It's Going to Be Okay
waitbutwhy.com
waitbutwhy.com
At a time of greatest institutional weakness, a demagogue with authoritarian tendencies that considers the norms of a liberal democracy to be a inconvenience and subordinate to the needs of order has just been elected on a wave of hate, lies, racism, and bigotry with the promise of locking up his political opponents and abandoning international allies and obligations.
This is potentially a game changer from which there is no return and everyone is a loser.
You know she lost right?
I seem to recall at least a few threads on HN over the past couple of years that suggested politics needs to be more agile.
Sure, we do. It's easy. Just look at someone's actions and ignore what they say.
Trump's entire career very clearly about making things better for Trump. Simple extrapolation indicates that's what his presidency is going to be about too.
If you happen to be like Trump -- a wealthy US business owner -- you may get some improvement in your life as a sort of halo effect. But otherwise, a Trump presidency is good news for no one whose name doesn't rhyme with "Ronald Rump".
The Democrats actually managed it back after the Great Depression. Three terms of Franklin Delano Roosevelt followed by one of Harry Truman.
So really, it's just uncommon in the last sixty-odd years.
The problem with that analysis in this particular case is that it is an attempt to normalise what is a fundamentally abnormal election (which is what a lot of people unfamiliar with the historical and current European and international politics generally are guilty of doing through ignorance). This wasn't a normal change of the guards, and is part of a trend that we are seeing across the world. A charisma candidate that is frankly unsuited for office, with almost no real institutional support from any recognisable political peers, and a disdain for the norms of liberal democracy just beat in a head to head contest a candidate that is fundamentally a normal, if flawed, candidate.
Are you referring solely to the economic situation with the housing bubble?
Edit: parent edited his comment, so now mine seems off.
When I say institutions I mean the political institutions that support and enforce the norms liberal democracy which make the key difference between say Russia and Egypt vs the US or France as models of democracy, specifically in these cases of presidential democracies.
This article is a rare expression of maturity.
This is extremely difficult for everyone after a campaign with as much fear and fear-mongering on both sides. The voices calling for moderation and composure are not unemotional, they may just have a different perspective.
If he said "I'm going to end homelessness" would you believe him?
Time will tell.
But telling the military to sink another country's ships, that is something the president can do....
I believe that they would try. Starting a military conflict is well within the abilities of a president, especially when his party has control over both houses of congress and a demonstrated inability to stand up to him.
Funny how that works out
"Senator Byrd went from being an active member of the KKK to a being a stalwart supporter of the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act and many other pieces of seminal legislation that advanced the civil rights and liberties of our country."[1]
Does this really compare to Trump's support from the KKK and his resistance to rejecting them?
1: https://donate.naacp.org/press/entry/naacp-mourns-the-passin...
A Republican who was once in the KKK would never be forgiven no matter how many decades went by.
And you aren't responsible for who endorses you. Trump doesn't actually believe in white supremacy, so a KKK endorsement is meaningless and it's a logical fallacy to say otherwise. If the KKK endorsed carrot cake, carrot cake would not suddenly be bad.
Unless it's the kind with the overly sweetened frosting they serve in cafeterias. With the little orange and green frosting carrot on top.
> Yes he can. And that sucks. But every president can do a lot of damage, and many of them do, and we’re still standing. And remember, the president is seriously limited in what he can do without the approval of other parts of the government, so he’s unlikely to be able to carry out anything that crazy.
Not every one is in the situation to sit back and take this with stride. I'm happy that the author is, and all things considered, I'm probably in that position, too. But if I were in a group that faced potential disenfranchisement, I wouldn't be laid back at the prospect of Republicans controlling all 3 branches of government.
that favour the removal of Roe v Wade
Five of the seven who supported the plaintiff (e.g. to uphold abortion rights) were Republican appointees.
Correct, Republican appointees did support and continue to reaffirm constitutional protections for abortion rights. However, it is not clear to me that the Republicans making those appointments made a clear statement vowing that they would appoint those who would be in favor of removing Roe v Wade [0]. The seat currently open will be unlikely to overturn Roe v Wade regardless of who was appointed. However, should Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Kennedy, or Stephen Breyer leave the court (All >=78yrs) [1] and be replaced by Trump's appointees. I understand it's not an immediate ability with the appointment of one justice in that favour, but there's still reason for concern.
[0] http://www.cnbc.com/2016/10/19/trump-ill-appoint-supreme-cou...
[1] http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-trump-supreme-court-2016...
This has never been more incorrect than in this election. Many people who voted for Trump only because they didn't want Hillary to be president. And many who voted for Hillary because they didn't want Trump to be president.
When you get to pick your poison, that doesn't imply you're going to like the poison you pick. It's still poison.
Trump won due to 64,252 voters in Florida. Alternatively, Hillary lost due to 8,693 voters in Michigan and 34,006 voters in Pennsylvania.
PS: It really was a tight race, but thinking in national terms is completely misleading. And no I did not vote for Hillary or Trump or more importantly live in a state that mattered.
I'm not sure the facts support that statement. As of this comment:
Trump: 59,341,446 Clinton: 59,578,989
That's a difference of just 237,543 votes, out of about 125 million votes. Or, less than 1/5th of a percent difference.
Calling 47.5:52.5 a 1:1 ratio is rather far off it's 1:1.105.
According to Wikipedia's chart, this is the 3rd closest popular vote elections in history.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presiden...
> Here’s what I’ll say to that:
> This country had your back yesterday and it’ll have your back tomorrow.
The whole point of not feeling safe is that the country doesn't have their back.
Hardcore liberals who blame Trump and his supporters for "bigotry" usually refuse to accept or even take a look at any other points of view, which is, ironically, the definition of bigotry.
Additionally, most people are not even cut out for the task of coming up with a credible narrative of what selfish rationality means to them. They have difficulty describing even their own interests.
Heaven forbid they have to model the rationality of others! Heaven forbid a model should have more than 3 factors in interaction!
1. The establishment has long been sticking up for big commercial interests with lobbyists controlling Washington, lining the pockets of the 1% at the cost of those living at or below the poverty line, who struggle to find work and put food on the table every day of their lives. Ever since Wikileaks, sentiment has been growing against this form of corruption, and then Snowden added fuel to the fire, and now this.
2. For better or for worse, Trump represents hope of jobs they can do returning to the country and a way out of the hole.
When you have to put food on the table right now, or see your hard earned cash walking out of the door every day into the pockets of the 1% while you struggle - EVERY SINGLE DAY, racism, bigotry and sexism can take a back seat to feeding your kids and keeping a roof over your head - for right or wrong.
If I were American, if I lived in America, I couldn't in good conscience have voted for Hillary. I also couldn't in good conscience have voted for racism, bigotry and sexism. But then, as someone in the software industry, I guess I'm part of the 1% and I'll always find a way to be okay.
The only way I could have voted in good conscience would have been to vote for myself - an un-nominated candidate with no platform other than try and do what's right by people... and because the electoral college is fucked, it would have been an entirely wasted vote.
This was a giant fuck you to the establishment, and on that, I resoundingly agree. But I'm also unhappy that Trump won.
With this in mind, with the fact that many have the perception that Trump cannot be bought because Trump only gives a shit about one thing - what Trump wants; and the fact that Hillary's entire platform is held afloat by big commercial interests, I think this vote was already made a long time before the election.
Figure out what's good for Trump post presidency, buy stocks in that. You'll be fine.
Of course, there's always the 25th Amendment and the CIA standing between here and there... so who knows what the future holds. Either way, I'm gonna need more popcorn.
And let's not forget that the most important issue of all, climate change, has been denied to even exist by Trump.
But given these things and putting food on the table and feeding their kids every day. What do you think people look to do first? Stand up for their principles, morals and beliefs or feed their kids? The other things can be fixed tomorrow in their minds.
I'm not saying I agree that these things should be swept aside, ignored, accepted, everything you state is important and needs to be fixed absolutely. But people care about themselves and their circumstance before their principles. They will satisfy their principles tomorrow once their kids are fed and their bills are paid.
Under Hillary, the perception is that the 1% would continue to get richer and the poor would continue to get poorer while lobbyists continue to control the Government fanning the flames of the perception of Government corruption that runs salt in the wounds of those left fighting tooth and nail for the scraps that are left.
Under the Donald, there is an offer of hope that this blusterous bigot who doesn't give a fuck what anyone but he wants himself cannot be bought by the establishment has offered a promise of bringing jobs they can do back home. The masses living in poverty don't give a flying fuck about the 1% who benefit from a lobby controlled Government who's only concern appears to be Wall St. - and nor should they when their primary concern is putting food in their kids mouths.
Whether these perceptions are valid or not, whether or not the Donald will make good on these apparently empty promises, these are the perceptions that make up a large part of the country's reality and that is what people voted to fix.
So the demographic that perceives they're going to benefit are the 99% that have been left behind by corporate America.
Not a Trump supporter, I don't like him and I live on another continent, but I do not like the way some of you want to paint everyone who doesn't agree with you as morally corrupt and divide USA even more.
Please guys, for your own good, stop, take a step back and think about why this happened.
I argue that if the reason was that 50% of the voters are stupid haters then you would had an real problem long before this election.
We've seen Trump enable and condone his supporters assaulting people.
Will he reign in the violent supporters? This is what I want to know. To date, he has not.
By Trump's own words, Trump expressed a desire to sucker punch somebody at a convention earlier in the campaign cycle [1]. I do not wish to associate myself with Trump or either party at this point.
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LX4Q643aEU
[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/02/2...
This kind of absurd social justice rampage is exactly why people stayed quiet in public, but privately voted for Trump at the ballot box.
I notice you have been downvoted. This post election shaming campaign is really making certain "democrats" look bad.
I won't attribute it to all democrats but a few people here have been behaving in what I see as a very undemocratic way over the last 24 hours.
That said, here is a protip: don't mention SJ, it just fuels the fire.
He has all 3 branches.
It will matter a lot who Trump picks as Secretary of State. They'll probably determine more of foreign policy than Trump does.
This isn't Windows versus Macintosh. This is life and death. You can hold the opinion that the Republican policy platform is acceptable while acknowledging that your party just got near-total power over a heavily divided, regionalized, racialized country in an incredibly narrow victory. There is going to be conflict over this.
They can most immediately do massive damage through appointment of Supreme Court justices. While its true that the open seat was an arch conservative and having a Republican appointment to that seat will not change the balance of power in the court much, Kennedy, Ginsburg and Breyer are all 78-83 and mortality will be catching up with them soon. That puts Roe v. Wade legitimately in jeopardy like never before.
When it comes to one of the biggest issues of our time -- climate change -- we just elected the candidate who claimed that it was a chinese hoax. The House is full of candidates who believe similarly. The most moderate of Republicans are likely to dismiss the magnitude of the concerns over the climate and vote in favor of protecting carbon based industries. It really is fairly black and white on this issue and the fact that there's a few moderates who won't straight up deny the science doesn't help when they form a coalition with the anti-science tea partiers, the effect is going to be the same.
Its also likely that the ACA gets repealed now. It might take triggering the "nuclear option" in the senate to override a fillibuster, but I can see that happening now. About the only upside to this is that when 10 million or so Americans wake up the next day and find they've lost their healthcare they might think twice about voting Republican. Conceivably the possibility of that backlash might cause some Republicans to defect and not consider the nuclear option and this may not happen, but that is teetering on a hugely sharp knife edge.
Then there's just rolling back all the progress over the past 8 years in civil rights. At the very least it will solidly block progress for the next 4-8 years. It won't be getting any better. I can't imagine that the issues with police shootings of black males will improve and that BLM will be going away. If anything, I could see even more incidents like the Dallas shootings and movements springing up that really were more like the Blank Panthers. Riots in major cities, etc.
And then there's foreign involvement. I suspect that everyone who voted for Trump thinking that was the anti-war vote is going to be shocked pretty soon at how many boots we wind up with on the ground in Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria. I would never defend Obama's drone strikes or Hillary's penchant for bombing, but the Republican party is the one that likes to see Abrams battle tanks rolling across sand dunes in the Middle East, which is orders of magnitude worse. There was one anti-war candidate in this election and it was Bernie Sanders. What we got was the Hawk in Dove's clothing.
And when it comes to financial crisis we're going to see the repeal of Dodd-Frank almost certainly. The problem here is that while during the 2008 crisis you saw George Bush's administration rescue the financial industry (and the entire country) there's no assurances that we won't see the Trump administration and the Republican congress blow up the US financial industry. Last time there was that awkward picture of Treasury Secretary Paulson getting down on one knee and begging Nancy Pelosi to stop the financial crisis. What we've elected since then is the whole Tea Party wing who think the solution to financial crisis is not regulation before it happens and instead is just letting a financial crisis unwind with maximum possible destruction. Next time we might see money market accounts lock up, short term credit evaporate and literally ATMs and monthly paychecks from otherwise solvent industries stop. We peered over that abyss in 2008 and now we've put all the people who thought going over that cliff sounded like a great idea into power.
And even if you discount those last two arguments I made as being unlikely, its still not remotely going to be okay.
Imagine this election is a startup. You have this wonderful/magical/great product but just not sell. Then what? Back to development and try again!