[Discussion] 2016 Presidential Elections Vote-All

The US Presidential Elections catch-all. All discussion related to the ongoing campaigns can go here.

gore wrote:

It's possible, but I'd personally not make any wagers on Trump doing or not doing anything he talked about. Beyond a desire to further his own brand and achieve glory for himself, his motives and beliefs are a complete enigma to me.

He's been on both sides of every issue. Certainly there's good reason for concern and fear. One thing about electing a pathological liar: you know he's going to break his campaign promises, you just don't know which ones.

Seriously, I hope I don't come off as a Trump apologist here, I'm incredibly pessimistic too about what he's actually going to do. I'm just trying to give some benefit of the doubt to his newfound supporters themselves on this particular issue, because I haven't really seen any evidence that this groundswell was motivated by the normal GOP anti-LGBT stances he adopted.

I very much wonder what trumpists will do if he leads as a moderate republican. If he just ignores his campaign promises, if he just does pro business stuff.

Gremlin wrote:
Buzzrick wrote:

Can someone please explain something about American politics that I'm curious about. I've seen it inferred in a few places that the presidency could changes in 2-4 years. I understand that in 4 years there is a new presidential election, but is there also something that happens in 2 years which might change it?

Or have I just mis-understood something?

Two years is the midterm elections. The president is not up for re-election, but a lot of the House and Senate are. If, say, the Republicans lose Congress that changes a lot of what the President is able to do. (Not from any legal standpoint, but because his own party is usually more willing to work with him.)

This won't affect Trump directly, unless the House impeaches him or something like that. Which is much more likely to happen if the Republicans don't have control of the House. It also affects confirming appointments to, for example, the Cabinet or the Supreme Court.

Additional info:

House members serve for 2 years. Senators for 4.

Jonman wrote:
Gremlin wrote:
Buzzrick wrote:

Can someone please explain something about American politics that I'm curious about. I've seen it inferred in a few places that the presidency could changes in 2-4 years. I understand that in 4 years there is a new presidential election, but is there also something that happens in 2 years which might change it?

Or have I just mis-understood something?

Two years is the midterm elections. The president is not up for re-election, but a lot of the House and Senate are. If, say, the Republicans lose Congress that changes a lot of what the President is able to do. (Not from any legal standpoint, but because his own party is usually more willing to work with him.)

This won't affect Trump directly, unless the House impeaches him or something like that. Which is much more likely to happen if the Republicans don't have control of the House. It also affects confirming appointments to, for example, the Cabinet or the Supreme Court.

Additional info:

House members serve for 2 years. Senators for 4.

6 years for Senate.

guitarlicks4 wrote:

I found this article to be enlightening: http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-reason...

The fact that it was written a month before election night makes it even more compelling and strengthens the author's argument now that we see battleground states that flipped to red for Trump. There's a HUGE lesson to be learned here, not from a Republican vs. Democrat perspective but from a "We are all Americans" perspective. I think both parties are out of touch.

If a group or someone out there was able to bridge the gap between red and blue and urban and rural, that's the only way to really make America great.

Without trying to minimize its message, there is one thing missing from this article: the people in it have been fed a steady 20+ year diet of anti-Hillary rhetoric that would have been extremely difficult for her campaign to overcome. Add in the DNCLeaks and it became an impossible task.

“I wish it need not have happened in my time,” said Frodo.
“So do I,” said Gandalf, “and so do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us.”
gore wrote:

What I've been trying to do is push back on the idea that all or most Trump supporters themselves are anti-LGBT, and my proposition here is that anti-LGBT has never been more a part of Trump's campaign than it would have been for any "normal Republican."

Compared to how loudly and abrasively he assaulted other groups, his Normal Republican anti-LGBT positions are easy to overlook, and I can readily imagine that many voters did in fact overlook them.

Is it unfair to reduce this to "his campaign was predicated on white supremacy so it was really hard to know exactly which minority group will be hurt worse?" How about ALL OF THEM.

Why is this an acceptable excuse?

Well, again, he's giving Mike "Conversion Therapy is Awesome" Pence the reigns of that policy review.

One thing is certain. One voter group or another is going to be extremely surprised by what the Trump presidency leads to. Clearly we can't all be right about what will happen.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...
I assume voting for Trump due to ACA costs and Hillary apparently using the acronym ISIL instead of Islamic State is as good a reason as anything else. I just cant grasp it.

OzymandiasAV wrote:
gore wrote:

What I've been trying to do is push back on the idea that all or most Trump supporters themselves are anti-LGBT, and my proposition here is that anti-LGBT has never been more a part of Trump's campaign than it would have been for any "normal Republican."

Compared to how loudly and abrasively he assaulted other groups, his Normal Republican anti-LGBT positions are easy to overlook, and I can readily imagine that many voters did in fact overlook them.

Is it unfair to reduce this to "his campaign was predicated on white supremacy so it was really hard to know exactly which minority group was hurt worse?" How about ALL OF THEM.

Why is this an acceptable excuse?

I'm not trying to make excuses, either. I just want to be precise when we try to diagnose this problem, because I don't think simply painting everybody who voted for him as any one thing is helpful.

I think humans have complex motivations. I think it's especially important to get it right when we try to understand the motives of Trump supporters, because if we misunderstand this we cannot correct the problem. That means not generalizing, that means empathizing, that means waiting for data. That means not writing people off as irredeemable, because that's an admission of defeat.

Or to put it more... abrasively: "know thy enemy."

I've decided to minimize my public worrying until he actually does something. I have some speculations as to where he could go very, very wrong, but this week probably isn't the time to post them. Especially since I don't have any clue which ones he'll actually do.

Of course, that's partially because I can afford to do that for the moment.

Demosthenes wrote:

6 years for Senate.

I thought so!

The crappy free Civics Test Primer I downloaded for my phone was telling me it was 4, and I just assumed I was wrong about it being 6.

Jonman wrote:
Demosthenes wrote:

6 years for Senate.

I thought so!

The crappy free Civics Test Primer I downloaded for my phone was telling me it was 4, and I just assumed I was wrong about it being 6.

Best case scenario, typo. Worst case scenario, possible troll group publishing an app to intentionally fail immigrants.

I hate this world that make me even contemplate the idea that the second is a possibility.

Jonman wrote:
Demosthenes wrote:

6 years for Senate.

I thought so!

The crappy free Civics Test Primer I downloaded for my phone was telling me it was 4, and I just assumed I was wrong about it being 6.

Citizenship revoked! Brexit 2.0: Jonman Style.

gore wrote:

I'm not trying to make excuses, either. I just want to be precise when we try to diagnose this problem, because I don't think simply painting everybody who voted for him as any one thing is helpful.

I think humans have complex motivations. I think it's especially important to get it right when we try to understand the motives of Trump supporters, because if we misunderstand this we cannot correct the problem. That means not generalizing, that means empathizing, that means waiting for data.

Or to put it more... abrasively: "know thy enemy."

Learning more about peoples behavior is always interesting. But in the end, these people voted for the same person. No matter their individual reasons they bought into the whole package.
That doesn't necessarily make them racists or fascists. But they can't get away from voting for one.

MilkmanDanimal wrote:
Jonman wrote:
Demosthenes wrote:

6 years for Senate.

I thought so!

The crappy free Civics Test Primer I downloaded for my phone was telling me it was 4, and I just assumed I was wrong about it being 6.

Citizenship revoked! Brexit 2.0: Jonman Style.

that would be brexit 3, the original brexit was rich planters not wanting to pay taxes.

MilkmanDanimal wrote:

I genuinely believe Donald Trump is utterly apathetic to the rights of LGBTQ people. I also believe that is irrelevant, because he has surrounded himself with people who are going to make their lives utter sh*t.

Yeah, guys can we not forget the fact that Trump showed a great and deep-seated disinterest in actually governing? Unlike a lot of Presidents, I think that he is gonna kind of let anybody convince him of anything outside of his few pet projects (immigration and freeing up businesses to do whatever the like). THAT is the concern. I'm not afraid of Trump's stance in this arena and pointing to said stance is only mollifying to people who aren't taking a somewhat close look at the dynamics of this guy and his campaign.

I think there's a nonzero chance Trump might look at some proposed stuff and literally say, "What? Why? Leave the gays alone, geeeeez." But I don't find that chance very large or comforting.

I mean, if we're going for a list. I've got one sourced from a friend who did the legwork.

Emily G wrote:

- Section 1557: This part of the ACA was recently interpreted by rule change to apply the sex nondiscrimination rules to include transgender status. Which means that for 2017, insurance cannot deny me coverage for being trans and doctors cannot deny me treatment for being trans. Ever hear of a "trans broken arm?" When ACA gets repealed, this goes away. And so too does my right to adequate healthcare.

- Title VII: The sex nondiscrimination clauses in the equal employment section of the Civil Rights act have been interpreted to apply to transgender status, protecting the benefit rights of anyone working for a company receiving federal funding. This means I can be denied benefits, including employer sponsored medical coverage, just for being trans.

- Title IX: Education rights for equal access is at stake. There are currently many battles in the courts about students' rights to use the facilities matching their choosing and to have access to equal educational opportunities. As a periodic UVa student, this guarantees my right to equal treatment and access to education. But really, it protects trans kids.

- Executive Order 13672: This prohibits employment discrimination against trans and gender nonconforming indivuals by the federal government and all federal contractors receiving $10,000 or more per year.

- Fair Housing: transgender status is not legally protected by federal law. I can be legally evicted for being trans. I can be denied a mortgage. A landlord can tell me, "sorry, we don't rent to {transphobic slur}."

- Equal Employment: I can be denied a job for being trans, regardless of qualifications.

- Public Accommodations: I can be denied services at a business for being trans. *This has already happened to me.*

- Due Process: If I get arrested, which is increasingly likely, I can be thrown in men's jail.

- Proper identification: All my documents have been updated, but many of my peers cannot update birth certificates or drivers licenses due to state laws or lack of resources.

- Inheritance/Endowment: Jeopardizing marriage means if anything happens to me or [redacted name of Emily's wife], then we may not be guaranteed death benefits, or we can have our wills invalidated.

Shadout wrote:

One thing is certain. One voter group or another is going to be extremely surprised by what the Trump presidency leads to. Clearly we can't all be right about what will happen.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...
I assume voting for Trump due to ACA costs and Hillary apparently using the acronym ISIL instead of Islamic State is as good a reason as anything else. I just cant grasp it.

I fully expect the Republican response to rising ACA costs will be to scrap it and replace it with... absolutely nothing. Just the same old "if you can't get health insurance through work, you're screwed" because they seemed pretty happy with that before Obama.

What happens with the sexual assault charges against Trump? I guess they can still go ahead.

Quintin_Stone wrote:
Shadout wrote:

One thing is certain. One voter group or another is going to be extremely surprised by what the Trump presidency leads to. Clearly we can't all be right about what will happen.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...
I assume voting for Trump due to ACA costs and Hillary apparently using the acronym ISIL instead of Islamic State is as good a reason as anything else. I just cant grasp it.

I fully expect the Republican response to rising ACA costs will be to scrap it and replace it with... absolutely nothing. Just the same old "if you can't get health insurance through work, you're screwed" because they seemed pretty happy with that before Obama.

Everyone with premiums going up will be so much better off!

I mean, the obvious answer is a single payer system. But we elected a sea of red along with the Great Repealer. Hillary at least tried to create a single payer system before, and was going to work to improve the ACA. The odds of getting to single payer just went down, significantly.

Higgledy wrote:

What happens with the sexual assault charges against Trump? I guess they can still go ahead.

The civil lawsuit saying he raped a 12 year old has been dropped. Whether or not the 12+ women who claimed he groped them lead to actual charges or lawsuits remains to be seen. Trump vowed to sue every woman who accused him of groping them, which probably won't happen because he threatens lawsuits and fails to follow through all the time.

Jonman wrote:
Gremlin wrote:
Buzzrick wrote:

Can someone please explain something about American politics that I'm curious about. I've seen it inferred in a few places that the presidency could changes in 2-4 years. I understand that in 4 years there is a new presidential election, but is there also something that happens in 2 years which might change it?

Or have I just mis-understood something?

Two years is the midterm elections. The president is not up for re-election, but a lot of the House and Senate are. If, say, the Republicans lose Congress that changes a lot of what the President is able to do. (Not from any legal standpoint, but because his own party is usually more willing to work with him.)

This won't affect Trump directly, unless the House impeaches him or something like that. Which is much more likely to happen if the Republicans don't have control of the House. It also affects confirming appointments to, for example, the Cabinet or the Supreme Court.

Additional info:

House members serve for 2 years. Senators for 4.

Practically, this means that every House member is basically spending their entire 2 years in office running for re-election instead of governing.

boogle wrote:
MilkmanDanimal wrote:
Jonman wrote:
Demosthenes wrote:

6 years for Senate.

I thought so!

The crappy free Civics Test Primer I downloaded for my phone was telling me it was 4, and I just assumed I was wrong about it being 6.

Citizenship revoked! Brexit 2.0: Jonman Style.

that would be brexit 3, the original brexit was rich planters not wanting to pay taxes.

It was more rich land-owners wanting more land that the English denied them expanding into (what with it belonging to someone already). The taxes bit was mostly just useful for drumming up 'patriotic' outrage.

gore wrote:
OzymandiasAV wrote:
gore wrote:

What I've been trying to do is push back on the idea that all or most Trump supporters themselves are anti-LGBT, and my proposition here is that anti-LGBT has never been more a part of Trump's campaign than it would have been for any "normal Republican."

Compared to how loudly and abrasively he assaulted other groups, his Normal Republican anti-LGBT positions are easy to overlook, and I can readily imagine that many voters did in fact overlook them.

Is it unfair to reduce this to "his campaign was predicated on white supremacy so it was really hard to know exactly which minority group was hurt worse?" How about ALL OF THEM.

Why is this an acceptable excuse?

I'm not trying to make excuses, either. I just want to be precise when we try to diagnose this problem, because I don't think simply painting everybody who voted for him as any one thing is helpful.

I think humans have complex motivations. I think it's especially important to get it right when we try to understand the motives of Trump supporters, because if we misunderstand this we cannot correct the problem. That means not generalizing, that means empathizing, that means waiting for data. That means not writing people off as irredeemable, because that's an admission of defeat.

Or to put it more... abrasively: "know thy enemy."

I certainly agree with the last line here -- this entire line of discussion goes back to me asking folks why they voted in the way that they did a few pages back. And yeah, some folks thankfully obliged and there has been some conversations on those ideas (particularly economic ones) that I think has been productive. I don't feel that any hypothetical voter with these values is irredeemable either. (Why would I post such a shrill rant about "deplorables" if I did?)

But I'm not going to buy that people were simply ignorant that LGBT rights were at stake with this election. I feel like that's a little too convenient, a little too willing to absolve deeper cultural issues at play. Maybe that callous disregard comes from being trapped in the Breitbart / Fox News bullsh*t bubble. Maybe it's a byproduct of the urban/rural cultural divide. Fine. But don't just leave it at "they didn't know" -- call it what it is.

And if we're going to talk about the urban/rural cultural divide, let's not talk about it like it's a gap that only needs to be bridged by one party.

I have to ask why most Trump voters would be thinking about LGBT rights at all if it's not something they feel is personally affecting them or their families more than 2nd amendment rights, taxes, jobs, etc.? It seems to me that either they are opposed for religious reasons or they really just don't think about it at all even if they're not personally opposed.

OzymandiasAV wrote:

But I'm not going to buy that people were simply ignorant that LGBT rights were at stake with this election. I feel like that's a little too convenient, a little too willing to absolve deeper cultural issues at play. Maybe that callous disregard comes from being trapped in the Breitbart / Fox News bullsh*t bubble. Maybe it's a byproduct of the urban/rural cultural divide. Fine. But don't just leave it at "they didn't know" -- call it what it is.

Maybe the willingness to absolve right now comes out of wondering if calling it what it is may have lost this election. We've had years of talk about the dangers of tone policing, and now we're sitting here wondering if things like that 'basket of deplorables' line cost Hillary her electoral firewall. Maybe a little absolution on the other side of election day would have meant a whole lot less of Trump in our future.

I'll say this - the recent meeting with Obama and Trump has me hopeful that we can have a peaceful transfer of power and that president Trump won't be as big a douche as candidate Trump. At this point Im trying to push away my fear and anger and recognize that in a democracy my views got voted down this time. (And I'm saying that as a fiscally conservative guy who nonetheless doesn't want an entire federal govt hiring freeze.)

Now, if Trump starts going out of control and acting above the law I'll be out there in the streets with my pitchfork like everyone else.

I find it darkly amusing that so many got offended at being called deplorable for the actions of a decent percentage of them, but have no problems with banning Muslims for the actions of an infinitely smaller fraction.

cheeze_pavilion wrote:
OzymandiasAV wrote:

But I'm not going to buy that people were simply ignorant that LGBT rights were at stake with this election. I feel like that's a little too convenient, a little too willing to absolve deeper cultural issues at play. Maybe that callous disregard comes from being trapped in the Breitbart / Fox News bullsh*t bubble. Maybe it's a byproduct of the urban/rural cultural divide. Fine. But don't just leave it at "they didn't know" -- call it what it is.

Maybe the willingness to absolve right now comes out of wondering if calling it what it is may have lost this election. We've had years of talk about the dangers of tone policing, and now we're sitting here wondering if things like that 'basket of deplorables' line cost Hillary her electoral firewall. Maybe a little absolution on the other side of election day would have meant a whole lot less of Trump in our future.

I posted my thoughts on that take earlier in the thread. In summary: I don't like the word, but my issues weren't with the intent as much as the execution. I've never taken "deplorable" to be equivalent with "irredeemable" either, for what it's worth.

And we've done the tone policing argument to death elsewhere; my feelings on that haven't changed.