefs, and they felt that they should be able to operate a restaurant or hotel (or bakery ...) and refuse service to people of other races. I guess you think that is okay, too? We should go back to the Jim Crow days of "Whites Only" and "Blacks Only" restaurants, hotels, and drinking fountains?

How is this any different? The "religious" beliefs are (were) just a sincerely held. Yet few people today have a problem with telling someone operating a business that s/he is not allowed, by law, to refuse service to people of a different race, regardless of how sincerely they may believe that their religion requires or empowers them to do so. If you can't bring yourself to offer your professional services equally to the entire population, than you shouldn't be operating a commercial business.

Same as with nursing licensure, licensure to operate a commercial business comes with certain requirements and restrictions on one's personal liberties. People who find those restrictions unacceptable are free to not be licensed, and pursue some other livelihood that doesn't impinge on their personal beliefs and values.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The freedom to believe any way you want is protected by the Constitution.

What is more restricted is how you act in a civilized society.

No sympathy from me about the Oregon bakers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
×

This site uses cookies. By using this site, you consent to the placement of these cookies. Read our Privacy, Cookies, and Terms of Service Policies to learn more.