Jenksismyhero

QUOTE (iamshack @ Nov 9, 2016 -> 12:03 PM) Hey, I agree with you...I don't post back here much, but when I do, I drink Dos Equis...I spar with SS and Balta and Sqwert just as much as I do with you and ss2k and others that lean a bit right. I rarely buy into much of what politicians say or do, and I am quite disgusted with the entire system. But this is different...I'm not talking about "tough decisions," like trade and immigration...I am right in line with what most dems thought and that is that this argument doesn't even really reach those issues. The character and temperament of this guy is in and of itself a nonstarter - a complete deal breaker. And the fact that so many people either somewhat secretly are giddy about what this guy stands for, or else are not so offended by it that they can overlook it because they are so frustrated by whatever the hell Barack Obama did to them in the last 8 years...well...I'm just blown away. I guess i don't see why. On the other side you have a complete robot who is totally calculated and fake and has been working that way for 30 years. People are naturally going to gravitate towards someone that has more charisma than a lamppost. We have a dumb electorate. We all knew that going in.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Nov 9, 2016 -> 11:46 AM) Again, let's not compare a disagreement on healthcare with inciting hatred and intolerance. These are not similar types of "differences." Inciting violence and hatred sure, totally agree. Having disagreements about tough decisions when it comes to something like immigration I don't. You guys tend to view things very black and white and b**** when the "other guys" don't agree with you 100%. There's no right answer on a lot of that stuff. There are tough decisions that may not be fair to some people. Doesn't mean those people are awful human beings that you shouldn't associate with. edit: and in some instances it's not even about that, it's where do you prioritize this stuff. If you're a poor white person in rural penn or mich you probably put the rights of gays or immigrants lower on your list than jobs or the economy. That doesn't make you an awful person that hates a certain subgroup. The numbers back this up. These were the two least liked candidates in history. Obviously most people didn't WANT to vote for them, they had to.

QUOTE (CrimsonWeltall @ Nov 9, 2016 -> 11:39 AM) - But adding enough restrictions effectively becomes a ban. That's the whole idea. - I'd agree it wasn't the primary issue. My original point was that these issues are still very significant, and the Religious Right still very powerful. - Speaking about gay people in any light that isn't horribly negative IS far left of the stereotypical conservative. I don't think Donald Trump personally has a major issue with gay people, but he also doesn't care enough to stop the anti-gay GOP platform from moving forward. But you're ignoring that even conservative justices have agreed that there IS a right to abortions per Roe v. Wade, it's the amount of restrictions that are in question. If you have restrictions that don't allow for any abortions at all, that's a ban and I don't think even the conservative justices would agree to it. Yes, you may see more restrictions, more hurdles, but I don't see how the conservative justices that have already ruled on some of these cases could overturn their prior votes/decisions against a total ban. It's akin to liberals trying to get rid of guns. You'll see more restrictions (and would have with a liberal court), you're not going to see an outright ban or so many restrictions that it amounts to a ban. On the gay point, he now is the platform. He's the next President. Like with every politician, 99% of what he says and promises on his way to getting elected won't be followed after he is sworn in. The dude was a Democrat 3 years ago. He's not a bible thumper.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Nov 9, 2016 -> 11:38 AM) I deactivated facebook a few weeks ago but it was becoming apparent that a few old friends of mine were going to vote for him. I no longer speak to them. It's obvious we have nothing in common anymore. Ah yes, unity and partnership and compromise and all that. The great liberal talking point until someone else wins that doesn't think like me. I'm not happy at all that Trump won and i'm quite confident we're in for an...interesting...4 years. But the liberal jump of the cliff response to this has been enjoyable.

QUOTE (CrimsonWeltall @ Nov 9, 2016 -> 11:14 AM) 3 of them were okay with the Texas TRAP law. That was a major restriction. And remember, Donald Trump doesn't know squat about the Constitution or the SCOTUS. His pick is going to be based on whatever sells best to the Republican base, and that's probably going to be someone who fully opposes Roe v Wade. I don't think you'd deny that there are a lot of single-issue ("double-issue"?) voters with abortion and gays. These people were cool with free trade up until now. Not a chance in hell that's what he meant. At its core, it was a "I'll protect people from terrorists" statement, not a pro-gay-rights statement. Restriction =/= ban which was my original point. Yes, some people no doubt voted because Clinton is obviously pro-SSM/choice and Trump may appoint SC's that are not. I think we can deduce from the exit polls that the vast majority did not and those issues were secondary (at best). Why would he pause and thank the audience if he didn't, on some level, take a position that was far left of the stereotypical conservative? That makes no sense.

http://cnnmon.ie/bkgnews

QUOTE (CrimsonWeltall @ Nov 9, 2016 -> 10:25 AM) Yes, there's be 10. Until they passed another TRAP law that reduced it to 5. Then 0. If the first TRAP law passed the courts, why wouldn't they keep going? Again, 3 (would have been 4 if Scalia were alive at the time) were okay with these laws despite their only purpose being to move towards ending abortion. Doing that would in effect be a reversal of Roe v. Wade. Again, I don't think that's going to happen. Even the conservative justices have recognized the right in their decisions in favor of limited restrictions. Disagree. I still think he gets turnout due to the anti-hillary, pro-trump views on trade/jobs. Eh, I think that was what he meant. Even still, you have the President elect from the Republican side pointing it out in a national speech and you have the RNC audience, which includes a lot of those religious fanatics, applauding it.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Nov 9, 2016 -> 10:16 AM) Jenks, Personally I think its too early to tell what Trump is going to be about. He has been all over the place on a lot of different issues in the last 50 years. Trump would say/do anything to win. So is there a part of me that believes a guy from NY who has been married 3 times, etc, isnt going to be the poster boy for the religious right, of course. And that is ultimately my biggest concern. Trump is an unknown quantity, he could be great, he could be terrible, he could be in the middle. But does anyone really know what is going on in his mind? His entire life has so far been dedicated to making Trump great. Now he has to put on an entirely different hat. Totally agree.

QUOTE (illinilaw08 @ Nov 9, 2016 -> 10:12 AM) I don't know that that's why people are freaking out. In hindsight, it's pretty clear why Clinton lost the Rust Belt, but all of those races were much closer than ANYONE predicted. The votes out West basically followed the projections. The Rust Belt defied the polls (as did NC and Florida). But this was a close election. In fact, Trump lost the popular vote. The impact, however, is a Republican controlled Congress and President, meaning that policies are going to flip, and there will be absolutely no check on those policies for 2 years. I think it's similar to 2008 when Obama came into office, Dems controlled Congress and everyone thought it was going to be 2 or 4 years of non-stop policy change. And in reality little changed because of the infighting. Repubs don't typically have that, but there are some clear policy differences between Trump, Ryan and other top Repubs in Congress.

Oh my how the tables have turned. http://money.cnn.com/2016/11/09/technology...linkId=30970242

QUOTE (CrimsonWeltall @ Nov 9, 2016 -> 09:20 AM) 1) It really isn't that different. The Texas law caused 30/40 of the clinics in the state to close. A similar Alabama law almost knocked down the total number of clinics down to 3. And these were just the "testing the waters" laws. Once they know they can get some restrictions through, they'll pass more until every clinic is regulated to the point where it's impossible to open. 2) Right, but that doesn't relate to what I said. The importance of getting the Religious Right hasn't ended just because Trump personally isn't a member. It's extremely easy to draw that YUGE block of people on gays and abortion alone. 3) Dude, they applauded for gay people not being murdered by terrorists. That's a far cry from supporting gay marriage, opposing horrific "conversion therapy", and opposing anti-gay discrimination. 1) So there would still be 10 clinics where abortions could be performed legally. Which is different from zero if Roe v. Wade is overturned. It's not happening without an extreme reversal from numerous SC opinions. 2) I guess I don't see the importance here then. Any republican candidate, even one who is basically a moderate (like Trump, 3 years ago a Democrat!), would get those votes. He didn't stress those stances at all and he still got those same people to vote for him. It doesn't seem, btw, like those two issues were controlling at all in how people voted. That's actually where Dems failed, keying in on social issues that the voters didn't really care about or at least didn't care about over other issues, like jobs, trade and not liking Hillary. 3) No, his quote was i will do everything to protect LGBT rights and the audience applauded and then he pointed out that they applauded. http://www.thewrap.com/donald-trump-embrac...nal-convention/

QUOTE (shysocks @ Nov 9, 2016 -> 09:59 AM) People would still be talking about it if Clinton had won. They were talking about it on Twitter last night as soon as it was clear things were close. Not to the same degree. Not even close. If Clinton had won it would have been "closer than we thought, but a real sign of progress! American's love women!"

QUOTE (Harry Chappas @ Nov 9, 2016 -> 09:57 AM) I think the focus in those states is bringing the jobs back from Mexico and Canada that were lost via NAFTA. Once the infrastructure is built though, companies cannot just walk away. Depends on how expensive it would be to stay overseas. Tough to believe that Trump, a bottom line guy, would be so tough on businesses though. But that has been his mantra - tax breaks for american business here, huge tariffs/penalties for anything coming in. Then the question is whether those same voters are going to be ok paying more for their cheap China goods at Wal-mart.

What's funny to me is that people are freaking out as if this is some sign that the country has flipped, but really it's the same country with just a minor tweak. If 2-300k more democrats (blacks especially) had voted in Detroit, Milwaukee and Pennsylvania, Clinton still likely wins and no one is talking about White American and the rest of the bulls*** overreaction.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Nov 9, 2016 -> 09:47 AM) You honestly think manufacturing jobs will miraculously start coming back to the states because of Trump? I have some great land to sell you in Florida. Yeah the big problem here is that our manufacturing output has actually been really high recently. Those jobs were mostly lost because of technology. I could see him getting coal/steel type jobs back if he puts big tariffs on the import of those raw materials, or being more ok with pipelines, but those are pretty small groups of people that would be affected by any change (relative to the amount of people hoping that he can help them).

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Nov 9, 2016 -> 09:20 AM) If most if not all of Trump's promises like a wall, throwing 11 million illegals out, high paying jobs for uneducated people with no skills, while paying little taxes, don't come to fruition, and just turn into the lies he's been spewing for ironically 30 years about himself, how long before the natives turn on him? Another scary thing, Rudy Guilianni as Attorney General. He's as nuts as Trump. I just wonder what the deal is with Pence. Didn't the Trump campaign basically offer Kasich the Presidency without the title if he joined the ticket? Pence may have received the same deal, and he's scary too. So this gets to an interesting point made by someone on the NBC telecast last night - it was pretty clear that the media and people in Washington took a lot of what Trump said literally and expected that voters would take him literally too. In reality it appears that the voters took him figuratively. If true, if he fails to build a wall, or if he fails to implement a system to deport 11 million people (i mean both are obviously unrealistic), I don't think anyone will be surprised, including those that voted for him.

God what i wouldn't give to hear Hillary's call to the Donald conceding the election.

QUOTE (Flash Tizzle @ Nov 9, 2016 -> 07:51 AM) Several of you honestly need to stand back and breathe. I'm surprised reputable posters are questioning how in the world they'll raise their children during his presidency, or predicting some sort of apocalyptic scenario where this country implodes from within. I honestly see a lot of the post Cubs World Series, doom and gloom for our White Sox type of mentality here. Listen, our candidate lost; we need to accept it, stop whining, and learn from our mistakes. Looking back now it's a wonder we all didn't see it coming. I voted for Clinton because overall I was more in line with her political values and aspirations. However, I'd never consider myself a staunch, vote Democrat blindly down the ballot type of person. There were several points I agreed with Trump, but not enough to make up for his character flaws. What astonished me through all of this is the invincibility of Trump. Nothing could take this man down -- not even his own political party! All the video recordings, comments, soundbites only reinforced his position as an outsider. What I would perceive as a detriment (no political experience, playboy lifestyle, ridiculous comments) the general public viewed as the model for anti-establishment. His opponent? The epitome of the establishment; a continuation of everything as it is with Obama. A woman submerged in politics and incapable of giving a heartfelt smile. One of Clinton's downfall, as MSF mentioned, was not representing the middle class. Categorizing Trump's voting base as "deplorables" and constantly harping on about how homophobic, xenophobic, racist he is obviously wasn't the right strategy. For her, nothing would have worked because she was a TERRIBLE candidate. It was believed the media shamelessly promoted her, the DNC was rigged, her private server mess, and let's not forget about her 9/11 memorial Zombie walk. it was all just too much for voters to overcome. Sanders voters weren't supportive, Minority voters weren't enthuastic about her, and those undecided either leaned towards Trump or didn't vote What's really sad is Trump, through all his ridiculousness, energized the Republican voters. He was the creation of every stereotype come to life, and no one took him setiously until it was too late. As if some kid wished upon a star and created him one night 70 years ago for this purpose. We had to rely on Westworld Hillary.....one of the oldest hosts in the park. Good post.

QUOTE (CrimsonWeltall @ Nov 9, 2016 -> 08:44 AM) It was just partially reopened this year when the SCOTUS examined the Texas TRAP law. That law was completely nonsensical and had no purpose other than to curb abortion rights and 3/8 justices were still okay with it. Scalia's replacement would be a fourth. Then you're just expecting that none of Kennedy/RGB/Breyer resign or die in the next 4 years. Donald Trump, serial adulterer, gambling tycoon, and man who probably isn't even a Christian absolutely rocked the Evangelical vote simply by appealing to their desire for anti-gay, anti-abortion SCOTUS picks. Those days aren't ending; that ideology just took control of all 3 branches! 1) Making abortions more difficult and overturning Roe v. Wade are two very different things. 2) One of the most beloved Democrats of the last half century is a serial adulterer. 3) He took a pause at his RNC speech to applaud the audience for applauding about homosexual rights. That's how far the "right" has come on the issue of gay marriage.

QUOTE (CrimsonWeltall @ Nov 9, 2016 -> 08:17 AM) What were people scared about the last 8 years? Obama's secret Muslim allegiance? Christianity being criminalized? Everyone's guns being taken away? The fears about Obama were things people made up. The fears about Trump are his actual campaign promises. Some believed he was a socialist and many believed he would destroy the country financially with entitlements (queue the "Obama is going to pay my mortgage" video). Many thought he would destroy the 2nd amendment. I'm sure there are more but neither happened.

QUOTE (Ezio Auditore @ Nov 9, 2016 -> 08:15 AM) America hates me. Or maybe it's Americans. I don't know. I mean, I knew that already, but now it's quantifiable. Nah, they hate women more.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Nov 9, 2016 -> 06:50 AM) http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_pol.../white_won.html Of course this is the view of the uber left. Have to make it about race and race only. Why can't it be that people just didn't like a corrupt, dynastic, career politician? I mean that's a HUGE component to this. Not saying race isn't one but at some point with the numbers he pulled from all groups, including an INCREASE from minorities compared to Romney, you gotta look at non race factors.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Nov 9, 2016 -> 06:38 AM) The nation wasn't broken. This is what the Democratic party believed and this is why they lost. The results pretty clearly say that.

f*** that. Those same people didn't get out and vote and that's a big reason why he won. Edit: in response to Balta's post.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Nov 9, 2016 -> 05:23 AM) I am so sad right now. All the progress of the last 8 years goes out the window. The LGTB community will no longer be able to wed whom they please, abortions will be illegal again, those who can't afford healthcare and/or have pre-existing conditions will be turned away, any chance at gun legislation is gone. Instead of having democratic control of anything, the behind-the-times Republican Party is set to undo it all. I have no hope for the country right now, and I'm really sad and disappointed about having to raise a daughter here. I'd bet a lot that none of this changes. You're not getting more gun restrictions on a federal level but you weren't going to get that anyway. People need to breath. This is exactly how Republicans thought about Obama. He didn't destroy the country/world.