I think everyone should read Trump's acceptance speech.

[Lustful Bride]

Honestly? Fuck that noise. That sort of demonization is part of why Trump got elected.

"All bad people are politicians" becomes "Only bad people get involved in politics"

Good people get driven away. Good people get demonized. Good people are held to impossible standards that no person could possibly reach. Good people are lambasted for making painful decisions that they did not want to make. Good people are tarred and feathered for things that are not remotely their fault.

We can start fixing this by having a willingness to compromise.

We can start fixing this by being more accepting of differing opinions.

We can start fixing this by embracing civic participation.

If you actually want better, your attitude needs to change, too.

mmmm...thats fair I will give you that. :)

[Cassandra LeMay]

Then there was this, after all of his talk on being for traditional marrage: 

As for the banner...anyone can make a banner and hold it up. I can't say I know anyone, personally, who has a stripe in that rainbow.

You may not know anyone who is LGBT and supports Trump, but those people do exist. One of their main motivations seems to be islamophobia. From an article on Rolling Stone:

"The left wants us to believe that this election is going to be about bathrooms or who is going to bake our wedding cake," says Chris Barron, co-founder of LGBTrump. "LGBT people and our allies know that this is a question of life or death. We saw what happened in Orlando. We have a radical Islamic ideology out there that is dedicated to exterminating LGBT people all across the globe."

[CrownedSun]

Honestly? Fuck that noise. That sort of demonization is part of why Trump got elected.

"All bad people are politicians" becomes "Only bad people get involved in politics"

Good people get driven away. Good people get demonized. Good people are held to impossible standards that no person could possibly reach. Good people are lambasted for making painful decisions that they did not want to make. Good people are tarred and feathered for things that are not remotely their fault.

We can start fixing this by having a willingness to compromise.

We can start fixing this by being more accepting of differing opinions.

We can start fixing this by embracing civic participation.

If you actually want better, your attitude needs to change, too.

Mmhrmm, I agree with this,-- I actually wrote something similar in responce to, well, a webcomic just yesterday,--

Here, lemme quote it here even though its a TINY bit out of context:

I hope I don't get jumped on this, but-- this is bad, I detest Trump and everything he stands for and it disgusts me that was elected into office,-- but please don't let this turn you off of the American People as a whole or think that the vast majority of us don't want to live in the same world as you.

Yes, bigotry and such played a part in this election, and a larger part than anyone would like.

I don't think it was the only thing that played a part, however, for all that there are politicians that will take this as a mandate to oppress and hurt our minorities.

Most Republicans are perfectly good people,-- many of them have a general fear of Immigrants, but they don't want to see everyone rounded up and deported, they often are somewhat squicked out by alternative lifestyles but its not a major defining issue for them, and so on.

In terms of a lot of the social justice stuff,--

--like, My Gramma believes... vehemently.. that its Liberals that aren't compassionate and don't want to help people because voting in Democrats just prolongs the suffering of people by hurting business, keeping the poor people poor, and ensuring that families across the country go to bed at night hungry for lack of enough food. She believes, GENUINELY, that voting for Republicans is the only genuinely compassionate choice and that the decisions that they make will make everything completely better for everyone.

She, and many many like her, believe that Democrats prey on the weak and the poor. That they keep them that way, so that they can be secured in their votes, and that only Republicans TRULY manage to care for the poor. By, again, helping everyone through economic security. If you tell her some horrible social injustice that's going on, she'll denounce it and say that its wrong, and note that its not something that the Republican Party stands for and that its not why she votes Republican.

Is she wrong? Yes, of course she's wrong, without reservation.

Are many Liberals wrong about their beliefs about Republicans? Yes.

The largest and most intractable problem in this country is the growing divide between the parties and the inability of either of them to view the other as human beings. Until we learn to stop demonizing the opposition, to accept that rational people can disagree and neither side in the discussion are wholly wrong or wholly correct, we're creating a political and social atmosphere that allows people like Donald Trump to step in and become the most powerful man in the world.

Is that scary? Absolutely.

Is it the end of the world? I doubt it.

We'll get through this; historically, I doubt he'll even be the worst we've ever had.

(I'd give that to Andrew Jackson.)

[CriminalMindsFan]

My best friend's safety and acceptance is worth more to me than your opinion of me.

I cannot stop you from isolating yourself. It is your choice.

I feel it is a poor one.

Someone was concernd Trump would limit free speech, but he speaks much like the ficitional characters in stories on this site. Warren would be more of a threat to this site being she would likely find the extreme content offensive given she is a feminist. IMO

[Beguile's Mistress]

What's done is done and can't be undone, though the professor who has predicted the winner of Presidential elections for something like 20-30 years is saying there is an impeachment in the near future.

We've been given a challenge, to stand up for what is right whether we stand alone or as a group.  The future is going to require a lot of courage and, really, I wasn't looking forward to the time I have left fighting hate, bigotry and injustice.  But if it is what I have to do I'll have to do it.

[Vekseid]

Someone was concernd Trump would limit free speech, but he speaks much like the ficitional characters in stories on this site. Warren would be more of a threat to this site being she would likely find the extreme content offensive given she is a feminist. IMO

And? Most of the women writing in the non-Con section are also feminists.

Warren changed her viewpoint when the evidence warranted that she was wrong. Feminist or not, our political system needs more people capable of doing that. Both in terms of being supported and, you know, actually being able to.

[Ralhend]

We can start fixing this by being more accepting of differing opinions.

Therein is the core of this whole situation. 

There are some ideas that some people will not embrace.

I am not saying this applies to anyone specifically, but  often when I hear this they really mean "Be accepting of my ideas and abandon yours, because I am right and you are wrong."  People are going to clash on things.  They will cling to their beliefs because it was what they were taught to do, either by their religion, national creed, family teachings, personal moral code, or whatever. 

Herein lies the problem.  There is no, and never will be any unified set of beliefs adhered to by everyone all of the time.  People are different, and always will be. 

The belief that it will never happen is not a negative attitude and part of the problem, its a realistic observation (with history to prove it) about human nature.  There will always be a conflict somewhere as long as different cultures exist.

Is this not true of us as writers?  Is a story really all that interesting unless there is a conflict? A flaw per se somewhere, a problem to be solved to engage the mind, an intrigue to add flavor to the subject matter...

That being said, how do we solve the problem ?  Eliminate differences and all become the same?

[Cassandra LeMay]

Therein is the core of this whole situation. 

There are some ideas that some people will not embrace.

I am not saying this applies to anyone specifically, but  often when I hear this they really mean "Be accepting of my ideas and abandon yours, because I am right and you are wrong."  People are going to clash on things.  They will cling to their beliefs because it was what they were taught to do, either by their religion, national creed, family teachings, personal moral code, or whatever. 

Perhaps the first step is to ignore what we each believe ourselves for at least a moment. I am not saying we should give up on what we believe. What I am trying to say is we can't deal with other people's believes if we view them through the lense of our own, opposite believes.

Don't say "you are wrong", even if you are convinced that someone is. Ask "why do you believe this?" instead. It's impossible to change someone, or something, if you don't understand why that person or situation is as it is, what brought it about. You need to figure out where the root cause lies, before you can begin to change believes. But that takes a certain amount of objectivity - objectivity that can not be achieved if you are not able to take a step back from your own convictions and believes for a moment.

[Ralhend]

The problem is that more often than not people expect others to change and accommodate them, rather than changing and accommodating others.

I think the statement needs to be re-written so its not so broad and confusing to some.  It has too many loopholes to be argued about.  "Be accepting of differing ideas" needs to be something like
"Allow people to make their own decisions of whats best for them, without trying to stop them from doing so, unless they are unjustly trying to impose their will upon you or another, or otherwise infringing upon you or your family's safety, health, liberty, or property."


IE Two consenting adults having a same sex relationship. 
It's their choice, not anyone elses.
Telling them they are wrong for it because its not the way you do things is unjust and wrong.
Trying to say it threatens your way of life because you are heterosexual and your religion forbids it is likewise asinine.

[HannibalBarca]

Someone was concerned Trump would limit free speech, but he speaks much like the ficitional characters in stories on this site. Warren would be more of a threat to this site being she would likely find the extreme content offensive given she is a feminist. IMO

I'm a feminist.  According to the dictionary (and my opinion), feminism means women and men are treated equally and fairly.  That's all.  But not all feminists identify with this definition.  Some are third way feminists.  Some believe men are inferior and should basically give way to a new order where women control everything.  Most don't believe these extreme mindsets, at least from all the feminists I've read, met, discussed ideas with, and live their lives.  The same goes with Muslims and sharia law, evangelicals and putting homosexuals to death, and so on.

I think much of the problem, as in so many other things, is that certain groups are looked at as monoliths.  All feminists are not proclaiming the same beliefs.  Neither are conservatives, Republicans, Democrats, liberals, LGBTQs, Christians, Muslims...ad infinitum.

When my own father told me all liberals want Muslims to be able to impose sharia on America, I told him I was a liberal and stand against any such thing...sharia or any other religious requirement.

The former Yugoslavia saw, while Marshall Tito ruled the nation, the ability for people to get along.  Of course, that was imposed on them, but...once the dictator died, people began to expect the worst in each other.  Groups they may not have had any contact with.  That was the problem.  If you don't personally know a Muslim, it's easy to expect the worst in them.  Fear of the unknown is a powerful human emotion.

Then there is the Rwanda type hatred.  Hutus and Tutsis had lived alongside one another for hundreds of years.  They'd disagreed, but the genocide that resulted was because of the systemic imbalance of power between them.  When you try to suppress any group, since they are just as human as any other group, they are going to resent it.

These problems often stem from a simple lack of empathy for people different than ourselves.  It's so much easier to just pigeonhole the Other and place our prejudices and preconceived notions on them.  There's a reason big cities have less racism, and people getting along with each other more.  Being exposed to different ideals and cultures and thought processes is a good thing.

The longer people are denied the simple right to exist and be accepted as...human, the more problems will occur.  Democrats moving away from the white working class has left that class with no one to champion their needs.  Trump came along, having never done anything in his life to show he was on their side, and simply gave them a voice.  That was all it took for them to support him.  Republicans cannot continue to turn their back on minorities, women, and the LGBTQ community, because--even if it didn't happen in this election--the tide of demographics will eventually turn them into a regional party.

Compromise got this country off the ground.  Compromise between slavery-hating Quakers in the North and slavery-loving Episcopalians in the South...among so many other splinter groups.  The idiocy I hear from some conservatives is that Trump has a mandate--with a loss of the popular vote even.  No such thing was said by either side after Obama won with a much greater percentage of the popular and electoral vote in 2008.  It is a desire to legitimize any unilateral actions they will make--repealing Obamacare, gay marriage, Roe vs Wade--while ignoring that the majority of people did not choose Trump in this country.  He got enough electoral votes to win the election, but he did not get the majority of us on his side.  This kind of behavior will lead to a backlash vote in the next Presidential election...if the Democrats are smart enough to run someone who is popular instead of just smart.  It's how these things have always worked.  Humans are humans regardless of the era.  You can only push them so far without giving them a slice of the pie.

And as for feminism and non-con fiction?  It's just that, fiction.  I've written more than enough male-dominant fiction here on E, but it's just that; fiction.  Characters I write don't portray my own personality.  When one of my characters destroyed an entire planet of life a la Grand Moff Tarkin or Queen Jadis, that didn't mean I longed to be a mega-mass murderer.

[Cassandra LeMay]

I just came across an interesting interview in the Washington Post with a sociology professor (Kathy Cramer) who spent years interviewing people in rural Wisconsin. She makes some very interesting points about the resentments and attitudes of rural voters who feel betrayed by politicians and urban elites. She also makes a very important point at the end of the interview. Normally I wouldn't quote that long a segement, but I think it is worth quoting in full:

Cramer: One of the very sad aspects of resentment is that it breeds more of itself. Now you have liberals saying, “There is no justification for these points of view, and why would I ever show respect for these points of view by spending time and listening to them?”

Thank God I was as naive as I was when I started. If I knew then what I know now about the level of resentment people have toward urban, professional elite women, would I walk into a gas station at 5:30 in the morning and say, “Hi! I’m Kathy from the University of Madison”?

I’d be scared to death after this presidential campaign! But thankfully I wasn’t aware of these views. So what happened to me is that, within three minutes, people knew I was a professor at UW-Madison, and they gave me an earful about the many ways in which that riled them up — and then we kept talking.

And then I would go back for a second visit, a third visit, a fourth, fifth and sixth. And we liked each other. Even at the end of my first visit, they would say, “You know, you’re the first professor from Madison I’ve ever met, and you’re actually kind of normal.” And we’d laugh. We got to know each other as human beings.

That’s partly about listening, and that’s partly about spending time with people from a different walk of life, from a different perspective. There’s nothing like it. You can’t achieve it through online communication. You can’t achieve it through having good intentions. It’s the act of being with other people that establishes the sense we actually are all in this together.

As Pollyannaish as that sounds, I really do believe it.

[HannibalBarca]

For years I've complained about living in a predominantly conservative area of California.  But one of the things it helps with is seeing things from the perspective of the other side.  Unfortunately, it doesn't work both ways when one side is so predominant.  My trans son has to put up with a lot of crap from other students at his school.  When you dominate an area, one of the bad things is you don't feel the need to listen to the other side.  It becomes an echo chamber; a bubble.  People on both sides who live in areas where their beliefs dominate don't tend to listen to the opposite side.

I get more than an earful of what conservatives think and feel here.  But they don't hear what I and other liberals have to say.  They feel comfortable in their assumed superiority because most people around them repeat what they prefer to hear.  Unfortunately, this repeats itself many times in liberal areas as well.  The opportunity to find common ground is lost when there is no engagement, rather than just looking on one another as enemies and not to be listened to.

[Orval Wintermute]

Homosexuals are my neighbors, human beings just like me. A sexual preference is not a factor in the least.  Comparing them to politicians and comparing me to a hate group?  I find that Offensive and destructive.

No I compared the language you used to that used by hate groups, there is a difference. The language hate groups use is there to justify and give permission for appalling acts to be carried out. Now look very carefully at what you wrote.
People in group X are your neighbors and are human beings. But people in group Y not like people in group X, the implication is that people in group Y are not like you, that they are not like your neighbors and that they are not human beings.

(For the record, the "All Politicians are worthless" comment was Sarcasm. I want to call you stupid, but I can't because that rawr kitty ava is brilliant.)

So if I had a different avi you'd have no problem calling me stupid?  ::)

Honestly? Fuck that noise. That sort of demonization is part of why Trump got elected.....

This ^ a metric fuck ton

[Ralhend]

Well , not anymore.  They way you insist on nitpicking what was supposed to be a sarcastic comment makes you stupid no matter how awesome your ava is.

Now go read the acceptance speech instead of redirecting attention to my Sarcasim.

[Oniya]

Let's take a breather, folks.  There's no need to be calling anyone names here.  Posts are generally more cogent when they aren't accompanied by insults.

[Ralhend]

But insults are so much more fun!  >:) >:) >:) (More RH Sarcasm, don't get the wrong idea again)

I'm not here to fight, this is a forum.  I made a sarcastic comment (All Politicians are worthless! They want to tax me and spend my money!) that was intended to be humorous, and someone got offended, which ALWAYS seems to be the case nowadays. 

[Blythe]

But insults are so much more fun!  >:) >:) >:) (More RH Sarcasm, don't get the wrong idea again)

I'm not here to fight, this is a forum.  I made a sarcastic comment (All Politicians are worthless! They want to tax me and spend my money!) that was intended to be humorous, and someone got offended, which ALWAYS seems to be the case nowadays.

Sarcasm doesn't translate well in a text-only environment. Generally, when you know a subject is something where tempers are running high & when you know a subject is something causing people strain, avoid sarcasm. Too often in tense topics, it exacerbates rather than eases tension & stress.

[Ralhend]

Fine.  I'm breathing.  I was wrong to let him troll me like that.
Something tells me I need to just stop now, and just stay the hell out of the political forum.

[Idej]

I will say this much, this site is the one place where I feel comfortable saying that I voted for Trump.

While I honestly see the good things of what Liberal Ideology has to offer, there are some issues that plague the philosophy.

My biggest concern was how the heck are we going to budget for all of these programs?  Sure we can keep taxing the rich, until they leave the country and take their money away and quite often lots of jobs away from the country.  We can get our politicians to take pay-cuts, great if we can get it done, better if we can get term limits in place for Congress.

All of those are minor to the biggest I see with things like Socialism and Communism, and that is EVERYONE must contribute.  We've seen what happened during the times of the Soviet Union, the USSR imploded, and that was because of the heavy amounts of corruption in the system.  If we want to go the route of this, then everyone must contribute.  That means people have to be immigrating legally and registered into the system, the entire bureaucratic infrastructure has to be rebuilt and refined, and we have to change policies in employment and many other things.  All of this requires time and money, and money we don't got here in the US with how huge a debt the country has to pay.

I'm not saying I like everything Trump supports, and in all honesty I lean more towards as a Libertarian than a Republican, but we have to get our finances in order and start rebuilding the American economy before we can start instituting more support systems for everyone.

And that means we need to stop arguing about which bathroom people can use, who you can marry, and other issues that are quite petty and should be easy to work through; Not that I am saying I do not care about these issues, but these problems should have been solved already and done. 

We need to focus on rebuilding our economic standing in the rest of the world.  This includes working on improving our education system, restructuring our immigration system, judicial, and penal systems that eat away so much of our taxpayer money.  Work on restructuring how Congress works and get them to stop voting on pay increases which is another tax waste.  We have to work heavily on strengthening our military, while it is tax heavy on that, but I feel that Theodore Roosevelt's policy of "Big Stick" will help get some of our enemies to backdown through show of force.  But we also have to restructure the pay and benefits of our armed forces too, as there is a lot of bloated stuff too.

I should just summarize and say the government has a lot of bloated areas and we need to get rid of those areas and restructure.

In closing, I love you all, and I know many of you may hate me for what I said, but I do love you all.  You have all made me feel included and opened my eyes to many things.  I am Conservative in thinking, but one thing I will always stand by is that I will respect your opinion and views so long as you respect mine.  I mean yes there are some exceptions like respecting the views of a Black Panther or a KKK member, those do breed hate.

I want to reiterate one more time, I love you all and would like to keep loving this site too.  :D

Thank you for your time in reading this.

[Cassandra LeMay]

I'm not saying I like everything Trump supports, and in all honesty I lean more towards as a Libertarian than a Republican, but we have to get our finances in order and start rebuilding the American economy before we can start instituting more support systems for everyone.

And that means we need to stop arguing about which bathroom people can use, who you can marry, and other issues that are quite petty and should be easy to work through; Not that I am saying I do not care about these issues, but these problems should have been solved already and done. 

Many of the points you raised are worth debating, but questions of socialism, the size of government, or how best to strengthen an economy are topics that I think might well go beyond the scope of this thread. But I would like to reply to the part of your post quoted above.

Strengthening the economy and so-called "bathroom laws" are in no way related. There is no correlation between the two topics, much less a causal relationship. There is no reason whatsoever not to address both topics at the same time. To claim that "we have to do A therefore we can not take care of Z" is a fallacy if A and Z are not related in some way. I can see no reason whatsoever that the government can't deal with more than one question at a time.

[Idej]

I agree on that point you made what I was trying to say is that some need to take a higher precedence over the other.  And I honestly think the "bathroom laws" should have been solved already too.  It was in no way to offend anyone, but if I did I do apologize.  I just think that some of those issues should of have been solved already.  I just feel that if we had to choose one thing to focus on, I feel it should be the economy first.

Thank you though for your reply and I appreciate the civility, I honestly do.  There is too much chaos going around that it is hard to talk to anyone I know civilly.

[Orval Wintermute]

While I honestly see the good things of what Liberal Ideology has to offer, there are some issues that plague the philosophy.

But which liberalism? Classical liberalism, economic liberalism, social liberalism etc. etc.
Put 5 liberals in a room and if they don't have at least 8 different opinions between them, then something has gone wrong  ;D

We can get our politicians to take pay-cuts, great if we can get it done, better if we can get term limits in place for Congress.

Work on restructuring how Congress works and get them to stop voting on pay increases which is another tax waste.

I don't disagree with you about stopping politicians voting on their own pay because of the unintended consequences when that happens.
Take a trip back to Thatcher's Britain in the 1980's; the economy was in trouble and MP's were told to vote against their annual pay rise because it would create bad press. This went on for years, MP's taking low pay increases to not look greedy, but the salary didn't keep up with cost of living rises. Instead MP's claimed pretty much everything on expenses from mortgage payments to duck houses and toilet seats. By trying to appear to be virtuous they created a corrupt system. Now salaries are set by an independent body and MP's they have to take what comes their way.

As for pay cuts? Congress hasn't given itself a pay rise in 7 years and if a the salary ends up being uncompetitive then you limiting the pool of potential representatives. I don't understand how limiting the pool of candidates to those who have so much money they can afford a low paying Government job or those who are completely dependent on money from special interests helps the democratic process.

And I don't understand the need for term limits. If elections are fair then trust the voters to make the decision that's right for them. To me terms limits say either the voters can't be trusted or elections aren't fair, in either case term limits wouldn't fix the problem, so what am I missing?

We have to work heavily on strengthening our military, while it is tax heavy on that, but I feel that Theodore Roosevelt's policy of "Big Stick" will help get some of our enemies to back down through show of force.

Now this something I really don't get. US military spending in 2015 was greater the spending of China, Saudi Arabia, Russia, UK, India, France, Japan, Germany, South Korea & Brazil combined. The US navy has 19 aircraft carriers, the next biggest fleet of carriers is France with 4. How much bigger does that stick need to be?

[Idej]

I'm not a major political expert but I can say is that.

Mostly economic liberalism is what I am saying there.

As to pay cuts, yes I admit that it would limit the pool, but also it has a chance of humbling those politicians who are disconnected with their constituents.

Term limits because face it, both sides of the arguments have their "in-crowd" and "good ol' boys" club that will continuously keep getting elected over and over again until the day they die and will constantly seek power for themselves and not stand for their constituents.  Now part of the reason isn't just the elected officials fault, but it is the fault of many people who-in whether a fault of their own or not, do not examine each candidate thoroughly to vote them in.  Most of the time, it is just like High School all over again where the ones who have the "cool appeal" get in.  Term limits for President were made official after FDR got a third term as President.  Some of the reasons were petty party politics, but one reason was a potential fear of having a President for life.

And yes I mean strengthening the military, but also cutting back alot of the bloated aspects in our military.  We have so much money going into the military but alot of it is not going to anything great.  I have seen issues that are going on with the Air Base that I live near too in regards to not getting the necessary parts for repairs on some of the aircraft to keep them going.  All of the money going into the military are not going into the right places.  That is what I meant.

[Beguile's Mistress]

Government should concern itself with maintaining laws and the infrastructure, providing citizens with safe and adequate jobs, housing and food sources as well as educational resources for all.

When government inserts itself in ideology, religion, life style and a person's health needs to the detriment of any, even one single individual, it is wrong.

[Atarn]

In closing, I love you all, and I know many of you may hate me for what I said, but I do love you all.  You have all made me feel included and opened my eyes to many things.  I am Conservative in thinking, but one thing I will always stand by is that I will respect your opinion and views so long as you respect mine.  I mean yes there are some exceptions like respecting the views of a Black Panther or a KKK member, those do breed hate.

Isn't Trump and his goons basically the KKK though? Trump will at best set equal rights back a couple of decades, and he did call Mexicans by some unflattering epithets. His Vice Pres is a Very Right-Wing Religious Nut and he just appointed some Breitbart goon to his inner group.
So, not to be rude or anything...But why do you and people like you expect this to be a polite time? Trump basically rode into power on a wave of racism, sexism, hatred and intolerance and it's not looking like he's going to change much of that once in power...It's basically like electing Mussolini, then going. "Oh, terribly sorry. Didn't think he'd beat you up just because he promised to do so before being elected."
And I hate that this will no doubt rub off on us across the pond, giving the Brownshirt's here fuel for the fire.