All Hail God-Emperor Trump

[Trigon]

Ahh I see. Hmm, okay I get it now. Thanks for explaining
But can it be a coup if people are voting for it? No one on Trump's campaign made any secret of their beliefs, and people wanted those things.

It would be quite a stretch to say that anyone here actually "wanted" those things, even among some of Trump's supporters. He's is already the most unpopular candidate in history, and coming into the White House his approval rating is quite low: https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2016/12/08/politics/donald-trump-approval-ratings-pew-poll-transition/index.html

We could also mention the fact that the election was decided by largely by the fact that many people didn't vote, similar in fact to what happened to Brexit: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/voter-turnout-fell-especially-in-states-that-clinton-won/

And as Trump is in the process of doing the exact opposite of what he promised (i.e. His so called draining the swamp, for instance); the percentage of those who did vote Trump for believing his rhetoric, were just suckers (is it any surprise that most of Trump's voters had less education?)

A lot of people are unhappy with the status quo and that's something that seems to be shaking a lot of other people up. Granted there is a lot of badness in the government, but there is a way to protest. What I've been seeing isn't the right way.

Yes people are dissatisfied with the status quo, and rightfully so. However, does it make sense to vote for a billionaire, someone who caused all those problems i the first place, to go fix those problems?

[CrownedSun]

We could also mention the fact that the election was decided by largely by the fact that many people didn't vote, similar in fact to what happened to Brexit: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/voter-turnout-fell-especially-in-states-that-clinton-won/

...while I agree that there are issues, that link you mentioned notes that voter turn out was lowest in states that Clinton won. N' tended to be about the same as before in the ones that Trump won, and contested states, so while this hurt I don't think it hurt as much as you're suggesting.

Or maybe I'm missing something.

*shrugs*

Honestly, I tend to be against anyone going, "Yes, but this election wasn't legitimate," regardless of which party is doing it.

I don't like the results of the election, but I find it sad and a little depressing that so many Democrats are doing exactly the same thing that they were so frightened about Trump doing.

But, this is why I'm an independent.

[Suiko]

No, actually, income wasn't the best indicator for votes, it was education.  Even those with low to average household incomes still tended to vote for Clinton as long as they had higher education levels.  That's one reason why I thought the article was so interesting.

Oops. We'll for some reason I read education as income. No idea where that came from ^^;

Still there is doubtless a connection between eduction and income, so I stand by my words

It would be quite a stretch to say that anyone here actually "wanted" those things, even among some of Trump's supporters. He's is already the most unpopular candidate in history, and coming into the White House his approval rating is quite low: https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2016/12/08/politics/donald-trump-approval-ratings-pew-poll-transition/index.html

We could also mention the fact that the election was decided by largely by the fact that many people didn't vote, similar in fact to what happened to Brexit: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/voter-turnout-fell-especially-in-states-that-clinton-won/

And as Trump is in the process of doing the exact opposite of what he promised (i.e. His so called draining the swamp, for instance), those who did vote Trump for that reason, were just suckers...

Yes people are dissatisfied with the status quo, and rightfully so. However, does it make sense to vote for a billionaire, someone who caused all those problems i the first place, to go fix those problems?

I think it's impossible to say that not many people wanted what Trump offers. You can't know what goes on in people's heads. And true, a lot of people didn't vote... but,much like Brexit, it's a moot point. You can just redo a vote because of that - it isn't how it works.

It does suck when politicians do the opposite of what they say, but I'm positive every single one in history has said things to be elected, only to not do them in office.

And I think people are more voting for something radically different to what has been. Everyone seemed to expect Clinton to win, and thus carry on the way things are. Many people didn't want that and so they voted for the only way to oppose it. That's what I think, anyway.

...while I agree that there are issues, that link you mentioned notes that voter turn out was lowest in states that Clinton won. N' tended to be about the same as before in the ones that Trump won, and contested states, so while this hurt I don't think it hurt as much as you're suggesting.

Or maybe I'm missing something.

*shrugs*

Honestly, I tend to be against anyone going, "Yes, but this election wasn't legitimate," regardless of which party is doing it.

I don't like the results of the election, but I find it sad and a little depressing that so many Democrats are doing exactly the same thing that they were so frightened about Trump doing.

But, this is why I'm an independent.

Also this. Very much this.

[Valerian]

Oops. We'll for some reason I read education as income. No idea where that came from ^^;

Still there is doubtless a connection between eduction and income, so I stand by my words

There is a general correlation, yes, but the study did also adjust for that as much as possible.  It is possible to find areas with good schools (and more people with higher education) that still have a lower average income, and in those areas -- even though it's easy to find people struggling with student debt, for example -- they still voted more often for Clinton, while higher-income households with less education voted Trump.  Obviously where low education and low income combine you're even more likely to find Trump supporters, but overall it isn't a given that the closer someone is to the poverty line the more likely that person supported Trump.  Though the article explains it much better than I can. 

[Trigon]

I think it's impossible to say that not many people wanted what Trump offers. You can't know what goes on in people's heads.

True, but given his extraordinary unpopularity to date, I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that a large majority of people in the USA don't actually want him. In an earlier post, I had noted that Trump's voters fall largely into three camps; bigots, cynics, or just simply stupid.

And also remember that Clinton won the popular vote by a wide margin

   

And true, a lot of people didn't vote... but,much like Brexit, it's a moot point. You can just redo a vote because of that - it isn't how it works

No one is really arguing that we should redo the vote. In fact, I'm sure most everyone would agree that it would be largely pointless at this stage, given the nature of the Electoral College.

But the fact of the matter is, is that having Trump at the helm is just simply not good, no matter how you break it down.

It does suck when politicians do the opposite of what they say, but I'm positive every single one in history has said things to be elected, only to not do them in office.

It goes beyond just simply not following up on one's promises; he used his lies, rather deliberately, to cynically manipulate his voter base (and the mass media I should add) purely for personal gain. And he has openly shown disdain for most of our civil liberties. 

Most politicians of the past certainly had their failings, but never to the same degree as Trump...

And I think people are more voting for something radically different to what has been. Everyone seemed to expect Clinton to win, and thus carry on the way things are. Many people didn't want that and so they voted for the only way to oppose it. That's what I think, anyway.

To what extend will Trump change anything? The only changes being seen so far is that he is just simply dropping all pretense of bothering to try to hide any of the problems or corruption of our political system.

Don't get me wrong, I do believe that urgent changes are needed. But I fail to see how Trump will change things for the better. And that is why everyone is in uproar over his election.

[Cassandra LeMay]

True, but given his extraordinary unpopularity to date, I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that a large majority of people in the USA don't actually want him. In an earlier post, I had noted that Trump's voters fall largely into three camps; bigots, cynics, or just simply stupid. 

All that may be true, but I would like to add two more categories:

1) People who vote GOP, no matter the candidate.

2) ... Actually I am not stating a definite category here. Make up one if you like. People are complicated and not every Trump voter is easily defined or should be shoehorned into a box. Putting people in nicely-defined categories will only harm any effort to gather a voter coalition that can get rid of Trump and his ilk in 2020.

[Suiko]

Was it a wide margin? Citing my ignorance here, but I thought there weren't many votes in it? Compared to the entire population. Also just because a person voted Trump doesn't mean that they fit the stereotype that everyone seems to want to put Trump voters into.

And again, I've seen a lot of people crying for a recount/revote - but that could be linked to the media again.

And again again, using cynical lies isn't new to Trump. Not saying he's great, but yeah. You can tell a politician is lying because their lips move. I'm not arguing in favour of Trump - just in favour of debate and discussion.

I don't think we can judge Trump yet. He's not even in office yet so I don't think it's fair to say that he won't change anything. To the voters, I think he certainly seemed vastly different to the others, and that could be what gave him the win.

[Trigon]

All that may be true, but I would like to add two more categories:

1) People who vote GOP, no matter the candidate.

2) ... Actually I am not stating a definite category here. Make up one if you like. People are complicated and not every Trump voter is easily defined or should be shoehorned into a box. Putting people in nicely-defined categories will only harm any effort to gather a voter coalition that can get rid of Trump and his ilk in 2020.

There is still a large pool of people who didn't vote, many of whom would have actually voted if there were better candidates to begin with. And there is still hope for the cynics and uninformed among us, to the extent that they can be persuaded to vote for a better candidate when the opportunity arises. So I do think that we do have quite a bit of leeway here .

But yes, I believe overall that his election is symptomatic of a much larger problem. I think that if our society was much healthier, Trump would have never even become a candidate in the first place.

[Oniya]

Was it a wide margin? Citing my ignorance here, but I thought there weren't many votes in it? Compared to the entire population. Also just because a person voted Trump doesn't mean that they fit the stereotype that everyone seems to want to put Trump voters into.

Latest 2016 Popular Vote Election Results: Clinton Leads Trump By 2.6 Million, Margin Grows As Votes Continue To Be Counted

As far as the percentage of votes cast, that's 48% for Clinton, 46% for Trump (does not sum to 100% because of third party and rounding)

[Trigon]

I don't think we can judge Trump yet. He's not even in office yet so I don't think it's fair to say that he won't change anything. To the voters, I think he certainly seemed vastly different to the others, and that could be what gave him the win.

Well, don't hold your breath. Here's the story so far with Trump and his administration: http://www.commondreams.org/news/2016/12/08/welcome-general-billionaires-administration-pattern-emerges-trump-cabinet

[Suiko]

I've had fun doing this debate

I have to bow out now though since I have a volunteer shift. Thanks for indulging me though! It's very interesting.

[Trigon]

You are welcome :)

[Cassandra LeMay]

... You can tell a politician is lying because their lips move. I'm not arguing in favour of Trump - just in favour of debate and discussion.

I'll call Bravo Sierra on this.

If you believe someone is lying just because their profession is "politician" you are not ready debate or discuss.

I know this sounds harsh, but judging a book by its cover -as you do here - is not conducive to debates or discussions.

[Suiko]

Briefly returning to say that is a bit harsh. I thought I was doing pretty decently at the whole discussion business.

I see your point, but equally the statement was more a saying than a strict belief.

[Verasaille]

It is with trepidation I come into this debate/discussion. I voted for Hillary, not because she was a woman, not because she is part of the established network of polititians on both sides of the aisle, and not even because I am a Democrat. I voted for the lesser of two evils.

The system is flawed, there is no doubt. Anyone who is a true history buff will tell you. This country is headed for a disaster of our own making. In spite of the speeches of those polititians, not every one of them is as altruistic and eager to serve the country as they sound. They just have good speech writers who know how to inspire people.

Do we need change? Most assuredly we do. But the vast size of the country and the whole diversity of our people makes it impossible to be totally united in opinion. Change happens in increments, a little at a time. Either that or it happens violently with widespread destruction and loss of life and property. Change will happen when the majority of the people accept the fact things are messed up and need to be changed. The Democratic system as we have it set up is bulky and it takes time to implement things.

Having an opinion and voting on it is important, it is what makes this nation as strong as it is. When the politicians we are offered are all corrupt and unworthy of the vote, we tear our hair and scream with indignation. Why aren't there more people running who are not corrupt and out for personal gain? It comes back to the issue of accountability. The people who want to run need money to finance their campaign. How do they get this money? Either they are independently wealthy and just dip into their private funds, or they garner support from others who have money.

It is not where a person stands politically that gets a person elected, it is money. You have enough money, you can get elected. What this does is make it almost impossible for a common sense normally intelligent person who would be good for the country to get elected.

[Angie]

I offer little, but this observation: if the Democratic party would like to win a 2018 election outside of New York or California (or I guess Washington, because the east half of this state is literally blue balled by Seattle), the smartest thing to do would be to shut up, let the Republican party crash and burn without comment, and then present themselves as a combination of Jesus and Santa Claus coming in to save America from the people who provably fucked it up.

Of course, maybe they are doing just that. Lawsuits and demands for recounts aside, maybe they are biding their time like smart people. I will say, Democratic SUPPORTERS have been a laugh a minute, taking Hillary's "basket of deplorables" comment and doubling down on it, claiming that everyone who voted Trump is not a "properly evolved human being" (thank you Bob "Moviebob" Chipman). If anything, it's going to be the vocal minority trying to push the idea that Republican supporters are the worst human beings evar! that's going to keep Congress red into 2018 and possibly even be the main thing that re-elects Trump in 2020.

I have no love for either side, and my politics are too divided to say I'm on one side or the other (I'm liberal on some things, conservative on others, and the split is too massive to put myself in one camp overall). But the silent majority are starting to see the vocal minority, and when you call someone a racist nazi for the horrible crime of Existing, well, you don't win any new fans. I don't intend to antagonize and I'm fairly certain anyone here who was on Hillary's side/voted for her aren't part of this vocal majority I've mentioned, but if this election proved anything in my mind, it's that you catch more flies with honey then vinegar.

'Course, I could be an idiot and everything I've said is wrong. All I know is, the people who lost their minds over the results were hilarious to watch melting down on Twitter.

[Silk]

There are lots of protests and grassroots movements opposing Trump that are peaceable and focused, probably a lot more than those that are making the news for being loud and obnoxious.  Signing petitions and organizing spending strikes aren't flashy enough. 

Speaking of the voters who wanted Trump -- a remarkably small fraction of the population -- there's an interesting article here from fivethirtyeight analyzing how income and education affected voting patterns.  Basically, the lower the average education level in a particular county, the greater the likelihood that residents of that area voted for Trump.

One thing I have to say in regards to this is that Education =/= Intelligence, There is too many people out there that think a Degree somehow gives them authoritative right of anything except that which their degree has influence over, I'm doing Forensic Psychology right now at University, I wouldn't dare to think I would know more in a Engineering field against any person who works in that field. Also it's worth considering that Colleges and Universities tend to be incredibly liberal biased anyway so it's a bit of a self fulfilling prophecy that those that go to Uni and get a better education tend to, in essence get brainwashed into being more left wing. But again, who's to say that I'm any more intelligent than an Engineer who did work as an Apprentice at a firm just because my skills in field came from an institution instead of world experience. If anything I'd put more stock in those that grew up in the world than these little sheltered blankets called higher education, being here does nothing to teach you how the world really works.

[TheGlyphstone]

Let's try not to let correlation = causation either, of course. Lower-educated people tend to go into blue-collar fields; farming, factory work, and so on, since the knowledge and skills needed to do those jobs come more from direct experience than classrooms. Those are the exact sort of economic sectors that Trump specifically targeted his honey-tongued promises towards, so it's only to be expected that they flocked to him.

[Oniya]

On a slightly more subversive note - it turns out that Time Magazine's cover of T-rump has a few more messages than initially meet the eye.  It's impressive, because some of the details are the sorts of things that could be classed as accidental - until you consider that this is the era where photo retouching is as ubiquitous as pigeons in Central Park.

http://forward.com/culture/356537/why-times-trump-cover-is-a-subversive-work-of-political-art/?attribution=next-article

[Verasaille]

I think the whole country is going to be super divided for awhile. Let's hope things get straightened out before we get anymore widespread riots.

[Vekseid]

Briefly returning to say that is a bit harsh. I thought I was doing pretty decently at the whole discussion business.

I see your point, but equally the statement was more a saying than a strict belief.

It is a toxic, dehumanizing saying that sows distrust and division, discourages civic participation, and turns good people against those who want to make the world a better place.

I disagree with the way you were called out for it, but it does deserve calling out. It is not conducive to bringing about positive change.

[Suiko]

It is a toxic, dehumanizing saying that sows distrust and division, discourages civic participation, and turns good people against those who want to make the world a better place.

I disagree with the way you were called out for it, but it does deserve calling out. It is not conducive to bringing about positive change.

Honestly I don't think I'm toxic or dehumanising. I just don't take what people say on faith, but maybe that's me being cynical.

Also sometimes sayings are just meant for a brief chuckle and a move on, you know? There's a habit nowerdays for everything to be taken deadly seriously, which isn't helpful either when you can't separate them out.

Still, don't want to turn the thread into something it's not. Thanks for saying the manner wasn't right.

[Trigon]

One thing I have to say in regards to this is that Education =/= Intelligence, There is too many people out there that think a Degree somehow gives them authoritative right of anything except that which their degree has influence over, I'm doing Forensic Psychology right now at University, I wouldn't dare to think I would know more in a Engineering field against any person who works in that field. Also it's worth considering that Colleges and Universities tend to be incredibly liberal biased anyway so it's a bit of a self fulfilling prophecy that those that go to Uni and get a better education tend to, in essence get brainwashed into being more left wing. But again, who's to say that I'm any more intelligent than an Engineer who did work as an Apprentice at a firm just because my skills in field came from an institution instead of world experience. If anything I'd put more stock in those that grew up in the world than these little sheltered blankets called higher education, being here does nothing to teach you how the world really works.

Two things:

1) Colleges were actually not very liberal, historically speaking anyway. That perception only came about sometime after 1960; before then they were actually quite conservative. And even now, only some departments are more "liberal" or "left-wing", chiefly the humanities or the social science departments. Most CS departments are libertarian, and the hard sciences tend to be a mixed bag (biologists and ecologists lean left, while the physicists tend to lean either liberal or center-right). The conservatives can be found in either economics department (unless they pertain to ecological economics), or in the industrial engineering departments.

2) I'll just speak from my own experience from being in the "real world" now for over 5 years. In summary, the so called real world is actually a fraud. And the so-called "practical knowledge" is actually far less useful than you think. I've seen people who know how to fix or re-route a circuit board, for instance, but yet can't figure out to just simply read a few notes passed to them by some other guy from another department, or even just down the line. And then there is the ever present specter of automation or obsolescence of skills...

That's not to say that they are "less intelligent", but rather to understand that having a theoretical base for one's knowledge will go a long way. And it will certainly help one more easily understand other subjects outside of one's specialty.

That being said, I don't deny the problems with the university system; alas, they go much deeper than mere fragmentation of the knowledge base: http://www.sciencemag.org/careers/2015/01/not-quite-stated-awful-truth


Overall, I personally think that election result is symptomatic of the fact that the world system is just simply screwed. Nonetheless, we aren't helping matters by trying to rationalize the Trump vote.

Did people want change? Yes, and rightfully so. But we shouldn't just vote for "change" simply for the sake of it.

[Trigon]

I offer little, but this observation: if the Democratic party would like to win a 2018 election outside of New York or California (or I guess Washington, because the east half of this state is literally blue balled by Seattle), the smartest thing to do would be to shut up, let the Republican party crash and burn without comment, and then present themselves as a combination of Jesus and Santa Claus coming in to save America from the people who provably fucked it up.

They may very well crash and burn, but it isn't going to happen by itself. It would be unwise to underestimate their staying power; Italy's Berlosconi, for instance, managed to stay in power for more than a decade, despite being perceived as a buffoon (Trump is often compared with Berlosconi, as well as Hitler).

[Verasaille]

If you want change you have to make sure it benefits people and not just a select few. Otherwise you are just jumping out of the frying pan into the fire.
Speaking of the '60's, has anyone ever actually experienced the riots and the demonstrations that led to segregation? And that is only one small segment of the many changes effected over the years.

Even the song writers and poets had to say something.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ZKB-ZQTkO8