Maybe Trump will not be such a terrible president.

[Belgian thought]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

FFS luchog, you're in my neck of the woods. Do you really think that Washingtonians are going to spontaneously mutate into slavering thugs with a penchant for stringing up gay people? Do you think that somehow our state will just lose it's mind and set Capitol Hill on fire? You think the solstice parade will run with blood from all of the rampant homophobes that spring up from underneath our toadstools? Hell, if for some bizzare reason our federal government decides to violate a supreme court decision and make gay marriage gay, do you actually think that our state is going to do anything other than flip them a giant peninsula-shaped middle finger?

This is what happened to me yesterday and today.

I asked that same question to my colleagues and students and was was met with grumpy silence or confirmation that they would not change their views just because of a leader.

That is our freedom, and we can so easily forget that we have it.

[trustbutverify]

Originally Posted by marplots

It's a case of "choose your enemies wisely, for you will become them."

Since Moon over Alabama and Stormfront are both drooling over Trump, I'd say your quote is correct.

[trustbutverify]

Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy

It may not be fair to compare Donnie to Arnie, but hold on to a grain of salt until we see how he reacts in office, when he can't just fire someone who doesn't do what he wants. I give it six months before Trump and the GOP are in all-out war and he starts recruiting Democrats as allies.

He seems to be recruiting boderline white nationalists for his transition team right now. Hopefully, he resists the temptation to tap any members of PP.

[Delphic Oracle]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

<snip>

FFS luchog, you're in my neck of the woods. Do you really think that Washingtonians are going to spontaneously mutate into slavering thugs with a penchant for stringing up gay people? Do you think that somehow our state will just lose it's mind and set Capitol Hill on fire? You think the solstice parade will run with blood from all of the rampant homophobes that spring up from underneath our toadstools? Hell, if for some bizzare reason our federal government decides to violate a supreme court decision and make gay marriage illegal**, do you actually think that our state is going to do anything other than flip them a giant peninsula-shaped middle finger?


**Edit: because " make gay marriage gay" just sounds like far too much fun than this thread can handle!

I think what this election revealed is that nobody has to "transform," they've been here the whole time. It's just that a lot of them don't have the guts to act alone, and the vast bulk of them won't get their hands dirty at all, but will happily cheer on someone else doing it for them.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by Belgian thought

This is what happened to me yesterday and today.

I asked that same question to my colleagues and students and was was met with grumpy silence or confirmation that they would not change their views just because of a leader.

That is our freedom, and we can so easily forget that we have it.

Totally.

If nothing else, people seem to fixate on the negative applications of states rights, and forget that there's been a huge amount of progress in the country, specifically because states can govern themselves. Gay rights, legalization of marijuana, and a host of other things have come about because the states have these rights and exercise them regularly.

Allowing semi-independent governance of the states by the states is a powerful thing. It's fundamental to exactly why the doom & gloom prognostications about our orange leader aren't going to materialize. Some states are going to screw it up, no doubt. But a whole lot of states are going to simply ignore any blatant stupidity trying to drag us backward... just as they are blatantly ignoring the fact that marijuana is a federal class I narcotic and are legalizing it for recreational use despite what the federal government has to say about it.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle

I think what this election revealed is that nobody has to "transform," they've been here the whole time. It's just that a lot of them don't have the guts to act alone, and the vast bulk of them won't get their hands dirty at all, but will happily cheer on someone else doing it for them.

I think you're wrong. I think that the overwhelming majority of people who voted for Trump are NOT sexist racist bigots. They have no interest in acting at all. There's undoubtedly a core of them, just as the democrats have a core of people who actually genuinely believe that the wealthy should have all their assets seized and that white men should have fewer rights in order to make up for past inequalities. Both sides have retarded monkeys out there flinging poo. Bernie had a lot of support - but most people didn't think Sanders would have any actual success at getting his more socialist policies enacted. They would have voted for him anyway. Not because they were die hard socialists of the first order, but because he represented something other than entrenched politicians playing games with our future.

I think that a lot of people voted for Trump, not because they approve of anything he says, but because they actively disapproved of Clinton's treatment of so much of the populace. Referring to supporters of her opponent as "deplorables" was inexcusable. And the democrats as a whole have done an excellent job of being condescending and insinuating that people with different views than theirs don't deserve to have a voice and shouldn't be listened to. They've done a fantastic job of trying to disenfranchise and alienate a large swath of the country. People voted against someone who would actively treat them as if they didn't matter, and voted in preference of an idiot who is a complete tardstick... but who at least seems to consider their voices as valid.

Seriously, I think it's just plain lazy and small-minded to assume that your opponents are all ignorant, stupid, and bigoted. Sure it makes you feel better, but it's not going to help you win in the future. It does nothing except ensure that you will continue to be met with a wall that impedes your progress.

[trustbutverify]

Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle

Plus this hand-wringing over tone of discussion is laughable when coming from the same side of the aisle as those who declare LGBT "abominations," who conclude that anyone struggling in a world that is blatantly rigged in favor of entrenched wealth are "lazy moochers," who proudly declare 1/4 of the worlds population to be "savages," etc, etc.

Yes, the "uninformed" claim sticks when people fall for things like:

"lowering taxes on the wealthy will bring jobs roaring back into the country"

"global warming is a myth"

"there is a war on christianity"

"industrial pollutants in our air and water pose no public health risk"

"private interests with a profit motive can deliver basic quality-of-life services more efficiently and at lower cost than a public program"

Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle

So yeah, take away the homophobes, islamaphobes, and those who collect public benefits (red states take more from federal programs than they pay in taxes) while simultaneously insisting they be taken away because of "welfare queens" out of the mix...

How much support is really left for the (repeatedly proven) failed economic policies that have no real goal other than to further enrich the already absurdly wealthy?

It's one thing to deride ignorance, but compared to the shrewd and calculated duping of ignorant people into going along with their own destruction?

There's no comparison.

You're right on the money, but, unfortunately, pissing in the wind. Voting for a populist out of desperation for disappearing industrial employment is one thing, chanting "repeal the 19th!" at rallies where wheelchair bound kids need bodyguards is a whole other animal.

[Regnad Kcin]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

I think you're wrong. I think that the overwhelming majority of people who voted for Trump are NOT sexist racist bigots. They have no interest in acting at all. There's undoubtedly a core of them, just as the democrats have a core of people who actually genuinely believe that the wealthy should have all their assets seized and that white men should have fewer rights in order to make up for past inequalities. Both sides have retarded monkeys out there flinging poo. Bernie had a lot of support - but most people didn't think Sanders would have any actual success at getting his more socialist policies enacted. They would have voted for him anyway. Not because they were die hard socialists of the first order, but because he represented something other than entrenched politicians playing games with our future.

I think that a lot of people voted for Trump, not because they approve of anything he says, but because they actively disapproved of Clinton's treatment of so much of the populace. Referring to supporters of her opponent as "deplorables" was inexcusable. And the democrats as a whole have done an excellent job of being condescending and insinuating that people with different views than theirs don't deserve to have a voice and shouldn't be listened to. They've done a fantastic job of trying to disenfranchise and alienate a large swath of the country. People voted against someone who would actively treat them as if they didn't matter, and voted in preference of an idiot who is a complete tardstick... but who at least seems to consider their voices as valid.

Seriously, I think it's just plain lazy and small-minded to assume that your opponents are all ignorant, stupid, and bigoted. Sure it makes you feel better, but it's not going to help you win in the future. It does nothing except ensure that you will continue to be met with a wall that impedes your progress.

I haven't read such good fiction in awhile. Three stars.

[Delphic Oracle]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

I think you're wrong. I think that the overwhelming majority of people who voted for Trump are NOT sexist racist bigots. They have no interest in acting at all. There's undoubtedly a core of them, just as the democrats have a core of people who actually genuinely believe that the wealthy should have all their assets seized and that white men should have fewer rights in order to make up for past inequalities. Both sides have retarded monkeys out there flinging poo. Bernie had a lot of support - but most people didn't think Sanders would have any actual success at getting his more socialist policies enacted. They would have voted for him anyway. Not because they were die hard socialists of the first order, but because he represented something other than entrenched politicians playing games with our future.

I think that a lot of people voted for Trump, not because they approve of anything he says, but because they actively disapproved of Clinton's treatment of so much of the populace. Referring to supporters of her opponent as "deplorables" was inexcusable. And the democrats as a whole have done an excellent job of being condescending and insinuating that people with different views than theirs don't deserve to have a voice and shouldn't be listened to. They've done a fantastic job of trying to disenfranchise and alienate a large swath of the country. People voted against someone who would actively treat them as if they didn't matter, and voted in preference of an idiot who is a complete tardstick... but who at least seems to consider their voices as valid.

Seriously, I think it's just plain lazy and small-minded to assume that your opponents are all ignorant, stupid, and bigoted. Sure it makes you feel better, but it's not going to help you win in the future. It does nothing except ensure that you will continue to be met with a wall that impedes your progress.

So because their feelings got hurt, they voted for a guy who demonstrated all of these values they supposedly don't agree with and has proposed no substantive policy changes of any note.

Yet we keep hearing that it is liberals and millenials who can't stand dealing with the "real world" or tale a dose of tough criticism.

Sure.

[luchog]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

FFS luchog, you're in my neck of the woods. Do you really think that Washingtonians are going to spontaneously mutate into slavering thugs with a penchant for stringing up gay people? Do you think that somehow our state will just lose it's mind and set Capitol Hill on fire?

Are you capable of responding to a point you can't answer without resorting to personal attacks and childish straw men?

BTW, you are clearly blissfully unware of the fact that the last two years have seen a dramatic rise in gay-bashing in Capitol Hill and elsewhere, including an attempted arson of a gay nightclub. I have friends and acquaintances who have been victims of harassment and assault in parts of town that were previously among the safest for GLBTQs.

Here, you can Google it for yourself.

Resulting in large part from the massive influx of people into the region, predominantly from states who voted for Trump, and Eastern Europe/Russia.

Of course, it's not just violence, other forms of harassment and discrimination exist as well.

That's hardly an isolated incident in a city where, for example, housing discrimination against GLBTQs is more commonplace than people want to admit.

All that in what is supposedly one of the most liberal cities in the nation. Can you imagine what it's like in the rest of the US? I can, because I grew up in a much less liberal place.

And it's not just GLBTQs who are getting the short end. I've been a personal witness to how minorities are treated in this city. But then, Washington State is not quite as liberal about race as a lot of people here like to claim.

You also seem to be ignorant of the fact that a great deal of the state exists outside the Sea-Tac corridor, and even a short hop outside of that bastion becomes profoundly conservative. Hell, even the difference between Sea-Tac and Bel-Red is highly noticeable to someone who lives in one and works in the other.

Oh, and just FYI, there's a whole lot more of this country that exists outside of Washington State, let alone western King County, and those parts of the country are not nearly so friendly to GLBTQs. I happen to have friends in many of those places, but that is not and should not be a qualification for being worried about people like me who live in places like that. You should try being one in a place like that for a while, and then tell me how things just aren't that bad.

[NoahFence]

Quote:

And it's not just GLBTQs who are getting the short end. I've been a personal witness to how minorities are treated in this city. But then, Washington State is not quite as liberal about race as a lot of people here like to claim.

offtopic....


Can we pick an acronym for these people and just stick with it FFS?

[luchog]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

I think you're wrong. I think that the overwhelming majority of people who voted for Trump are NOT sexist racist bigots.

They're just happy to support or at least tolerate sexist racist bigots. Oh, and elect them to public office. Because electing sexist racist bigots is totally not the same thing as being sexist racist bigots.

People who refuse to stand up against evil are just as responsible for its victory.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

Less trustworthy in different ways. One person lies a lot about stupid things that are obvious. The other lies less often, but lies about important things.

I'm sorry but that's just goalpost moving. Can you be more specific?

[Delphic Oracle]

Originally Posted by Argumemnon

I'm sorry but that's just goalpost moving. Can you be more specific?

I see less goalpost moving, more like retroactive abdication of responsibility.

[trustbutverify]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

I think that a lot of people voted for Trump, not because they approve of anything he says, but because they actively disapproved of Clinton's treatment of so much of the populace.

Now, that's an interesting way to choose leadership. I used to wonder why it seemed so gosh darn easy for professionals to get large numbers of people to act against their own self interest, but things are getting clearer now.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by NoahFence

offtopic....


Can we pick an acronym for these people and just stick with it FFS?

Thing is, it's not even a group that really fits together. Trans people and gay/lesbian/bisexuals? A weird pairing. And I still don't know what the Q is supposed to represent.

[trustbutverify]

Originally Posted by NoahFence

offtopic....


Can we pick an acronym for these people and just stick with it FFS?

NCSO's? (Non-conventional sexual orientation)

[luchog]

Originally Posted by Argumemnon

Thing is, it's not even a group that really fits together. Trans people and gay/lesbian/bisexuals? A weird pairing. And I still don't know what the Q is supposed to represent.

Queer, that is, people who don't fit into the binaries represented by the other categories.

Overall, it's an inclusive term for anyone who doesn't fit into the cis-het mainstream. "Alternative" was used for a while, but that was co-opted by corporate marketeers; and it has some unpleasant connotations amongst the mainstream thanks to the Religious Right rhetoric since Reagan.

[luchog]

Originally Posted by trustbutverify

NCSO's? (Non-conventional sexual orientation)

No, because GLBTQ refers to gender identity as well as sexual orientation.

Personally, I'm happy using "Queer" as a general catch-all, but some people still get upset by it due to the historical context.

[trustbutverify]

Originally Posted by luchog

No, because GLBTQ refers to gender identity as well as sexual orientation.

Personally, I'm happy using "Queer" as a general catch-all, but some people still get upset by it due to the historical context.

I was going to suggest NCSI for just that reason, but it's the name of a detective show.

[lionking]

Originally Posted by Regnad Kcin

I haven't read such good fiction in awhile. Three stars.

Indeed. The only voice Trump believes is valid is his own.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by luchog

Queer, that is, people who don't fit into the binaries represented by the other categories.

That's what I thought but wasn't sure. I'd ask how one can possibly not fit in either opposite-sex, same-sex or both, but that's a topic for another thread.

[marplots]

Originally Posted by wareyin

To be clear, you are claiming that the 47% of registered voters who voted for Trump represent those who did not vote for Trump? And you can't see the problem with this claim?

I'm saying that sampling half the population is evidence for the characteristics of the entire population.

Originally Posted by wareyin

And I'm saying that using a self-selected sample will not be representative of the population at large.

Depends. Depends on if the self-selection is related to the property of interest. So, for example, if you ask people to try free samples (A and B) and find out the preferences of only those who agree to the test, it's still reasonable to say that those who tried neither sample would shake out about the same, had they done so.

I don't think being deplorable makes one more or less likely to vote. At least not without some evidence it does.

[Delphic Oracle]

Public policy might change as the machine gets its hooks into him, I'll grant you that. The worst problem there is all 3 branches under one party and the acceleration of wealth concentration and environmental destruction (both immediate and long term).

What concerns me most, though is political repression and violence. The leaders can "walk back" those statements all they want, but it's too late by then. It's a Pandora's box that takes the same level of intensity to shut down (over a much longer period of time). If they just quietly tip-toe away, it doesn't magically fizzle on its own. It's like a pile of unstable plutonium, maybe it will decay slowly at some half-life rate with occasional bursts of harmful radiation, but if critical mass was acheived, it becomes a sustained, uncontrolled reaction.

[SpitfireIX]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

What aspect of the old insurance was not compliant? Lifetime maximum?

IDK, honestly, and in fact I may have misremembered the reason they got rid of it. I used to be on Indiana's high-risk individual health-insurance pool, because I'm morbidly obese and couldn't get individual private health insurance. But they shut down the program when Obamacare started. My premiums were somewhat lower initially with Obamacare, but deductibles and copays were much higher. Now my premiums, even with the modest subsidy I get, will be close to what I was paying my last year on the state program, and deductibles and copays even more. I'm probably going to have to switch to a cheaper plan, which my allergist doesn't accept, so I'll have to pay all my expenses to him, because I don't want to switch.

[Kestrel]

Originally Posted by SpitfireIX

IDK, honestly, and in fact I may have misremembered the reason they got rid of it. I used to be on Indiana's high-risk individual health-insurance pool, because I'm morbidly obese and couldn't get individual private health insurance. But they shut down the program when Obamacare started. My premiums were somewhat lower initially with Obamacare, but deductibles and copays were much higher. Now my premiums, even with the modest subsidy I get, will be close to what I was paying my last year on the state program, and deductibles and copays even more. I'm probably going to have to switch to a cheaper plan, which my allergist doesn't accept, so I'll have to pay all my expenses to him, because I don't want to switch.

The ACA created a special insurance program for those with pre existing conditions that became effective a couple years before the exchanges opened. These went away because exchange insurance was available at the same price regardless of pre existing conditions. Apparently you got kicked off of one Obamacare program and joined another.

[Agatha]

Everyone on the mod team understands that politics is Srs Bsns, we really do. But we would be so much happier if you could debate in a non-personalised, dispassionate yet polite way. It's not as difficult as you might think. Give it a try, what do you have to lose?

Posted By:Agatha

[Roger Ramjets]

Originally Posted by luchog

where [Clinton] fell down was the under-educated white working-class male, and uneducated bible-belt white female voters; religious right and swing voters. Her intellectual appeal was less effective there than Trump's lowest-common-denominator appeal.

To get those votes she would have had to join the Republican party, be racist xenophobic and misogynistic, declare that Global Warming is a hoax, promise to repeal Obamacare, become a born-again Christian and get a sex change. In short, she would have to become Trump. If that is 'falling down' then she never had any hope. If that is what it now takes to become president of the United States, the country has no hope.

Face it, Clinton lost because she is a realist who wasn't willing to abandon her principles and lie her way into power. But we don't want reality. We want a fantasy world where all our problems are the fault of others, and emotional knee-jerk reactions are the best way to fix them. And we want a president who is like us - irrational, dishonest, xenophobic and lacking empathy. We got Trump because that is what (half of) the people want!

Quote:

Trump won because he ran at a time when disgust with establishment politics was at an all-time high; and he was savvy enough to tap into that disgust,

People have always been disgusted with 'establishment politics', and yet they still participate in it. Trump won because he joined the Republican party and adopted their values. Only a complete idiot would believe that Trump is not part of 'the establishment'.

If it wasn't for the continuous Republican smear campaign against Hillary, she probably would have won (Comey must be proud that he managed to tip the scales in their favor). Most of the votes Trump got weren't due to anti-establishment feelings, but simply because he had an 'R' next to his name. Without the backing of the Republican establishment Trump would have gone nowhere.

Trump was savvy alright, savvy enough to know that republican voters are puppets and the Republican party will do anything to hold on to the reigns of power. He played them, and it worked! You have to admire him for that...

[Kestrel]

Originally Posted by Agatha

Everyone on the mod team understands that politics is Srs Bsns, we really do. But we would be so much happier if you could debate in a non-personalised, dispassionate yet polite way. It's not as difficult as you might think. Give it a try, what do you have to lose?

Posted By:Agatha

Perhaps we are still mad as hell. It is hard to be a skeptic who politicly uses logic, evidence and reason in a nation that just elected a pussy grabbing conspiracy theory promoting reality show star to the toughest job in the world.

[Roger Ramjets]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

people voted against someone who would actively treat them as if they didn't matter, and voted in preference of an idiot who is a complete tardstick...

Seriously, I think it's just plain lazy and small-minded to assume that your opponents are all ignorant, stupid, and bigoted.

Since Hillary did not in fact actively treat people as if they didn't matter, anyone with that perception is either ignorant, stupid, or bigoted. And the fact that they would protest by voting for 'an idiot who is a complete tardstick' is the proof.

[Kestrel]

Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets

T
Face it, Clinton lost because she is a realist who wasn't willing to abandon her principles and lie her way into power. But we don't want reality. We want a fantasy world where all our problems are the fault of others, and emotional knee-jerk reactions are the best way to fix them. And we want a president who is like us - irrational, dishonest, xenophobic and lacking empathy. We got Trump because that is what (half of) the people want!

Hillary losing is also the fruit of an eight year plan of obstruction by the GOP leadership. Working class Americans felt ignored by Washington. Even a lot of Democrats blamed it on Obama. Too clueless to figure out that it was really a GOP dominated Congress that was keeping job and wage growth slow. They would rather repeal Obamacare again, or hold another hearing on Benghazi or take the day off than do anything to make America better. A Congress that worked three day weeks and didn't get spending bills complete on time.

You are right however. The press didn't care about policy. They cared about making the coverage a good show. They went along with the fantasy that the next email uncovered would send Hillary to prison. Making sure that was what dominated her coverage. Trump's controversial and offensive statements just gave him free air time. They downplayed news about his shady charitable foundation and constantly changing positions. Hillary was a liar and a flip flopper because she said something different decades ago. Trump was not a liar or flip flopper when he said something different last week.

The only good news is that more Americans voted for Hillary than Donald. But for the second time in a couple of decades the candidate with fewer votes won. I fear that the next four years will make us look back fondly on George W. Bush.

[Regnad Kcin]

Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets

To get those votes she would have had to join the Republican party, be racist xenophobic and misogynistic, declare that Global Warming is a hoax, promise to repeal Obamacare, become a born-again Christian and get a sex change. In short, she would have to become Trump. If that is 'falling down' then she never had any hope. If that is what it now takes to become president of the United States, the country has no hope.

Face it, Clinton lost because she is a realist who wasn't willing to abandon her principles and lie her way into power. But we don't want reality. We want a fantasy world where all our problems are the fault of others, and emotional knee-jerk reactions are the best way to fix them. And we want a president who is like us - irrational, dishonest, xenophobic and lacking empathy. We got Trump because that is what (half of) the people want!

People have always been disgusted with 'establishment politics', and yet they still participate in it. Trump won because he joined the Republican party and adopted their values. Only a complete idiot would believe that Trump is not part of 'the establishment'.

If it wasn't for the continuous Republican smear campaign against Hillary, she probably would have won (Comey must be proud that he managed to tip the scales in their favor). Most of the votes Trump got weren't due to anti-establishment feelings, but simply because he had an 'R' next to his name. Without the backing of the Republican establishment Trump would have gone nowhere.

Trump was savvy alright, savvy enough to know that republican voters are puppets and the Republican party will do anything to hold on to the reigns of power. He played them, and it worked! You have to admire him for that...

That's pretty much my only quibble with your post. Arguably, he had little to no backing, which paradoxically only made him stronger.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by trustbutverify

It was fair and square only because he happened to win. Had he happened to lose, it would have been rigged and stolen. That's what to get. I need to use his system my next tennis match.

Use his system how, exactly? Go into the match complaining that it's rigged and that it's not your fault if lose? And then going on to play well and win fairly?

Seems like a weird way to win a tennis match. Or a presidency. But, hey, if it works for you...

[Norman Alexander]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

Trump wouldn't have been my first choice, but neither would Clinton have been. I want someone different.

At the very least, Clinton had a reasonable resume of experience in high-end politics. Sure, not all of it was pretty or everyone's cup of tea. But at least she wasn't going to **** it up too badly.

Trump, on the other hand... Seriously, if you were hiring a new CEO in a company, surely you would want to see the candidates' resumes at least. And you would expect them to be strong resumes and the people to be good in interview.

The job on offer was POTUS. The skillsets required are extensive and specific. So have you seen your president-elect's resume??? Seriously, you could not have picked anyone LESS qualified for the position.

As I have said elsewhere, corporate USA and a bunch of ignorant yahoos have appointed the janitor's mop to be the next CEO, because some board members were afraid the woman most suited for the job would do better at it than them.

[Regnad Kcin]

Originally Posted by Norman Alexander

At the very least, Clinton had a reasonable resume of experience in high-end politics. Sure, not all of it was pretty or everyone's cup of tea. But at least she wasn't going to **** it up too badly.

Trump, on the other hand... Seriously, if you were hiring a new CEO in a company, surely you would want to see the candidates' resumes at least. And you would expect them to be strong resumes and the people to be good in interview.

The job on offer was POTUS. The skillsets required are extensive and specific. So have you seen your president-elect's resume??? Seriously, you could not have picked anyone LESS qualified for the position.

As I have said elsewhere, corporate USA and a bunch of ignorant yahoos have appointed the janitor's mop to be the next CEO, because some board members were afraid the woman most suited for the job would do better at it than them.

Bravo.

[Delphic Oracle]

Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets

Since Hillary did not in fact actively treat people as if they didn't matter, anyone with that perception is either ignorant, stupid, or bigoted. And the fact that they would protest by voting for 'an idiot who is a complete tardstick' is the proof.

The people apparently felt otherwise.

Hard to convince someone who feels that way that they actually do matter to you by calling them "ignorant, stupid, or bigoted."

Besides, Democrats have previously made better inroads into constituencies with ignorant, stupid, bigoted people on many occasions.

"The road to a bigot's heart is through their stomach"

and to a certain extent, they forgot an important political adage:

"It's the economy, stupid"

Ohio is when I knew she lost. But then Pennsylvania slipped away and I was stunned. Michigan, where people had their drinking water poisoned with lead even started leaning away.

We clearly lost this election in the rust belt. Nobody who's trying to raise a family out there was given a reason to believe she would lift one finger for them. Clearly free trade, corporate-friendly policies are not going to get those people off the couch. You can wave a Harvard study on immigration at them and call them Islamaphobes all you want, you can't shame people into checking a box when nobody is looking and they can finally say what they really think. If you offer them a way out of their day-to-day hell of hearing their children's hunger pangs you might get them to put their irrational hatred aside and cast their vote based on how it will affect their wallets. If you cozy up to the banks and tell your Wall Street friends that you have a "public persona and a private persona" then how shocked can you really be that they see no chance of their hell ending by supporting you?

[SpitfireIX]

Originally Posted by Kestrel

The ACA created a special insurance program for those with pre existing conditions that became effective a couple years before the exchanges opened. These went away because exchange insurance was available at the same price regardless of pre existing conditions. Apparently you got kicked off of one Obamacare program and joined another.

No. This was run by the state of Indiana. I was on it for many years before Obama was even elected.

[Grizzly Bear]

Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets

Since Hillary did not in fact actively treat people as if they didn't matter, anyone with that perception is either ignorant, stupid, or bigoted. And the fact that they would protest by voting for 'an idiot who is a complete tardstick' is the proof.

Somehow you must have forgotten the indiscriminate potshots she aimed directly at the electorate that made up Trump's base rather than the candidate himself. Calling half or more of Trump's supporters a basket full of deplorables, racists, xenophobes, and the like. While with 300 million people it's hard NOT to be correct about some people in those groups matching those descriptions she basically told us that EVERYONE or HUGE portions who supported the man irrespective of any underlying dissatisfaction was a biggot.

I recall when Romney said that 47% of the electorate was in the bag for democrats, everyone raised a crap storm because he bundled a large section of the electorate's intentions without even bothering to leave room for other reasons for people's voting trends.

I've made the blunder on this very forum in the past of painting people in large stereotypical swaths, and got a torrent of criticisms for it. And having felt that stereotyping myself, I can understand why.

When you lump and shame people into groups you have absolutely no idea if they fit into, you discourage any exchange of ideas and people don't bother revealing their opinions until they visit voting booth to bubble in their candidate. And that's in all likelihood what drove polls to be so far off.

And if republican voters get overzealous about this electoral win.... they doom themselves to repeat this mistake when the next democrat comes into office.

[Minoosh]

Originally Posted by SpitfireIX

No. This was run by the state of Indiana. I was on it for many years before Obama was even elected.

Some states had high-risk pools, some didn't. Since I lived in a state that didn't have one I was able to be directly insured by the federal government under the phase-in of Obamacare. The catch was I had to be without health insurance 6 months after being turned down by an insurer, then I was immediately able to sign up.

I do hope Donald's "something better" really is better, but I doubt if he has a clear idea. After meeting with Obama he said he didn't want insurers to be able to turn someone down due to a pre-existing condition. But that might be because he had just talked to Obama. He changes his mind a lot.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

What exactly will Trump try to accomplish?

Convince people that he's the awesomest President ever, the only way he knows how: lie.