Trump will win?

[LunarOrbit]

Regarding the environment...

I attending the University of Cincinnati's college of Civil and Environmental Engineering.  I spend my entire career building water and wastewater treatment plants.  In fact, the slogan of the company from which I retired was "Building a Better Environment."  I have done more in my life to protect the environment and provide clean safe drinking water than probably all of you put together.  So please don't lecture me on protecting the environment because I was out there actually doing it for over 30 years.

And if Trump was nominating you to head the EPA I would applaud that choice and cheer you on 100%. You are far more qualified for that job than the climate change denying idiot that is most likely going to get it.

[Bob B.]

And yet calling this out is seen as 'demonising' the candidate somehow.

I'm not talking about demonizing the candidate.  Donald Trump is fair game.  I'm talking about demonizing the people that voted for him.  I have no problem with you thinking that a person who voted for Trump made a mistake, that's your right.  But to insinuate that a person who voted for him must be a misogynistic racist homophobe that doesn't care about the environment is inappropriate.  Neither you nor anyone else knows what's it in a person's heart and how they went about making their decision.  Republicans were put in a very difficult position when their party was forced to nominate a candidate that many of us didn't want (even hated).  You may also not realize just how despised Hillary Clinton is by those on the right and how strongly we oppose her policies.  So we were put in the unenviable, perhaps even gut-wrenching, position of having to choose between a devil on the left or the devil in our own party.  It was no-win situation.  In the end I reluctantly decided to support my party's candidate.  It wasn't easy and it didn't come without a lot of anxiety and second guessing.  So what do I get for my trouble, the scorn of everybody on the left.

Earlier we were talking about differences between those on the right and those on the left and how everybody thinks their way is the right way.  Both sides are equally guilty.  But from my observations I think the real difference between the right and left is this:  People on the right think they are right and the left is wrong.  People on the left think they are moral and the right is immoral.  At least that's the way it looks from my perspective.  I'm not blind to the fact that the demonizing goes both ways, but when it gets ugly on the right it is usually calling into question someone's intelligence, rarely does it devolve to questioning one's morality.  But you can see from some of the posts in this thread that questioning one's morality seems to be the first line of attack for many of those arguing from the left.
 

[LunarOrbit]

I don't know if anyone else watches The Daily Show

I stopped watching it right when Jon Stewart left... not because I didn't think Trevor Noah was a good choice though, it just happened at the same time that I changed my cable TV package and gave up the comedy channel. I think the Daily Show is still on CTV, just at an unreasonable hour. I might start recording it though.

But our President Elect said he would ban all Muslims from entering the US (which, side note, is sooooooo unconstitutional!), and she's afraid, and not without reason, that it would include her.

Hopefully it doesn't come to that. 

[Bob B.]

And if Trump was nominating you to head the EPA I would applaud that choice and cheer you on 100%. You are far more qualified for that job than the climate change denying idiot that is most likely going to get it.

Thanks for the vote of confidence.

Just to be clear about something, I'm not angry with you in any way.  We're just having a disagreement.  I've know you long enough to know you are a good person and I have respect for you.  I would be more than happy to put the politics aside and sit down have a couple of beers with you.

[LunarOrbit]

I'm talking about demonizing the people that voted for him.  I have no problem with you thinking that a person who voted for Trump made a mistake, that's your right.  But to insinuate that a person who voted for him must be a misogynistic racist homophobe that doesn't care about the environment is inappropriate.

I'm sure you (and everyone you know personally) had good intentions, but all you have to do is turn on a TV or read social media to see that a lot of people voted for Trump because they think it means it's open season on minorities now. Trump didn't help matters when he initially played dumb when he was asked to disavow the endorsement from the KKK.

You may also not realize just how despised Hillary Clinton is by those on the right

I think I have a pretty good idea how despised she is, but I also understand that she's despised mostly because Americans have been fed unhealthy doses of lies about her from the right wing media for probably close to 30 years. She has been investigated thoroughly for years and the worst thing the right could come up with to pin on her was her private email server. But they couldn't proven anything bad actually resulted from it. And they didn't seem to mind that Colin Powell also had a private email server.

Would Trump come out as clean if we looked through he emails (or browser history... ick).

People on the left think they are moral and the right is immoral.  At least that's the way it looks from my perspective.

Try changing your perspective for a minute. During the 1990s the right went after Bill Clinton over his extra-marital affairs. They claimed to be morally opposed to a President that would treat women that way (and I don't really blame them). But now they have voted for a disgusting man who brags about sexually assaulting women. A man who has 5 children from 3 different women.

The right has also criticized Michelle Obama on moral grounds over her wearing clothes that exposed her upper arms, and now you have a First Lady who has posed nude. Any kid looking up Melania Trump for a school report is in danger of a big surprise. Note that I'm not actually criticizing Melania Trump... just pointing out the hypocrisy of the "moral" right and how quickly their morality can change depending on who is the President at the time.

But you can see from some of the posts in this thread that questioning one's morality seems to be the first line of attack for those arguing from the left.

That's certainly a new argument for me. It's the right who have criticized the morality of left-wing gays, women seeking abortions, scientists, atheists, Hollywood, and Mexicans (who are all "rapists" if you believe Trump).

I'm not saying all Republicans are immoral, and I'm definitely not saying you are. But a lot of people on the right have no problem with discriminating against minorities... that is immoral.

[LunarOrbit]

Just to be clear about something, I'm not angry with you in any way.  We're just having a disagreement.

Yep, agreed. I have nothing but respect for you, Bob, and always will. It certainly takes courage to stand up for what you believe when it isn't exactly popular at the moment. And like I've said, I would love to be wrong about Trump. It's too soon to say how he will do, but I see a lot of red flags that concern me.

I've know you long enough to know you are a good person and I have respect for you.  I would be more than happy to put the politics aside and sit down have a couple of beers with you.

Thanks, Bob. If I'm ever down that way I'll let you know. I know you've got that really nice aviation museum that I want to see some day. I've actually looked at the map a few times to see if I'm up to the drive. I was also considering driving down to Washington DC this summer, but decided against it.

[Bob B.]

I think the boosting the economy and job creation are very important issues. I disagree with you that the only way to achieve those goals is to vote for Republicans. And I certainly don't believe that Trump is the best person to do it.

I don't think Republicans have all the answers either, but I more closely identify with their fiscal policies than I do the Democrats.  I'm not 100% in love with Trump's economic plan, but I had some really grave concerns with Hillary's.  I'd much rather give Trump's plan a try than Hillary's.

Liberals don't want people meddling with their lives either, Bob. We don't want the government telling us who we're allowed to marry, or whether it's okay for a college student to get an abortion after she was drugged and raped in her dorm. We don't want the right imposing their religious beliefs on us, telling us what books we're allowed to read, or what scientific advances we're allowed to pursue.

I agree with all that.  I described myself earlier as a moderate conservative.  I added the word moderate because I'm split on many of my views.  Fiscally I'm a far right conservative, however on most social issues I'm more of a centrist (even left on some issues).  For instance, I'm pro-choice and pro-gay marriage.  I'm also agnostic, but I sympathize with the concerns of religious people.  And it should go without saying that I'm pro-science.  On the other hand, I'm pro-second amendment (I have a conceal carry license) and I'm against marijuana legalization.  Since I'm all over the place on these issues, I'm never going to find a presidential candidate that I 100% agree with.  That's one of the reasons I put more emphasis on the fiscal policies because that's usually a place where I can find more agreement.

Once again, you might as well be describing a conservative. But we're not the ones telling people they can't marry just because we don't want to make them a cake. We're not the ones refusing to issue people a drivers licence because we don't approve of their lifestyle.

But you are the ones penalizing people and causing them to lose their business because they don't want to bake somebody a cake.  While I agree with the right of a gay couple to marry, this is where I have sympathy for the religious right.  Someone shouldn't be forced to compromise their religious beliefs.  Just go to a different bakery.

I think you're a one issue voter, just like a lot of people on both sides. You're probably also someone who votes for the party, not the person chosen to lead it. You've likely been voting the same way for your whole adult life, and in any other election I would have had no problem with that. But this has not been a normal election, and I just wish you had widened your view a bit beyond the economic issues that matter to you.

That's mostly correct, but I wouldn't say I'm a one issue voter.  It depends on what's going on in the nation and world at the time.  This time around I thought getting the economy revved up was most important.  I see economic growth as the key to achieving many other things, so it's just not about people enriching themselves.  For instance, creating job opportunities would go a long way toward improving the terrible conditions in our inner cities.  When I talked about voting for the economy a lot of people responded with comments like, "you just want the rich to get richer."  That's not it at all.  There are still a lot of people who don't have jobs, or are underemployed, and are really struggling to get by.  Those are the people I'm thinking about.  I'm not the heartless son of a bitch that some people have tried to portray me.

Also being both left and right on some issues, it's impossible for me to find a one-size-fits-all candidate.  I'm always forced to make compromises.  That's the hell I must live with.  It's unfortunate that if you're a Republican candidate you must be for A, B and C, and if you're a Democrat you must be for X, Y and Z.

...but giving people affordable healthcare in order to save lives is the work of Satan.

That's where I have to take exception.  Nobody on the right wants to take away affordable healthcare, they just have different ideas on how to do it.  If you were to say that the Republican ideas are flawed and won't work, then I could accept that as a defensible position.  But to say they want to take away healthcare and have people dying in the streets, that is patently false.  That's exactly the kind or morality argument that I talked about early that really pisses conservatives off.  Let's keep it about the facts and leave the "Republicans want poor people and grandma to die" arguments out of it.

[Bob B.]

People on the left think they are moral and the right is immoral.  At least that's the way it looks from my perspective.

Try changing your perspective for a minute. During the 1990s the right went after Bill Clinton over his extra-marital affairs. They claimed to be morally opposed to a President that would treat women that way (and I don't really blame them). But now they have voted for a disgusting man who brags about sexually assaulting women. A man who has 5 children from 3 different women.

The right has also criticized Michelle Obama on moral grounds over her wearing clothes that exposed her upper arms, and now you have a First Lady who has posed nude. Any kid looking up Melania Trump for a school report is in danger of a big surprise. Note that I'm not actually criticizing Melania Trump... just pointing out the hypocrisy of the "moral" right and how quickly their morality can change depending on who is the President at the time.

But you can see from some of the posts in this thread that questioning one's morality seems to be the first line of attack for those arguing from the left.

That's certainly a new argument for me. It's the right who have criticized the morality of left-wing gays, women seeking abortions, scientists, atheists, Hollywood, and Mexicans (who are all "rapists" if you believe Trump).

I'm not saying all Republicans are immoral, and I'm definitely not saying you are. But a lot of people on the right have no problem with discriminating against minorities... that is immoral.

Ok, you make some good points.

When I brought up the morality thing, what I was referring to is the almost instinctive reaction by some on the left to very unfairly label their opponents.  You don't like Obama, therefore you're a racist.  You don't like Hillary, therefore you're a sexist.  You want to secure the southern border, therefore you're anti-immigrant.  You don't like Obamacare, therefore you want poor people and grandma to die.  I'm not saying you've done that, but it's very common.  It seems that many liberals just can't fathom how someone can disagree with them without it being rooted in racism, sexism, or some other ism.  It is very unproductive and only helps to further the divide.  It's also like crying wolf, people are less likely to pay attention when real bigotry is occurring.
 

[Bob B.]

I'm sure you (and everyone you know personally) had good intentions, but all you have to do is turn on a TV or read social media to see that a lot of people voted for Trump because they think it means it's open season on minorities now. Trump didn't help matters when he initially played dumb when he was asked to disavow the endorsement from the KKK.

There are always going to be some bigots in any group.  I'm sure there are Trump supporters that are racist, homophobic, etc., but I really think it is a minority.

Most Trump supporters are people that are just pissed off with government.  They don't like the policies of the left, but they are also dissatisfied with the Republicans.  They sent politicians to Washington to defund Obamacare, to stop out of control spending, etc.  Yet Obama was still able to get his budget through with almost no resistance.  They feel they've been lie to and betrayed by their leaders.  They see politicians as corrupt and interesting only in holding onto power and enriching themselves (some of which is very warranted).  They feel no one is looking out for them and their concerns.  They feel abandoned.

Trump saw what was going on and tapped into the anger.  Although Trump said some really stupid and bigoted things along the way, his main message was that he was going to Washington to blow up the system and 'drain the swamp' of all the corruption.  It is that message that resonated with his followers.  I think the bigotry element of it is really over exaggerated by the Trump haters.

[Jason Thompson]

I'm not talking about demonizing the candidate.  Donald Trump is fair game.  I'm talking about demonizing the people that voted for him.

Ah, in that case I apologise for the misunderstanding. I certainly had no desire to demonise you or to assume all the millions of people who voted for Trump were as bad as him. I do appreciate the greater depth of understanding of why someone would vote for such a rotten apple.

But to insinuate that a person who voted for him must be a misogynistic racist homophobe that doesn't care about the environment is inappropriate.

I have no wish to insinuate any such thing. The fact remains, however, that you and millions of others, however reluctantly, have endorsed one. Maybe his fiscal policies or whatever else swung you in his favour were the better ones on offer, but a candidate comes as a package. It's disappointing that the system (which I do not profess to be any kind of expert on) doesn't have a way to get out of that. Ultimately, the vote was for Trump, not each policy and not each aspect of his personality.

One question I do have: I know the US election basically boils down to Republican vs. Democrat, but there are independents, are there not? Wouldn't a better way to give the system the finger be to vote for someone other than the two main parties? It likely won't get the independent to victory but surely a decreasing number of votes for the main parties vs. an increase in votes for alternatives to both bloody awful options over progressive elections would send a message?

If this shows anything it's that democracy, while a very simple system in principle, is executed pretty badly in most countries, with different regions having different weightings, basically any system other than purely the number of votes cast (except in the EU referendum, bizarrely). I have had similar soul-searching during elections here. Most notably some years ago when, because of the way our electoral system works, I had to try and find some way to vote that reflected the fact that our best local candidate MP was a member of the party I absolutely did not want to see governing the whole country.

[Jason Thompson]

There are always going to be some bigots in any group.  I'm sure there are Trump supporters that are racist, homophobic, etc., but I really think it is a minority.

There are bigots in any group. The problem is that when their candidate is one too, it legitimises the bigotry of those who now see their interests as being served. It's happened here in the wake of the EU vote, and it's happening now in the US. Minority or not, it is not acceptable, and should not be minimised or overlooked. The most disappointing thing about the EU vote here was that in the wake of news reports about racist assaults increasing and people shouting about having voted leave to kick out the foreigners, not one of the politicians leading the Vote Leave group came forward and said this was absolutely not the view that was being fought for at the top. Not one. We got some wishy-washy stuff about assaults and racism being 'obviously unacceptable', but not one member of the group called out to the nation and said 'look guys, this wasn't what we were fighting for'.

They see politicians as corrupt and interesting only in holding onto power and enriching themselves (some of which is very warranted).[/quote]

And they see Trump as different? Really?!

Although Trump said some really stupid and bigoted things along the way, his main message was that he was going to Washington to blow up the system and 'drain the swamp' of all the corruption.  It is that message that resonated with his followers.

The same followers who are now saying it's OK because the system he said he was going to smash is the one that's going to keep him in check and prevent him enacting his worst policy plans? Does that not seem contradictory?
 

I think the bigotry element of it is really over exaggerated by the Trump haters.

You make it sound like it was some small thing people found while looking for a reason to hate him. I think it's a pretty big reason to hate him. I also think it's minimised by his supporters, and that's worse. Bigotry, misogyny and homophobia should have no place whatsoever in a government or in a society full stop.


[/quote]

[Jason Thompson]

Since I'm all over the place on these issues, I'm never going to find a presidential candidate that I 100% agree with.

That's the real problem with the whole system, and I sympathise entirely. I've never found a political candidate I agree with 100%. My votes usually end up, sadly enough, boiling down to the ones I disagree with least, to be honest. For my part, though, the kind of attitudes espoused by people like Donald Trump in the US and Nigel Farage here would put me off voting for them whatever their policies were.

But you are the ones penalizing people and causing them to lose their business because they don't want to bake somebody a cake.  While I agree with the right of a gay couple to marry, this is where I have sympathy for the religious right.  Someone shouldn't be forced to compromise their religious beliefs.  Just go to a different bakery.

Penalising people from the majority group for being bigoted is not oppression or persecution. How is refusing to offer services to a gay couple any different than refusing to serve black people or muslims? How is it different from decades ago when black people just had to 'sit in another seat'? After all, they were still able to get on the bus, they just didn't have the freedom to choose where to sit. I doubt you'd say that was OK, so why should it be OK now to persecute homosexuals in that way? I am sure that the business in question had served many gay people before, and many others whose lifestyle didn't agree with their core principles, they just didn't worry about it because they didn't bother asking first. Only the fact that this one couple advertised the fact made them targets for persecution. That is not acceptable. The business in question was asked to provide the same service to a minority as they do to everyone else, and it would have hurt them not a jot to do it.

[Glom]

The biggest problem with this result? It has unleashed a new wave of insufferability from the quantum lichen. Farage now thinks he's the government's diplomat-in-chief. He's only ever won election to one thing and has spent his entire career decrying the very existence of that office.

[alvarez]

And speaking as a poor woman, it sure makes me happy to know that someone I respect doesn't think my needs are worth considering in a Presidential candidate, that the fact that it could theoretically kill me is irrelevant.

You should try being a "foreigner" sometime, particularly the wrong kind of foreigner.  You might then find it disturbing how many Americans of all political stripes do not care in the slightest if their officials blast you (and a few thousand of your neighbours) straight to the ninth circle of hell for no reason at all - as long as they get their healthcare/guns/gay marriage/tax cuts/<put your issue here>.  Some of them will laugh cheerfully at the thought and make jokes about your guts being splattered over the nearest quarter acre.

A lot of them are not worrying about things that could theoretically kill their families and neighbours - they're worried about things that are actually killing them.  You know who sent those things.

[Peter B]

But you are the ones penalizing people and causing them to lose their business because they don't want to bake somebody a cake.  While I agree with the right of a gay couple to marry, this is where I have sympathy for the religious right.  Someone shouldn't be forced to compromise their religious beliefs.  Just go to a different bakery.

I could be wrong, but the impression I got with the cake story wasn't so much that the bakers objected to baking the cake for a gay couple. Rather, they got into trouble because they told their story to the Internet and included the couple's address, so the couple started getting harassed in their home.

Although Trump said some really stupid and bigoted things along the way, his main message was that he was going to Washington to blow up the system and 'drain the swamp' of all the corruption.  It is that message that resonated with his followers. 

But now he's appointed a denizen of said swamp as his Chief of Staff, and seems to be backtracking on a lot of the statements he made which were so popular with those rural white voters during the election campaign.

How's it going to look to those rural white voters if he turns into just another Washington insider?

In any case, the articles I'm reading are suggesting that he'll have a tough time making good on his economic plans and delivering jobs to those people.