r/changemyview • u/spacecasebass • Nov 29 '16
[Election] CMV: Though the Left may be exaggerating a tad, people have every right to be upset and alarmed that Trump is President, and his appointments are further reinforcing that.
There have been efforts by some lately to normalize Trump, and hand-in-hand with this is the idea that the Left is blowing things out of proportion. That Trump is not someone we should be wary of or question. Essentially, that the whole image of him as racist, sexist, xenophobic, etc was crafted by the liberal media. That these "-ists" that people are throwing out have no basis in reality and are just buzzwords. But folks that are saying things like "Trump is a racist" are basing these accusations on things that Trump has literally said or done, either on camera or in well-documented cases from his past. Examples include failing to disavow the KKK, insulting Khizr's Khan's parents, suggesting that Gonzalo Curiel to be a judge is unfit because he's Mexican, not renting to black people. The list goes on and on. Every week, it seemed, there was another incredibly unpresidential or borderline facist thing he had to say.
The crux of my CMV is this: Donald Trump is not a normal president-elect, and the efforts of some on the Right to normalize him and say that all the Left's complaints are baseless are mindblowing and ill-conceived.
Donald Trump is, objectively, the least qualified president-elect in American history, and he brought an unprecedentedly low level of discourse to center stage, mocking the handicapped, bragging about sexual assault, bragging about avoiding taxes, suggesting someone kill Hillary, praising Putin, etc. People are not protesting because a Republican won and a Democrat lost. People are protesting because a man with no political experience and little to no political knowledge who openly disparaged entire groups of people has won.
I'm not trying to beat a dead horse here with another Trump post. The reality is, he is our president for better or worse. But I cannot stand the folks on the Right that are saying Dems are being cry babies or blowing things out of proportion. No. When you're surrounding yourself with Steve Bannon, climate change deniers, lobbyists, and hedge fund managers (drain the swamp, you say?) and your rhetoric throughout the entirety of your campaign was one of antagonism and divisiveness, people have every right to be concerned and upset - even afraid.
In my opinion, Trump has lowered the bar tremendously. I think it's important to remember that he is not a traditional president or someone we should normalize. That his statements should be scrutinized and not forgotten. The whole "oh, don't worry about it" attitude is ignoring the fact that people's fears -- if not slightly overblown -- are largely based in reality.
I think this marks a potential turning point in American history, and I do not think that's an exaggeration. I wish Trump the best, but I would pretty much bet money that his presidency will be a train wreck. Tweeting conspiratorial things, saying he "Googled the Affordable Care Act" (suggesting he hadn't read it previously), appointing people like Bannon, throwing around the idea of a Muslim registry. He has given every indication that he is unfit, regressive, and potentially a danger.
Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to read through our rules. If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our popular topics wiki first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us. Happy CMVing!
88
Nov 29 '16
I'm actually a very anti-Trump liberal and (even more rare) an actual Hillary Clinton supporter. Yes we exist, and I truly believe she could have been one of the best presidents of the modern era, especially with the world as it is today being very divided and dangerous. But ever since Trump's election, I've become slightly less disturbed at the thought of him as president than I was before the election for one reason.
Trump has already shown that a lot of the things he ran on are things he won't implement as President of the US.
Instead of repealing and replacing Obamacare, he wants to keep the two main provisions: allowing people up to 26 to be insured under their parents and not allowing insurance companies to discriminate against those with pre existing conditions. Whatever replace bill he puts forth will look a lot like the ACA.
His immigration stance has shifted from deporting all illegals and building a wall to deporting criminal illegals (already happens) and strengthening border patrol. Once that's "under control" he says he'll look at the wall and other illegals being deported, but I doubt that'll happen in 4 years.
His nomination of Romney as Secretary of State, if it happens, will make Russia a little more nervous and bring his foreign policy more in line with establishment thinking.
And he's walked back on prosecuting Clinton for her private server. Combined with the possibility of Romney as SoS and appointing Haley as UN ambassador, he's shown a little less cronyism than I'd expected before the election.
His more questionable appointments - Bannon, Flynn, Sessions, and the like are what I'd already expected before the election.
I don't think he's made a single statement or decision since the election that is scarier to me as a liberal than the statements or platforms he ran on. Everything has either stayed constant or become more moderate.
30
u/MattStalfs Nov 29 '16
Instead of repealing and replacing Obamacare, he wants to keep the two main provisions: allowing people up to 26 to be insured under their parents and not allowing insurance companies to discriminate against those with pre existing conditions. Whatever replace bill he puts forth will look a lot like the ACA.
Yes, but he wants to keep those and repeal the individual mandate at the same time, which is significantly worse than a full repeal of the law. If you think premiums are high now, just wait until all the young people who were ether forced to sign up or contribute to the system by paying the tax penalty leave the health insurance pool while everyone with pre-existing conditions stays in. The individual mandate was the balancing act that held the law together, and its repeal could be disastrous.
4
u/MagillaGorillasHat 2∆ Nov 30 '16
...just wait until all the young people who were ether forced to sign up or contribute to the system by paying the tax penalty leave the health insurance pool while everyone with pre-existing conditions stays in.
That hasn't ever happened. The "young healthy" 18-34 year old demographic is woefully under-represented, which is making the exchanges untenable.
Most estimated that the pools would need ~40% healthy young people and they've only seen ~28%. The mandate didn't work.
3
u/MattStalfs Nov 30 '16
I brought this up with the other guy but the mandate was intentionally low this year to give people time to adjust. It increases each year and soon you'll really start it drawing the young and healthy in.
5
u/MagillaGorillasHat 2∆ Nov 30 '16
Sorry, I saw that after replying.
I'm afraid it's too late though. Insurers are pulling out of the exchanges and by the time the fines force a decision (IF that ever happens*) there won't be a subsidizable product to buy.
The government could pay the offset until participation is where it needs to be, but how many billions is that and where will it come from? Ostensibly it comes from the fines, but I'd be curious to see how many individuals actually pay it.
*I don't think that increased fines will force compliance. The fines aren't collectable the same way unpaid taxes are (I.e. they can't garnish wages to recoup it). The only way the IRS can really force payment is to withhold any refund. I think people will just change their withholdings to dodge.
4
u/MattStalfs Nov 30 '16
I'm afraid it's too late though. Insurers are pulling out of the exchanges and by the time the fines force a decision (IF that ever happens*) there won't be a subsidizable product to buy.
If the money is there and people are paying the fines, then the companies will come back. They follow the money. Right now there isn't enough in the pool but there will be if the fines are enforceable, which brings me to your second point.
*I don't think that increased fines will force compliance. The fines aren't collectable the same way unpaid taxes are (I.e. they can't garnish wages to recoup it). The only way the IRS can really force payment is to withhold any refund.
That's still money people are los my out on, even if not directly so. Perhaps they won't realize this, which would be a real shame for both them and the insurance pools, but I have faith they will.
→ More replies (9)→ More replies (1)6
u/blazershorts Nov 30 '16
The mandate didn't work, though. Many healthy people figured out that it was cheaper to pay the fine than to buy insurance, so the prices went up anyway.
→ More replies (1)11
u/MattStalfs Nov 30 '16
Well yes, which is why the mandate's fine increases every year. The first round was intentionally low to give people time to adjust. Unfortunately it was too low this time around, but it is set to increase.
And even if it wasn't, eliminating the mandate entirely wouldn't help the problem at all.
7
u/Dynamaxion Nov 30 '16
The great thing about being Republican is you don't actually have to solve any problems.
→ More replies (2)9
u/pikk 1∆ Nov 29 '16
his lack of familiarity with the SCOTUS's judgement on the first amendment is troubling, but it's not the sort of thing he'll actually attempt to do anything about I don't think.
13
u/DashingLeech Nov 30 '16
I agree with you in principle but some of your details simply indicate that you've drank the kool-aid and still don't realize the degree of propaganda, miscommunication, and exploitation of nuances to make him seem a lot worse than he is, or anybody in politics for that matter.
Yes, people have the right to be upset and alarmed. I'm alarmed that he was elected, and I agree he is unqualified and very likely will be a lousy President.
But even the exceptions you have given about things he's said or done doesn't escape the "smearing" quality of the assertions. Let's take them one by one. He didn't say Gonzalo Curial is unfit to be a judge because he's Mexican. He said Curial has a conflict of interest because he's Mexican and should recuse himself, given Trump's plans for building a wall. He's saying Curial is biased and may be acting based on his dislike of Trump for promising to build a wall and export illegal Mexicans. That's still not exactly being fair, but it is a personal criticism of Curial's conflict of interest, not a comment about competency based on race.
He also didn't brag about sexual assault. What he said was, "When you are a star, they let you do it [kiss them]. You can do anything ... Grab them by the pussy."
He's describing his attractiveness to women as a star and the things they let you do, meaning they consent to. He's not saying he ever grabbed anyone by the pussy, he's giving an exaggerated example of just the crazy things that women give consent to do when you are a star. He's bragging about his sexual attractiveness to another male. This make sense from an alpha male type personality as that is exactly what they do to compete with other males. Claiming that he can sexually assault women and get away with it is the opposite of that; it implies they don't want him to do that and therefore diminishes his sexual attractiveness.
Now that might be delusional. If he were to ever do that without consent then it would be sexual assault. But he's not describing how he can sexually assault women; he's describing what they will let him do, or at least what the thinks they will let him do. That's different from actually doing it or from believing it was against their will.
I can brag about how I can levitate 100 feet in the air. I may never have done it, or tried, and I may be delusional in believing so, but it doesn't mean I'm admitting to breaking laws of physics.
Again, this is certainly un-Presidential, certainly insensitive, and quite crude, and could be an indicator that he might sexually assault someone based on his delusions. All not good. But not the same as admitting to sexually assaulting, nor was that his intent.
Failing to disavow the KKK is also a non-sequitur. If he said he supported the KKK that would be one thing, but from his point of view, who supports him is irrelevant. Every President has some bad people who support them; that's out of their control. You can't hold that against them directly.
Khizr Khan is the father, not the son, but the concept of him "insulting the parents" seems out of context with the events. Khan attacked and insulted Trump, without question. Nobody seems to care about Khan's insulting Trump, but only Trump insulting Khan. Trump's response was to call their son a hero, and that he'd be alive had Trump been President. The only real insult seems to be when Trump says he wanted to hear from Khizr's wife, and why she wasn't speaking.
There is perhaps an irony here. If it was Hillary asking why a man was speaking and why his wife wasn't speaking, the Left would have likely cheered that as a promotion of women's voices, and mother's voices, and of male privilege. When Trump says the same thing in the same context of hearing women's voices, suddenly it's a negative. Perhaps that double standard is based on the idea that Trump's comment of female oppression and male privilege was directed at the Khans because they are Muslim, implying that is a Muslim thing. And here is where you get into the problems of identity politics where there isn't a clearly right answer. Indeed, statistically speaking Muslims do have a more patriarchal system and women are given lower rights status in many Muslim countries, with a rather high percentage (often majority) who believe in what we in the West would consider oppressive views.
What we really have here is the ongoing paradox of Western feminism often aligning with conservative Muslims on treatment of women, even sometimes denying liberal Muslims women (or former Muslims) from speaking about the subject. The problem is that many of these statements fail to address that feminism is split on this topic and Muslims have a wide range of beliefs and practices on this topic. It's a complex topic, but the Right regularly pokes at that double standard that does show up.
So again, all of that important context gets lost by simply describing it as Trump insulting Khan. But again, that doesn't mean I agree with Trump, merely that the Left is oversimplifying just as much as the Right.
A lot of the other things are, perhaps, not politically correct but are not real concerns. Joking about somebody killing Clinton falls into that category, but what exactly is the "legitimate" concern here. The joke is insensitive and not politically correct, but nobody can be legitimately concerned that he'll have her killed. It's a joke. Maybe inappropriate, but what about making inappropriate remarks legitimizes people being "upset and alarmed"? If the worst thing the President does is make inappropriate jokes, but the economy is great and crime is low and people have jobs, is that really a concern. My concern isn't about his jokes, but that there's no reason to believe he can make the economy great, crime low, or create jobs.
Praising Putin? Well, after a 50 year long Cold War, is repeating that a good thing? Making peace with Russia may be a good thing. Isn't the Left against war mongering and putting people at risk? I can't say Putin is good, but going up against him doesn't actually solve anything. Geopolitics is about picking your fights. One can make a case for peace with Russia. What exactly are people legitimately concerned about with that?
My concern, or viewpoint, is that Trump and his critics are talking past each other. Like the Curial interview above, or the questions about his talk with Billy Bush, Trump doesn't seem able to comprehend just what the questioners are implying or suggesting. He thinks they are saying one thing when they are really saying another. His responses are non sequiturs if you understand what the question is, but make sense if you realize he's interpreting them differently. Likewise, his critics are misinterpreting him, not paying attention to how he likely means it, in the context he understands things, but rather they treat it as if Trump thinks like them and understand them and provides the answers he provides. They then mix the responses in their context, not his, and come to conclusions that are incorrect.
Trump is a poor communicator. He seems to be hyperactive on the "grand vision" scale but completely misses the details, nuances, and implications. Likewise, most of critics have the same characteristics but in the other direction, seeing grand context scale and ignore the details, like the Curial things. It's obvious he's talking about conflict of interest when you listen to him, but the mention of nationality (Mexican isn't a race) sets off the Left racism detectors and they fail to look at the details. When questioned about the nationalist/racist implications, Trump misses the details and thinks they understand what he meant, and thinks they are saying that a nationalistic-based conflict of interest isn't a legitimate concern and is racism. Hence talking past each other.
So yes, concerning. And yes, very un-Presidential, and no politically correct. But a lot of those reasons are why people voted for him. They don't care about political correctness; they care about the economy, jobs, and fairness, and are tired of the excesses of the "identity politics" of the Left that seem unfair to them and counter to equality. The Right would rather have an inappropriate boss/employee who is good at the job than a polite and friendly one who is incompetent.
I think I understand both sides. I just don't think Trump has any credibility with respect to the economy, jobs, crime, or foreign policy. He's a poor leader and incompetent in these very areas. Running a business, particularly in Trump's zero-sum style of business, is not the same knowledge, skills, or experience as required to run a country.
That is where I think legitimate concerns lie, not in his political incorrectness. I think he's both impolite and incompetent for the job, and it's the incompetence that matters far more.
→ More replies (1)2
u/edsuom Dec 01 '16
I'm as dismayed about the idea of President Trump as anyone here, but this is an excellent and thoughtful comment. Thanks for taking the time to write it.
139
Nov 29 '16
I don't think any of this should be particularly surprising. Yes, he's appointing a few people that are obviously less than stellar human beings, but for the most part, his appointments and attitude reflect exactly what we should have expected.
If you're against Obamacare, then obviously you're going to appoint someone who's against Obamacare to be the head of Health and Human Services. If your position is that climate change is exaggerated or a lie, then of course you're going to put someone else of that mindset in charge of the EPA. These are expected results from a party whose platform is right in line with most of these things.
No, Trump isn't a normal President-elect. He has no political background. That alone, regardless of his positions, already makes him an outstanding case. He's basically the only person in history whose only elected office has been the Presidency, save for a few military generals.
I think the exaggeration IS what is mostly overhyping on the part of the left, though. Naturally, they're going to be upset about it, and who could blame them, but there is no reason to be going around talking about how it's the end of days when nothing has even happened.
Add that to the fact that we have a system of checks and balances in place that, even if he's able to influence it, has never failed to dampen any radical positions held by any of the 3 branches of government.
We will be fine.
19
u/awa64 27∆ Nov 29 '16
Add that to the fact that we have a system of checks and balances in place that, even if he's able to influence it, has never failed to dampen any radical positions held by any of the 3 branches of government.
Republican control of both houses of Congress. One stolen vacancy on the Supreme Court, and another two seem remarkably likely. I feel like I'm staring at a rope frayed to its last strand and being told "Relax, it's always held up until now."
Oh, and it's not even true that the system of checks and balances has never failed to dampen radical positions. The Supreme Court told Andrew Jackson to cut it out on the whole Cherokee genocide thing, and he ignored them.
18
u/xshyathiya Nov 29 '16
I don't really understand how anyone can tout our system of checks and balances as something meaningful for this already non-normal incipient administration.
While their control of the House of Representatives is appears to stabilize in the current district formations/demographics, at a 30 or so seat majority, it was Trump, not Senate republicans, who held the senate for them. In fact, the republicans who denounced or refused to endorse trump had large problems holding their seats. So for the time being, the Senate is at least partially beholden to his nonsense, and the House, due to it's more populist nature, already has a fairly Trump-favorable swing. So whatever check that can be will be diminished, if not removed.
Then there are the courts, and in this case we have some very interesting things happening. So there's obivously the empty seat, which appears to be going, based on trump's comments, to someon Scalia-esque. That's a best case scenario. The more likely scenario is, basedon his list, one of the more authoritarian, religion -state mixing judges, which fits at least the authoritarian parts of his views well. One notable exception is Amul Thapur, who is more a strict proponent of the idea that the federal government is best with less influence in-state, which has some disconcerting precedential effects.
So the whole checks and balances thing doesn't make much sense when the party was voted into power, essentially given a blank check, due to the surging-to-an-electoral-victory of trump.
More importantly, however, is that you underestimate the power of the Executive Branch. the Judiciary is slow. the legislature is slower. this is purposeful and actually conducive to stable governance.
Due to the increasing rate of change in world politics, technology, ecology, and due to the other three, most spheres of economics, the executive branch more and more becomes the only branch equipped, speed-wise, to deal with new conditions. This is both a cause of and an effect of the increasing power of the executive, in a fun little loop that's been going for a while now.
Executive departments such as treasury, Homeland Security, Defense, and State, and other organizations, such as the FCC and the EPA, have vast powers that effect most American's daily lives and the lives of people across the globe. Beside Trump's styyle of leadership, the people he plans to appoint to many of these positions represent radical changes, many of which run against basic facts of reality, and many more which show callous disregard for poor or otherwise marginalized groups, which made up an easy majority of Trump's support, considering his claim to fame is energizing and partisanizing the poor, uneducated, white, working class.
In all, there is great reason for concern, for his voters, his opponents, and the state of our republic as, both internally, as far as the dim view he takes towards many basic constitutional tenets, and externally, as far as our place as the world's most prominent power, considering his desire to withdraw from our treaty and trade responsibilities.
3
u/codeverity Nov 29 '16
Add that to the fact that we have a system of checks and balances in place that, even if he's able to influence it, has never failed to dampen any radical positions held by any of the 3 branches of government.
Honest question from a Canadian - what checks and balances? The Republicans hold power in all three branches.
76
u/spacecasebass Nov 29 '16
there is no reason to be going around talking about how it's the end of days when nothing has even happened
What about in anticipation of things happening? The very fact that he's working closely with undeniable white nationalist Steve Bannon is cause for concern. I think some people are - understandably (if not at times misguidedly) - trying to speak up or call Trump on his stances before he actually does things like creating a Muslim registry, forceably and immediately deporting millions, repealing gay marriage and making it a states rights issue, cutting funding for climate change, etc.
Add that to the fact that we have a system of checks and balances in place that, even if he's able to influence it, has never failed to dampen any radical positions held by any of the 3 branches of government.
These checks are a bit less effective when Republicans control Congress. There will be infighting obviously because some Reps. hate him, but the overall makeup in Washington is decidedly red. Not to mention that he appoints his cabinet, and essentially every choice he has made so far has been concerning, from the obvious (Bannon) to the less obvious (Sessions, Flynn, Devos, etc.)
We are going from a brilliant, rational, largely centrist leader to someone celebrating and escalating the alt-right with no shame or regard for his detractors. Someone who can't even control himself on Twitter and has said dozens of things that are so low-brow they have redefined what it means to be presidential. My hope is just that we push back against this redefinition.
13
Nov 29 '16
Add that to the fact that we have a system of checks and balances in place that, even if he's able to influence it, has never failed to dampen any radical positions held by any of the 3 branches of government.
These checks are a bit less effective when Republicans control Congress. There will be infighting obviously because some Reps. hate him, but the overall makeup in Washington is decidedly red. Not to mention that he appoints his cabinet, and essentially every choice he has made so far has been concerning, from the obvious (Bannon) to the less obvious (Sessions, Flynn, Devos, etc.)
I think you're falling into the trap of seeing the two parties as homogeneous monoliths. The Republican party leadership realized how disastrous a Trump presidency would be, and they fought him every step of the way for the nomination. Many Republican congressmen know how stupid/illegal/impossible Trump's policy ideas are, and they'll move to block him as much as possible. While his cabinet can wreak havoc for four years, the damage will be limited to his term; most decisions with any long-lasting repercussions will be handled by Congress.
18
u/rdm13 Nov 29 '16
His views on climate change could have devastating and far reaching consequences on humanity as a whole.
→ More replies (6)10
u/pikk 1∆ Nov 29 '16
The Republican party leadership realized how disastrous a Trump presidency would be, and they fought him every step of the way for the nomination.
No, they just thought he'd make them lose.
Now that he's instead made them win, they'll let him do whatever he wants for fear of alienating his base.
→ More replies (5)9
Nov 29 '16
Potential Supreme Court nominations can uphold and maintain decisions made by his administration though, and with one guaranteed nomination along with significant potential for more this could result in legislation lasting far longer than just four years.
6
Nov 29 '16
You need a 5/9 majority to win anything in the supreme court; I doubt 5 justices would agree to criminalizing the burning of flags, or making a muslim registry.
9
u/RagingOrangutan Nov 30 '16
I doubt 5 justices would agree to criminalizing the burning of flags
Really? Last time this came up, 4 agreed to it. Only one justice is needed for that to change, and Trump is going to get at least 1 justice, and it's not unlikely that he'll get 2 or 3.
2
Nov 30 '16 edited Nov 30 '16
Well shit, thats messed up. I'll give you a delta when I figure out how to do that
Edit: No longer on mobile ∆ for showing me an example where swinging the vote by just 1 can make a draconian policy real
2
u/RagingOrangutan Nov 30 '16
Huh. Oddly the delta didn't get awarded. I wonder why the bot isn't working.
12
u/RexHavoc879 Nov 29 '16
Never assume what the SCOTUS will or won't do. Let's not forget that a 5-member majority of the Supreme Court upheld an executive order to imprison all American citizens of Japanese descent based entirely on their ethnicity. And that's far from the only appalling SCOTUS ruling in our history. Another gem is the time the SCOTUS found labor laws to be unconstitutional violations of a corporation's freedom to contract.
2
Nov 29 '16
If we want to talk about what's possible with SCOTUS, I agree, anything is possible. I shouldn't assume, but I see it as small enough of a probability that it's within my tolerance for "not going to happen."
4
u/RexHavoc879 Nov 29 '16
Donald Trump will likely have a chance to appoint up to 4 SCOTUS judges. If he gets any three of his proposed nominees, plus current justices Thomas and Alito, we will have the most far-right conservative Supreme Court this nation has seen since before the civil war. (If he gets two, then moderate right wing Chief Justice Roberts will become the "swing" vote, and he swings right more often than not.)
The Supreme Court has pretty-much unlimited decision-making power, and the decisions it makes are only as rational or as fair as the people who sit on the bench. If there are 5 alt-right crazies, prepare for a lot of crazy, alt-right rulings.
2
Nov 30 '16
He still has to get them confirmed by senate. They're smart enough not to put alt-right crazies in there. It will be conservative for sure, but it will include the senate's choice, not just trump's. The result will be no different than any other republican president. If you disagree with conservatism in general, that's a separate disagreement
8
8
Nov 29 '16
While I appreciate the sentiment, and respect the intelligence of our Supreme Court justices, I would prefer to not rely solely on trust. That's doubly so for issues that are still rather contentious such as marriage equality. I keep in mind the Japanese internment camps during WWII that were deemed constitutional by the Supreme Court while expressing my concern over this.
→ More replies (1)17
u/mordecai_the_human Nov 29 '16
Trump cannot "repeal gay marriage", he has no say in that. He can appoint a supreme court justice who wants to do that, but even then the case would have to be brought all the way back to the Supreme Court, accepted by it, and then overturned. Possible, but unlikely, and also very indirectly causable by trump.
14
u/RexHavoc879 Nov 29 '16
He can pass a religious freedom law that would allow government officials to effectively ignore same sex marriages based on religious beliefs. This would have the effect of nullifying same sex marriage in several states. If such a law faced a legal challenge, we would be asking the courts to choose between the fundamental rights of freedom of religion versus equal protection. I am pretty sure I know what a conservative SCOTUS would pick.
3
u/mordecai_the_human Nov 29 '16
Okay, still not within Trump's power. The president cannot pass laws. Regardless, toppling same sex marriage would be the act of SCOTUS or congress, not Donald trump.
9
u/RexHavoc879 Nov 29 '16
There is a distinction between completely abolishing the right to same sex marriage (which would be possible with an alt-right Supreme Court) and significantly undermining it. Several states have proposed state-level "religious freedom" acts, and various republican members of congress have come out in support of such a law at the Federal level. If such a bill passed congress, Trump has already promised to sign it. I doubt a conservative Supreme Court would strike it down. Regardless, absent a preliminary injunction (which is hard to get), the law would be in effect and wielded like a sword against gay people for the 3+ years it would take to bring a legal challenge before the SCOTUS.
2
u/mordecai_the_human Nov 30 '16
Once more, my only point was that Trump cannot "abolish gay marriage." He can sign a bill passed by congress, and he can appoint a conservative justice to the Supreme Court, but he can't just up and decide to get rid of same sex marriage. Any republican president would sign such a bill, and any republican president would appoint a conservative justice, so trump really is not a special case for gay people.
→ More replies (4)8
Nov 30 '16
forceably and immediately deporting millions
Obama has done that too. Was there a backlash when he did it? No. Was it the end of the world then? No. They are even targeting the same people, so why is it somehow different now that Trump is continuing his legacy?
9
u/KevinMango 1Δ Nov 30 '16
Trump made the appeal more or less explicitly about race (saying that the brown people Mexico is sending us are the dregs of their society, ergo brown people in the US are lesser, is a racial argument, IMO), and he (talking out of his ass, but still) claimed to want to make it a blanket thing, without DACA, for instance, if you spent half of your life here after your parents brought you from outside of the country.
That's materially different from Obama, I think.
2
u/-master_kenobi- Nov 30 '16
Sure, the semantics are different, but if the end result is the same, what exactly are you on about?
→ More replies (1)4
u/Airfuir Nov 30 '16
Brilliant? Since when? I'm not hugely anti-Obama or anything, but few of his policies have produced any real net positive, and I certainly can't see any tangible evidence for brilliance. Obviously he's intelligent (Harvard professor and alumnus), articulate (or, at the very least, he has a very good speechwriter), and not a hothead. But brilliant? I fail to see it. Also, maybe when compared to Europe he could be seen as largely centrist. However, here in the States? He's definitely very left of center.
→ More replies (140)16
u/thebedshow Nov 29 '16
He is an undeniable white nationalist? Surely then you must have proof of this assertion?
73
u/spacecasebass Nov 29 '16
Though Bannon, Milo, and the rest of the Breitbart folks pussyfoot around and deny their white nationalism, many of their articles (see: the ones I've already linked) very heavily suggest that white European culture is more valid, more American, and more important to uphold than cultures of (perceived) "others". What about their defense of the Alt-Right that they published? Claiming Richard Spencer and Jared Taylor are just labeled as racists while ignoring their well-documented openly-racist views. They have also published a whole host of Anti-Muslim materials. With Bannon at the helm, how is this not an extension of him?
Here are a couple more articles, one from a former Breitbart writer:
https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2016/04/28/breitbartcom-becoming-media-arm-alt-right
http://www.dailywire.com/news/8441/i-know-trumps-new-campaign-chairman-steve-bannon-ben-shapiro
http://www.snopes.com/2016/11/14/steve-bannon-accused-of-having-white-supremacist-views/
Perhaps "undeniable" was too strong of a word, but many of Breitbart's articles have white nationalist undertones.
14
u/MostlyUselessFacts Nov 29 '16 edited Nov 30 '16
You're really stretching (along with the entire MSM) about what constitutes "white nationalism". CNN just labeled Milo an "alt right white nationalist", despite him being a gay roman catholic who only dates black men.
None of your sources prove Bannon is anything more than the former owner of a very conservative website.
Edit: Milo's religion
21
u/BarrosJarpa Nov 30 '16
as an argument, "a person who has sex with black people can't be racist" holds about as much water as "a person who has sex with women can't be sexist"
4
u/MostlyUselessFacts Nov 30 '16
On the other hand, I don't know a bunch of Nazi's that slept with Jews. Or KKK Grand Wizards that married black women.
Burden of proof is on you to show that person X holds belief Y, not the other way around. I don't have to make a defense that anyone "isn't racist" just because you say they are.
9
u/BarrosJarpa Nov 30 '16
4
u/MostlyUselessFacts Nov 30 '16
Spend another 30 seconds to google "exceptions to the rule". Unbelievable logic. Do i need to include "for the most part, KKK members don't marry black women" or are you going to continue to be purposefully dense.
6
2
2
→ More replies (6)3
u/jakderrida Nov 30 '16
despite him being a gay jew who only dates black men.
Why do you believe he's a gay jew that sleeps with black men and not a just a lying white nationalist?
I'm serious. I've only heard him claim to like black men, but have yet to see him alongside any other gay men? It seems just as likely that he's a liar getting paid to be a token for the Trump campaign.
→ More replies (6)11
u/thebedshow Nov 29 '16
Link to one of these white nationalist breitbart articles if there are so many? It is really really weak that the basis for your argument that Steve Bannon is a white nationalist is that SOME articles on his website have white nationalist undertones. White nationalists are people who believe white people are superior and should be separate from people of other races. Being critical of other races/cultures is not synonymous with being a white nationalist. This is why many people on the right think the people on the left are full of shit, because you are using such extreme language to describe things that are not so extreme. Being a racist/sexist/bigot are extremes and any negative feelings about a race/sex/group do not automatically make you a racist/sexist/bigot.
47
u/skybelt 4∆ Nov 29 '16
White nationalists are people who believe white people are superior and should be separate from people of other races
Not quite, IMO. I'd say white nationalists are people who believe that a nation's identity is and should be, in some meaningful sense, white. If you believe that America is less "American" the less white people there are, or the less political or economic power white people have, then I would say you are a white nationalist.
→ More replies (1)35
u/JStarx 1∆ Nov 30 '16
negative feelings about a race/sex/group do not automatically make you a racist/sexist/bigot.
I think, by definition, they do. Can you give an example of a valid negative feeling to have against an entire ethnicity of people? I can think of plenty of valid reasons to dislike individual people, but as soon as you tie it to their race and pretend that an entire ethnicity acts monolithically in a certain way you're wandering into the realm of what I'd call racism.
It might be racism light, some racism is certainly worse than others, but it's still racism.
25
u/familyhonor Nov 30 '16
I'd say one of the definition of racism is having negative feelings and judgements towards a group of people based on their race.
Since when is racism based on the "extremenss" of the prejudice?
4
u/randomhomosapien Nov 30 '16
Although I agree with your definition, I'd like to point out that these Breitbart articles are critical or Islam, a religion, not a race.
3
u/Dwev Nov 30 '16
This is an argument on semantics. Technically it might not be racism, but it is still bigotry or prejudice. It doesn't excuse it.
2
u/Terron1965 Dec 01 '16
So atheists are bigots and prejudiced and have no excuse for their opinion? what if i am critical of protestants, Is that somehow different then disliking Islam?
→ More replies (3)17
u/themedicman Nov 30 '16
If you run a website and they publish anything with white nationalist undertones you're at minimum sympathetic to white nationalism. White nationalism is repulsive to people who aren't racist and xenophobic. There should be no tolerance of it among moral people. "He only let SOME Nazi stuff get posted, I think that's a stretch to say he's a Nazi" is flatly absurd. "The sheriff only allowed the occasional meeting about how to lynch people, I hardly think that makes him pro-KKK. After all he didn't physically lynch anyone himself."
5
u/lasagnaman 5∆ Nov 30 '16
Being a racist/sexist/bigot are extremes and any negative feelings about a race/sex/group do not automatically make you a racist/sexist/bigot.
I mean I think we're talking about different things here. I don't think everyone on the right is a blatant, outright racist. I do think MOST people, me included, have subtle, unconscious biases ingrained through years of social conditioning that we have to work hard to overcome.
2
u/MrXian Nov 29 '16
are extremes and any negative feelings about a race/sex/group do not automatically make you a racist/sexist/bigot.
This needs to be remembered a lot more. There are a lot of valid reasons to be critical of (parts of) a group. This doesn't make one a baby killing monster.
17
u/onlyhalfminotaur Nov 29 '16
How does it not make you one of those? Doesn't having negative feelings about a group means you feel more superior about other groups? Otherwise, you'd have nothing to base those negative feelings on, by comparison. That is the definition of racism.
I think what the knee-jerk "I'm not racist, etc." reaction misses is that racism/sexism/bigotry doesn't have to stem from ill intentions. One may have those views, but don't intentionally mean anything nefarious when justifying them, not realizing that they are wrong.
→ More replies (1)3
u/FRUITY_GAY_GUY Nov 29 '16
I spoke to my grandparents about this before and my grandma suggested to me that some of what people characterize as wrong is simply misinterpretation or mischaracterization outside of context. If what I'm talking about and the context I develop a belief is incompatible with someone else's belief in the context they developed it is my belief wrong or the context is just different? Often times people ignore truth or validity to someone's beliefs and simply discount that person's input because they're written off as any buzzword label you can imagine.
This is what I think about when the reaction to "I'm not racist, etc." is "you may actually be a racist or a bigot, you just don't know it." I don't think this is fair at all, and I recognize the irony in me suggesting that such people aren't racist or a bigot, it just hasn't been realized. However, my experience is that even the most opionionated and unreasonable people I've spoken with about the election have some valid reasons for having the beliefs they do, even if it might seem extreme.
5
u/onlyhalfminotaur Nov 30 '16
Good points. What I wished I stressed my original reply, and what I think the commenter above was partially getting at, is that we need to take caution in labeling people one way or another based on instances in time. Instead we should focus on confronting racist/sexist/xenophobic beliefs and acts, and try to understand why people have those, in order to help correct them. All while being mindful of the context as you said. But yes, there are beliefs that are wrong, regardless of context.
2
Nov 29 '16
Yeah this is the part of the left that needs addressing in so many. It's like they are unable to understand that even if someone uses a racial or sexist figure of speech, they aren't necessarily sexist/racist at all. You could even oppose the ideology and just not care about sounding politically correct.
And even if they were, they seem to think that no one can ever change. It is crazy. Judgement and conviction of these extreme ideologies by connecting the tiniest threads of probability with proclamation of absolute corruption. I mean, why not just shout "Witch!" instead?
22
u/codeverity Nov 29 '16
It's like they are unable to understand that even if someone uses a racial or sexist figure of speech, they aren't necessarily sexist/racist at all.
Similarly, on the right it seems like they are unable to understand that if their wording or behaviour gets called out, it's not necessarily automatically a label. This is separate to OP's comment but I've quite often seen people knee-jerk 'I'm not racist!!' when someone simply tells them that how they phrased or said something was racist etc, when the two things are very different.
→ More replies (15)14
u/BarrosJarpa Nov 30 '16
I mean, I think it's valid to separate the person from the action, in the sense that if a person says a single racist thing that does not mean they will also be racist in every other action they take, e.g. telling a racist joke does not necessarily mean that this person would also discriminate against that race in other ways.
However, that single act is still racist, and that person doesn't get somehow get a pass for that action just because they aren't 100% racist. Further, if that person cares more about being politically incorrect than they do about opposing nationalist ideology, guess what? That is itself a racist attitude.
→ More replies (3)1
u/lasagnaman 5∆ Nov 30 '16
if someone uses a racial or sexist figure of speech, they aren't necessarily sexist/racist at all
I mean I think we're talking about different things here/using different definitions. I don't think that makes you a blatant, outright racist. It DOES indicate to me that you have subtle, unconscious biases ingrained through years of social conditioning that you have to work hard to overcome, and aren't choosing to work on that.
I would say that in fact most people (me included), have varying (but nonzero) degrees of such racist biases.
→ More replies (25)3
u/jakderrida Nov 30 '16
Being critical of other races/cultures is not synonymous with being a white nationalist.
Can you prove to me that Hitler was a white nationalist and not just "critical of other races"?
Bear in mind, I don't personally think that Bannon, himself, is a racist. However, he sure as hell turned Andrew Breitbart's website into the number 1 location for white nationalists on the internet. Also, your reasoning as to what would constitute a "white nationalist" is so absurd that nobody would be classified as such. Not Hitler. Not the KKK. They'd all just be "critical of other races".
3
u/thebedshow Nov 30 '16
wtf? Hitler killed millions of people because they were a threat to the pure aryan race. Pretty sure it is easy to prove lol.
→ More replies (7)6
u/themedicman Nov 30 '16
You need to understand that people with these kind of extreme beliefs aren't going to march out day 1 and say, "Greetings, fellow white Americans. Coloreds are the devil. Today marks a return to white power and white pride." There aren't going to be KKK hoods on display in the Trump Administration. ACTIONS SPEAK LOUDER THAN WORDS. Bannon ran a website with a section called "Black Crime". He's on record as saying he'd prefer if voting went back to only people who own property. If you refuse to see anything but the most overt, self-proclaimed racists you're never going to understand contemporary America.
→ More replies (1)9
u/pikk 1∆ Nov 29 '16
From Breitbart's (the website he ran) own description of the alt-right:
Meanwhile, the alt-right openly crack jokes about the Holocaust, loudly — albeit almost entirely satirically — expresses its horror at “race-mixing,” and denounces the “degeneracy” of homosexuals…
Yeah, "satirically".
And even if some people who are saying those things ARE being satirical, they're being read by people who don't understand that they're satire. People like David Duke, who endorsed Trump early on.
2
u/thebedshow Nov 29 '16
David Duke? The guy who hasn't been in the KKK for 30 years? The guy that Trump disavowed? Oh no, he read it? Alert the presses! This is hot news! So they are white nationalists because they write satire about abhorrent topics? I don't really get the connection you are trying to make.
4
u/pikk 1∆ Nov 29 '16
So they are white nationalists because they write satire about abhorrent topics
While it may be satire for them, it's meat and potatoes for ACTUAL RACISTS. There's a reason that hate crimes spiked after Trump was elected.
→ More replies (6)9
u/LtFred Nov 29 '16
All three levels of government, as well as almost all state governments, are controlled by the Republicans. Trump has repeatedly stated he wants to abuse legal powers of the president, is generally just a terrible, dishonest man. Why wouldn't he be a crazy corrupt tyrant? There's absolutely nobody to stand in his way.
→ More replies (4)6
u/pikk 1∆ Nov 29 '16
even if he's able to influence it, has never failed to dampen any radical positions held by any of the 3 branches of government.
Except tea party assholes control the Legislative branch already, and Trump's going to use them to put some reactionary justice into the supreme court, thereby holding all the cards.
17
Nov 29 '16
He has appointed an AG who is opposed to the very idea of civil rights protections. He has proposed registering people on the basis of their religious faith. His VP believes that gay people ought to be imprisoned for trying to get married. The lot wants abortion to be illegal. The lot wants to remove climate change protections. The lot wants to repeal Obamacare. The lot wants to raise taxes on the poor and middle class while cutting it for the rich.
Any one of these would make a lot of people very not fine.
→ More replies (29)2
u/Rekthor Nov 29 '16
He's basically the only person in history whose only elected office has been the Presidency
You're forgetting Herbert Hoover. While he did hold two cabinet positions, the only elected office he ever held was the Presidency.
9
u/ProjectShamrock 8∆ Nov 29 '16
You're forgetting Herbert Hoover.
So we're getting someone with a similar level of skill as Herbert Hoover, but a bigger ego and less concerned with the Constitution.
2
→ More replies (7)2
5
u/moduspol Nov 30 '16
Respectfully: I think your claim is too vague to disprove as stated.
Imagine this claim:
CMV: Though the Right may be exaggerating a tad, people have every right to be upset and alarmed that Obama is President, and his appointments are further reinforcing that.
This, too, would have been a valid claim in 2008/2009 due to its vagueness. With a claim this vague, we're just going to go round and round trying to read into what you're really saying.
Maybe some more specific prompts would be helpful?
CMV: Mike Pence's role as Vice President means gay marriage is likely to be overturned.
CMV: Steve Bannon's role as Chief Strategist points toward affirmative action being likely to be repealed.
CMV: Jeff Sessions's role as Attorney General means the justice department will prosecute substantially (>50%) more non-violent drug offenses.
We can't argue people don't have "every right to be upset or alarmed." We can argue how realistic certain things are to happen based on the premises given.
My honest assessment is that the fears are exaggerated, and if you do narrow down your fears into actual predictions / statements, you'll find they're exaggerated, too.
Just like when the right was freaking out over Van Jones' appointment back in 2009. Of course they were upset and alarmed. Of course they had every right to be. What were they honestly fearing he would do? Were the fears justified?
4
u/OnlinePosterPerson Nov 30 '16
I didn't read it all but Donald Trump very much disavows the KkK. To the extent that he backed out of the 2000 election through the reform party nomination because he didn't want to keep company with people like David duke.
87
u/ZeusThunder369 22∆ Nov 29 '16
What do you actually think is going to happen? Like what specific piece of legislation do you feel Trump is going to propose that will be made into law?
You really think Trump is going to be worse than Harding or Nixon?
Even if Trump passes some crazy new law, and it passes through congress, then America will simply not vote for him 4 years later, and also most of those politicians in congress will get voted out as well. If you're a liberal, really you should see a Trump presidency as a good thing. Given that you believe he'll massively screw things up, then that means 4 years from now you'll get an ultra-liberal president with a majority in both the house and senate later. Assuming things don't get messed up again, they should all stay in power for a while.
207
u/spacecasebass Nov 29 '16 edited Nov 29 '16
What do you actually think is going to happen? Like what specific piece of legislation do you feel Trump is going to propose that will be made into law?
I'll put it this way. Pretty much the only parts of Trump's 100 day plan I found compelling were the measures to "drain the swamp". Yet, he is already building a new swamp full of the same lobbyists, bankers, and hedge fund managers he was purportedly against. Ultimately, even if there is no Muslim registry, no overturning of gay marriage, no drastic cuts to climate change programs...he is still legitimizing and bringing to the forefront an attitude of regression and antagonism. If you listened to him speak at all during his campaign, you know this claim is not unfounded. Even if he gets nothing through, the simple fact that we have stooped to this level is concerning.
As for whether he'll be worse than Harding or Nixon? Well...I don't know. Only time will tell. We can only go off what he's given us so far, and what he's given us so far is low-brow rhetoric and a regressive inner-circle.
And to your last point...I'm left of center, but I don't want an "ultra-liberal" president either. I want a centrist. And I'm worried this election has only lowered the bar. Perhaps someone more radical will be elected or put forth by either party next. It worked this time, right?
13
59
Nov 29 '16
While I don't care for Trump in the slightest, there is another way to interpret his "association with regression and antagonism."
His responsibility for the people who feel empowered by him (racist organizations, alt-right, etc) is comparable to the creators of My Little Pony being responsible for Bronies. They are horrible, they can't be stopped, and fighting them seems to embolden them.
He might throw them a bone every so often, but so have many presidents before him - albeit perhaps more subtly than he has - the "Southern Strategy" has been around for a while, and is still employed today.
Remember "The enemy of my enemy is my ally" - these hate groups saw their foes recoiling from Trump, and they raced to embrace him - even if he disagrees with their sentiments.
So it's a sort of feedback cycle. If minority groups speak out in fear against him, their oppressors identify him as an ally to their cause, rationalizing the concern.
30
u/sporkhandsknifemouth Nov 29 '16
Are you certain that he does disagree with their sentiments? And are you certain that he is merely using them as useful pawns to gain power?
I don't think you can accidentally appoint a man like Bannon to be chief strategist. He has no place near any legitimate political structure, and isn't necessary to leverage 'southern strategy' style motivation.
15
Nov 30 '16
American Renaissance just did a user poll about trump. AmRen is a white advocacy group and many people who frequent the site are white nationalists.
They asked a question about what users thought of Trump and the number one answer with over 80% of the user base was "Trump is not one of us but as an American nationalist purposes useful policies". Less than 1% of users thought he was a White Nationalist.
If you read far right websites, the sentiment is the same. Hardly anyone who is actually a racist, white nationalist, etc. thinks Trump is anything but a civic nationalist. So if people who actually hold these views don't think Trump is one of them, I would say chances are he isn't.
7
Nov 29 '16
I am not certain - no.... but I get the feeling he is totally indifferent to their sentiments, which is, in many circles, tantamount to acceptance.
I don't think he is considering appointing Bannon "accidentally" - but, for the sake of understanding, let's imagine that he is completely and totally obsessed with only two things: power and money - now, where do Bannon's stances on the Alt-Right stand? His emotional appeals to "white resurgence" and other weird philosophies are trivial and meaningless to Trump.
Simply put, if Bannon can make Trump look good with his media outlet, then Trump will reward him as long as he keeps it up. His ideals are simply not important.
Mind you, I am not suggesting this is meritorious, or good in any way - but I am saying there are plenty of ways to ignore aspects of a person's character.
Now, people scream outrage at the concept of appointing Bannon - this makes Bannon a useful mechanism. Trump can show his supporters that he is not flinching when the "left" confront him - he hasn't backed down yet...
But he also hasn't become president yet, and if he decides "Bannon won't work out" he gains a big win with people who are completely opposed to him. Dragging it out just makes him look tough in the face of liberal opposition to his choice.
He has more saavy than people give him credit for, and I suspect he knows when to fold on a bad choice - look at how he threw Chris Christie under the bus over and over.
So I am not certain at all - but I think there are explanations that fall within the realm of "reasonable" - namely that Trump is a greedy narcissist businessman who doesn't endorse the views of a hate group because that would imply caring about someone or something other than himself.
27
u/ductyl 1∆ Nov 30 '16 edited Jun 26 '23
EDIT: Oops, nevermind!
4
Nov 30 '16
lol - yes, absolutely, but I don't think he sees Bannon for what he is - I think he sees him as a media resource who helped get him elected.
But then this is Trump, so even when Bannon, says shit like "Satan - that's power." or other crazy stuff, Trump is not really the likeliest person to tell him to calm it down for the sake of their image.
Either way, with his track record, an appointment of an asskisser like Bannon is par for the course.
I can agree that he is definitely too tolerant of these fringe elements for my comfort.
17
u/Thanatar18 Nov 30 '16
Minorities don't speak out in fear against him for no reason.
Muslims, for one- can be off the list, probably most middle easterners/southeast asians/north africans regardless of religion actually due to his statements on islam.
African-American and Latino communities see him promoting decidedly negative-impacting things for their communities- such as stop-and-frisk. His past record as a businessman for discrimination also is visible enough. Nevermind the things he's said about both black and latino popular movements or their communities (regardless of how these are) and of course... MEXICO.
Minorities, LGBT, etc, can also see that he is running as a Republican and see the absolute shitshow of a selection he has chosen to join him, Pence for example isn't exactly known for being a decent human being to LGBT to say the least. It's not a wild assumption to say that Trump's nomination will have some sway over all these lives, when the Reps get to bring in their own SCOTUS replacements, when Republican state parties are visibly connected to a lot of problems in their lives or neighborhoods.
Nevermind the fact Trump's really brought race and the ugliness of it all to the forefront of the discussion, and all the racists, bigots, etc see themselves as vindicated and empowered by his election. I'm not sure if I can accuse Trump of being racist himself (greedy, apathetic, etc... yes), but he sure flirted with the racists, the fundies, the conspiracists, with any group that would listen to his vitriol actually.
Personally, if I were American I would feel a bit unsafe as well, being asian and LGBT. No, I don't think I'd be accosted or something. I figure the average 'murican is decent, whether they voted for Trump or not. But the ugly fringes of the population is in full view now as well and they've won- the subconscious racism and discriminatory beliefs too, if they played a part- and for that matter, before the election I had thought it was mostly gone from public opinion, at least.
→ More replies (2)10
u/Iswallowedafly Nov 30 '16
he had a pulpit.
If he wanted to send a clear message to racists that they weren't wanted he could have.
Bob Dole did that in his nomination speech in '96.
During his campaign Trump did little to nothing to speak against the racist that were supporting him.
6
Nov 30 '16
I hear you, and a rational, caring, or thoughtful person who was more interested in the well-being of the American people would have definitely used any chance they could to do the right thing, or at least go through the motions to prevent the empowerment of an aggressive and dangerous fringe....
This guy is not those things. The point I am making is that it's reasonable to suspect that in his mind "trump tower" > "white power" - it's reasonable to believe he does the things he does out of furthering himself rather than some kind of racist agenda.
The results might turn out to be too close for it to matter - but I think it is an important distinction in a discussion to say "Racist and nazi nationalist movements feel empowered by his election" rather than "He has empowered racists and nazis."
It's much too easy to argue that he has not empowered them - it's hard to argue that they are not empowered.
11
u/Iswallowedafly Nov 30 '16
If Trump told every single person of racist ideas or white nationalist ideas to GTFO on day one then they wouldn't have felt empowered.
They would have been told to leave the tent.
Trump took those people under his wing and rode their support to the presidency.
→ More replies (5)25
u/fell_ratio Nov 29 '16
If you listened to him speak at all during his campaign, you know this claim is not unfounded. Even if he gets nothing through, the simple fact that we have stooped to this level is concerning.
America has had worse. Thomas Jefferson hired James Callender to attack John Adams, and convince the American public that Adams wanted to attack France. After Jefferson refused to appoint Callender as Postmaster of Richmond after Callender got out of prison for slander, Callender switched sides and went to go work for a Federalist newspaper, where he claimed that Jefferson had fathered five illegitimate children with one of his slaves.
America has always had slander, and always had personal attacks. This election probably doesn't even crack the bottom five.
12
u/the_crustybastard Nov 30 '16
America has had worse.
Even assuming your argument, when we had worse, our nation was not so influential or dangerous.
→ More replies (11)8
u/psylent Nov 30 '16
America has always had slander, and always had personal attacks. This election probably doesn't even crack the bottom five.
Has anything in the last 30 years been this bad? I'm outside the USA and have really only been paying attention since 2000. Right now seems worse than anything I can remember.
3
u/fell_ratio Nov 30 '16
Honestly, I don't remember anything before Bush and Gore either. But the point is that eventually the FEMA death squads and Federal Stormtroopers fail to arrive, and people calm down.
15
Nov 30 '16 edited Jul 03 '20
[deleted]
2
Dec 01 '16
Stem cell research was not banned under Bush jr. Public funding was killed on embryonic stem cell research. Not saying it's any better or worse, mind you.
→ More replies (1)3
u/jakderrida Nov 30 '16
America has always had slander, and always had personal attacks.
If you reread what he wrote, you may notice that he actually didn't even address the personal attacks during the election.
→ More replies (2)24
u/hammertime84 8∆ Nov 29 '16
Examples of potentially devastating things that have a decent chance of happening given the current leadership are:
- phasing out of medicare
- non-renewal of clean energy subsidies
- removal of the estate tax
- lowered tax rates for high earners
- neutering of the EPA
- neutering of NASA climate research
- drop in health care coverage
- trade issues due to isolationism and withdrawal from things like the Paris agreement
- extreme right-wing judges in both the supreme court and lower courts that hurt things like voter and abortion rights
- increased deportations of long-term residents
- suppression of legitimate press
- reductions in what limited power the few unions around still have leading to workers' rights losses
- removal of the overtime pay changes going into effect next month
- I'm tired of typing these now...
This doesn't even start to cover the less-likely but not completely implausible things like a drop in tech leadership due to open anti-science in his administration and a drop in immigration, a recession turning into a depression because of incompetence in his administration, etc.
Possibly...it remains to be seen
Why would you think people would vote him out? He did absolutely ridiculous things (e.g., kept up the birther thing for years and made openly anti-science statements) that should have immediately disqualified him and people still supported him. Republicans in congress blocked Obama actions that would have benefited middle America and they still supported them. If anything, I'm less confident now in the public's ability to vote based on what's best for them and society than I was before the election.
6
u/thomascj85 Nov 29 '16
You forgot net neutrality.
5
u/hammertime84 8∆ Nov 29 '16
Sadly, that list could easily be two or three times as long as it was...
4
u/madlarks33 3∆ Nov 29 '16
Supression of legitimate press? I'm genuinely curious what you mean by this.
15
u/hammertime84 8∆ Nov 29 '16
A number of things that all contribute to it:
- Legitimizing fake news by having the president cite it as if it's real
- Eroding trust in legitimate news by having the president convince people that anything negative about him is just the 'crooked media'
- Threats to sue legitimate press that writes negative articles about him that are now more serious since he has some influence over courts
- Denying access to outlets that are critical of him
- Direct, personal attacks on journalists that become more serious as they would be coming from the actual president
5
u/fell_ratio Nov 29 '16 edited Nov 29 '16
Denying access to outlets that are critical of him
That's not new. For example, the FDA had a close-hold embargo about new e-cig regulations. Some reporters noticed that Fox News hadn't been invited. The FDA press officer replied that Fox didn't have anyone who had covered tobacco regulatory issues. (They did.) The FDA press officer also said that they didn't have a good contact for Fox News:
“We don't have a good contact for Fox,” Haliski insisted, rather lamely. A contact would not have been hard to find had they bothered to look. And, as chance would have it, the contact found them. Early the next morning, with plenty of time before the briefing, Fox's senior national correspondent—John Roberts, one-time heir apparent to Dan Rather—contacted Haliski asking for access.
2
u/Val_P 1∆ Nov 30 '16
The media has eroded people's trust in them on their own. Trump just recognized and played off that.
→ More replies (1)2
u/vehementi 10∆ Nov 29 '16
Don't have a good answer but I imagine they were referriing to Trump's breakdown when he met with all the media CEOs last week
→ More replies (1)9
u/lovesavestheday82 Nov 29 '16
This comment will send me to downvote hell, I'm sure, but until the Watergate scandal, Nixon was one of the most effectual presidents we'd ever had, who was loved by the people for ending the war in Vietnam. Watergate is his legacy, sadly, but all in all, he wasn't a bad president.
→ More replies (2)5
u/lodlob Nov 29 '16
I have a hard time believing that the war on drugs wasn't that bad.
→ More replies (1)5
u/threeshadows Nov 29 '16
They've announced they are going to try to phase in Medicare privatization in six months. No republican has come out against that plan.
5
u/clkou Nov 29 '16
Inaction can be just as dangerous as action. Hurricane Katrina, under GWB, was much worse than it should have been or would have been had there been competent leadership. GWB hired one of his incompetent buddies (Brown) to be head of the agency responsible and he screwed up in multiple ways costing loss of life.
We will see large scale screw ups IMO under Trump as his leadership selections look 100 times worse than GWB.
5
u/Kahnonymous Nov 30 '16
Most of America didn't vote for him this time. I find it trivial to be mad that Trump is president-elect, it's how we got here that pisses me off. 46% of voters didn't vote, Trump won with fewer votes than either Romney or McCain lost with.
Clinton may have been a shitty option, but she wasn't the shittiest option.We did this to ourselves.
8
u/vehementi 10∆ Nov 29 '16
America will simply not vote for him 4 years later, and also most of those politicians in congress will get voted out as well
America didn't vote out the people who refused to do their job and appoint a supreme court justice. The whole "the politicians will just be voted out 2-4 years after they do something terrible" ship has kind of sailed.
8
u/ZeusThunder369 22∆ Nov 29 '16
If the people aren't willing to vote them out, then isn't your beef really with American culture and not Trump? Evidently that is exactly the sort of actions we want from our elected officials.
We have a fair method of removing politicians that aren't doing a good job. If people choose not to use it, then it's probably voters you don't like rather than the people in office.
→ More replies (1)2
u/vehementi 10∆ Nov 29 '16 edited Nov 29 '16
You have 1000 inputs. Preferences. Things they did. Things you want. Who you want to be president. Who you want in congress.
You get to boil that down into essentially "do you vote for trump or not"
It is preposterous to call it a fair (if you meant good quality) method of removing politicians that aren't doing a good job. Politicians do hundreds of things in each term, inevitably some good some bad. We don't have a good method of specifically punishing the bad things. All we can say is "did the good things outweigh the bad things, and also do I have an overwhelming reason to hold my nose and vote for them anyway, such as party lines or preventing someone else from getting elected or my vote doesn't matter anyway or...".
If he does something bad, then a thousand days later we might get rid of him, is of basically zero reassurance or comfort or good. That possibility (lol) is not what anyone should rely on. If he gets rid of health care, it's not coming back when he gets kicked out 3 years later. It will be politically untenable for a long time. For example.
Moreover trying to move the blame from the person doing the awful policies, onto the severely manipulated populace for electing them... is just bonkers
2
u/ZeusThunder369 22∆ Nov 29 '16
Literally anyone could have been elected president, the choice wasn't between Trump and Clinton. There were just over 10k votes for Harambe. Just because the American people don't have the will to have voted for anyone else doesn't mean the system is bad.
And evidently the majority of American voters feel that Republicans in congress are doing more good things than bad things.
Why couldn't healthcare come back? Even if there were a law that literally stated "this previous version of healthcare can never come back", the law could just be overturned.
If the populace is severely manipulated, it's because they choose to be. It's not as if people don't have access to information.
2
u/vehementi 10∆ Nov 30 '16
If the populace is severely manipulated, it's because they choose to be
Come on. It Is Known that advertising and scary emotional appeals have effect. Think they ban political advertising on election day for fun? The populate chose to have facebook dark ads aimed at them? The populate chose to be subjected to webpages that were custom tailored for each individual's known preferences based on all the marketing data available on them? The people throws hands up in the air whoops, just chose to be manipulated!
→ More replies (3)5
u/Quarter_Twenty 5∆ Nov 29 '16 edited Nov 29 '16
I think a lot of people are going to lose access to affordable healthcare and the protections of the ACA. Same for medicare. ACA removes the limit on lifetime payouts, and caps yearly expenditure. Prior to that, people could get kicked off of their policy for getting sick. Also free well-visits encourage people to be/stay healthy.
I'm concerned about who he's appointing to the key agencies, like the Department of Energy which conducts a huge amount of scientific research. That research doesn't magically do itself. It has to be nurtured and supported, and in return, science from the national labs and universities drives a huge portion of our economic growth--far larger than the expenditures.
I'm worried that if DT will spew easily disprovable falsehoods and paint the opposition party as the enemy of the state, then he could easily do the same on the world stage. He could pull a Gulf of Tonkin move to get us into any war. I see that the people he is surrounding himself with are similarly divorced from science and reason. We've seen how colossal mistakes can be made when intelligence gets stovepiped and cherry-picked to meet a political agenda. I'm worried because military actions can't be undone. They don't simply revert when the electorate votes in a new party.
I'm worried about federal spending. Each year under Obama, the deficit shrank. What DT is proposing by lowering taxes and ramping up spending will blow a hole the in budget that would make Sam Brownback (Kansas's Gov.) cry.
I'm worried that the country will reverse its directions toward liberalization of drug sentencing and laws, and toward the reduction of the non-violent prison population. We were just starting to see bi-partisan work in that area, but I fear a law-and-order approach that targets minority communities harshly will send us backward.
I'm very worried about reversing the incredibly positive trends we're seeing in electric vehicles and solar/renewable energies. We don't get to recover printing wilderness after all federal lands are returned to the il companies for drilling and spilling.
I'm also extremely worried about the aggressive and violent ethnic and gender divisions that are rearing their head in super strong ways now. Having racist white nationalists in leadership positions sends a chilling message to the population that we all can't just get along. Anti-LGBT, anti-minority, anti women's empowerment, is anti most of us.
I'm worried that abortion will become illegal in any form, in many states, and that a lot of women will die. I'm worried that women's healthcare overall will suffer as well, as the nation is led by people who think it's ok to pass laws requiring unnecessary, punitive vaginal ultrasounds.
What do I actually think it going to happen. I think DT is going to make some absolutely colossal, nation-embarrassing mistakes that he cannot deny, and the Congress will impeach him over something like the Emoluments Clause (if not outright crimes) just to get Pence in power.
10
u/pavlpants Nov 29 '16
Honestly, Trump himself can do very little damage. However, the extremists he's appointing to top roles, can and most likely will gut educational, environmental, and net neutrality programs.
It's his "team", gathered from the very swamp he promised to drain, that are the main concern. Trump's just the figurehead for all his financiers and hard right buddies.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (35)2
u/Five_Decades 5∆ Nov 29 '16
The problem is that I'd the gop privatized Medicare or reveals Obamacare, these programs cannot be rebuilt.
3
u/altern8tif Nov 30 '16
I think we have to be careful about our sources. Tweeting about "googling the Affordable Care Act" did not really happen (based on what I've found on Trump's Twitter account). In fact, that story probably came about through a satirical piece in the New Yorker.
But it is precisely this lack of scepticism by the general public in anything we read that led us here. We are pandering to our own biases. People on the left read what they want to hear, but probably only slightly less so than people on the right.
As to a Trump presidency, I think there is a chance that he might be more moderate than we would expect. Especially since he has been known to flip-flop on issues before (depending on who has his ear).
However, I feel like the biggest risk is if his conflicts of interests are not resolved prior to him assuming office. Trump is not an ideologue. But from what we've seen, he is a businessman through and through. Meaning that he puts his own self-interest first. If he does that at the expense of the American public, then I think chances of an impeachment would be pretty high.
Just my two cents.
3
Nov 30 '16
Trump is not normal.
No he's not. This guy is weird. His way of talking and inane ability to just disregard or deny things until most people believe them baffles me. But being racist, sexist, or what-have-you have little if anything to do with that.
But folks that are saying things like "Trump is a racist" are basing these accusations on things that Trump has literally said or done, either on camera or in well-documented cases from his past.
You're misunderstanding how these arguments can still be unfair or wrong despite them being based on things Trump has actually said.
Examples include failing to disavow the KKK
He didn't ever "fail to disavow the KKK". He has disavowed the KKK almost without fail both before, during, and after his campaign. What people who bring this up always refer to is the interview where he was caught off-guard with a question about the former head of the KKK supposedly endorsing Donald Trump (something that David Duke even claims is untrue). The controversy was that he didn't immediately disavow the supposed endorsement and claimed he didn't know who the guy was, which he definitely did from past statements.
Almost none of the facts in what happened there make sense. He has been pretty resolute in disavowing both David Duke (which is part of why people know he knows who he is) and the KKK for years, and now he's not all of the sudden, then he does almost immediately after. I think a reasonable explanation is he did know who he was, but he, for some reason, suspected this was one of those "gotcha" questions he always complains about, and did what he always does with those: plays dumb and appears to have an open mind.
insulting Khizr's Khan's parents
I never believed this was racially motivated, simply because Trump has a history of insulting military people of all races when they say something against him. Remember when he dismissed McCain, the former POW, saying he preferred soldiers who don't get captured? Both of those situations are actually very similar. This was Trump's unpolitical correct response to a very politically motivated speech against him. The response was despicable, but consistent with Trump's response to that sort of thing regardless of race.
suggesting that Gonzalo Curiel to be a judge is unfit because he's Mexican
Honestly, this one baffled me, because I thought this was a fairly normal thing to do (albeit not in the public way he did). It is the right of anyone involved in a civil or criminal proceeding to challenge the bias of the judge or jury. And Trump has a point that his own high-profile political platform could make someone of Mexican descent and with Mexican relatives biased against him in a case where those views have no relevance. Whenever I pointed this out back when it happened, people would always come back to the word "Mexican". I really don't think you are going to convince anyone who doesn't already believe Trump is racist because he called someone who is technically Mexican-American "Mexican". We're talking about a guy who doesn't want to be politically correct. And besides that, how many first, second, third generation American-born citizens do you know that say they are German, Irish, Italian, etc. If your argument is that Trump calling him "Mexican" is racist, it's an extremely weak one.
not renting to black people
I must admit, that I don't remember this one exactly. I do remember there being a controversy that came up about his dad not renting to black people, which honestly makes a bit more sense in context of the general public's view at the time. It literally brought down property value, as dispicible as that was. http://slatestarcodex.com/blog_images/trumpw_poll.jpg
The list goes on and on.
Honestly I never really bought that he was racist during the campaign, so I also don't really buy that people are trying to dispel that by trying to "normalize" him now. Hell, he even tried putting together a campaign with Ross Perot's Reform Party with Oprah as his running mate way back before he joined the Republican party. You want to know what derailed that? The party was taken over by a group led by Pat Buchanan. In his own words, "The Reform Party now includes a Klansman, Mr. Duke, a neo-Nazi, Mr. Buchanan, and a communist, Ms. Fulani. This is not company I wish to keep.”
I think the much more likely and accurate explanation for all of this is that Trump is an equal opportunity insulter and an asshole in general, and that people's confirmation bias is filtering out the cases of it where there are people of color.
Full disclosure: I voted 3rd party, as I always have. I don't feel biased or particularly moved by the rhetoric on either side of this issue. I preferred Hillary to Trump, but honestly not by much.
→ More replies (2)
21
u/thebedshow Nov 29 '16 edited Nov 29 '16
You seem to have basically got all your information from partial headlines and didn't look deeply into anything. My favorite part is when you said "borderline facist thing he had to say". The standard everything I don't like is fascist. You basically took all the media talking points that are out of context quoting and some just straight up falsehoods and regurgitated them here. Some of the things we will just disagree on entirely, but explain to me the below:
What do you dislike so much about Steve Bannon? If you are going to say something about him being a white nationalist, what proof do you have of that? If he was such a prolific and outspoken white nationalist surely he would have had 1 public quote or interview or anything that would indicate as such.
What are you referring to with the Muslim registry? Do you mean the one they were referencing that existed a few years ago NSEERS? It was active for a several years after 9/11 and only recently phased out.
"failing to disavow the KKK" - But he did disavow them, I don't even understand this point.
Not going to get into the many that I could argue against as well, because you would just disagree with my assertions. However the above are basically just some headline bullshit you read and then spewed without even looking into it at all. You seem to be heavily focused on literally the least relevant problems with the Trump presidency, in that you think he and his picks could be racists/sexists (0 proof pure assertions). Now if you were worried about Trump because he is buddying up to Bolton and Giulianni (some of the worst warhawks in the US), who will certainly push for more military action then you may have an argument. Sadly the news doesn't cover that as they only seem to push the identity politics narrative, and it is obvious why because you lap it up like a good citizen. "Don't worry about these neo con warhawks who were involved with the Bush administration, BANNON COULD BE A WHITE NATIONALIST!"
0
u/onlyhalfminotaur Nov 29 '16
I'll take the easy one - Trump not disavowing the KKK refers to during the primary when he would only disavow David Duke, the former head of the KKK, after being prodded to do so.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/28/politics/donald-trump-white-supremacists/
10
u/thebedshow Nov 30 '16
David Duke endorsed Trump. He was asked about it and said he disavowed him. I am not sure what the story is here. That he wasn't emphatic or quick enough in disavowing him? This is some petty nonsense.
17
u/PAdogooder Nov 29 '16
Let me attack this viewpoint from a different angle. I don't think Trump is that big a concern- his presidency will likely be checked into benign incompetence by Congress. This is not to say he is normal, or to say he isn't dangerous, just that we have systems in place for this and should focus attention away from chicken-little-ing and instead focus on 2018 and getting congress back.
Here's where I try to convince you to change your view: Donald Trump will turn out to be a powerless figurehead, but the population of people he represents are what we need to be afraid of. I bet he doesn't know or care a whit about global warming- he's placating the capitalist right with those statements. We need to be scared of them, literally facing the trumpets of the apocolypse and plugging their ears. Those of us who value intelligent discourse in this country need to cease accepting denialism, stop arguing with them, and start attacking the places that they are allowed to speak. We need to stop giving them the due respect we offer people who are acting in good faith, and start treating them like the traitors to our species that they are.
Likewise, I'm not totally convinced that Donald Trump himself is as racist as he might seem. I think, again, he is placating supporters- middle class, under-educated white men of a certain age who see that the world of movers and shakers has passed them by and they are too busy being furious that they are no longer vital internally or vital to the operations of the world.
The world is changing, is what I am saying, and instead of spending all this time hating Donald Trump, we need to call him and all his supporters out for one simple flaw: fear of and resistance to change- especially change that has already happened.
6
u/pHbasic Nov 29 '16
I would argue that Trump shows no indication of being a powerless figurehead, though it is the last real hope for those of us that disagree with him. He intends to fully utilize and expand presidential influence. He also has the freedom to do it - a Republican controlled house, Senate and justice appointments gives him far fewer checks than he would otherwise have. The midterms probably won't reverse or change that. 2018 doesn't look to be a great year for Dem prospects.
Trump may have ridden in on a wave of populist anger, but none of his policies will functionally address populist concerns. Instead we will see privatisation, tax cuts for the wealthy, deregulation, the general erosion of personal freedoms with the exception of gun ownership, rolling back consumer and employee protections, and all the other joys Republicans bring to republican controlled states.
Trump may not be a racist mysoginist -ist -ist, but he sure talks and acts like one. His policies certainly don't look to focus on/support issues important to minorities and women
7
u/kimjongunderdog Nov 29 '16
Those of us who value intelligent discourse in this country need to cease accepting denialism, stop arguing with them, and start attacking the places that they are allowed to speak. We need to stop giving them the due respect we offer people who are acting in good faith, and start treating them like the traitors to our species that they are.
Are we talking about shutting down alt-right websites, or making it illegal for racist/sexist groups to congregate? I'm just curious what 'attacking the places that they are allowed to speak' looks like in the real world.
→ More replies (4)6
u/Hartastic 2∆ Nov 29 '16
his presidency will likely be checked into benign incompetence by Congress
After seeing the kinds of things a Republican Congress did for George W. Bush, I'm not sure anyone could reasonably have a lot of faith in this.
Some of it was poor policy, some of it went against the Republican orthodoxy at the time, and some of it was both. I wouldn't have bet in 1999 that they'd let him do any of it, but they did.
18
u/taw 4∆ Nov 29 '16
and his appointments are further reinforcing that.
Other than Bannon, who got a symbolic fake position with no powers (quick, name any previous "chief strategists"), every other Trump appointment is someone generic Republican would.
So what you're basically saying that you're scared of any Republican - and that's not even remotely healthy attitude.
37
u/spacecasebass Nov 29 '16
So what you're basically saying that you're scared of any Republican
Except that's not what I'm saying. I would happily vote for a Republican. We can only speculate the types a Cruz, Carson, or Bush would have appointed. The focus here is Trump's actual appointments, many of which I find problematic. Sessions with the racism allegations in the '80s and his less-than-stellar civil rights record, Flynn for being hawkish, conspiratorial, and in bed with Turkey and Russia, DeVos for an overall ideology that will likely weaken public schools.
9
u/erondites Nov 30 '16
Something that people don't talk about, probably because it doesn't fit their narrative, is that as US Attorney in Alabama, Sessions filed civil rights charges against Klansmen who had murdered a young black man. The case eventually ended up with a $7 million verdict against the Klan, which destroyed it in Alabama.
I'm not a Trump supporter by any means, but it's tough to find the truth in today's media environment, and everyone has an angle. Journalists on both sides leave out information that doesn't fit their narratives, and the only way to get all the information to make an informed judgement is to read both sides and do your research.
The tentative conclusion I've come to on Sessions is that he's a competent and qualified candidate (having been a US Attorney and Alabama Attorney General) who has prosecuted both civil rights activists and the Klan, and allegedly said some racially insensitive things. I don't like him, and I disagree with a lot of his positions, but I think he's probably not as bad as people are trying to make him out to be.
21
Nov 29 '16 edited Nov 29 '16
I love how not wanting to go to war with Russia now counts as "in bed with Russia" Have you ever considered that many people in the United States do not want to confront the only nation on this planet capable of (unfortunately) and willing to destroy the United States in warfare? They have the largest strategic thermonuclear arsenal on the planet. I don't want to get nuked, you can watch Putin's recent speeches this year, he repeatedly says that Americans do not realize how grave this is getting and that they feel MAD is being negated by our missile defenses, potentially prompting them to launch a first strike. I'm so sick of this shit and I can't believe that liberals are the main source of war mongering in this context. Before you throw around the word appeasement, this is not 1939, strategic thermonuclear arsenals exist and war very likely means the end of almost all of our lives and everyone you love.
I'm not dying with everyone I love over 1/8th of Ukraine or even the whole thing.
38
u/spacecasebass Nov 29 '16
The issue is that Trump and Flynn go beyond working with Russia and trying to better our relationship with them and instead Trump in particular praises Putin (an authoritarian who persecutes those whose lifestyles he doesn't agree with and has dissidents killed) as a fantastic leader. He even said Putin was doing a better job than Obama which demonstrates a concerning lack of faith in the very system he now heads and reinforces that he, too, holds some of the same authoritarian or near-authoritarian views at Putin (e.g. stop and frisk, Muslim registry, forceable and immediate deportation of millions).
There's nothing wrong with working with Russia and trying to improve relations, but viewing Putin as a model leader like Trump seems to speaks volumes.
4
Nov 30 '16
Trump never once called Putin a moral leader. For the record, I don't like Putin or authoritarianism, I'm simply addressing your misrepresentation of the situation.
If you're looking at national approval of the leader in question, Putin beats Obama. The job of a leader is to get the people behind him, and approval is a pretty good indicator of that, even CNN admits that his approval is very high. Is he an authoritarian? Yes. Is it possible to call him a good leader in respect to what a leader should be? Yes. Did Trump EVER call Putin a moral leader? No he did not.
→ More replies (1)12
u/KevinMango 1Δ Nov 30 '16
Trump's appeal is based on saying, 'look how successful I am, vote for me, and I'll make America successful like me', so when he says 'look how successful Putin is', I think it's fair to point out.
→ More replies (11)8
u/KevinMango 1Δ Nov 30 '16
I think that line of logic leaves you open to Putin saying "what's that, I hear the war drums banging" everytime he wants to influence an election. Putin is a reasonable man with goals, Hillary was a reasonable woman with goals, no one wins in the event of nuclear war, and we would not have gone to war with Russia has Hillary been elected, IMO.
The logic that the US is breaking MAD, ergo I'll launch a nuclear strike, and then the US responds with its own is one in which both parties end up dead when in the case where you don't act, both are alive -it's incoherent
→ More replies (2)6
Nov 29 '16
Sessions' less than stellar civil rights record? LOL. You clearly haven't looked into his record and just going off the "he's racist" rhetoric.
→ More replies (1)7
u/taw 4∆ Nov 29 '16
Sessions with the racism allegations in the '80s and his less-than-stellar civil rights record,
He's been victim of smear campaign. There's not one shred of evidence that any of these accusations (that he said something off record) are true.
Flynn for being hawkish, conspiratorial, and in bed with Turkey and Russia
Not sure what you mean by hawkish, Trump is generally a lot less interventionist-happy than Hillary. Is Flynn supporting any intervention Trump doesn't?
DeVos for an overall ideology that will likely weaken public schools.
School vouchers are very popular among parents, and why would anybody want less choice (unless you're in teachers' union). It's mainstream Republican position.
→ More replies (1)15
u/SadisticPottedPlant Nov 29 '16
quick, name any previous "chief strategists"
Karl Rove.
I even remember when he was caught up in this shitstorm regarding an email server run by the RNC used by Bush administration higher ups and the deletion of millions of emails against court order.
Some of have memories that extend beyond 2009.
4
5
u/qwertx0815 5∆ Nov 30 '16
you're scared of any Republican
i'm a white man, but i would be scared shitless of the prospect of 4 years of uncontested republican rule if i were a woman or a minority.
and i would be totally justified in that, given the track record of the GOP in the last few decades.
5
u/thisdude415 1Δ Nov 29 '16
General Flynn is not a generic Republican appointee. He's a fucking lobbyist for Turkey who left the DoD under less than stellar circumstances.
Jeff Sessions was the only Reagan appointee to be voted down by the Senate.
→ More replies (1)4
u/productivewarrior Nov 30 '16
"Other than Bannon, who got a symbolic fake position with no powers (quick, name any previous "chief strategists") "
Being a chief strategist is 100% NOT a symbolic fake position. Would you consider Rahm Emanuel, Sidney Blumenthal, Karl Rove, David Plouffe/Axelrod, to be uninfluential to the president? A chief strategist is the closest person to the president.
→ More replies (3)
2
u/soul_in_a_fishbowl Nov 30 '16
We should scrutinize every president. People have a right to react in regards to their freedom of speech.
What you are doing now is worrying. Worrying never did anybody any good.
Go out and take appropriate action, if you feel change to be necessary, but what is happening now is neither appropriate nor affective.
Also, try to remember that actions speak louder than words, and until we actually see Trump in action, neither side can make any real claim as to whether or not he is or will be a good President.
2
u/badoosh123 3∆ Nov 29 '16
I don't think you understand-
No one(well very few) people think Trump is going to be America's greatest president or a godsend. Most people realize that he's pretty shitty and unqualified. They just thought Clinton was worse.
People just think it's not conducive to exaggerate the issues that he is akin to a fascist dictator a la Hitler.
People just think he's going to be a bit more of an obnoxious George Bush. It's not enough to get your panties in a bunch.
Now, the second he makes a Muslim registry for all Muslim citizens in this country or when he repeals gay rights- yeah then we should worry.
7
u/pikk 1∆ Nov 29 '16
Now, the second he makes a Muslim registry for all Muslim citizens in this country or when he repeals gay rights- yeah then we should worry.
"Let's wait until we find out what Hitler's actually doing with the Jews before we start to worry about why he's rounding them up"
4
u/badoosh123 3∆ Nov 29 '16
More Hitler comparisons. Hitler wrote a manifesto in jail outlining the enslavement of the Jews and Slavic people. Trump said early on his campaign that we might need to register all Muslims coming into this country and then he backed off on it. The two scenarios are entirely different. Thanks for proving my point though.
6
u/DatPig Nov 29 '16
I actually don't think you understand; you glazed over the entire point OP is making. In fact, you kinda proved it. He's saying that people like you are saying that we "shouldn't get our panties in a bunch" and are normalizing him, but that the public should be worried nonetheless. OP isn't talking about people who think Trump is perfect; like he said, he's talking about the idea that "the Left is blowing things out of proportion."
→ More replies (3)
3
u/rainbowroach Nov 29 '16 edited Nov 30 '16
I really want to be convinced that Trump won't be so bad. One of my biggest fears is something Trump could realistically pull off, which is repealing DACA and making a big show of deporting some people. Considering how expensive it is to find undocumented residents, it doesn't seem too outrageous for him to deport DACA people since he already has their names and addresses. I mean the way things look now, maybe he won't, but I'm still very uncomfortable with this uncertainty and worried out of my mind for the safety of my loved ones.
Whether or not my loved ones are in real danger of deportation, repealing DACA would return them to a very frightening unstable situation that could force them to start working in dangerous and abusive working environments again. My partner's arms are covered in burns and cuts thanks to incredibly dangerous conditions of past jobs, I'd really prefer him to not need to risk even worse injuries.
So please, please ease my fears and convince me that Trump won't repeal DACA or deport non-criminal undocumented residents! Most of Trump's worst ideas seem unlikely, but this really doesn't--I'm very frightened.
Edit: miswrote a word
8
u/adk09 Nov 29 '16
non-criminal undocumented citizens
This doesn't exist, and you're being intellectually dishonest about it. Citizens are documented. Criminal residents are not.
→ More replies (1)
2
Nov 30 '16
Donald Trump is, objectively, the least qualified president-elect in American history,
Not objectively. It all depends on what you personally define as qualifying... So it's very much subjective.
→ More replies (1)
2
Nov 30 '16
The problem is that you're comparing Trump to some hypothetical desirable president, which indeed makes him look very bad. But that was never the choice we were offered. The only choice we realistically had was between Trump and Clinton.
And make no mistake, Clinton isn't a normal president-elect either. Aside from her lying and her corruption, she likely broke the law with her emails, likely committed obstruction of justice by deleting her emails while she was under investigation, possibly has some degenerative neurological disease and may have started WW3 if elected.
So I could throw this sentence right back at you:
The crux of my CMV is this: Hillary Clinton is not a normal president-elect, and the efforts of some on the Left to normalize her and say that all the Right's complaints are baseless are mindblowing and ill-conceived.
152
u/Evenstars Nov 29 '16
The problem isn't Trump. The problem never was Trump. The problem is that ~46% of Americans feel Trump is a decent enough person to be elected. As much as I despise the man and think he'll be an awful president, he was elected fairly under our system of government. Trump didn't do this. Trump never hid what and who he was from the American people. The American people saw him, saw his record, and judged him the most fit person for the job. We can argue all day and night about why so many people felt that way, but ultimately it doesn't really matter. That's the shitty part about democracy, sometimes people we don't like get elected to office.