News 2016 U.S. Presidential election - the highs and lows

Last edited:
The greatest short term danger, it strikes me, is to immigrants in this country. And we're going to have to figure out ways to protect very vulnerable people from harm. But the longest-term impact—the thing that will have turned out to have been the biggest deal over the next several thousand years—is what it means for the rate at which the planet warms.

Donald Trump is a disaster for the earth on every single level
 
This is just plain silly. If you can't differentiate between these individuals and their policies, then no wonder we're in the pickle we're in.
Bill Clinton signed DOMA and DADT into law. He also signed a racist crime bill into law, putting more Black and Brown people behind bars (guess who can't vote in elections?), gutted welfare and did nothing during the Rwandan genocide. Oh, and goodbye Glass-Steagall Act.
 
Last edited:
And let's not forget who gave Donald Trump the idea to run for president in the first place.
 
Yes, and I'll save you the trouble of quoting the part of the article that you think I didn't read.

Not just that.

The Salon article, and what you take from that. It's actually in direct contradiction to the WP article
 
Not just that.

The Salon article, and what you take from that. It's actually in direct contradiction to the WP article
Okay.

Still think Clinton was a good president for marginalized and working-class people?
 
Motivation is only meaningful to the extent that it allows someone to learn from their mistakes, and to not repeat them in the future.

A cop who shoots an unarmed black man because a heightened sense of fear engendered by a racist society caused him to imagine a gun where there was none may feel deep remorse, which might lead him to re-examine his assumptions and worldview and not repeat his mistake.

A cop who shoots an unarmed black man because he's angry that the man "disrespected" him by not obeying orders quickly enough is highly unlikely to feel remorse, and will continue victimizing people over whom he has power.

However, if the first cop feels no remorse, if he instead continues to justify the rightness of his decision to himself, he's going to continue to be as much of a danger as the second cop.

The victims themselves will be dead either way; their killers' motivations are meaningless to them.

Very well said. I think people are very definitely capable of learning from their mistakes. I have to hope that for the sake of my own stability.

Yes, that's when neoliberalism gained prominence in the United States. H.W., Clinton, W. and Obama all continued the same neoliberal policies. Trump will, too. Hillary Clinton would have.

Good grief. Spang, I love hearing from you, you're a smart guy, but honestly, what is this even supposed to mean?

If you think Ronald Reagan's policies were anything resembling neoliberalism, I'm really not sure there's anything else to say to you on the subject, because you will reject logic in favor of your own political narrative surrounding your own policy grudges. Of course there's no defending some of the things done under the Clinton and Obama administrations, but to group together the totality of the actions of someone like Obama with someone like Reagan is blatantly ahistorical and irresponsible.
 
My question is: why would you ever, in a million years, vote for someone who you knew had absolutely no chance of winning?

One reason I voted for him was because if he reached 5% of the popular vote, the party would qualify for minor party status and all the good things that come from that. I was thinking of 2020 and beyond. And even if I hadn't voted for him, I would not have voted from Trump or Clinton. Couldn't stomach either one. And that is a common view among Johnson supporters.

Some here have said they wouldn't vote Johnson because they don't believe in his views. Fine. I wouldn't expect them to vote for him then. So why do the Hillary supporters think we in Johnson's camp owe them our vote when we don't agree with her?

By the way, Stein was more likely to pull voters from Hillary and Johnson more likely to pull voters from Trump. So quit crying. My vote didn't lose the election for Hillary. Far from it, in fact. My state always goes blue, even if it means people vote from the grave to make sure of it.

People have every right to be upset their candidate lost, but they don't have a right to command how the rest of us should have voted.
 
Last edited:
I agree with much Spang has brought up, concerning Trump himself, that is..
it's never been Trump that scared me, and much less now. His cult following, and now the facist regime he's filling his cabinet with that is so damning. trump is nothing but a big fat head with a silver spoon stuck up his butt.
Here we now have a very right wing republican senate and house, with a president who's---who knows? i don't believe he'll ever develop any core beliefs. He's done nothing but rant on whatever catches his interest at the moment. He's already looking into keeping much of what Obamacare created.

Why are people screaming for his impeachment? Now that the votes over, trump is our best defense against a total takeover with Pence as successor.

this past year has done so much to destroy America. Lies, ineptitude, name calling, --worse than any of the stupid 'reality' shows could be.
Now many of the anti racist/homophobic/anti immigrant stories are being called out as hoaxes. How deplorable is that? Appartently much of the violence at protests has in fact been staged.

not only hasn't anything changed since Gore lost but we're allowing the same smear tactics that ran this election to continue.

What was it about Sanders we liked, but didn't like enough to keep alive?
 
Okay.

Still think Clinton was a good president for marginalized and working-class people?

Yes:

President Clinton presided over one of the most impressive economic turnarounds in modern history. By the end of his term, 22.7 million new jobs had been created, unemployment dropped to a 30-year low, and gross domestic product grew by 35 percent overall through the longest period of sustained growth in U.S. history.

What’s more, the growth was broadly shared and unemployment plummeted across the board, including those groups for whom the economy never worked very well. Average hourly wages increased by 6 percent after accounting for inflation, and median household income grew by 14 percent, the highest increase for a two-term president. The median income of African American families increased by a third and Hispanic families saw their median incomes rise by almost $7,000. Poverty rates dropped to near record lows. And of course the federal budget went from enormous deficits to enormous surpluses, with the federal government on track to becoming effectively debt free by 2009—for the first time since Andrew Jackson was president.
Power of Progressive Economics: The Clinton Years – Center for American Progress

Shapiro then looks at income growth by age for the past five presidents and finds that the “…largest average annual gains in median household income occurred during the Clinton and Reagan administrations, with a clear edge to Clinton.” As figure 2 illustrates, young people in the Reagan and Clinton years saw their incomes grow right into middle age.
Household income growth under four American presidents | Brookings Institution

There are many things I don't like about Bill, but there is no question that middle and lower income people did much better during his administration than the one preceding and following him.

I don't even have to rely on reporting about it; I was a working adult, and remember quite clearly how different it was.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Amy SF
Good grief. Spang, I love hearing from you, you're a smart guy, but honestly, what is this even supposed to mean?

If you think Ronald Reagan's policies were anything resembling neoliberalism, I'm really not sure there's anything else to say to you on the subject, because you will reject logic in favor of your own political narrative surrounding your own policy grudges. Of course there's no defending some of the things done under the Clinton and Obama administrations, but to group together the totality of the actions of someone like Obama with someone like Reagan is blatantly ahistorical and irresponsible.
Neoliberalism is a type of economic policy that both the Republicans and Democrats have embraced since Ronald Reagan first took office.
 
One reason I voted for him was because if he reached 5% of the popular vote, the party would qualify for minor party status and all the good things that come from that. I was thinking of 2020 and beyond. And even if I hadn't voted for him, I would not have voted from Trump or Clinton. Couldn't stomach either one. And that is a common view among Johnson supporters.

So you couldn't stomach the option that would at least attempt to prevent minorities from getting murdered in the streets overtime because of some fringe hope that the political system might be overhauled just enough to maybe help a party with already completely ridiculous beliefs elect a candidate who doesn't even follow those beliefs, somehow all within the next four years. Neato. I don't know how that's supposed to convince me you have anyone's best interests in mind other than your own.

The cold hard reality of it is that this country will statistically never have anything other than a two party system for more than a few terms. Even in times of political upset, and especially in the 21st century. You aren't thinking ahead, you're thinking unrealistically and backwards.

Some here have said they wouldn't vote Johnson because they don't believe in his views. Fine. I wouldn't expect them to vote for him then. So why do the Hillary supporters think we in Johnson's camp owe them our vote when we don't agree with her?

No one owes anyone anything. It just sucks for the people who are going to suffer from this that a sizeable chunk of the voting population decided to abandon the only realistic possibility it had to prevent domestic catastrophe and Fascistic empowerment in favor of what makes them personally feel warm and fuzzy inside.

By the way, Stein was more likely to pull voters from Hillary and Johnson more likely to pull voters from Trump. So quit crying.

You know, I was really starting to get used to the idea of being openly gay. Maybe I'd tell my friends soon. I might be able to even paint my nails or something. But this election has singlehandedly ensured I'm stuck in the closet for the next four years at least. So yeah, I'm gonna cry about it. I'm ******* allowed that. I'm going to be sad, and mad, and every shade in-between.

My vote didn't lose the election for Hillary. Far from it, in fact.

Cool.

My state always goes blue, even if it means people vote from the grave to make sure of it.

Haven't we proven time and time again that this type of voter fraud doesn't really exist? I mean, to hell with facts and statistics or whatever though.

People have every right to be upset their candidate lost, but they don't have a right to command how the rest of us should have voted.

Am I showing up to your house with a gun and demanding that you revoke your position? Are there tanks full of angry Hillary supporters storming your door expecting an apology? There really isn't any "commanding the rest of us" here. Just anger, and justifiable anger at that IMO.

ETA: It's also worth noting that I'm not upset Clinton lost. I'd have accepted anyone over the Screaming Cheeto and his band of merry conversion therapists. I'm upset because a Clinton victory was the only realistic path this country had to not royally ******* its most defenseless citizens over, and so many people chose to reject that because of their personal ethics (which count for ****) and, as demonstrated above, their misguided and unrealistic long-term agendas.

Why are people screaming for his impeachment? Now that the votes over, trump is our best defense against a total takeover with Pence as successor.

I have to be honest, I wouldn't want Captain KKKangaroo out of the way unless Pence was out of the way as well. Unfortunately, the odds of a twofer like that are very low. Although at this point I'd accept any blow to the hideous administration we're watching be blueprinted right in front of us.

Neoliberalism is a type of economic policy that both the Republicans and Democrats have embraced since Ronald Reagan first took office.

I was incorrect and confused about the context here. So often I hear "neoliberal" used as just a descriptor for the modern movement of liberalism, in the most general sense. I was wrong about that. Sorry.
 
Last edited: