Fork me on GitHub

@sveri, even if it's an allegiance of war, as far as I've heard it's crucial that it's clear who protects whom. Some of Trump's comments make it less clear.


Also, I agree with you that the whole election circus doesn't mean much. But it's weak evidence all the same. And Trump also has published his views in a number of books, independently of the election. Suppose there was an event that would cost the world economy $1 trillion and we estimate it's probability to be one millionth (because of weak evidence). Then the world economy might rightfully pay almost $1 million to avert that event. Of course it would be better to pay less. This just as an illustration why we need to react to possible problems.


Also, I'd argue that the campaign has already had negative effects on Europe. Some ambitious people have seen that you can become the president of the USA with telling a bunch of lies and being clever about it. (There's a striking similarity to the Brexit campaign.) They might start to think: “Oh, what can I do with telling a bunch of lies and being clever about it?” Of course, this has another side: there must be conditions in the world that make such things possible. Lack of education? A disconnection between the winners and the losers in society? Other things? I don't know what those enabling conditions are, but it's worth finding out and working on them, before even worse things happen.


Honestly, I am shocked and would have not fought that the election of Trump could cause such a thing. This is crazy. Do people really think it is ok to be unlawful because some stupid guy says stupid things? I wonder where all the hatred comes from...


@sveri similar thing happened in the UK after Brexit.


Sadly people seem to take this stuff as validation.


Thankfully, the law is not on their side. Nothing has changed, there. One positive side of a Trump presidency is that - now that conservatives aren't so pressured to be unified in voting for a single candidate - the divide between alt-right and right will become much clearer.


All I can think about is the millennial vote map and how this looks real bad for the older population


Note the image pulled by Slack is not representative of the millennial map


@sveri, @nfisher Yeah you have to wonder if those attitudes were always there, and just needed some kind of "ice-breaker" moment like a Trump election


@kasuko it won't look worse for the old generation if they're the only ones that turnup to the polls


True, let me put it this way. The elections make the whole of America look horrible.


You have the horrible people turn out to vote and the not horrible people too lazy to do anything about it.


Presuming that all Trump voters are horrible is painting a pretty broad brush, is it not?


We don't have the choice to mix and match between the two leading candidates.


We can't pick the bits we like off of each.


@kasuko I wouldn't call Trump supporters horrible, but some of them are definitely suckers. The younger generation isn't lazy, but I think they've been convinced by the likes of Russel Brandt that their vote is meaningless


It's a convenient position to take. "See? We have the moral high ground and everyone else is evil." But it's not a realistic one. Please use care, empathy, and common sense. Talk with people who voted Trump, ask them why they voted Trump. Don't assume that because some individuals are deplorable, that you can generalize that to the entire population.


Because the same would be asked of Trump supporters with a Clinton victory.


What kept Trump in the game was that he did technically have some degree of truth. Problem is, like you mentioned @fellshard, is supporters can't mix-n-match Trump with someone else, and that small amount of truth got mixed into a lot of lies, racism, sexism, ect.


My guess is a lot of Trump voters are not Trump defenders, endorsers, or even supporters, and yet still saw a Clinton presidency as being potentially destructive to the system of government itself. If we lose that, things will spiral. As it is, many are going to be hoping the checks and balances placed on our government are used effectively in coming years.


I agree with that sentiment, troubling to see a single party have a majority everywhere for his presidency though.


There’s a discussion that it could be good @cschep bc if the GOP can’t get anything done or stuff goes to pot… they have no one to blame.


interesting take, I just would hate to see certain things get “done” easily is all. 🙂


Hmm, measured by what standards?


Is that 'get done what we want to get done' or 'move in a direction consistent with their own beliefs and worldview'?


@nfisher That's the best case scenario


some things I’m happy to watch people fail at


some other failures cost people a lot, and I hate to see that.


Neither of them are particularly pro-Trump.


@cshepp sorry I meant the best case scenario is that the GOP will get nothing done, not the second possibility where everything goes to pot 😛 If everything goes to pot, well that genuinely sucks.


haa, yeah.


one nice thing about the US system is that congressmen(women) can openly disagree with the President, and not tow the party line.


And in fact are responsible to insofar as they are able.


that will be super interesting to see because Trump isn’t really much of a republican


and was rejected by a lot of that party


so.. “republican controlled” senate, means something sorta different these days.


@cschep Yeah and with any luck, the more "real republicans" in the senate won't pass any bills with him. But who knows, look at the surprise resurgence in xenophobia @sveri just mentioned. Maybe there's more Trump-like people that have been lurking around this whole time.


Look at the massive effort needed for Bush trying social security reform or Obama passing the ACA, both with substantially more political capital, as examples of what is actually required to get something unpopular with a good portion (40% or more) of the population against it passed.


ACA only required massive effort because the Obama and the House didn't agree. Trump with a republican house and conservative supreme court will have much less friction implementing a new tax plan or putting restrictions on things like marriage equality and women's reproductive rights regardless of popularity with the nation as a whole.


republican house and senate


Popular does not govern good. Popular simply reflects mob mentality. There is a reason our government is structured as it is.


The same rules prevent all sides from taking extreme measures and large steps.


The majority present in both halves of congress are still slim enough to force co-operation and contention.


I agree except to push back on popularity not governing good. 100 years ago being black was "lesser" and gay was "wrong" in the eyes of the law only because of popular opinion.


Again, I agree that the branches of government generally do a great job of this and if things go to far one way they'll swing back in the next 2 to 6 years.


And in the end, that popular opinion did not govern.


So that's still an argument against popular rule.


Popular =/= status quo


You can have many people desiring change, but unable to make it happen.


that's true. popularity is part of the equation but your right until it becomes status quo it wont govern.


And that is the design of the electoral college. 🙂


I wasn't arguing for popular vote or against the electoral collage.


Slows the pressure of popular change.


well it wasn't my point to ...


> regardless of popularity with the nation as a whole The principle still applies at all levels; it's why we have a senate with fixed representatives and a house with population-driven representatives


The president is a single aggregate, the house is a more one-to-one representation, and the senate is a state-by-state representation. Many ways of slicing the same population, and all must (mostly) agree before passing law. Popularity is a very thin metric compared to this more robust method, especially since it cedes autonomy to states.