Hacker News Reader

Comment by the_duke | Hacker News Reader

There probably won't be a wall.

Most likely, few of the promises / threats of the campaign will materialize.

It just might turn out that Trump will be a very moderate republican president. He just might have played a role for the last few years. A role that got him voters.

Then again, he might not care at all about doing the actual job and let Pence run most of it.

I still can't believe how Americans could actually elect someone like that. I understand a protest vote, but with that candidate...

I guess the majority of voters just didn't care that he has no actual opinions, is an entitled, rich, insecure, macho, old generation 'man', and just projected their wishes for change, ignoring all of him they didn't want to think about.

Republicans hold both houses and the presidency now, though. I guess Obama's legacy has been wiped out today.

Oh well, the world will go on.

View on HN

>Oh well, the world will go on.

This sounds like a statement from someone of privileged. You might be willing to take those risks that Donald Trump is not the man he says he is. Either way, the world will likely go on for you. The world might not go on for the Muslim hoping to immigrate to our country. The world might not go on for the citizen of Mexican descent who might see their parents deported. The world might not go on for the poor pregnant women who might not get access to a safe abortion. The world might not go on for the diabetic who can no longer afford insurance because of their preexisting condition. The world might not go on for the teenage girl who seems a president who brags about sexually assaulting women. The world might not go on for the gay man who might lose the ability to marry the person he loves. The world might not go on for the black teen who is stopped and frisked. The world might not go on for the trans person who is no longer allowed in the bathroom in which they feel the most comfortable.

I don't live in the US (anymore), so it doesn't really affect me.

You bring up some valid points. But a lot of what you mention is very much bound to state administration and legislation. Of course federal laws and the supreme court can have a big impact, but the states still have a lot of say in the matter.

And even if Clinton had won, with the current climate, she wouldn't get much through Congress or Senate.

Then again, a different candidate than her might have helped to flip the senate.

What I mostly meant by that: it's done, he won. Have to deal with it now.

> I don't live in the US (anymore), so it doesn't really affect me.

Nor do I, but this person is the standard bearer for the stable world order that has helped lift many of us out of poverty, and has promised to continue doing so.

That world order is pretty chill, in comparison to historical standards. It seems rash to claim maintaining it doesn't matter, and that's exactly what this rich white man has campaigned on.

Might is the critical word here, and I appreciate that you chose to use it. All of these things are possible, but as the original commenter suggested, I suspect most if not all of your fears will prove unfounded. I very much doubt much will change for Muslims in our country, or that deportations will change much (aren't they actually higher under Obama than previous administrations?), or that diabetics will not be able to afford their medication, etc. You may be right that limits may be placed on when an abortion can be obtained, but there's no way gay marriage will be reversed.

In short, I agree that in all likelihood the most disappointed voters will be those who voted for Trump expecting him to do all those things you're afraid he'll do. They wanted someone to really shake things up, and he'll give them modest tweaks and proposals with great branding.

Yes, "might" was the most important word in my post and that was intentional. I personally don't fall into any of the groups listed and demographically most of the people reading this probably don't either. We are the lucky ones. We don't personally face the risks of a "might". If you fall into those groups that "might" starts looking awfully scary regardless of the exact odds.

"You may be right that limits may be placed on when an abortion can be obtained."

For the women in my life, abortion rights are important rights. Having the government restrict their access to this safe, legal medical procedure is a scary invasion of state power into the doctor-patient relationship.

I care about the women in my life, so when they care about access to abortion, I care about it in sympathy.

"... diabetics will not be able to afford their medication, etc."

Before the ACA, I was uninsurable, thanks to having had my gallbladder out several years prior. "Pre-existing condition." The ACA allowed me to buy health insurance again.

If they repeal that, I'm likely to lose access to the U.S. health care system.

That scares me, personally.

Lots of things about this are scary, because they affect my life and the lives of people I care about.

> For the women in my life

How many aborted fetuses do you know and care about? The right to life shouldn't depend on who you know.

> to this safe, legal medical procedure is a scary invasion of state power into the doctor-patient

safe for who? You say "doctor-patient relationship", but they aren't the only ones with a stake.

A fetus isn't a person.

Abortion is a safe, legal medical procedure. Access to abortion is every woman's right. The SCOTUS has affirmed that the US constitution guarantees this.

"Safe for who?" For the woman, who is the person getting the procedure.

> A fetus isn't a person.

This is a point of dispute. When does it become a person?

> Access to abortion is every woman's right

Says who? What if it conflicts with a right to life?

Some may dispute that point.

The law does not.

The governing bodies of the US have repeatedly affirmed that access to abortion is a woman's right.

The medical view of abortion is that it is a safe, legal medical procedure.

Whatever you believe--and you are free to believe anything--about fetuses changes neither the legal view nor the medical view of abortion.

Since we're discussing what the law should be, what the law currently is is moot.

You didn't mention the law when talking about "the women in my life".

> The medical view of abortion is that it is a safe, legal medical procedure

Why do you keep saying this? Who is disputing how safe it is for women?

People who argue from the fringe view that "life begins at conception" and "a fetus is a human being" often bring in a lot of other fictions about abortion, like that it isn't safe for women, that it's murder, whatever.

It isn't.

It's also none of your business what other women do with their bodies or with their doctors. Wishing that it was your business (or telling fantasy stories based on your fringe views) does not make it so.

> People who argue from the fringe view...

So mention this when you argue with such a person, or someone who specifically argues these points.

I did not argue that "life begins at conception". As for "a fetus is a human being":

A fetus is: "an unborn or unhatched offspring of a mammal, in particular, an unborn human more than eight weeks after conception"

Hence, a fetus is not "at conception", but at least 8 weeks later. According to Wikipedia on US law: "Viability is usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks, approx. 196 days) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks"; In other words, a fetus may be aborted 24-28 weeks after conception; Arguing that a fetus in this range is a human being is not a fringe view among those who look into the issue, or at least that a fetus might be a human being (it's possible that we don't know enough about human development in the womb to decide).

> It's also none of your business what other women do with their bodies

What women do to the bodies of fetuses is the issue here. A woman who murdered her unborn, viable child would be charged with muder despite it concerning "what she did with her body".

> Wishing that it was your business (or telling fantasy stories based on your fringe views)

How about you project on someone else?

yes it will... in worst case scenario, US will roll back to a state 20-30 years ago. by your descriptions, people were committing suicides en mass or were put down like feral animals or whatever the heck you meant with your emotional outcry.

It seems not so long ago when Obama was criticized for his inability to do many changes he promised to do, simply because the image of US president holding all the possible power in the US is an illusion, for a very long time.

Personally, I don't care much about his racism, bigotry etc, many powerful people are like that, they just don't admit it openly to the media. What I care about is long-term chances of mankind for survival on this beautiful little blue ball, the only home we will have as a mankind for a very, very long time.

And in this topic, he seemed... pretty horrible in every single way. well, fuck.

> What I care about is long-term chances of mankind for survival on this beautiful little blue ball, the only home we will have as a mankind for a very, very long time.

Exactly. And what we need now is stability, a chance to continue to grow the technological civilization. Because if we fuck it up this time, it's gonna take many thousands, if not tens of thousands, of years before anyone will come close to industrial revolution again. All the low-tech, high-density energy sources have been used up. If the current system stops, there's no restarting. So could we all please focus on stabilizing and improving it, instead of fucking with it in spite, because someone else was born richer than me?

> You might be willing to take those risks that Donald Trump is not the man he says he is

What if the things staying the same are the larger risk? The current status quo (a change from the past) isn't sustainable for many.

> The world might not go on for the Muslim hoping to immigrate to our country.

Be specific - which criteria is keeping them out? Why do they want to come to the US?

> poor pregnant women who might not get access to a safe abortion

You mean who get illegal abort?

> who [sees] a president who brags about sexually assaulting women

because it was publicized as part of a smear campaign. What about the public officials who see the email scandal, and that it didn't hurt president Clinton?

Like Trump said, what of Bill Clintons affair? No moralizing over that?

> trans person who is no longer allowed in the bathroom in which they feel the most comfortable

Lets say this really was a "world-ender"; What about the people who share that bathroom, who are also "uncomfortable"? Are subjective feeling only meaningful if exhibited by the trans community?

This election is about establishment vs anti-establishment. People over globalisation. Remember Bernie Sanders? Anyone who has done their thinking themselves instead of CNN/FOX/MSNBC has seen this for months.

Against Trump were GOP, Democrats, left and right Media, Special Interests, all the nasty smear campaign and he still pulled through.

You do know that the wall is already there and even Clinton voted for it? Just need to be finished. [0]

Just because you haven't taken the time to look at Trumps positions doesn't mean he hasn't any. You can find them from Presidents website.[1]

[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secure_Fence_Act_of_2006 [1]https://www.donaldjtrump.com/policies/

He flip flopped on his positions whenever it was convenient.

Just a few years ago, he was a Democrat, pro abortion, etc.

Do you really think a man of that age suddenly completely changes his views? And then again about every month (or hour) during the campaign?

And Clinton has Private and Public views. I get that you haven't followed Trump, but in that case you shouldn't attack him either with partial information.

The Direct Democracy President

'Months ago, when Trump stumbled on his answer about criminal penalties for women who seek illegal abortions, the public went nuts, and Trump immediately corrected his position. That’s direct democracy. Trump heard the opinion of the majority and instantly adopted it.

Consider Trump’s proposal to ban all Muslim immigration. The public felt his position was too extreme, and let him know. Eventually, Trump softened his stance to talk about countries of origin, not religion. The public still wasn’t pleased, so Trump softened again to his current position of “extreme vetting.” That evolution in policy looks like direct democracy to me. The public told Trump what it wanted, and Trump evolved to it.

Likewise, we found out this week that Trump’s plan to deport 11 million Mexicans living in the United States illegally has some wiggle room. Maybe there won’t be so much deporting after all. Because the public doesn’t want it.'[0]

[0]http://blog.dilbert.com/post/149321013966/the-direct-democra...

He said it all himself: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cwz8hvRWgAAY9b_.jpg:large

Snopes says that's a fake: http://www.snopes.com/1998-trump-people-quote/

But he changed his mind because he had to please the people to get elected, right?

He doesn't have to change his mind for the people again unless he wants be reelected.

If politicians change their mind all the time, we do not know what they'll do once elected, and therefore we do not know what it is we choose when we vote for them.

A lot of comments now, are about how Trump might not follow through on the stuff that was said during the campaign, or that it will become less severe. To me that sounds exactly like we do not know what sort of president the American people have elected -- And that does not sound like a good form of democracy.

> This election is about establishment vs anti-establishment. People over globalisation. Remember Bernie Sanders?

I don't understand the point you are making. If people beat globalization, if voters want anti-establishment more than establishment, shouldn't Bernie have won?

Well, it was quite clear that DNC turned against Bernie from the start of the campaign for the primaries.

If the DNC hadn't rigged the primary, Bernie would have beaten Trump in a landslide.

From what I understand (which is based on Clay Shirky's Twitter feed, make of that what you will) Bernie had zero appeal to black voters, who are an essential demographic for the Democrats. He was very popular in a young, white bubble, which is also important, but still a bubble.

Bernie almost won.

In some ways the DNC presented a larger challenge to Bernie than the RNC did for Trump.

If it was anti-Establishment, then why did voters re-elect Congress who had a 9% approval rating, and who quite literally, are the permanent establishment, because they're gerrymandered and not term limited like the President, who changes every 8 years?

I don't buy it. anti-Establishment is the story progressives tell themselves, that the Trump voters would have been Sanders voters. But Sanders voters believe bankers and corporations have fucked over their jobs, and Trump voters think Mexicans and minorities are to blame. There might be some overlap, but telling yourself this was merely about anti-Establishment and "draining the swamp" doesn't explain why incumbents scored a huge victory tonite.

"Oh well, the world will go on."

Will it though? We have a frisky Russia, trouble brewing in the South China Sea, and the Middle East/ISIS/Syria. A large reason why these conflicts are not worse is because of the restraint shown by the US and the other parties involved.

We have essentially just put a child behind the greatest military force in the world.

Are you calling Obama a child? Because he has been the president for the last 8 years while all these problems have been mounting.

Trump is not his persona. He has little choice but to be much more moderate than the rhetoric that got him elected.

Maybe... but that's what people said after the primary elections and it wasn't toned down much. At the end of the day, Trump is a nihilist and an egotist that feeds of off the passion of his supporters. "Trump" the persona is what fired up his supporters and is what won him the election. I think he will stick with it.

Are you sure?

Yes. Were you paying attention to the rhetoric that got him elected? A lot of it, if taken literally, was literally impossible. It worked, but it shouldn't be taken too seriously beyond that. Will he have some interesting policies? Yes. Will he follow through on many of the crazy things he said while campaigning? No.

While I agree to a degree, he has a Republican house and senate. I think you might be a little surprised with what he follows through with.

What you mean is: Russia is portrayed as frisky in your media. That is different. Perhaps you should look up alternative news sources, YouTube can be enlightening.

Just one example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VbZDyr2LkdI

So you link to a video from what amounts to a Russian state news service? I'm all for alternative view points and news sources, but c'mon man.

It's about the arguments, about how they are placed in the current newsscape, not about the source but about how these explanations fit in your world view. They fit well with me. And how is this different from American state news like CNN?

CNN is a commercial service.

You know that ad hominem is a fallacy, right?

Attack the argument, not the messenger.

This shows the power of media narrative. Clinton said multiple times 'alleged DNC hacking' would lead to a military response against Russia. No fly zone in Syria would mean effectively that.

In case you are curious look at the Wikileaks emails. Obama & Clinton administration stirred up Syria to what it is now and created vacuum for ISIS.

She also told public how long the nuclear response time is which is quite ironic after saying Trump could not be trusted with that information.

> She also told public how long the nuclear response time is which is quite ironic after saying Trump could not be trusted with that information.

Incorrect. The four minute window has been known in the public domain for a very long time. http://www.snopes.com/clinton-four-minute-nuclear/

And you think Clinton will show restraint? She's a democrat, but her foreign policy is more typical of a neocon republican.

It doesn't seem all that outlandish to expect her to show more restraint than Trump.

Syria, ISIS, and whole effin' arab spring, is something that was initially supported/not constrained enough by US. Yes, conflicts could be worse in middle east, but they could also... not be, if US and west generally just didn't meddle with crappy but relatively stable systems in place.

Well, we spent the last month saying "nobody will take him seriously. Then "he will never get elected". Now I think saying "he will never do what he said he would" is pretending we are able to know what's going on and what will happen like we weren't dead wrong the whole time before. Let's shut up and see.

The world will go on, but he is likely to appoint supreme court justices who will set back justice and equality in this country for many decades.

Everyone I know who voted trump did not pick him to start with, but he was the only option to vote against Hillary Clinton.

Trump could have been a rubber chicken and he probably still would have won.

Which is ridiculous. I'm not diminishing a Sophie's choice here, but that Trump somehow comes out on top in that comparison is a farce of reasoning.

It's only a farce if you don't believe that Hillary is representative of corrupt, career politicians.

It seems many of the people I know who voted for him wouldn't care if he dropped his pants and took a shit in one of the Smithsonian museums. "At least he's not part of the establishment."

No, she's definitely as much or as little corrupt as any other politician.

And yes, your second point is spot on. which is the problem. The electorate focused on emails and assumed content of those emails for months, and ignored 400 problems with Trump.

It wasn't a painless choice, but the correct choice sure as hell was obvious to anyone trying.

>No, she's definitely as much or as little corrupt as any other politician.

Not according to the bought meetings via donations to the Clinton foundation. You need some significant evidence to show this is standard practice for all secretaries of state.

Look, you clearly don't think there is anything to this corruption angle. Therein stems the disconnect between you and the typical Trump supporter.

>The electorate focused on emails and assumed content of those emails for months, and ignored 400 problems with Trump.

The media focus on Trump was about him being offensive or using a tax loss carryover. The email scandal is about violations of the law with regard to the handling of state secrets. Then pretending she didn't understand classification, etc.

>It wasn't a painless choice, but the correct choice sure as hell was obvious to anyone trying.

Right, anyone trying to justify their preconceived notions.

You ignore the corruption and two-tiered legal treatment, Trump supporters ignored the pussy grabbing talk and other non-PC shit he spews.

> You ignore the corruption and two-tiered legal treatment, Trump supporters ignored the pussy grabbing talk and other non-PC shit he spews.

Sure, that's all you ignore....

* Deleting of emails against a court order [1]

* Scamming students out of money [2]

* Refusing to pay workers [3]

* Violating visa rules [4]

* Violating the Cuba embargo [5]

I could go on, but I guess it's pointless. Like you said: preconceived notions. Good luck with your president, you'll need it.

[1] http://www.newsweek.com/2016/11/11/donald-trump-companies-de...

[2] http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/06/trump-un...

[3] http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/0...

[4] https://apnews.com/37dc7aef0ce44077930b7436be7bfd0d

[5] http://europe.newsweek.com/donald-trump-cuban-embargo-castro...

There was so much wrong with Trump that voters couldn't remember it all.

> Oh well, the world will go on.

The world will go on, but I really wonder what America's place in it will become. Will America be diminished as a leader among nations? How powerful will our economic engine remain if it becomes more isolated? How influential will we be in world affairs?

Things like this don't change overnight, but I fear by the time it's evident they've started slipping it's a long, long road to ever claw your way back.

Well, a large part of the world was seeing Trump as very unfavorable. Respect will have to be earned.

We'll see.

How will Trump attempt to earn it? And who pays the price?

Hopefully by being respectful himself and doing a 180 on a lot of remarks he made during this campaign.

Still waiting for the pivot? Won't happen.

Never expected it during the campaign. But the campaign and the presidency are two entirely different things. I hope he breaks a lot of promises.

Oh, he's going to break promises (all Presidents have), but probably not the ones you'd prefer he breaks. Ultimately Trump has shown a stark lack of concern whether his promises are kept or not.

I thought it was absurd to entertain the idea that he was a serious candidate for the republican ticket. And I thought it was absurd to think he would win tonight. A new great wall of China is absurd, too. But that doesn't mean it isn't going to happen.

What do you mean by "masochistic"?

Whoops, I meant to write macho.

People keep saying "that candidate" like Hillary was any better.

They are both literally the worst candidates in American history.

The entire election should have been called off, both candidates barred from running, and start again.

However, at the end of the day, all it shows is that despite that people think, democracy won.

These were the two people chosen by the parties to represent them. Just because they are the worst in history does not invalidate the election, and it isn't like you can call off an election because you don't have a worthy opponent.

I suspect the democrats are regretting throwing Bernie under the bus.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com