|
Post by Lolatadatodo on Nov 10, 2016 8:12:42 GMT -5
Honestly, I don't know you well enough to make that kind of judgment about your thought process. You're relatively new here. That's not a criticism, but rather a statement of fact. There are a lot of people here who I know from our previous home at CBR and whose basic personalities (at least online) are pretty well-known to me. Personally, I'm glad you're here, because you bring perspectives that are in much-needed supply around here, as a woman, as a mother, and as a mother of a disabled child. Just from reading your posts, I understand where your fears come from, and I don't believe you're naive enough to believe that everything was going to be instantly better if Hillary had been elected. However, I think you, and others, are overreacting as to how bad things are going to be, particularly in relation to how they are now. My father has been making racist, sexist, misogynistic, and homophobic statements for decades, long before Donald Trump was anything more than a real estate developer in New York and New Jersey, and he did so because he's a deeply flawed individual because of his upbringing, not because anyone told him it was acceptable to express those things or acted similarly. This election didn't bring these people out, it merely put the focus on them, and anything, be it home invasions or child abductions or police shootings or whatever, will seem worse when enough scrutiny is put on them, because that is what the media will be discussing and Facebookers will be sharing and folks will talking about at the water cooler at work.If you need somewhere to talk about it, this is a good place, and if you need someone to talk to, feel free to message me. The future may not be as good as you'd hoped, but it probably won't be as bad as you fear today. Blessings to you and yours. Richard Thank you for your offered kindness. It is appreciated. I wanted to acknowledge that first before I go into the rest of my reply. As for the bolded: Would you please give me that I am a cisgender female, and that I grew up with misogyny my entire life due to this fact, and I'm well aware that Donald Trump did not "invent" misogyny. I didn't need to be told that. However, he has stated quite a few times, things that show exactly how little respect he has for women. In fact, I'm pretty sure that he has said insensitive things, publicly (and proudly, too!), to offend just about every single marginalized group in this country. Things have already started happening, and have BEEN happening, since the election/his campaigning for the election/he said those nasty things about people. And even if it only puts focus on them now, and THAT'S why we are hearing about them, should we not be made aware that these things are being said, and that these violent actions have occurred (and are still occurring)? You can downplay the hate that has come from this man and his supporters, or the exact timeline all this filth surfaced, but you simply do not have the same fears, in this regard, as people from the groups he has said things about. A large number of his supporters think that making America "great again" means getting rid of everyone but white men and women. And the women are here as objects for them to grab as they see fit. If you have daughters, I hope you are not okay with them growing up in a world like that.
|
|
|
Post by Warmonger on Nov 10, 2016 8:47:35 GMT -5
So less than 24 hours after all of the doom and gloom over the stock market...the DOW is set to hit an all-time high today.
LOL
|
|
|
Post by Prince Hal on Nov 10, 2016 8:52:48 GMT -5
According to the Scientific American, Trump has picked Myron Ebell as a potential head for the EPA. Ebell is climate change denier, naturally. A loud one, too. That's just the kind of terrible decision I was fearing. Oddly enough, the EPA is a creation of the Republican party. Under Nixon, of all people! And Forrest Lucas, oil baron, foe of animal rights and is a candidate for Secretary of the Interior (National Parks, offshore oil drilling, fracking, wildlife refuges, endangered species and the like), part of Trump's goal of having a more business-friendly cabinet. Can't wait!
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Nov 10, 2016 9:03:32 GMT -5
Yep The "good guys" are protesting/rioting in 7 different states right now...but you know..."priorities". Damn that Trump and his supporters for not accepting the election results!! Oh...wait... Excellent point Warmonger. If this was reversed and these riots were instigated by Trump supporters upon losing the election, this thread would be filled with talk about Nazis and Stormtroopers etc. instead I just hear the crickets Actually, there is a big difference: Trump himself said he might not recognize the result if he lost. He said people with the second amendment on their mind could do something if Clinton was elected. People like Joe Walsh said he'd grab his musket and called for civil disobedience in case Trump lost. That came from above, not from the rank and file. If Trump had lost and riots had erupted, it would have been perfectly sensible to blame the campaign leaders. It would have been perfectly sensible to assume the protesters were part of a movement refusing to accept the result. The reverse is not true. Neither Clinton nor any prominent Democrat suggested to break out the guns in case of a defeat. Hence the lack of a loud outcry. People are protesting because they lost an election? Yeah, they're sore losers. Even if the candidate selected by a majority of voters did not get elected, and Trump's pre-election claims notwithstanding, the election was fair and he won according to the rules. Resorting to violence is not warranted, but to use words like "Nazis" and "stormtroopers" would suggest some form of organization, some form of movement. I see neither. All I see are disgruntled voters behaving badly. (Besides, from the news I saw, most of them are engaging in candlelight protests or setting fire to piñatas. Hardly Krystallnacht stuff).
|
|
|
Post by Prince Hal on Nov 10, 2016 9:13:44 GMT -5
So less than 24 hours after all of the doom and gloom over the stock market...the DOW is set to hit an all-time high today. LOL No doubt that the market is prone to the kinds of swings you're chortling about, Fomenter of War, but look beyond the headlines, and you'll see what has driven this particular surge you're referring to. It's due in large part to those two allies of the "forgotten men and women" of America whom the President-elect is championing: the banks, anticipating a jump in interest rates because of the increase in federal spending they're expecting and the pharmaceutical companies, which know that absent Hillary Clinton's stated opposition, is anticipating little to no restriction on price increases. The candidate who campaigned against Wall Street is doing just fine by them so far. "Trump, Incorporated: Draining Swamps with Napalm is Our Specialty"
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Nov 10, 2016 9:46:09 GMT -5
Being a woman, I am more scared by the greenlight he has given his supporters to be misogynists, racists, xenophobes, Islamophobes, homophobes, and ableist. Misogynists? Remind me, who has Hillary been married to for the last 30+ years? A serial philanderer whom several women have accused of sexual aggression, and clearly not a role model. However, Bill was not the one running this time around, it was Hillary. And neither Hillary nor Bill nor anyone on the Democratic ticket has uttered as foul and misogynistic comments as Trump has. I don't know how many, but they exist. So, should Clinton refuse Saudi money because of that country's stance on women's rights and homosexuals' rights? ... Yes! Yes, I believe she should! I also believe that the USA should severely curtail its involvement with Saudi Arabia, despite the drastic shift that would cause in the economic and political world. I would do so, come hail or high water or much higher gas prices! But Clinton won't. She's enough of a political animal not to refuse money, nor to antagonize a powerful ally like Saudi Arabia. Pity, really. But how does that reflect sexual orientation-related policies in the united States? Surely, if the "People in Saudi Arabia gives money to the Clinton Foundation so she's homophobic" argument is true, then she should be dead-set against gay marriage, and furthering a homophobic agenda? No, not at all. The only ones against gay marriage in this election are the Republicans. (Trump flip-flops constantly on the issue, but Pence couldn't make his position more clear). Therefore, even if the Clinton foundation accepted money from people living in a country with homophobic laws, her platform is absolutely not homophobic -unlike that of her opponents. Not that Republicans are de facto any of the terms listed above. Most people are actually very decent folks, whatever their denomination, creed or political opinion. But it is true that we got a lot of homophobic and misogynistic ideas thrown around by the Republican candidates and their team in 2016 and that these ideas, being voiced by leaders, get more traction than they deserve.
|
|
Confessor
CCF Mod Squad
Not Bucky O'Hare!
Posts: 10,083
|
Post by Confessor on Nov 10, 2016 9:48:12 GMT -5
Just an in-thread reminder to watch the cursing, folks. We are meant to be a family friendly board and even mild curse words like s**t should be asterisked out or avoided entirely. Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by The Captain on Nov 10, 2016 10:29:02 GMT -5
Excellent point Warmonger. If this was reversed and these riots were instigated by Trump supporters upon losing the election, this thread would be filled with talk about Nazis and Stormtroopers etc. instead I just hear the crickets Actually, there is a big difference: Trump himself said he might not recognize the result if he lost. He said people with the second amendment on their mind could do something if Clinton was elected. People like Joe Walsh said he'd grab his musket and called for civil disobedience in case Trump lost. That came from above, not from the rank and file. If Trump had lost and riots had erupted, it would have been perfectly sensible to blame the campaign leaders. It would have been perfectly sensible to assume the protesters were part of a movement refusing to accept the result. The reverse is not true. Neither Clinton nor any prominent Democrat suggested to break out the guns in case of a defeat. Hence the lack of a loud outcry. People are protesting because they lost an election? Yeah, they're sore losers. Even if the candidate selected by a majority of voters did not get elected, and Trump's pre-election claims notwithstanding, the election was fair and he won according to the rules. Resorting to violence is not warranted, but to use words like "Nazis" and "stormtroopers" would suggest some form of organization, some form of movement. I see neither. All I see are disgruntled voters behaving badly. I call Bovine Scatology on this. If Trump supporters were burning Hillary in effigy, beating Hillary-resembling pinatas, burning trash on highways, throwing rocks and fireworks and Molotov cocktails, or exhibiting any of the other behaviors that CNN has reported, the outrage over it would be deafening because they are treasonous, racist, sexist Nazis who just couldn't accept a woman in the White House. But because it is anti-Trump, it's just a protest by some sore losers who have no agenda or biases whatsoever. They're given a pass, avoiding any real criticism, because it's understandable to be outraged to the point of violence since Trump won. I mean, he's a horrible person, as are all those who voted for him, so these types of actions are justified, right?
|
|
Confessor
CCF Mod Squad
Not Bucky O'Hare!
Posts: 10,083
|
Post by Confessor on Nov 10, 2016 10:49:37 GMT -5
Actually, there is a big difference: Trump himself said he might not recognize the result if he lost. He said people with the second amendment on their mind could do something if Clinton was elected. People like Joe Walsh said he'd grab his musket and called for civil disobedience in case Trump lost. That came from above, not from the rank and file. If Trump had lost and riots had erupted, it would have been perfectly sensible to blame the campaign leaders. It would have been perfectly sensible to assume the protesters were part of a movement refusing to accept the result. The reverse is not true. Neither Clinton nor any prominent Democrat suggested to break out the guns in case of a defeat. Hence the lack of a loud outcry. People are protesting because they lost an election? Yeah, they're sore losers. Even if the candidate selected by a majority of voters did not get elected, and Trump's pre-election claims notwithstanding, the election was fair and he won according to the rules. Resorting to violence is not warranted, but to use words like "Nazis" and "stormtroopers" would suggest some form of organization, some form of movement. I see neither. All I see are disgruntled voters behaving badly. I call Bovine Scatology on this. If Trump supporters were burning Hillary in effigy, beating Hillary-resembling pinatas, burning trash on highways, throwing rocks and fireworks and Molotov cocktails, or exhibiting any of the other behaviors that CNN has reported, the outrage over it would be deafening because they are treasonous, racist, sexist Nazis who just couldn't accept a woman in the White House. But because it is anti-Trump, it's just a protest by some sore losers who have no agenda or biases whatsoever. They're given a pass, avoiding any real criticism, because it's understandable to be outraged to the point of violence since Trump won. I mean, he's a horrible person, as are all those who voted for him, so these types of actions are justified, right? On a related note, something that I've noticed a fair bit of recently, is the rise of the foot-stamping, crybaby, political sore losers after any big political event. I first noticed them in the 2015 General Election here in the UK, where there were anti-Conservative/anti-austerity marches that turned into ugly clashes. Then again, after Brexit, those on the remain side acted appallingly towards those who voted leave, while going on marches and setting up online petitions to re-hold the referendum because they didn't get the result they wanted. Here again, we see it happening in the U.S., with anti-Trump protests and violence. What is wrong with these people? I mean, I get that they're dissapointed that their side lost, but that's life, I'm afraid ...that's democracy. Suck it up, buttercup! I was gutted when the Labour party got such a kicking at the 2015 election and I'm gutted/worried now that Trump is the new American President. But you just have to pick yourself up, dust yourself off and accept that the majority of people within the current voting system got the government that they wanted, no matter how slim the majority was. That's how democracy works. It's not perfect and it's certainly not going to please everyone all of the time, but the alternative to that democracy is a whole lot scarier. I think these people who are out in the streets, wringing their hands, protesting and rioting, should grow up a little bit and stop acting like spoilt, overly-entitled brats. The time for mobilising and getting out to do something proactive about the election result was, you know, before the election, not after!
|
|
|
Post by Prince Hal on Nov 10, 2016 10:55:12 GMT -5
And the congratulations pour in. Reassuring.
|
|
|
Post by wildfire2099 on Nov 10, 2016 11:00:04 GMT -5
According to the Scientific American, Trump has picked Myron Ebell as a potential head for the EPA. Ebell is climate change denier, naturally. A loud one, too. That's just the kind of terrible decision I was fearing. Oddly enough, the EPA is a creation of the Republican party. Under Nixon, of all people! And Forrest Lucas, oil baron, foe of animal rights and is a candidate for Secretary of the Interior (National Parks, offshore oil drilling, fracking, wildlife refuges, endangered species and the like), part of Trump's goal of having a more business-friendly cabinet. Can't wait! Is there some reason 'business friendly' has to equal 'short sighted and destructive'? Why not offer incentives for the things we do what to happen? I think Fracking is really, really scary, and I'm afraid it's going to take LA becoming an island or some similar catastrophe for people to realize it
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Nov 10, 2016 11:04:24 GMT -5
Actually, there is a big difference: Trump himself said he might not recognize the result if he lost. He said people with the second amendment on their mind could do something if Clinton was elected. People like Joe Walsh said he'd grab his musket and called for civil disobedience in case Trump lost. That came from above, not from the rank and file. If Trump had lost and riots had erupted, it would have been perfectly sensible to blame the campaign leaders. It would have been perfectly sensible to assume the protesters were part of a movement refusing to accept the result. The reverse is not true. Neither Clinton nor any prominent Democrat suggested to break out the guns in case of a defeat. Hence the lack of a loud outcry. People are protesting because they lost an election? Yeah, they're sore losers. Even if the candidate selected by a majority of voters did not get elected, and Trump's pre-election claims notwithstanding, the election was fair and he won according to the rules. Resorting to violence is not warranted, but to use words like "Nazis" and "stormtroopers" would suggest some form of organization, some form of movement. I see neither. All I see are disgruntled voters behaving badly. I call Bovine Scatology on this. If Trump supporters were burning Hillary in effigy, beating Hillary-resembling pinatas, burning trash on highways, throwing rocks and fireworks and Molotov cocktails, or exhibiting any of the other behaviors that CNN has reported, the outrage over it would be deafening because they are treasonous, racist, sexist Nazis who just couldn't accept a woman in the White House. But because it is anti-Trump, it's just a protest by some sore losers who have no agenda or biases whatsoever. They're given a pass, avoiding any real criticism, because it's understandable to be outraged to the point of violence since Trump won. I mean, he's a horrible person, as are all those who voted for him, so these types of actions are justified, right? Er... no? I did say that violence was not warranted. Naturally I strongly condemn violence (and definitely the use of any Molotov cocktail). But what I see on CNN right now is mostly angry people yelling and setting fire to piñatas. I expect such reactions and protests after every election, and definitely after one as polarizing as this one has been. Had Trump supporters done the same I would have gleefully called them sore losers. I would have said that no matter how hurt they feel, the election was fair. Just what I say above about the current protestors, in fact.
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Nov 10, 2016 11:13:06 GMT -5
Much like there was protesting after Obama was elected. America was born in protest. It is enshrined in the First Amendment. Violence is wrong. Non-violent protest is the American way.
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Nov 10, 2016 11:13:19 GMT -5
The time for mobilising and getting out to do something proactive about the election result was, you know, before the election, not after! QFT! No amount of post facto hand wringing is worth a minute of pre-electoral activism.
|
|
|
Post by Prince Hal on Nov 10, 2016 11:14:23 GMT -5
I love the oft repeated line that "Trump will surround himself with good people." Usually that's followed or preceded by "He's a good businessman." Of course we know that latter stement is laughable. If you didn't think the first staement was, all you have to do is check out the crowd who are reportedly leading candidates for his cabinet: Talk about your usual suspects: Christie and Giuliani of course, but then there's Sam Brownback, Rick Perry, John Bolton, Reince Priebus, Jeff Sessions, Pam Bondi, Sarah Palin... It's like the cast of one of those 70s disaster movies: has-beens, wannabes, flashes in the pan, hangers-on and bad actors. Except this disaster will be real. Curious: are there any others who would not be surprised that for one reason or another, Trump will not complete his term?
|
|