Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Tannhauser42 wrote: Coming back to this thread now that it appears the sore losers and the sore winners have dialed it down now. I still say we all lost on Tuesday, regardless of who would have won. The divisions it created, not just throughout America (the protests from the left, and the acts of hate from the right), but what could be seen here on Dakka, were very disheartening to me. Posters I once respected are now on my Ignore list due solely to the vicious glee with which they tore into their fellow Dakka community members (seriously, this thread and this thread alone is responsible for every name on my Ignore list). Nobody has been vindicated by this election; what people are being is vindictive, and that is not the way forward.
By the way, Whembly, I actually finished off that bottle of MacAllan for you. Wish I could afford to replace it with an 18 year, but probably will have to stick to the 12.
Manchu wrote: I think it is ridiculous to assert that premise, which can only be meaningful in the abstract, necessarily has anything to do with why people cast a vote for Trump.
It doesn't matter what their reasons for voting for Trump were. Even if you voted for Trump because you thought his economic plan was better (lol) your vote was still a statement that it's ok to accept racism if that's the price you have to pay to get what you want. Or it's ok that the vice president thinks that abusing gay people until they pretend to be straight (or commit suicide trying) as long as Clinton's email server is properly punished. You don't get to pick out some of Trump's policies and discard the stuff you don't like, if you vote for Trump you're voting for his racism along with everything else.
That's exactly what people do. All the people I know who voted for Trump did so because they're primarily one issue voters. People held their nose and voted Trump for the sake of 2A rights or to get the right justices nominated to SCotUS, or to fix the economy or whatever. That's what most of the people I know do on election day, hold their nose and vote for the lesser of 2 evils. When you choose to vote for the lesser of 2 evils you're acknowledging that you're voting for evil it's just a degree of evil that you can rationalize supporting based on the primacy you place on a specific issue.
And that's really the truth, and I am more than willing to acknowledge that as someone on the liberal spectrum that wanted Hillary to win.
Plenty of people are anti-racism, anti-abortion, anti-gun control, anti-trade compacts, anti-etc. During the 2012 election I saw a statement by the Catholic Church about people voting for liberals, and it was basically "It's okay to vote for candidate who are pro-choice, as long as the reason you are voting for them isn't that they are pro-choice" . I look at people who voted for Trump the same way, It's okay to have voted for Trump as long as you didn't vote for him because of racism/sexism/homophobia".
I can sympathize with that...
I... just couldn't do it this year.
I won't lie, as a father of biracial children I am extremely worried that having Trump win has moved racism back towards being an acceptable thing and I am worried that it has legitimized the alt-right and empowered groups like the KKK who were able to watch their guy win.
Racism will never by acceptable... and it's incumbent on all of us to remain vigilant.
But I don't feel like I can really blame that on the vast majority of people who voted for Trump. I think the blame for that falls almost exclusively on Trump, who didn't do very much of anything to denounce these groups and their view point and instead pandered to them, as well as his campaign at large. I do think a lot of racists voted for Trump, but I don't think that voting for Trump automatically makes you a racist.
...eh... I think it's more certain elements of the Trump campaign than Trump personally that is to blame. (well, he does shoulder the responsibility as it's his campaign)
The nebulous factions of these racists, spurred on by the likes of reddit and the likes existed... and it was a shame more wasn't done to discourage that.
But, to be fair on the subject of the KKK and David Duke, he did denounce them.
I understand, accept, and mostly agree with everything in this post (not just your's, but all the quoted bits, too). My biggest fear, I think, is what we'll see in 2018. Now that we have proven, beyond all doubt, that you can be a horrible human being and still be elected as long as enough people will side with your position on an issue they care about. So, my fear is that this was only the beginning, and I fear to see what will come through the door that has been opened.
Two things:
a) Toldya the ACA is vastly unpopular that hung like a millstone around the democrat's neck
b) Interesting that the "build the wall" is last on this list. Probably supports Theil's position that Trump voters didn't really take him literally, but seriously.
What I find most amusing is what came in third: reducing spending. Because numbers two, five, seven, and eight all require, well, more spending.
Well, I hope I'm not on your ignore list.
If it's any consolation, I know the pain. I was there in 2014 with the Scottish independence referendum. 2 years of campaigning...and we lost. Scotland voted to stay in the UK as you know...
That ripped the heart out of me for weeks.....
But I bounced back, and the USA will bounce back, and will survive Trump.
I said it earlier, it's a strong nation, with strong institutions, and a love of freedom.
You guys have survived the dark days of the war of 1812, the Civil war, bad presidents, Vietnam, and so on and so on....
Trump is not the first bad president, nor is he the last.
I think Trump has something with foreign policy, but yeah, he is an awful person.
I predicted a Trump victory. Sorry, and I'll predict this:
the nation will tire of Trump. His rhetoric will meet reality. He'll never satisfy the monster he unleashed, and he'll crash one way or another.
His crackpot cabinet will shoot themselves in the foot, and after 4 or 8 years, the USA will be bruised and battered, but intact.
Democrats can still fight on and if smart, can pick up the pieces in 4 years time.
And once again, I'll leave you with my favourite political quote of all time, because it's so true, and the British Prime Minster who said it was a pretty smart guy and I think it's a lesson that Trump will learn...the hard way:
" A week is a long time in politics..."
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/11/11 22:58:20
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
angelofvengeance wrote: Anyone else finding it hilarious that Ben Carson is going to be US Education Secretary? LOL
I am still trying to bleach my eyes over the vision of newt gingrich in his tighty whiteys dancing around introducing our new aristocracy.
Decrying Carson as "bad" for US Education Secretary seems silly... this is a guy who grew up in pauper in a time of racial strife and made himself literally a brain surgeon. If anything, this guy lived the American Dream with respect to his educational journey.
Besides... WTF does the Education Secretary do at a national level?
But I don't expect the narrative to change. If I've learned anything from years on this board it's that there's no end to the lengths people will go to to maintain a illusionary narrative.
Irony much?
Yes. It is ironic watching the Republican party propose the most significant anti-immigration platform in recent history, and then brag about a puny 2 percentage points in exit polling results.
Especially when people proclaim Trump did better than Romney and McCain (even though McCain had 31% of the hispanic vote in 2008, 2% more than Trump, and still 11% less than Bush's 40%).
It's even funnier that when you take into account early voting and not just the exit polls from Tuesday, because a record number of Latinos voted by early ballot (far more than in the previous 2 elections) Trump gained nothing in percentage points, because Hillary actually gained on Obama's 2012 performance by 1% (73% vs 72%). It shows how short people's memories are, as exit polling data of Latino's tends to follow the same pattern. It records highly for Republican candidates but then the percentage of the whole drops once early voting is accounted for after the election. Bush for example dropped from 44% of the Latino vote in 2004 to 40% after early voting was taken into account.
It's even more ironic watching conservatives brag about the Hispanic vote, when it's not what won Trump the election (the white vote in the Rust Belt did that).
So yes. The irony is brutal and on full display.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/11/11 23:05:00
Witzkatz wrote: Alright, I was kind of thinking that maybe Trump would calm down a bit after a heated campaign and might be influenced by some good advisors, and now...
...he picks Ben Carson, Sarah Palin, Chris Christie, Newt Gingrich. To "drain the swamp".
Apart from that, has anybody heard this one speech from one of his campaign minions, Omarosa? Where she explains how good it is that "Trumps enemies are coming out in the open" and how he "has a long memory and we are keeping a list" and the office of POTUS is "the ultimative revenge"???
There aren't enough question marks for that one, those are her words on tape.
Yes, for a moment I thought things might not be so bad, but now, holy fething hell people. I wouldn't be so concerned if this was some backwater banana republic, but this is the United States, most powerful nation on earth. Arrrgh.
He hasn't picked anyone yet. That's just a guess list of people he may look at.
Vaktathi wrote: I think the bigger issue is more that the R's showed up to vote, the D's did not going by the turnout results, Blue voters just stayed home it appears. Now, the whole "PC" thing may have played into that, but it would be more in potential D voters getting discouraged and skipping the election as opposed to ""white people" as a group doing anything en masse.
Ultimately however, no matter what way you slice it, America chose to reject a self serving, divisive, and arguably corrupt political oligarch by electing a similarly corrupt fascist gak-gibbon.
The Aristocrats!
Have an exalt. good post.
Also, 100 million americans voted for the none of the above party, and who can blame them? Not me.
As we know, Obama failed to live up to early promise, but back in 2008, he got people fired up, he got them to believe in something.
With Clinton, there seemed to be no inspiration. It seemed like a chore to vote for Clinton....
Months ago, I predicted a Clinton win, and then Brexit came, and I wasn't so sure, and I suspected that team Clinton would ignore the signs. Trump didn't....
Trump is a modern day Barry Goldwater, but Goldwater was crushed by a proper politican, with proper policy, and proper ideas, and yes I know LBJ was flawed and I know Vietnam finished him, but if Clinton had even 1% of LBJ's political skill, she would have won....
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
AlmightyWalrus wrote: And now we're on to claiming someone is competent to be education secretary because he went to school. You're bettet than that whembly.
You need to do some research on Carson's educational/professional career....
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/11/11 23:28:36
"Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. " - V
I've just supported the Permanent European Union Citizenship initiative. Please do the same and spread the word!
"It's not a problem if you don't look up." - Dakka's approach to politics
angelofvengeance wrote: Anyone else finding it hilarious that Ben Carson is going to be US Education Secretary? LOL
I am still trying to bleach my eyes over the vision of newt gingrich in his tighty whiteys dancing around introducing our new aristocracy.
Decrying Carson as "bad" for US Education Secretary seems silly... this is a guy who grew up in pauper in a time of racial strife and made himself literally a brain surgeon. If anything, this guy lived the American Dream with respect to his educational journey.
Besides... WTF does the Education Secretary do at a national level?
whembly... he's one of these Young Earth creationist whack-jobs. He believes the pyramids were grain stores lol. A brain surgeon he may be, but this is a guy who wants that taught in schools.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/11/11 23:29:55
AlmightyWalrus wrote: And now we're on to claiming someone is competent to be education secretary because he went to school. You're bettet than that whembly.
You need to do some research on Carson's educational/professional career....
I didn't see much about learning how to be an educator or much teaching experience.
He does however have some disputed claims about scholarships, a disputed claim about being the most honest psychology student in his class, and is a young earth creationist.
Frankly, that last part is enough to disqualify anyone from being anywhere near education.
the nation will tire of Trump. His rhetoric will meet reality. He'll never satisfy the monster he unleashed, and he'll crash one way or another.
THAT"S what scares me.
Spoiler:
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/11/11 23:36:37
"Through the darkness of future past, the magician longs to see.
One chants out between two worlds: Fire, walk with me." - Twin Peaks
"You listen to me. While I will admit to a certain cynicism, the fact is that I am a naysayer and hatchetman in the fight against violence. I pride myself in taking a punch and I'll gladly take another because I choose to live my life in the company of Gandhi and King. My concerns are global. I reject absolutely revenge, aggression, and retaliation. The foundation of such a method... is love. I love you Sheriff Truman." - Twin Peaks
AlmightyWalrus wrote: And now we're on to claiming someone is competent to be education secretary because he went to school. You're bettet than that whembly.
You need to do some research on Carson's educational/professional career....
The man is a brilliant neurosurgeon. How does that make him qualified to run the department of education?
Add in the parts about creationism, climate change denial and the pyramids supposedly being fething grain silos from the Biblical Joseph's preparation for the great famine in Egypt and it's getting incredibly difficult to believe that he's somehow qualified for educating anyone about anything that isn't neurosurgery.
For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back.
As for what the Department of Education actually does:
"Establish policy for, administer and coordinate most federal assistance to education, collect data on US schools, and to enforce federal educational laws regarding privacy and civil rights."
So it doesn't really do all that much.
And to compare Ben Carson with the current Secretary of Education:
John King Jr.
- BA in Government from Harvard
- MA in Teaching and Social Studies from Teacher's College, Columbia University
- JD from Yale Law
- Doctor of Education from Columbia University
- James Madison Memorial Fellow
- Has taught
- Has founded a charter school
- Commissioner of Education of the State of New York
- Has worked for the Department of Education since 2011
So even though the DOE is small, the secretary should actually have some sort of experience that relates to what it actually does.
That's actually something I wouldn't mind too much. Newt, for what it's worth, is a huge space geek and has long advocated for more ambitious space exploration programs. My only concern is his reliance on the private sector in regards to space.
whembly wrote:Looks like Clinton will win the meaningless popular vote...
I guess CNN did find that plane after all!
d-usa wrote: "When the Internet sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending posters that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing strawmen. They're bringing spam. They're trolls. And some, I assume, are good people."
That's actually something I wouldn't mind too much. Newt, for what it's worth, is a huge space geek and has long advocated for more ambitious space exploration programs. My only concern is his reliance on the private sector in regards to space.
I think he'd be great as he'd be that "gunho ambassador" for all things NASA does.
Won't happen tho... there's talk that he's in line for Secretary of State. Which... to me is... meh for Newt.
whembly wrote:Looks like Clinton will win the meaningless popular vote...
Let the backpedaling begin, when he said he repeal the ACA, he didn't mean that as well.
Mr. Trump even indicated that he would like to keep two of the most popular parts of the Affordable Care Act, including one that forces insurers to cover people with pre-existing health conditions and another that allows parents to cover children under their plan into their mid-20s. In an interview with The Wall Street Journal, he said he was reconsidering his stance after meeting with Mr. Obama on Thursday.
Just days after an election in which he vowed repeatedly to repeal President Obama’s signature health care law, Donald J. Trump is sending signals that his approach to health care is a work in progress.
Mr. Trump even indicated that he would like to keep two of the most popular parts of the Affordable Care Act, including one that forces insurers to cover people with pre-existing health conditions and another that allows parents to cover children under their plan into their mid-20s. In an interview with The Wall Street Journal, he said he was reconsidering his stance after meeting with Mr. Obama on Thursday.
The comments added to a sense of whiplash about the law and its future. More than 100,000 Americans rushed to buy health insurance under the Affordable Care Act on Wednesday, the biggest turnout yet during this year’s sign-up period, underscoring that millions of people now depend on the law for coverage.
Beyond Mr. Trump’s comments, new plans laid out on his presidential transition website this week deviate from what he had proposed during the campaign, and he added some new ideas that appeared to more closely align with the mainstream Republican agenda. The new plans dropped all mention of reining in high drug prices, for example, and added new language about modernizing Medicare, which some saw as a nod to congressional efforts to give people vouchers that they could use toward buying private health insurance.
Continue reading the main story
Related Coverage
PUBLIC HEALTH
The Future of Obamacare Looks Bleak NOV. 9, 2016
PUBLIC HEALTH
Newly Insured by Obamacare, Yet Unlikely to Vote NOV. 8, 2016
PUBLIC HEALTH
See Obamacare Rates for Every County in the Country NOV. 4, 2016
“Health care is shaping up as a priority for the Trump administration and Republicans in Congress,” said Larry Levitt, an executive at the Kaiser Family Foundation, which closely tracks health policy. “But we still have very little detail about what that really means.”
Even the powerful health care industry, which invested hundreds of millions of dollars in preparing for business under the Affordable Care Act, is disoriented about what to do next — and scrambling for ways to avoid a big financial shock. A repeal of the act would mean the loss of millions of customers for insurance companies and an onslaught of uninsured people to hospital emergency rooms for basic care.
Industry executives say their first priority is to persuade Mr. Trump and the new Congress to replace the law with some way for people to continue getting coverage.
The problem is that, until now, top executives from the biggest insurers have not heard from Mr. Trump or his close advisers about his plans. In fact, the industry as a whole made no contingency plans for a Trump victory and does not yet appear to have developed a strategy. In the last few days, executives have huddled hurriedly with their boards and advisers to discuss how to react.
In mapping out various election result possibilities, “this wasn’t on the sheet,” said Mark Bertolini, the chief executive of Aetna. “We had no idea how to approach it.”
The consequences are urgent. About 22 million Americans would be without insurance if the law were repealed. The state marketplaces, where about 10 million of those people buy insurance, would no longer exist. The millions of others who were newly eligible for Medicaid would also lose coverage.
“I’m concerned about the fear factor of what is going on,” said Bernard J. Tyson, the chief executive of Kaiser Permanente, the system based in California that includes hospitals, doctors and an insurance plan. He said the company was already getting calls from people worried about whether they would still be able to get coverage. Both federal officials and insurance executives say people should not hesitate to sign up during the current open enrollment period.
Terri Marsh, 61, in Goose Creek, S.C., did not hesitate to sign up again for a Blue Cross plan as soon as she could. “Insurance is something you have to have,” she said. Before the marketplace plans were available, she had been without coverage for five years, despite having a serious inflammatory disease.
“Because I have a pre-existing disease that is off the wall for them, I could not get insurance,” she said. Without getting the coverage through the law, she said, “I could possibly be dead.”
Photo
A repeal of the Affordable Care Act would an onslaught of uninsured people going to hospital emergency rooms for basic care. Credit Adam Glanzman for The New York Times
Yet Republicans have seized on some areas where the law is struggling and in the government-run insurance marketplaces in particular. This month, for example, Republicans highlighted the sharp rise in the average price of an insurance plan on the marketplace — 25 percent — as proof that the law was fatally flawed. Mr. Bertolini warned that rates could go even higher next year.
Without a 60-vote supermajority in the Senate, Republicans will probably be unable to repeal the entire Affordable Care Act. But they can eliminate several consequential provisions through a special budgetary process called reconciliation.
Last year, the Senate passed a reconciliation bill that undid large portions of the health bill. The House passed it. President Obama vetoed it.
The bill would have eliminated the expansion of Medicaid coverage for Americans near or below the poverty line. It would have eliminated subsidies to help middle-income Americans buy their own insurance on new marketplaces. It would have eliminated tax penalties for the uninsured, meant to urge everyone to obtain health insurance. And it would have eliminated a number of taxes created by the law to help fund those programs. (It was written to kick in after two years, meaning the programs would not disappear immediately.)
Many parts of the law cannot be repealed through reconciliation. Among them are reforms to the Medicare program, a provision that requires insurers to cover young adults on their parents’ policies, and requirements that health insurers sell policies to anyone regardless of their health history. Those parts of the law are very likely to remain law.
Crucial aspects of the bill can be undone in a number of other ways, too. The administration could simply halt efforts to sign people up for the state marketplace plans. Or Congress could eliminate the federal subsidies that help millions of people afford a plan. Either one of those moves would most likely cause far fewer people to sign up for insurance, leading to instability or collapse of the insurance marketplaces.
“There are a lot of different triggers that can be pulled,” said Benjamin Isgur, the leader of the PwC Health Research Institute.
For the insurers and hospitals, the challenge is to persuade President-elect Trump that an alternative to the online marketplaces is necessary.
Insurers will feel the loss of customers both in the individual market and under state Medicaid programs. While most are well diversified into other areas of insurance, the Affordable Care Act was seen as a way to forestall the steady erosion in employer-based insurance. The companies spent years and millions investing in being able to sell new policies through the state marketplaces, operating under an entirely new model.
Hospitals, however, are likely to be the biggest losers. Under the law, they agreed to get less money from the government, essentially in exchange for having to cover fewer uninsured people.
“If repeal happens, are there voices in the industry loud enough to replace it?” said Sam Glick, a partner at Oliver Wyman, a consulting firm.
Executives insist that the proposals that have been discussed before, including by Paul D. Ryan, the speaker of the House and a Republican, laid out how to replace the coverage and would allow people to transition to different options.
The Trump administration and Congress “are not going to pull out the rug from people,” said Dr. J. Mario Molina, the chief executive of Molina Healthcare, a for-profit insurer. He predicted that the earliest the law could be repealed was 2018, and that it would be replaced with something like a modified version of Medicaid, the government insurance for poor people. “The debate is not around the what, but around the how,” he said.
Because Mr. Trump has been short on detailing exactly what he plans to do, though, many in the industry argue they cannot prepare a strategy in advance. He has said broadly that he wants to repeal the law, for example, and give states more control over Medicaid programs. He has talked about being able to sell insurance across state lines and has recently discussed a return to the state programs that existed to help cover people with serious medical conditions.
“This is Day 1 of figuring out what all of this means,” Mr. Glick of Oliver Wyman said on Wednesday.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/11/12 00:17:00
whembly wrote: Well... you can't really say that... he's on the winning team now.
It was a Pyrrhic victory.
d-usa wrote: "When the Internet sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending posters that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing strawmen. They're bringing spam. They're trolls. And some, I assume, are good people."
What if only part of California wants to leave? Would we have a North California and South California with one being a free "nation" and the other a State?
I don't normally watch this guy but these two popped up in my feed and just kinda sucked me in. Warning for those at work: this guy uses a lot of profanity.
Breotan wrote: What if only part of California wants to leave? Would we have a North California and South California with one being a free "nation" and the other a State?
Somewhat amusingly, I know some people who are part of a small movement in (very) northern California to do just that. But they sure as **** ain't democrats.
Legion: Dark Angels 
Mordant 92nd 'Acid Dogs'
The Lost and Damned
Inquisition
