Donald Trump Is Elected President

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/09/us/politics/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-president.html

by koolba • 10 years ago

791 1665 10 years ago

dang15• 10 years ago

We buried the previous thread on this because, at almost 2000 comments, it was pegging the server. If you'd like to read it, and don't intend to comment, you could help your fellow users by logging out first, so we can serve you the page from cache: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12907201.

If you do intend to comment, please take extra care to do so civilly and substantively, in the spirit of this site. Most people in the mammoth thread did do that (especially relative to what one might expect), so today we're a little more proud of the community and a little less proud of our software.

Retr0spectrum• 10 years ago

It was pegging my browser too!

zeusk• 10 years ago

I'm curious, why is that just two thousand comments would bog down the server? What kind of processing is done by the server to render a thread?

dang15• 10 years ago

Oh man—all kinds of stuff. The visible bits are an iceberg tip. And it all runs in a Racket process on a single core.

That mammoth thread at least tells us where the brick wall is: at about two 'who is hiring's.

scrollaway7• 10 years ago

The internet has been such a nasty place today and, similarly to the day of the Paris attacks, it's been really nice to find reasonably moderate discourse on HN.

As... curious as I personally find America's choices in presidency, I'm just as ashamed of some of my follower feeds on various social media. Seriously guys, don't demonize people, especially by association. Refusing to hear your political opponents out is a sure-fire way to lose.

md_15• 10 years ago

It's tough. I've been trying to find a pen pal who can give me some reasonable arguments for Donald Trump for the last few weeks, to no avail.

Not living in the US, I don't really meet people who support Donald Trump. I'm probably living in a bubble, which isn't a great feeling--but at the same time, it's hard to credit the democratic process when you can't understand the alternative view.

No doubt this is a symptom of polarization. Maybe this is the famed "filter bubble". In an ideal world one would imagine social media would help bridge that gap, but I'm unsure it has.

muad2• 10 years ago

Time to upgrade HN?

That is hardly the first thread to experience performance issues.

dang15• 10 years ago

That's not what we mostly hear from people, but yes we have some plans up our sleeve.

AndrewKemendo2• 10 years ago

Great work keeping things rolling.

ErikVandeWater• 10 years ago

This thread is substantially less civil than the previous, for whatever reason.

venomsnake4• 10 years ago

The people with troll-ish tendencies woke up?

pikzen2• 10 years ago

It pegged the server with... 2000 comments?

Does HN run on a raspberry Pi or something?

dang15• 10 years ago

There's a lot of processing going on when rendering HN threads. For logged-out users we can cache them, but for logged-in users everything's served from a single core running Arc in Racket.

paulddraper7• 10 years ago

So...now we have to start all over?

I know I sound like a complete d--k, but my laptop from 2012 has eight cores that each run over 3 billion cycles a second. How do < 2000 comments make your servers more than blink? I'm guessing you have more than one server?

I get frustrated by sites not accepting HN's "hug of death". An now HN can't even stand its own hug...

Anyway, thanks for getting things running again! You guys are awesome!

Artoemius2• 10 years ago

It's Trump's hug of death this time.

dang15• 10 years ago

We don't have more than one server and HN proper (not counting caches) runs on a single core.

Believe me, we hate slow software at least as much as you do and have put a lot of effort into addressing this. HN is a lot faster than it used to be on median load. It still falls short on excessive load. We'll get there!

oneeyedpigeon2• 10 years ago

Clearly, it depends on the architecture used. From what dang says, it seems like HN renders every single page view dynamically if you are logged in. I guess that has something to do with the voting mechanism; I would have thought that could be handled client-side instead.

Either way, it's not just down to the number of comments on a thread, as you imply, clearly the number of requests for that page plays a part. I'm guessing HN has been getting a huge amount of traffic, probably way more than your laptop could serve dynamic pages at.

mino• 10 years ago

I've enjoyed HN for years with great benefit, entirely for free, so thanks a million! I have great respect for you guys.

Said so... 2k comments, uncached render for logged in users and no pagination are a very low bar in 2016, especially for a YCombinator website.

edit: saw dang's comment below and wanted to make sure this doesn't come through as harsh :)

qb45• 10 years ago

It would be nice to have some indication when the asynchronous requests (votes, flags) fail.

For now I'm using dev tools.

zo13• 10 years ago

I'm very disappointed that the other thread was effectively buried. I kept looking on the first few pages and only clicked on this one by chance. Please spin up more resources? This is a major topic that will affect a huge number of people.

tehaugmenter• 10 years ago

I think the major load is gone now, here's the original: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12909752

shuntress• 10 years ago

What happened to the ~1300 comments?

shadowfacts• 10 years ago

Yeah, I saw the 13k comments on my phone and went to look at HN on my computer to find they've all disappeared.

martin-adams• 10 years ago

Looks like a different submission, and I wonder if it was the cause of the HN meltdown causing slowness and error pages.

jacobush• 10 years ago

New administration, new comments. :)

kj01a• 10 years ago

That was a different post. This link is to the New York time, the other is to the Washington Post.

qntty4• 10 years ago

old thread is here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12907201

mxfh• 10 years ago

they are with the WaPo article https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12907201

dang15• 10 years ago

Explained at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12911042 and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12910929. Sorry, I forgot I had 'delay' set on my profile or you would have seen the first of those instead of an empty thread.

VonGuard• 10 years ago

Can we setup a YCombinator in Europe? Canada? Somewhere other than the US?

Desustorm• 10 years ago

There are already quite a few similar companies, such as Entrepreneur First (https://www.joinef.com/)

ohstopitu• 10 years ago

I would totally support a YCombinator in Canada. (Obviously because I live in Canada)

gragas5• 10 years ago

I'll say this again:

Does this not prove that "diverse" liberalism isn't so diverse after all? Shouldn't a diverse group of people have seen this coming?

Or is liberalism actually systematically excluding people by labelling them as "racist" and "sexist", when in fact they're just fiscal and social conservatives?

CalChris17• 10 years ago

Don't blame your election of a demagogue on liberals. Take responsibility for that yourself. Own it.

gragas5• 10 years ago

Sure! I can proudly say I voted for Donald J Trump.

qntty4• 10 years ago

Diversity means including people in out-groups at the risk of alienating people in the in-group

yomly• 10 years ago

But one of the main "in-groups" of the Trump supporter base were the working class. In its current form "diversity" is nothing more than a weapon for classism.

We are completely fine understanding root causes and bias which may underlie racial or gender based observations, but conveniently turn a blind eye to well-studied drivers for phenomena like nativism.

A lot of the current form of diversity against the disenfranchised "in-group" amounts to "you're f'd for being poor and FU again for being unhappy about being poor".

TheGirondin9• 10 years ago

And right now working class, rural, and blue-collar Americans are in the left-wing out-group.

TulliusCicero8• 10 years ago

Does this not prove that "diverse" liberalism isn't so diverse after all? Shouldn't a diverse group of people have seen this coming?

Even people on the GOP side seemed to accept that Trump was going to lose, so I'd say 'no'. Sometimes the polls are wrong, sometimes you just get surprising results.

jules• 10 years ago

It didn't surprise me. You have to look through the reality distortion field of the media and established politicians, because that only represents the views of a tiny and intellectually very non-diverse group of people. Consider the mismatch between what the media was reporting, and the undeniable fact that Trump's rallies attracted a far greater number of people than Clinton's. You also can't rely on the polls when you have a candidate whose voters are underrepresented in those polls because they've never voted before. Many polls sampled people as if this was Obama instead of Clinton. It's was clear that the number previous non-voters who would actually go out to vote for Clinton would be lower than for Obama, whereas from Trump it's the opposite.

mc327• 10 years ago

Interestingly the Trump campaign was complaining about those polls and used that as a basis for their "rigged" claims. So I'd be curious how they produced their numbers internally that showed them ahead in tossup states.

mhurron2• 10 years ago

What does any of this mean?

Trump is labeled racist, sexist and misogynistic because of his words and actions. As are most people.

And lots of people saw a Trump presidency as a possibility, like, everyone paying attention to the fact that there was a Republican presidential runner, and that person was Trump.

gragas5• 10 years ago

I'd argue he's none of those things.

NumberCruncher• 10 years ago

> Trump is labeled racist, sexist and misogynistic because of his words and actions. As are most people.

The difference is that he does not pretend to be non-racist, non-sexist and not-misogynistic. A lot of people do.

[edit] I am not american, but somehow I can understand that he won the election. He is a honest hustler among a bunch of good liars. He won't stab you in the back. Maybe in the chest. But you will see it coming.

panzagl4• 10 years ago

He means that when rural white voters said that they think they're getting the short end of the stick when it comes to globalism, the Democrats blew them off as racists/ignorant/whatever. If the Democrat party was truly diverse this opinion would have been respected enough that it wouldn't be a surprise.

I think Sanders did a much better job of reaching that demographic, so I'd argue it was represented, but the Democrat party decided other priorities were more important by selecting Clinton.

fuqted4• 10 years ago

Hillary has been recorded to be racist herself. She also went from being pro civil union, no pro gay marriage to pro gay marriage - after the fact. Beyond that seems very weird. The lying about 'landing under sniper fire', her weird convulsion-like episodes and the fact that people are repeatedly fired from their jobs for talking about it.

Political donations are not supposed to be tax deductible and yet the Clinton Foundation carries on existence as a 501c3; double dipping so that a majority of her income as one of the most wealthy politicians comes in tax deductible while she pays not taxes on it.

In light of the blatant collusion and conflicts of interest released in her emails she should've been barred from running in the first place.

tdb78938• 10 years ago

I don't mean this disrespectfully but I don't really understand your argument. It looks like there is a decent chance Clinton will win the popular vote and it seems like more a failure of statistics rather than diversity to not have been able to see her loss in a couple key states in the polls.

lordCarbonFiber2• 10 years ago

What does "socially conservative" mean in 2016 if not racist/sexist/homophobic? One of Trump's slogans was "Take America back"; that's not particularly subtle as to from who.

The line gets a bit muddier on the fiscal side. If you're all for cutting programs that disproportionately support the poor and the poor happen to be disproportionately minority is there a racial component? That's worth being aware of.

vlunkr• 10 years ago

Pro-life, opposed to drug legalization, 2nd amendment rights, to name a few. Sorry, but if that's what you think of all conservatives you have as much prejudice as you think they do.

dvdcxn• 10 years ago

"Take America back"; that's not particularly subtle as to from who.

Depends on the context really. If that was Sander's slogan, you'd immediately assume whom you'd be taking it back was the bankers & corporation.

It's one of those generic slogan that reflects the views of the beholder. Some will assume it means from the immigrants, others the bureaucrats. It's definitely smarter than the damp squibs that Clinton came up with.

mc327• 10 years ago

It's a complex issue. Anecdotally some Obama voters broke for Trump, so it's hard to see them being 'racist'. But people like to discount the hurt in the working class and are happy to label them racist --just because this time they didn't agree with you.

My thoughts on some of it is that while the white working class (as well as the black working class) are happy to see America help others out, internationally, domestically; they are not happy to see America help others out but at the same time ignore them and belittle them. That can be in trade deals, acquiescing to illegal immigrants, talking down to them, etc. There are likely a sprinkling of racists on the Trump side, but I dare say, there is the same likelihood of reverse racists on the Clinton side ['white people are the devil'].

robin_reala• 10 years ago

I’d love to see a citation of the ‘same likelihood’.

TheGirondin9• 10 years ago

Rural or blue collar Americans only have one place in America where they are represented on the national level: the ballot box.

All of the shocked media people and here on HN live in a bubble and have no idea what it's like to live in a working class community.

spiderfarmer• 10 years ago

Instead of just starting another thread I would like to see the discussion broken down in separate topics. But I realize that's not what Hacker News is meant for.

TulliusCicero8• 10 years ago

Terrifying, but the dems kind of brought it on themselves. A nominee who was actually likeable probably would've wiped the floor with Trump.

CalChris17• 10 years ago

Again, Republicans did this. Don't blame this on Hillary (hint: she won the popular vote). Don't blame this on Democrats. Accept responsibility.

As for likable, Hillary has been the most admired woman in America, 14 years straight. Trump ran the most negative fact free campaign ever to overcome her likability.

jpitz• 10 years ago

Accepting responsibility, to me, means that the Dems do own part of this.

PeanutNore• 10 years ago

You keep repeating this. It doesn't seem to make sense to me. I voted for Clinton, and I'm a registered Democrat who voted for Sanders in the primary. I'm not sure what we're being asked to take responsibility for here. I feel that my party should take some responsibilty for nominating a candidate who could not prevail against such an unpopular and widely disliked opponent.

jackmodern2• 10 years ago

Disagree here completely, DNC rigged the primary for HRC and gave away the independent vote with it. This was a very forseeable albeit depressing outcome.

dhagz• 10 years ago

However, in light of the DNC email leaks, the Democrat Party's elite seemed to sandbag Bernie, who many believe (citing polls from before the primary) would have given Trump a run for his money. And honestly, this was the Democrats' election to lose, and they did nothing to win it. So I will blame them. I will blame them for going with a candidate that is firmly "establishment" when the general consensus among the public is that the "establishment" has overstayed their welcome. I will blame them for expecting the appeal of having "the first X president" to work the same as it did for Obama.

netfire• 10 years ago

This is just not true. Both Trump and Clinton had some of the most unfavorable ratings of a presidential candidate for a major party in recent history.

geofft5• 10 years ago

Yup. Remember Texts From Hillary? Back when we all thought she was cool and hip?

There was an orchestrated effort to portray Hillary as un-likeable and an out-of-touch elite. I remember this starting roughly with the Benghazi hearings, which is I think when it seemed like she was the likely Democratic candidate and politically worth attacking personally.

There was also an orchestrated phenomenon to portray many of the DNC backers of Hillary as unlikeable and an out-of-touch elite, which I think was quite legitimate, but rubbed off on the candidate herself.

(And, I suspect, there was an un-orchestrated phenomenon where Hillary happened to be less likeable than the very likeable Bernie. Which isn't to say that Hillary is un-likeable in any absolute sense.)

ohitsdom• 10 years ago

Hillary has been the most admired woman in America, 14 years straight

Take a poll on Michelle Obama vs Hillary.

mikeash16• 10 years ago

Most admired woman in America, winning that honor with a whopping 13% of respondents.

She got 60 million people to vote for her. It's not a surprise that some people liked her. The problem is that many people hated her. Winning that title doesn't disprove that in any way.

TulliusCicero8• 10 years ago

Why are you assuming I'm a Republican? I'm not registered with any party, and I voted for Hillary. But in the primary, I voted for (and donated to) Bernie. Sad that he lost.

weberc24• 10 years ago

The DNC did sabotage Sanders' nomination and (apparently) support Trump for the Republican nomination. Besides that, the American Left has been absolutely ruthless in dismissing and demonizing poor, white, and Christian people. I definitely think there is plenty of blame to go around.

rudolf09• 10 years ago

As for likable, Hillary has been the most admired woman in America, 14 years straight. Trump ran the most negative fact free campaign ever to overcome her likability.

I seem to recall a great amount of distaste to her, even coming from other Democrats (including Obama's and Biden's campaigns), in the 2008 election. Most liberals I knew disliked or even detested Hillary back then, and now detest her more now.

I could think of hundreds more American women who deserve the title "most admired".

SolaceQuantum3• 10 years ago

Now that the voices of the disenfranchised blue collar workers have been heard, what actually can be done to help them? I'm less worried about the accusations of racism, etc. because it appears to me a majority are voting because their livelihoods have been lost and, despite economics saying globalization will bring new jobs, they aren't showing up in the critical areas where they are needed.

So, what policies can be put in place specifically to help this demographic? I genuinely don't know.

happytrails3• 10 years ago

Those old jobs are never coming back.

imglorp2• 10 years ago

No, and it's going to get much worse when the coming automation waves hit.

We need a sociological solution. Perhaps base income?

giardini• 10 years ago

I'm not so sure about that.

Robots will not be immediately cost-effective for all production and it may be 30 years before they permeate manufacturing. Until then humans will serve.

I've complained on HN about the low quality of many goods (e.g., nail clippers) and about how the supply chain to US consumers today is no better than it was in my youth more than 50 years ago. Most of you were not yet around to know what the supply chain was like 50 years ago so please suspend your disbelief.

QC in some countries appears impervious to consumer feedback; they couldn't produce a decent set of pliers 20 years ago and they cannot today. They may never succeed due to their unique social and political histories. Lack of communication and competitive feedback in non-free markets inhibits quality. In contrast USA manufacturers 50 years ago and earlier produced very high quality goods (many still in use!).

I expect the USA to bring back production of high-quality goods and a more robust supply chain. Until someone invents a Star Trek replicator, I expect JIT inventory management to be discarded in many industries; it's primary benefit was bigger bonuses for MBAs.

No education I know of available today will prepare youth for the future they face. Once machine learning and AI become widely embedded in manufacturing and commerce, skills required will be beyond the ability of most. Meanwhile grades are falling and testing becoming more lenient.

Someday almost no one will have a job. We should plan accordingly.

Just for fun, see the movie "Idiocracy ":

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0387808/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1

Thread on IMDB discussing the relevance of "Idiocracy" to Trump's victory today:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0387808/board/nest/257141945?ref...

moultano3• 10 years ago

Dramatically increase the amount of housing in urban areas so more people can move there and away from the places without any industry left.

helthanatos3• 10 years ago

There's a reason cities vote the way they do... Cities are terrible places of hate and murder and disenfranchisement...

binaryorganic• 10 years ago

Unless you're in a flourishing coastal city (there are exceptions, sure), many cities in this country have huge housing surpluses.

SolaceQuantum3• 10 years ago

That is only going to help more wealthy people move to the cities and take more housing on their own firstly, especially because they will be advertising "new" apartments and thus ask for higher price points. There isn't a very large city without some kind of housing shortage right now. Hacker news seems predominantly upper-class but many articles complain about housing in SF/SV. It seems to me that if housing was reduced, it would just be more upperclass moving to SF/SV instead of the lowerclass. So I don't see how more housing would ultimately fix the issue. Maybe it would help, but fix?

lackbeard2• 10 years ago

This is the insanely simple and insanely correct answer.

micaksica11• 10 years ago

This will not help. You are supposing that the people who feel disenfranchised in the Rust Belt want to move to NYC where they can get cheap housing and work in the city. They don't want the China model of having a Foxconn that hires rural workers to work in the big city.

What these people want isn't fully rational; it's highly emotional. They want their 1950s-style old way of life back. They want their jobs in their towns that they grew up in, that they have lived in or raised families in, where they have their church and their community. They want to live in their IL farm town and work at the local union plant and make a living to pay for pensions and healthcare. It is not realistic in a globalized economy and will be less so in a fully domesticated one, but the math is not what matters here.

Urban areas in these places already have plenty of housing that nobody is in. See Detroit for example.

Qworg• 10 years ago

People _can't_ move away. A large portion of their net worth is tied up in their house. They don't have the cash they need to move. There's no way you can reduce prices of housing in urban areas to match what the empty suburbs are at already. Not to mention the psychological issues of telling people they won't have a lawn or a house any more.

antidaily2• 10 years ago

Working poor voting HRC: http://i.imgur.com/RAaGDnW.jpg

Dems across the board stayed home. And 9% of registered Dems voted for Trump.

moultano3• 10 years ago

That's a red herring. The white working poor voted overwhelmingly for Trump.

mason2402• 10 years ago

Oh boy, an online poll.

dopamean6• 10 years ago

This is the crux of why Trump's pandering to them was total bullshit. He can't do anything to help them because the jobs that left aren't coming back. In four years they will be in the same position they are now but they wont have a black man or a Democrat to blame for it and so they wont be quite as bitter about it.

jhanschoo• 10 years ago

Considering that so many of Trump's promises are infeasible, I'm wondering what Trump will actually do in office.

mc327• 10 years ago

I think this is a bit dismissive of the issue --and the thinking that sunk the Hillary's campaign.

In terms of trade, the US typically like to pay it forward --it lets trade partners have a slight advantage so long as it sees a net positive (see China) presumably Trump would ask for equal benefits.

So rather than asking is this good for the global economy his administration might instead ask, is this good for the US economy? While the answer to the questions often overlap, at times the current answer does not optimize of the US economy.

micahbright8• 10 years ago

It didn't help that while he was "bullshitting", Hillary was calling them deplorable. Empathy for the win.

tengbretson2• 10 years ago

Maybe these people would rather be lied to by a con artist than to be made the punchline of every joke by every liberal blogger, pundit and late night host on a daily basis.

This election taught us that one of the parties is peddling very divisive rhetoric, and it's not the one you may think it is.

LyndsySimon2• 10 years ago

In my experience, those people aren't looking to Trump to "fix" their problems. As you said, in many cases those jobs simply aren't coming back.

The difference is that Trump said "I'll do everything I can to put things back together" (while not making any specific promises), while Clinton said "You're sexist and deplorable if you vote for that guy".

Trump recognized that the problems existed. He was the first presidential candidate to do even that.

ahoy2• 10 years ago

The working poor voted for Hillary. Trump's support comes from households making $50,00 or greater.

hyperpape2• 10 years ago

While it is true that Clinton carried voters making less than $50,000 a year, Trump did well with them for a Republican. http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/11/08/us/elections/e...

_audakel6• 10 years ago

it seems to be more accurate clustering division around rural / cities than rich / poor

cmdrfred7• 10 years ago

Interesting that right around that number the Obamacare subsidies fade away and are replaced by fines. These are the people getting the short end of the stick in regards to the ACA.

taivare• 10 years ago

Not in Ohio, last night was revenge of the Reagan Democrats for NAFTA , and many of those voters are below $50,000 household.

morgante• 10 years ago

That statistic is heavily distorted by racial demographics.

ynniv• 10 years ago

Historically speaking, war is very effective at reducing unemployment. I'm not advocating it, but others will soon.

lmm• 10 years ago

Perhaps a revived CCC would be a more, ah, constructive approach?

galago• 10 years ago

It also seems to be following the same pattern as other industries in advanced economies in a that we're doing more with fewer employees.

programmarchy• 10 years ago

So is breaking windows.

mch8210• 10 years ago

And in increasing national debts.

MisterBastahrd2• 10 years ago

There's almost a 100% chance that the country will be at war by the time Trump's first term is up. It's going to be his only shot at a second term given that he won't be able to run on nonsensical rhetoric anymore.

cableshaft2• 10 years ago

Just re-institute gladiatorial combat. That seemed to work well for Rome for awhile.

adrr• 10 years ago

Problem is you can't help them, they are self destructive. You need to change their culture of "learned helplessness". Read the book Hillbilly Elegy for a good perspective.

lordnacho3• 10 years ago

Jobs that can't be exported are safe from movement. Hairdressing and cleaning for instance. That doesn't mean the person doing it can't be an immigrant, though, so perhaps by restricting immigration you reduce competition for it.

Jobs that compete with similar jobs in other countries can potentially benefit from trade barriers. Make foreign cars expensive and there will be substitution with local cars. Long term it's worth thinking about whether there's a dependency created on that tariff.

Higher minimum wage has been mentioned. In so far as demand from the firms is inelastic you improve the lot of the minimum wage workers. Question is whether it is. Moving from 7 to 12 sounds like a big jump, and will be very dependent on what part of the country it is.

All these things depend on econometric measurement whose results I haven't come across.

simonh3• 10 years ago

Make foreign cars expensive and there will be substitution with local cars.

This is quite true, but the problem is those cars will be a lot more expensive. That means a small number of people employed making the cars benefit, while the vastly larger number of people buying them lose out in higher costs. This never works out to the benefit of the country as a whole and low wage earners are the ones that lose out the most. For every car those workers make, they buy dozens of other goods which, if more expensive due to trade barriers, more than soak up any increased wages they might have.

Actually it's worse than that, because often many of those workers could have been gainfully employed is other industries. Only a small minority of our theoretical car workers would actually have been unemployed in a globalized world.

It's the same with Brexit. The vote was driven by working class people on low incomes, but the impact of inflation from the fall of the pound and further economic problems when we do actually leave the EU will predominantly fall on them. Middle class people like me have enough marginal income to absorb the hit. People on low income don't.

rahkiin• 10 years ago

Re higher minimum wage. (using real numbers here, for the Netherlands)

For a support job, I want to employ a uneducated person. Just answering calls and clicking some buttons. (Could also be a student, no need for any experience etc) Costs me maybe 10 euros per hour. Why a student? Is relatively cheap and it gets the job done nicely. Now, if the minimum wage would go to 14 or more, what would happen? Would I still employ this student for the same task? Maybe (probably?) not. Maybe I will instead get a 20 euro worker with an education that can not only do support but also some development and can bring knowledge into the company.

Saying that increasing minimum wage solves problems directly is, I think, wrong, because everything might shift.

discreditable• 10 years ago

Make foreign cars expensive and there will be substitution with local cars.

Many "foreign" cars are built in the US. Some even more so than the American brands. "The Toyota Camry is, apparently, the most American vehicle on sale in the U.S." http://fortune.com/2015/06/29/cars-made-in-america/

cortesoft3• 10 years ago

Sure, with fewer immigrants there is less competition for hairdresser jobs.... but there is also less demand for haircuts. Immigrants aren't just competition for jobs, they are also new customers.

eru33• 10 years ago

Jobs that compete with similar jobs in other countries can potentially benefit from trade barriers. Make foreign cars expensive and there will be substitution with local cars. Long term it's worth thinking about whether there's a dependency created on that tariff.

Alas, that strategy of forced import substitution didn't work for India or Brazil, did it? (Or other poor countries in the 20th century?)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Import_substitution_industrial...

mitchpron• 10 years ago

Education. It's what Obama was emphasizing his entire presidency. Those jobs are never coming back, and even more are going to be automated. The education gap between rich and poor (and white and minority) is getting larger because of hoodlum-fearing mothers who support segregated neighborhoods and schools. Plus the poor-parent schools stay poor and the rich-parent schools stay rich.

All of these factors together (which Democrats are actually interested in addressing) are growing an underclass of under-educated, unconnected people who can't make it in the world of the middle and upper class, so violence may become more frequent and jails will fill up. I doubt that the Trump administration and Congress have a plan that could come close to fixing this.

noobiemcfoob10• 10 years ago

Education helps the young, at least as our systems are built.

The people vocalizing their opinion by voting for Trump are beyond the age where education can be the key (old dogs and new tricks, etc.). There isn't a will to go to an educational program. There is a will to work and support yourself, but no work for them to do...

/because we can't get our shit together and fund infrastructure programs

//Not bitter.

mc327• 10 years ago

You know, I used to think the same way --education. But Europe, Germany in particular, stresses education, and that has not saved them from having overqualified people and too few jobs for them. It also minimizes the fact that not all people have the aptitude to learn and obtain higher degrees. It's a race to the top and in that race there will always be people below who feel left out. So education can only offer so much --not all.

To add, educated people without a job feel even worse than undereducated people who don't have a job because they believed education would insulate them from these issues when it might not.

gwbas1c2• 10 years ago

I believe in education, but it's not a panacea. No amount of education will help someone who just isn't cut out for a white-collar job.

smrtinsert• 10 years ago

That is not what that population was voting for. They want their previous jobs back.

AlexB138• 10 years ago

The education gap between rich and poor (and white and minority) is getting larger because of hoodlum-fearing mothers who support segregated neighborhoods and schools.

I see this brought up a lot, as if those mothers are pearl clutching villains. Are you of the impression that hoodlums don't exist, or that they're not more common in poor communities? Or do you just take exception with people wanting what is best for their own children, at the expense of others? What argument would you make to those mothers that would convince them it is in their, or their children's, best interest to not seclude themselves away from poorer populations?

Just to make it a bit clearer, this smacks of the exact same kind of thinking that was just dealt a blow in the election. Selfishness is human nature, and shaming people over it might make them quiet, but it won't make them agree with you.

I'm far from a Trump supporter, but this kind of constant holier-than-thou thinking has to end or there will never be any semblance of unity in this country.

vkou8• 10 years ago

Oversaturation through education isn't even the solution. We're looking at a future with not enough jobs.

Cutting the working week to 30 hours, on the other hand...

danielweber• 10 years ago

Raise my taxes to increase the EITC on low-wage workers.

belorn4• 10 years ago

I can think of several things, from cultural long term changes, rhetoric and acknowledge of human struggle, to smaller changes on the local level.

We could start by not calling them privileged, demeaning them in their struggle. Acknowledging peoples struggle in life is often the first step in helping a demographic, be that women, black, white, immigrant, American born, or what have you.

As cultural changes, one would be to lower the harm from being unemployed. For men, too much of social value and social opportunity is tied to being employed and having a high earning potential.

woodchuck647• 10 years ago

We could start by not calling them privileged, demeaning them in their struggle.

We don't call them privileged. Rather, they hear the insults and put-downs they want to hear by tuning in to customized news and propaganda that confirm their deepest insecurities.

As cultural changes, one would be to lower the harm from being unemployed. For men, too much of social value and social opportunity is tied to being employed and having a high earning potential.

Re-engineering the social brain so that status doesn't matter? Wow. I doubt you'd have anything like homo sapiens after that.

SolaceQuantum3• 10 years ago

I don't know about this one. I'm able-bodied and have 0 problems with being called privileged for being able bodied. I can hear well, I can see fine, I don't need any machines or devices to help me move around. In this respect I'm very privileged. I don't feel like I'm being demeaned by acknowledging this. It is actually to me acknowledging that other people struggle in ways that I do not.

Similarly, I struggle to see why accusations of white privilege are terrible. I don't believe that because someone is white they can't suffer. I believe the statement is because someone is white they don't have to go through or experience certain things.

Like I don't have to experience the struggle of taking public transport as a person in a wheelchair, because I don't need a wheelchair, does not mean I don't have my own problems. I just don't have the specific problems of someone who has a mobility impairment.

I don't see how acknowledging this is demeaning. It's just looking at reality. White people can struggle, just not with race. Able bodied people can struggle, just not with being disabled. Is that demeaning to white or able bodied people to recognize this? I genuinely don't know.

mch8210• 10 years ago

As a community we need to create more tools like WordPress that decentralize wealth creation and create jobs. We need to create fewer tools like Medium that centralize wealth creation and eliminate jobs.

jmkni• 10 years ago

When the only tool you have is a hammer

inimino5• 10 years ago

I appreciate your passion for decentralization, but these issues go a bit beyond what kinds of software we write. The issues this election raised aren't going to be solved by writing code.

Asdfbla2• 10 years ago

I think it's an interesting issue because Trump pretty much stands for nothing that could help those people. Maybe the nth time is a charm and the incoming tax breaks for the wealthy will eventually trickle down, but I doubt it.

venomsnake4• 10 years ago

Solar, wind, repairing of roads and bridges and building and tightening of low skill immigration.

There is a load of blue collar work that can (and urgently needs to) be done in USA. Building a single wind turbine are dollars for R&D, truckers, manufacturers, maintainers, people that install and pour concrete, electricians, miners and so on ...

And also maintaining and repairing the old stuff. The North Dakota oil boom showed that if there is work to be done, blue collar's willingness to do it is there.

Is is mostly a matter of will.

blocktuw2• 10 years ago

I thought we would get an infrastructure boom from Obama during the Great Recession. We went through 2 huge rounds of spending that mostly went to "shovel ready" projects. From my understanding, today's construction budgets are tied up in capital costs like heavy machinery and materials. There isn't much need for labor anymore with automation and specialized equipment.

There is also the issue of planning out infrastructure improvements. With environmental reviews that can take decades and lawsuits that occur after that, it is extremely difficult to pull the same type of "New Deal" programs that happened during the 1930s.

My guess is for all the spending, very few people would end up employed. Is the goal employment at any cost, or providing people without jobs welfare?

stefs2• 10 years ago

reddit user TPKM's comment on the sanders-would-have-won-thread:

"Support for Trump, much like Brexit, was based upon an extremely widespread feeling that average people are not getting their fair share of the benefits of globalisation. This is neither a specifically Democrat or Republican problem, and people have been saying it one way or another for years.

It was also the foundation of Sanders' campaign. The difference is that Sanders blamed deregulation and big corporate bonuses while Trump blamed immigration and open borders. I'm sure that there are elements of truth to both of these positions."

i'm sceptical that trump, as a big corp owner, will do much to regulate and reign big corps in; if that's really the case we'll now see if curbing immigration is an actual solution to the problem.

(personally, i doubt it - it has failed in other countries already)

so, let trump do what he promised and see how it works out. if it doesn't, try the other method next. for me it's easy to say because i'm not an u.s. citizen and have no desire to move there (i think my country will be in the same situation in a couple of weeks though); it's not like it wouldn't affect me, but i can't change it anyway.

micaksica11• 10 years ago

curbing immigration is an actual solution to the problem.

Curbing immigration won't be a solution to the problem; it's just a highly visible one. Each immigrant that is looking for a job in the US is taking one away from the supply for an American. That is how the Trumpistas see things.

Economically, sure, that's true. The immigrants take jobs from the labor supply. What people don't see is that aside from ones on skilled visa programs is that these jobs are either 1. underpaid by minimum wage or 2. not jobs that these people actually want anyway, so at worse you will see a lot of inflation, or a lot of open job positions. It doesn't make sense, but it won't really make sense.

cortesoft3• 10 years ago

The reason people don't feel they are getting the benefits of globalization is because the benefits are not as direct as the costs. When prices for goods are lower, it is not obvious to the average person that this is because of globalization. When your factory job is shipped overseas, the cost is readily apparent. No one makes the connection between the lower costs for things and globalization.

hguant• 10 years ago

while Trump blamed immigration and open borders

He also blamed the tax code, claiming many times to have taken advantage of it, and boasting of paying insanely low taxes on his businesses. This was seen as horrible by a lot of the left in this country - proof that "he doesn't want to shoulder his fair share of the burden"- but served as evidence to what a lot of middle America has suspected for years, that the tax increases Democrats proposed to pay for welfare programs weren't effecting the rich and were being paid for by the middle class. (Yes, this is a simplification of the issue.) Trump's 'I broke it and I know how to fix it' approach to the tax code the reason a lot of people who don't trust corporations voted for a tycoon.

jernfrost7• 10 years ago

You can do what the democrats have talked about, which we have successfully done in Nordic countries which is to spend a lot of money on re-educating the workforce and making sure those at the bottom get decent skills.

I grew up in a rustbelt like industrial town in Norway. We has shipyards, glass factory, paper mill, textile industry, lock systems etc. Almost all of it got closed down and moved overseas as I grew up.

But we never ended up in the deep pit blue collar America ended up in, because government took a very active stance early to fight this with active policies. In towns where factories died, they moved public sector jobs from the capital.

People got a lot of retraining for new jobs. There is a strong system for vocational training in technical jobs like Germany so people could get skills for more advance jobs which was easier to keep when competing against asian industrial giants.

Our government offers free university education, so even less well off blue collar families could send their kids to good schools. And when economic times got harder it never hit blue collar works as hard as in America because we have free universal health care, heavily subsidized childcare, good pensions for everybody.

Basically the welfare system we built up saved our blue collar workers. Yet Americans pretend that there is no solution to this problem except attacking minorities, Mexico, China etc.

It is rich people like Trump and their agenda, which has made sure that blue collar workers in America have felt the influence of globalization harder than many other blue collar workers in the west.

neves3• 10 years ago

You can't compare Norway, a high educated small country full of petromoney with the rest of the world. The recipe can't be reproduced.

Confusion• 10 years ago

The Nordic countries have as much problems with right-wing populists as any other country. Not having a job is not the problem. Or at least: having a job does not stop them from voting for right-wing populists.

IMTDb2• 10 years ago

USA does not have an oil fund that amounts do $150k per capita to pay for "free everything" (university education, universal health care, childcare) and good pensions for everybody. Norway generates more revenue with oil than the entires US of A, for 5 million people, and is third worldwide exporter for Natural Gas just behind Qatar and Russia, again with only 5 million people to serve (less than the population of New York)

The policies you enjoy are paid for by those revenue, and are not applicable to "regular" countries.

I admit tho that your politician did a good job at ensuring that those revenue are used for the good of the general population and are managed with the future in mind.

sabarn012• 10 years ago

We just don't have a system like that. I grew up in Appalachia the county next to mine has yet to get cell phones or the internet. There is no viable economic activity their and everyone who could has left. Those that stay cling to the idea that coal will create jobs again.

We don't even have a basic agreement on how and what kids should be taught, and since we don't have public healthcare or social insurance for all its a big risk to move in order to search for better economic activity.

TulliusCicero8• 10 years ago

You can do what the democrats have talked about, which we have successfully done in Nordic countries which is to spend a lot of money on re-educating the workforce and making sure those at the bottom get decent skills.

One of the issues with this is that while yes, you can get the people to become more skilled/educated, ultimately the jobs that take advantage of that skills and education are in cities, not in small towns or rural areas where so many of these people currently live. And that's probably not gonna change.

Now, you could say, "well that's fine, we can give them moving stipends or something" but a lot of people are reluctant to leave what they've known as homes for so long. Such a strategy essentially puts these areas into hospice mode. That's an uncomfortable thought for probably most Americans.

And moving public sector jobs, while it might work, is probably politically untenable in America; the areas that are dying are the same ones that are generally hostile to government.

quizzas• 10 years ago

The issues of worker dissatisfaction in the U.S. is very similar to the ones in China, which was ironically built on economic equality.China, like Sweden and Norway, is ethnically homogeneous, but unlike Scandinavia its population is quite large. The larger the population, the more difficult it is to administer equal access to economic prosperity. China's revenues are technically built on capitalist models to maximize productivity, and it uses socialist ideals to do what it can with wealth redistribution, and yet is failing miserably. Socialism falls apart when the population far exceeds its ability to manage monetary policy. The U.S. is in a similar quandary without the socialist infrastructure; if China cannot do it, what are the chances the U.S. can?

The U.S. must innovate a different approach built to scale and support a population of 1 billion people. It's like management 101: managing a workforce of 20 to prosperity is much different than managing a workforce of 10,000.

m_fayer• 10 years ago

This is all right on, but I would add one important point. Which is that some people cannot be retrained. It's the rare fifty year old who can adapt to a whole new field, learn all the theory and practice all the application, and then successfully compete against people half his age to land those entry-level jobs.

If our economic system puts people in such a position through no fault of their own and they cannot escape it despite their best efforts, they need to be taken care of, for life if need be.

phkahler2• 10 years ago

> spend a lot of money on re-educating the workforce and making sure those at the bottom get decent skills.

It is the height of snobbery to move the lesser skilled jobs out of the country and tell everyone they need to be smarter. There will always be a distribution of skills and it is not for the well educated to say "you just need to be like us". All the US needs to do is stop signing 900 page "free trade" agreements and start adjusting import taxes to bring manufacturing back. Call it what you will, but taking care of your own first is not a bad thing.

brightball• 10 years ago

I honestly have always been a pro "total free trade" with even the notion of protective tariffs being totally dismiss-able...but I think it's time to look at things with more of a nuanced approach.

When it comes to jobs, there is significant value provided to society as a whole from jobs that do not require a high degree of workforce re-education. Sometimes, people need a job that they can comfortably walk into and walk out of while they are between jobs. Walmart and McDonald's are the places providing that type of think because jobs that could be done cheaper elsewhere while importing the product were shipped off.

What we are seeing is that by offloading "no training" jobs to other cheaper countries and retaining "heavy education" jobs here in the US we're creating an additional cost to work that now REQUIRES paying for school, investing time in learning a skill and then hoping the market for that skill remains viable so you don't have to then re-invest in a new skill later on in life.

It makes me sincerely wonder if certain tariffs are more justified just to protect that type of work because it seems that the cost of not having it available is far higher than most people have accounted for. I live in the south east, an area that was highly dependent on the textile economy before it went belly up with the removal of protective tariffs. The effect was fairly devastating and it took many years to recover. Some areas never did while others flourished.

Just makes me want to understand all the factors more.

shoover• 10 years ago

Does your system contain costs on these benefits better than the US, or do you have the inflation and pay it with tax increases? In the US all the benefits you mentioned have painful inflation. How does the government keep up with the costs?

jimbokun6• 10 years ago

"Our government offers free university education, so even less well off blue collar families could send their kids to good schools."

Here in the US, we actually have a decent Community College system which, while not free, tend to be very reasonably priced. Obama proposed leveraging this system as a low cost option for people who don't want to run up massive education debt.

mars4rp3• 10 years ago

The problem is we are thinking about it the wrong way, with all this advances in technologies, who said everyone should work? everyone in the society should benefit from advancement in technology not only %0.001 of population.

why Zuckerberg should have this many billions, did he contributed 1,000,000 times more than a 1000th Facebook employee to the society?

problem is with Tax system and how US spends it's budget. money comes out of people's pocket and goes to corporations bank accounts.

for example with only $16B we can give shelter to all the homeless in this country. $16B is peanut compare to federal budget. it is a shame to have half a million homeless in the richest country in the word.

lkrubner• 10 years ago

I can't find it on Google, but there was a famous political quote around the 1988 election: "Every time a Democrat mentions retraining, they lose another 100,000 votes."

The USA lost 2 million industrial jobs during the 1980s. It was, at the time, the worst decade for deindustrialization. The Democrats felt the answer was retraining. The Republican reply amounted to the assertion that the USA needed a strong dollar.

And the Republicans won re-election in 1988.

From this, the Democrats learned that they would be punished for mentioning retraining. So it lost ground as an idea in USA politics.

htns• 10 years ago

I would not consider the Nordic re-education system successful. Cynically speaking, it's designed to strike the unemployed from official counts, and the unemployment rate still ends up being higher than in the US. (Sweden 7.8%, US 4.9%)

daveheq• 10 years ago

Trump is for cutting taxes and spending, so how would he re-educate the workforce and make sure they get decent skills? His party is the same, they don't want to help anybody except the rich and profitable corporations who fund their campaigns, and want you to just pull yourself up by your bootstraps and work harder.

The Republicans were part of Congress' gleeful global corporate sell-out, and support international corporations getting more tax cuts and handing out jobs to the cheapest people in other countries even more than the Democrats do; the only things both parties can agree on are more war and more money to the rich and corporations at the expense of the worker.

norea-armozel2• 10 years ago

Well first, the DNC needs to stop sucking up to Wall Street and Silicon Valley elites. They should've gone with Sanders and stop tipping the scales for the Clintonistas just because they got connections with the elites. Hillary had her shot in 2008 and that should've been that. So they need to pull left...HARD. No more limousine liberalism.

As for the RNC, they really really really really need to stop propping up the evangelical vote. Mike Pence and his ilk need to stop forcing their faith onto the rest of us (who still support things like gay marriage) have decided on a decade ago. Gay marriage is here to stay. Us "trannies" are gonna use the restroom that best fits our gender identity (man, woman, neutral, whatever). And the RNC really needs to stand by the promise of standing up for the Rust Belt workers. It doesn't have to be some protectionist claptrap that Trump spewed but something practical and reasonable. Especially something that'll pay for the healthcare that's sorely needed not only for the poor but the elderly who voted for them (whether they like it or not many of those folks won't be able to pay for their insulin, heart bypass surgeries, and the like from their 401ks).

Sorry for the crude language. I'm just annoyed by what I've seen in social media from liberals and conservatives on this. It's time for real change and not the smoke and mirrors they've been playing since Bill Clinton.

grzm14• 10 years ago

"Sorry for the crude language. I'm just annoyed by what I've seen in social media from liberals and conservatives on this."

I think a lot of people are. I know I am. A lot of that is due to the language people are using, especially when things get heated. Working on civil discourse, trying our best to refrain from saying things we might at other times regret not phrasing better. One of the benefits of forums is that we can take that moment before pressing submit to decide whether it's really something we want to send as written.

pforpineapple• 10 years ago

This is a pretty good summary of what needs to be done right here.

itchyouch6• 10 years ago

unfortunately, for the RNC, the evangelical vote is still a significant portion of the population and people are still voting on issues like gay-marriage & abortion.

I asked my gramps in-law why he voted for Trump and it was purely due to anti-abortion & gay-marriage. Non internet-connected gramps has no idea that Trump would only have those positions because it's an RNC position, not because Trump's actions show said beliefs.

blakeyrat8• 10 years ago

I live in a relatively small suburb of Seattle. I'm a software developer. There are no jobs for me where I live. None. None within 20 miles. The only job for me is in Seattle or Bellevue or Redmond, an hour-long commute. I love where I live, and I don't want to live in Seattle (which I could barely afford anyway-- I like owning a house). I also don't want to exclusively work-from-home and be cut-off socially from my co-workers. It sucks.

(And as I've griped before, this is only true of a couple professions, and software developer happens to be one of them. If I had become a lawyer, I could work in any town in the US. Or a plumber, or a doctor, or a school administrator, or a tow truck driver, or a...)

I'd just be happy with some policy that spreads these companies out a bit. Maybe a tax benefit for opening office space in communities under a certain population size. I'm not sure how it would work. All those angel investors propping up tech companies could also be propping up small town economies merely by moving their offices outside of Seattle, Bellevue, Los Angeles, San Francisco, etc.

The last company I worked for had 55 employees, about a dozen of which were software developers. That 55-person company means nothing to Seattle. Not even to the South Lake Union neighborhood. It's not even a blip. But it'd be part of the lifeblood in a smaller town. It'd also help cut the commute for everybody, be able to recruit technical workers like myself who don't want to live in a big city, etc.

Anyway, just a thought, hopefully relevant to this site. Meanwhile I go back to the jobs site, sigh heavily, and judge positions on how close they are to the bus stops...

rconti5• 10 years ago

This feels like an issue with the way our cities and towns are designed, sadly. (I grew up in Bellevue and worked in Seattle).

laserDinosaur• 10 years ago

The only job for me is in Seattle or Bellevue or Redmond, an hour-long commute

I don't mean to belittle your situation but..an hour seems like fantastic commuting time. Most people I work with take an hour to an hour and a half to get to work. Up until our office moved there was two guys that had a 2 hour trip into work every day. Most people I know would kill to have an hour commute.

neeleshs• 10 years ago

I believe you simply made a choice. I live in the bay area, but my commute is hour long,30 miles away from my house, and I don't have any jobs that I want to do near my house. That's a choice I made.

utefan001• 10 years ago

This is the best idea I have heard all year. Centralizing too many jobs where the cost of living is so high creates an "us vs them" mentality.

drzaiusapelord2• 10 years ago

So you're proposing a massive tax[1] increase on urban workers who live with urban compromises (traffic, higher prices on goods, higher real estate prices, crime, terrible schools, high taxes, pollution, etc) to be near work so that other workers in the suburbs can enjoy big lawns and beautiful single-family homes?

Well, that's been our strategy with these red state rust belts for decades and it doesn't work. These states receive much more in taxes than they pay. These get doled in various ways, and some ways very close to what you're proposing[2]. It didn't work. Unemployment and wages are still poor.

The larger issue here is why do you get that wonderful suburban home and I get a tiny condo and yet somehow I'm taxed extra so you can live, and lets be frank here, a wasteful and high-carbon footprint lifestyle? Urban migration, telework, and re-training are the real solutions here. Everything else is just welfare with 'make work' jobs that will evaporate the second those tax credits get cut or the company in question has a bad quarter and realizes it can just eliminate that office, that only really exists as a tax shelter, for cost savings.

Lastly, the "come to the suburbs for savings" is a staple in business. Every suburban mayor is constantly flirting with urban companies to move jobs there as he's empowered to give significant tax sweetheart deals and other incentives. In fact, this is one of the main policy platforms for suburban mayors: bring in jobs. This is a normal part of suburban political life. Its not a new idea, its the status quo. One of my previous employers moved from downtown Chicago to the suburbs exactly for this. Ultimately, you can only poach so many jobs, so its not some magical solution for suburban and rural unemployment.

[1] Because thats where the money ultimately comes from, we wont cut medicare or SS or our military in half to pay for this, we'll just raises taxes on the middle class.

[2] Tax credits for creating jobs in poor areas are common public policy on both the state and federal levels. For example and were vastly increased after the 2008 meltdown. These were so popular many corporations not only didn't pay tax but received free money from the government for it! Worse, they're easily abused eve before they create jobs (if they even do, its easy to take these credits for new offices you were planning on opening anyway):

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2014/08/11/1B-Tax-Cre...

api5• 10 years ago

Related to the hollowing out of the middle class is the insane super-concentration of opportunity into cities. Even some suburbs around hot cities are now no-go zones.

motoford• 10 years ago

[quote]If I had become a lawyer, I could work in any town in the US. Or a plumber, or a doctor, or a school administrator, or a tow truck driver, or a...[/quote]

There are software jobs outside of Seattle.

kin• 10 years ago

As a fellow software developer, you do bring up a good point and I agree with you, but I think he's referring to more blue collar jobs. We have white collar jobs and are pretty well off. You have a job and own a home which is far more than what it sounds like the rust belt that voted for Trump has.

rewrew• 10 years ago

This is a part of modern life: You have to go where the jobs are. Apologies if this comes off as antagonistic, but why would you complain about having to an hour commute to a job when you have the benefit of living exactly where you want to live? Do you really expect to have everything exactly the way you want it? I get complaining about a four or six hour commute, but an hour each way/option to live at home for a great career and a great life seems like something most people would be really, really grateful for.

atourgates• 10 years ago

The flipside is that there probably aren't enough of you to fulfill the needs of companies that need a specialized technical or creative workforce.

I was recently talking with a former software company founder who started his company in Boise, Idaho in the late-90s.

The first few years, their product was a success and they doubled or more in size every year. Then, they started to plateau even though demand was still through the roof.

They couldn't keep up with demand, because they ran out of developers who lived in or were willing to move to Boise. In the words of the founder, "Every qualified developer within 100 miles of us got a job-offer, until there weren't any left."

The obvious solution would have been for them to move to Seattle or San Francisco. But all the founders were from Boise, and were committed to keeping the company in their home town.

At the end, they were paying qualified developers Silicon Valley wages, in addition to signing bonuses equivalent to a year's salary just to get them to move to Boise. As you can imagine, that severely hampered their ability to compete.

Finally, they sold to Microsoft. The founders assumed that the cache of Microsoft's name would be enough to draw developers, but Microsoft had the same problem. After a few years, Microsoft moved the whole operation back to Redmond.

All that to say, you (and I coincidentally) are in the minority. Most creative and technical professionals want to live in nice, big cities. The great thing for those of us that don't fit that mold, is that it's easier than ever to work remotely.

cwe• 10 years ago

Hopefully you voted for ST3

jrnichols• 10 years ago

Maybe a tax benefit for opening office space...

i was just reading an article about a company with offices near St Louis. They took the tax incentives to open an office, promised like 150 jobs, and now they're all but shuttering it and laying off the 77 IT workers they had. And contracting their jobs to a company in India.

The tax incentives are definitely there. But the incentive to keep the jobs there isn't, when offshoring is so in vogue still.

rifung2• 10 years ago

I don't want to live in Seattle (which I could barely afford anyway-- I like owning a house).

My understanding is that if companies were more spread out, then compensation would also be lower because there's less competition for employees. With compensation also being lowered, wouldn't you just be in the same situation because while real estate is more expensive in Seattle, salaries are higher too?

As salaries increase, the real estate near those companies will naturally increase. I don't see why having companies be spread farther out would change this relationship.

I live in Seattle but grew up in the suburbs and also sometimes miss living in a house (mainly because I play piano). But even my friends who live in the suburbs are struggling to save up to own a house, so as far as I can tell it's not any different. If anything, it's even better working in the city because as far as I can tell it's easier to save money since even if you save the same percentage of income you would make more.

jimbokun6• 10 years ago

"(which I could barely afford anyway-- I like owning a house)"

First world problems indeed. I can own a dwelling much larger than the vast majority of people living in the world can afford, on a spacious lot, or can live in a much smaller dwelling with much more convenient access to my place of work, but can't have both!

Sorry, but you're not ranking high on my list of people in desperate need of government intervention to fix your problem.

zanethomas4• 10 years ago

I believe you're incorrect in asserting that the election was about "disenfranchised blue collar workers". My daughter and her husband make about $200k per year and they voted for Trump.

She's describes Trumps win as a great big middle finger to career politicians.

nkrisc3• 10 years ago

Some might call that cutting off your nose to spite your face.

rconti5• 10 years ago

There are people who spraypaint unintelligible garbage on highway overpasses and key peoples' cars as a big middle finger to society, too.

It's all just trolling. It's not to gain anything. It's to make things worse for everyone else.

jphillipsio2• 10 years ago

With that kind of income, I would venture to say that they're just republicans.

dalanmiller• 10 years ago

Except the hundreds of thousands of people who swung Florida, WI, and MI do not make $200K a year. The election was very much won by this majority.

dragonwriter7• 10 years ago

She's describes Trumps win as a great big middle finger to career politicians.

Other than Trump himself not being a career politician, it seems most likely to merely alter which career politicians are rewarded, not the extent to which such politicians are rewarded, which isn't a big blow tout "career politicians" in any general sense.

criddell5• 10 years ago

It's very interesting to me that so many union households voted Republican. If the Democrats can't rely on organized labor, they really are screwed.

Are the Demnocrats a party of elites and the Republicans a populist party now?

eru33• 10 years ago

The Democrats used to own the south, and the Republicans freed the slaves. The two parties traded constituents since then. They might do so again. Or one of them might implode---like the earlier antagonist of the Democrats did before the Republicans came around.

Shivetya3• 10 years ago

Honestly I am hoping Donald Trump is more centrist than many people expect. While he touts protectionism to the point of blocking access to the country his other ideas are pretty much down the middle of the road with regards to rebuilding the country itself.

A lot of his ideas are not hard right Republican. He openly embraces gays and will make many of them in the Republican party feel more welcome. He has allies of all races and even pulled in record Hispanic votes.

So the first signs will be, who composes his cabinet? Who will be his advisors be? How much of a role will Pence play? Will he give equal time to leadership from both parties? With both parties approach with hostility or be willing to give it a try?

Still when I view the race, I really want to know if Democrats think it was worth it to become a party whose candidates are selected on what they are first compared to what they believe. Why was the "party of the people" the side with the least number of candidates? I would ask the Republican party, why do you continuously try to for far right cultural view points and such candidates when conservatives want you out of our personal and financial lives both?

Sadly no candidate championed privacy and freedom of self but there is a chance that change might have actually finally reached the White House

pyre3• 10 years ago

when conservatives want you out of our personal and financial lives

Do they really? There are a lot of people that view the Republican Party as their ticket back to an idealized Leave It to Beaver world, which is definitely NOT the government getting out of your personal life (make homosexuality illegal, bring back "separate but equal", make sure that minorities "know their place", etc). Still others see it as a the path forward to a fundamentalist Christian theocracy. The same people that eat up Bill O'Reilly's "The War on Christmas" segments and get outraged that Christmas is "under attack" by the evil Liberals that want to destroy Christian values.

threatofrain2• 10 years ago

I think the only decent destiny left for the unskilled undemanded worker is one of welfare, but those same voters have vicious attitudes about welfare and those on welfare.

It's not reasonable to retrain this coincidental generation of unskilled undemanded workers, especially not when our nation still has a bad education resource problem. Pedagogical expenditure should go to those who are most likely to experience the largest impact, and that's children. Also because any training program you develop has to work <fast> and <soon>. Also because there are no fast and easy training programs that have high efficacy rates.

Trump and some laborers have talked about bringing manufacturing back to the US. But this is by far the most impossible demand. Tariffs on Mexico and China won't persuade a metaphorical Foxconn to bring a Shenzhen analogue to the US. Shenzhen works because China and the rest of the Chinese people are okay with Shenzhen style workers breaking their back for the rest of the nation, and China can quash any worker malcontent, union, or any collective action.

There's no way that people would be okay with that here.

And with all the companies of the world racing towards robotic labor and domain applied machine learning, the kinds of US manufacturing job growth here will be few, high paying, and highly technical. But these innovations will mean net fewer manufacturing jobs, even as manufacturing may go up.

And the fact that driving is one of the most frequent jobs in most states of the US, and with Uber having made an automated truck delivery of beer recently... there's no way that manufacturing jobs will keep pace with job loss.

These people are screwed without welfare, and after welfare, there's nothing else to be done for them.

They're a $100 barrel of oil in the ground that costs $105 to extract.

sabarn012• 10 years ago

The argument could be made to role back the clock make import tariffs very high and limit automation. If I'm unskilled why would I not join a political revolt to limit the effects of my future irrelevance.

jawns• 10 years ago

And with all the companies of the world racing towards robotic labor and domain applied machine learning, the kinds of US manufacturing job growth here will be few, high paying, and highly technical. But these innovations will mean net fewer manufacturing jobs, even as manufacturing may go up.
And the fact that driving is one of the most frequent jobs in most states of the US, and with Uber having made an automated truck delivery of beer recently... there's no way that manufacturing jobs will keep pace with job loss.
These people are screwed without welfare, and after welfare, there's nothing else to be done for them.

You've pointed out that automation, particularly of the trucking industry, has the potential to lead to extraordinary job loss.

I agree that automated cars are the future, and I look forward to the day when all cars on the road are automated.

There's also an extraordinary amount of money to be made in this space. But it's likely going to be made by private companies.

If there were a way that workers (rather than capital investors) could primarily reap the financial benefits of this new technology, I would think that would help ease the job phase-out.

Obviously, it's unrealistic to expect worker-owned cooperatives to catch up to those private companies at this point. But could there be an alternate way?

I wonder if the federal government could do something similar to the auto-company bailouts of a few years back.

It essentially purchased shares of the companies, and then later sold them at a profit.

I wonder if it might somehow institute a way to purchase shares of automated-trucking companies on behalf of truck drivers, so that when automated trucking causes job loss, the truck drivers would have a cushion of investment income. Perhaps it could be on a subsidization basis, where the government matches investments.

There are probably terrible problems with that idea. Just spitballing. But I don't want to say, "meh, welfare" until more creative solutions have been exhausted.

ansible3• 10 years ago

There is plenty of demand for unskilled labor in the USA, just look at the farm industry (especially fruits and vegetables) or in other areas (landscaping). Most USA citizens, however, aren't keen on working long hours, in back-breaking conditions, for low pay. And so the migrants come to fill those roles.

If we had better pay and working conditions for those industries, more citizens would take those jobs, and there'd be less for illegal immigrants.

But there was such a stink about raising the minimum wage... I don't think that's going to happen any time soon. No one cares about the farm workers it seems.

ProAm• 10 years ago

Now that the voices of the disenfranchised blue collar workers have been heard, what actually can be done to help them?

You are 100% correct. Trump wont do anything about it, but now that the message has been sent and heard I think the next election in 4 years is where we will see this being addressed an hopefully some change for these people. The people want change, now they've been heard. Both political parties were decimated in this election, I think they'll try harder next time for the people.

mtkd• 10 years ago

You can stop incentivising off-shoring of jobs - it's too easy for companies to close down profitable activities and move them abroad to make more profit

If you drive out of any city in US or EU you'll see the devastation that has caused

eru33• 10 years ago

I've been around Europe. What devastation are you talking about? It's a diverse place.

vkou8• 10 years ago

How can you stop incentivising automation of jobs?

MisterBastahrd2• 10 years ago

You're talking about a demographic who, by and large, distrust experts, scientists, educated people, and any information that doesn't agree with their biases. They chose to be this way.

j2kun• 10 years ago

This is simply not true. The exit polls suggest it's middle and upper middle class who primarily voted for Trump.

BenoitEssiambre• 10 years ago

If central banks of the western world had run countercyclical monetary policy meaning higher than average inflation when unemployment was high, these people would have had almost uninterrupted jobs and careers, not just people in educated urban centers.

I know people don't grasp this because it is all very mathematical but hawkish monetary policy was a massive factor in this.

This graph summarizes the situation:

https://twitter.com/kocherlakota009/status/79619007692137676...

Here is my attempt at an explanation:

https://medium.com/@b.essiambre/the-world-deserves-a-pay-rai...

But also taking a more sociological perspective, if you haven't seen it, this Cracked analysis is worth a read:

http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-reasons-trumps-rise-that-no-on...

As well as this older Scott Alexander post:

http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-anything...

samcodes• 10 years ago

I am an engineer, not an economist or policy wonk, but I feel like I got a lot of insight on issues like this (and a lot of other modern, political/economic issues) from reading "Connectivity" by Parag Khanna

lumberjack2• 10 years ago

Whatever it is, you do to help, you cannot do it without a cost. And I think the problem in the US is less about what can one do to help and more about nobody wanting to be burdened with the cost.

And then people say that economic inequality is not a problem. This is exactly why economic inequality is a problem. Because you end up in situations where 1/3 of the country needs to be taxed to help the other 2/3 and that 1/3 does not feel like helping because they don't see any gain from it.

farright• 10 years ago

The payoffs to education are huge [0]. People need to be prepared for the new economy which requires college degrees and has fewer low-skill jobs.

The left laid the groundwork for Trump's victory (assuming Blue color Whites are really the cause, I think it's not the only factor myself) by promoting the idea that the new economy is unfair. Of course they mainly meant unfair to blacks and hispanics but whites got the message anyway.

If we want to help people thrive in capitalism, we need to avoid leftist narratives that are wrong, i.e. the narrative that education won't improve one's situation because capitalism always screws the little guy.

[0] http://inequality.stanford.edu/publications/20-facts-about-u...

treenyc• 10 years ago

US president has remarkably little power to make any change to the existing system. The real change has to be done on the local grass root level.

ambicapter• 10 years ago

He has a republican senate and house.

Florin_Andrei6• 10 years ago

what policies can be put in place specifically to help this demographic?

The overall tenor of change in recent decades is flat-out throwing them under the bus. In almost every way, the global society moves in directions that conspire to make this whole class of people extinct.

Short of stopping global progress, I see no long-term "solution" for them.

jasonjei• 10 years ago

The problem is automation and technology is getting so good that we don't need that many people working anymore. Autonomous vehicles have a very good shot of displacing a lot of jobs in a few decades. You can't also tell people in their 50s and 60s that you'll educate them for a new profession.

I remember an MIT economist Zhou Lin said this would be one of the big problems of our generation. I suspect Basic Income would have helped in the interim.

bjourne7• 10 years ago

The unemployment rate in the US has shrunk from about 10% in 2009 to 4.9% in 2016. The homicide and violent crime rates has also continued to shrink from a peak in 1992. By any statistical measure you can think of, the US population is doing better today than in 2008.

james_pm2• 10 years ago

Except that 4.9% rate is a) an average across the country, and b) not reflective of the true rate of unemployment. ShadowStats suggests the real rate (including those who have given up on finding work) is more like 23%. In certain areas of the country (the rust belt, for example), it's higher than that.

james_pm2• 10 years ago

I'm so happy to see this at the top of the comments. It gives me hope that more people recognize that a vote for Trump in many cases wasn't a vote for the man, but rather a vote for some amount of hope that someone, somewhere recognized that their towns and cities were hurting and that they saw some path forward out of their situation.

I don't know what the solutions are, but I have to believe that if we can talk about sending people to live on Mars and make cars that drive themselves, that we can come up with solutions to get jobs and economic prosperity to areas of the country that have been badly hurt over the last decade.

sxates• 10 years ago

Maybe we could subsidize decent health insurance? Raise the minimum wage? Build safety nets and expand social services?

Except they just voted against all that.

ahartman00• 10 years ago

Minimum wage was very popular.

"Yet voters in Arizona, Colorado, Maine and Washington all look set to approve ballot initiatives raising their states’ minimum wages" http://fivethirtyeight.com/live-blog/2016-election-results-c...

serge2k5• 10 years ago

I'm less worried about the accusations of racism

Why? They elected a guy endorsed by the KKK and white supremacists. At the very least this is a kick in the pants to minority voters (although 8% of black voters and 29% of latino voters went for trump).

mythrwy2• 10 years ago

For the immediate, I think Trump addressed this in his victory speech.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cL_wh-d1pP4&feature=youtu.be

Rebuilding infrastructure. Construction (and associated services) jobs.

WheelsAtLarge• 10 years ago

Education is the way to prosperity. We can look at Trump's win a loud scream from citizens that are in financial pain. The current government has not met their needs and they spoke out loud with their vote. The greatness of our constitution is that every so often governmental changes happen without bloodshed. We can thank the wisdom of our founding fathers for that.

The government's job now is to make sure that all it's citizens prosper as the global economic system changes. The tragedy of this election cycle is that the focus was not on how to make education available to all. We have a K to 12 system that does not produce a person that's ready for the workforce. It's expected that college is the next step. Yet college is such a financial burden on young adults that it becomes a problem rather than a benefit. First, we can't let that continue for the benefit of all. We need to make sure that education reform becomes the priority. Reform in terms of getting a person ready for the future rather than babysit them in schools.

People like to focus on spending more money and adding technology but that's not the solution. It's a deeper problem in the structure of the education system and parental support. I hope for our good the new president can see that and move forward with reform.

rmc• 10 years ago

Socialism.

Neoliberal capitalism isn't work. Why not take the wealth from the very wealthy and give it to those who don't have it? Income and wealth redistribution>

mmmpop• 10 years ago

What a poorly thought-out out and even sophomoric thing to post.

pdx• 10 years ago

This was posted separately, but flagged for some reason. It talks about what Trump will do first 100 days in office.

https://assets.donaldjtrump.com/_landings/contract/O-TRU- 102316-Contractv02.pdf

Nelson69• 10 years ago

Is this a policy problem?

I'd entertain a discussion that it was a policy problem and we should have had plans as we engaged in freer trade and globalization and saw imports starting to eat away at these jobs.

I don't think there is a policy to put the genie back in the bottle now and I don't think these people want anything else but that. (to speak in gross generalizations)

The old school manufacturing base provided jobs where a single earner with no notable education could buy a home, raise a family, maybe send his kids to college. And he had a union. It's hard to imagine it being that way ever again. You can re-train them but they aren't going to just become knowledge workers; worse they have to want retraining and this election sure didn't make it sound like they want that..

Capitalism and competition can be rough. Ways of life, jobs, ways of doing things, products, all that stuff can go away with ruthless efficiency in a free market.

stcredzero7• 10 years ago

Now that the voices of the disenfranchised blue collar workers have been heard, what actually can be done to help them?

My advice to progressive and left-leaning 20-something, 30-something people in the Bay Area: Stop denigrating that demographic! Donald Trump was a stealth 3rd party candidate, fueled by the dissatisfaction of huge swath of the US public whose fortunes are falling from majority middle class to minority lower class. Denigrating them only serves to divide our society further. The Democratic party needs to think of such people as constituents -- as it had once in the past.

If you dump on them, they're of course going to dump back. It's only the upper 1% that benefits from that. It's called "divide and conquer."

Grishnakh10• 10 years ago

What, you don't think deriding them as "deplorables" is a good way to convince them to vote for a more progressive candidate?

ocschwar2• 10 years ago

The big northern European takeaway is the principle of "protect the worker, not the job."

Ironically, at this point, the Scandinavians are better free marketers than Americans, because they're willing to let entire companies go under if the market so dictates. The social safety net protects the workers, but not their jobs.

Meanwhile, we get into so many interventionist contortions protecting COMPANIES, that our version of the free market is a sick joke.

atlantic• 10 years ago

Well, you could roll back globalisation and implement some form of protectionism, which is precisely what Trump has suggested.

Outside the ivory tower of economic models, it does actually make sense. If a country is severely restricted in its capacity to import (an exception being made for raw materials), and has to produce most types of goods itself, then the economy tends to approach something like full employment. Meaning that although overall GDP is not maximised, but everyone has a job, and every industrial sector thrives.

An additional advantage of protectionism is that it would put the brakes on global economic growth, which is the major driver of climate change and ecosystem destruction, but without the side effect of mass unemployment which would be inevitable if free trade remained operative.

TYPE_FASTER• 10 years ago

https://backchannel.com/canary-in-the-code-mine-903884eca853...

Nerdoid• 10 years ago

This is going to rapidly become an image problem for the Bay Area and the tech industry as workers in other places and industries become obsolete. So it may well be in our own best interest to take the initiative.

Is it possible for the tech world to seize the issue of worker retraining and a general safety net like it did with net neutrality? Brand and promote the hell out of it? I don't think the existing strategy of trying to fly under the radar will work for long.

boggydepot• 10 years ago

Karl Marx have put a great deal of time thinking about this. He's ideas are the basis of the Soviet Union. I believe he's analysis of our current system/economy is a real mind-opener and a must-read. Here's a quick intro on it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CWF_0lkBhjY&list=PLvoAL-KSZ3...

Imo, this is the system we need + human humility (e.g. to prevent corruption). Implementing it tho, will need everyone's cooperation; hence my writing of this comment.

rayiner5• 10 years ago

Note that the last chart ("Clinton’s support from minorities fell short") seems to be erroneous, in that the graphic does not match the text.

I think the NYT article glosses over the real story this election: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/11/09/why-the-lat... ("Hispanic voters were supposed to be one of Clinton’s blue firewalls—but one in three ended up splitting for Trump.")

milesskorpen• 10 years ago

That was projected, though. It was a big issue that Clinton wasn't driving as significant African American turnout because they go 95% Democrat, whereas Hispanics were about 70% Democrat so you'd need a lot more of them to make up the difference.

sndean• 10 years ago

I wonder how long this populist wave that's spreading over the west [0] is going to continue?

[0] https://research.hks.harvard.edu/publications/getFile.aspx?I... [pdf]

snowwrestler5• 10 years ago

Until the generation that is driving it dies off, so probably ~20 years.

I'm being flippant, but--look at the vote splits by age. Young voters in the UK overwhelmingly voted against Brexit. Young voters in the U.S. overwhelmingly voted against Trump.

The voice of populism today is the voice of economic and cultural disenfranchisement. It is difficult to re-employ millions of 60-year-old folks whose skills are out of date. It is difficult to get 60-year-old folks who have spent their lives in a homogeneous town, to accept multicultural diversity.

They are crying out for help and success again, and we'll continue down this course as a society until we either give it to them, or they leave us.

falsestprophet• 10 years ago

People change as they age. Today's 60 year-olds were the idealistic youth 40 years ago.

Many a 20 year old communist is something else at 30 and then again at 60.

devopsproject6• 10 years ago

Young voters in the U.S. overwhelmingly voted against Trump

don't people get more conservative as they age?

happytrails3• 10 years ago

Those factory jobs are not coming back. The wall will not get built and it would not even work. What we will have is some NYC cronyism and wealth inequality increases. We may even have a recession if they decided to touch any trade agreement or increase tariffs ( based on debt load private and public institutions have). Whomever inherited the white house was going to have a bad time, this will just have to go on Trumps shoulders. :) 2018 you'll see a democrat majority in Congress.

blahi• 10 years ago

The only factory people who voted for Trump are the ones who code in Matlab.

http://i.imgur.com/RAaGDnW.jpg

ones_and_zeros2• 10 years ago

I don't get it?

phreack• 10 years ago

As an outsider, it is painfully clear that I should not try to move my business to the US at this point. Europe's looking better than ever now for tech startups.

curiousgeorgio• 10 years ago

For what it's worth, Trump's views are likely to be more advantageous for tech startups than Clinton's would have been.

XaspR8d• 10 years ago

Perhaps? I'm not sure what you're alluding to. Regardless, startups are often attuned to many social issues much more closely than traditional companies, and I can't help but agree that this is a huge discouragement for forward-looking businesses.

lern_too_spel9• 10 years ago

By making access to workers more difficult or by repealing trade agreements that protect your startup's intellectual property and access to international markets?

nerfhammer• 10 years ago

Tech startups are often composed of a majority of people born outside of the United States.

CalChris17• 10 years ago

I would counsel against the US.

As an American, I'm looking at Canada and Germany. I have a Canadian work permit and I'm looking at their startup visa. I was offered German/EU residency last night.

chrisper3• 10 years ago

I was offered German/EU residency last night.

Which area of Germany are you planning to go to?

_audakel6• 10 years ago

With the Brexit, many Euro companies near to defaulting and Russia moving troops to its western boarders, you really think Europe is a better place? USA has its fair share of problems, but I would not go so far as to say anywhere else is more ideal for startups (or living). yet.

As much bad emotions as their are going around this election, we don't kill buissness leaders who oppose us (russia) kill political leaders who dissagre us (n. korea), have civil wars taking the lives of thousands (many countries in africa), kill drug users in the streets (PH) or have mass civilaian graves from cartel wars (mexico)

chrisper3• 10 years ago

I'd have agreed with you if you had not included the "(or living)" part. How can one say living in Europe is not ideal if one's #1 priority is not wealth?

daodedickinson5• 10 years ago

don't... kill political leaders who [disagree with] us

But Hillary said she wanted to drone Assange and Obama assassinated two US Citizens abroad, one a minor.

Not to mention the leaked audio revealing that Clinton wanted to rig the 2006 Palestinian election. And she said that to foreign reporters with tape recorders, not CIA suits in a bunker.

freekh• 10 years ago

Really: "With the Brexit, many Euro companies near to defaulting"? Didn't know this was a fact already? Besides, most "Euro companies" are not located in the UK and I doubt the effects of the Brexit is only contained to or affects Euro companies.

I would argue that many countries in Europe is better for living (family time, vacations, work-hours, gender equality, free education, healthcare, freedom of own body (abortion)...) and have been for some time. However, I suppose that depends on who you are and where you come from (and whether you care about/agree with any of these things I list) - home is home after all. Also Europe is not one country: Spain is different (not worse - different) from Sweden (but then again: New York is different from Rockport, Texas too).

There seems to be less VC money in Europe, but maybe that's where we're going either way. Again, some places are better (Geneva, Switzerland VS <Small-City>, Greece) off than others (just like Silicon Valley is better than many, but maybe not all (?), places in the US). But, I'll give you that.

Who's to say it's not going to change though? As you pointed out: Brexit had a huge effect. To me this election feels like a much bigger deal.

Anxious to see how the market in general reacts when Trump either: a) does what he said he'd do (wall, nato, ...) or b) fails to do what he said he'd do. Let's hope it's only me who's anxious though. If not, I suspect there will be a negative reaction in the market: anxiety = uncertainty = risk after all.

In any case: the chance of this happening (market reacting negatively) combined with the effects of it (economically, jobs) >> the chance of Russia invading "Europe" (which I assume is what you're alluding to) combined with the, albeit devastating, effects on the lives of the people living there.

I'm don't even feel like going to the US on vacation anymore before somebody figures how to fix the police violence, the guns, the endless suing and the racially biased incarceration. Being afraid of the people around you, has a crippling effect on my life quality. And I don't seeing it becoming better under Trump. I'm willing to admit I am particular in my views here though.

My point here is that: you might be missing out if you truly believe that the US is an absolute better place than Europe. In some aspects, I'll be surprised if you didn't feel that it was the opposite.

chris_wot6• 10 years ago

Do it in the spirit of those who hold the office of U.S. Presidency: be civil and courteous, make sure you don't disparage anyone's ethnicity or gender, and make sure you don't make wild and unfounded accusations, amiright?

dang15• 10 years ago

Please don't ignore the request to be civil and substantive. HN depends on it.

We detached this comment from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12911042 and marked it off-topic.

chris_wot6• 10 years ago

What. The. Hell? That is absolutely civil, and it is substantive and it's a fact we should all aspire to!

This is an unmitigated bit of bastardry, and you ought to be ashamed of yourself.

yolesaber3• 10 years ago

I'd argue you are clueless. Trump has been sued several times for the discrimination against black people, he fired black people from his casinos and moved them to the back, he INSISTS TO THIS DAY that the Central Park Five are guilty despite DNA evidence, he jokes and also brags about literally molesting women.

People like you disgust me. Stop acting like his words and actions don't matter.

vinhboy2• 10 years ago

Thank you for saying this. I needed this today.

I am so damn sick of people trying to wiggle out of the "racist" label.

Economic anxiety is not an excuse for racism.

gragas5• 10 years ago

I voted for Trump and I'm not racist.

Pica_soO• 10 years ago

Why not make a separate country, secede from the union, and proof by implementation the superiority of everyone s ideology?

rapsacnz• 10 years ago

@gragas I think to some extent, all of us are racist. Plus, unconscious bias is pretty much ubiquitous. I think you have to be more specific that saying that you are not racist.

micahbright8• 10 years ago

Trump has been sued several times for the discrimination against black people

That may say more about black people than it says about Trump. Call me a racist - I dare you.

commenting5• 10 years ago

Yes, you're a racist because you extrapolated your interpretation of the behaviour of a handful of people (i.e. those who sued Trump and are black) to an entire race.

yolesaber3• 10 years ago

You're a racist. Read the facts: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/28/us/politics/donald-trump-h...

dang15• 10 years ago

People like you disgust me.

You can't comment like this on HN, regardless of how right you are and how strongly you feel. Personal attacks in particular are not ok.

Comments need to get more civil as the topic grows more contentious, or else our hope of substantive discussion goes up in flames.

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12911145 and marked it off-topic.

jernfrost7• 10 years ago

He did not attack specific people or clearly identifiable subgroups or minorities. He attacked a broad category of people for holding certain views. I think that is well within what is acceptable in online debate.

If you are going to attack this argument, then you might as well say it is unacceptable to call people who favor cutting off hands of thieves for barbaric. Sure you characterize people with a mean word "barbaric", but it you are not singling out particular people only those holding such views.

unimpressive• 10 years ago

I know this is hard, so thank you.

antisthenes7• 10 years ago

Step back for a second and consider how many millions voted for him despite those remarks and issues.

Perhaps if you are so disgusted by half of the citizens in your country, you should seriously consider emigrating somewhere else, if that's truly an issue for you.

But I suspect, like most comments on the Internet, it's nothing more but empty posturing.

yolesaber3• 10 years ago

Actually, I'm not going anywhere because I'm staying in the US to fight for what I believe is right, just, and true - namely the sanctity of rights for all people, regardless of skin color, gender, religion, or sexual orientation. See you there.

user837387• 10 years ago

He got elected on all these promises.

1- Build the wall and make Mexico pay for it

2- Deportation Force on day one

3- Repeal obamacare

4- Renegotiate NAFTA

5- Bring back coal

6- Reduce taxes for the rich

7- Ban muslims

8- Prosecuting Hillary Clinton

9- Bring back American companies to the USA

10- Etc.

The Senate and the House are Republicans and the Supreme court will lean republican after his appointment.

What do you guys think he is going to follow through on and the effects if he does or doesn't?

And please note that lots of people thought he could not become president and now he is. So any of these things are possible now. Do not just dismiss any of these things. They are all possible.

inimino5• 10 years ago

I'll play: 6 is a given, 3 is on the table but wouldn't be easy. The rest range from unlikely to impossible.

bbctol• 10 years ago

Why wouldn't 3 be easy, given the makeup of the Senate and House?

AndrewKemendo2• 10 years ago

3 is on the table but wouldn't be easy

It would seem with a republican congress that it would be easy. Why do you think otherwise?

commenting5• 10 years ago

It's like 1930s Germany all over again, except that Muslims are the new Jews. You'd think we would have learned from last time a racist, populist demagogue gained control of a nation.

(Yes, I'm aware that "Godwin's Law invoked". In this case, it's actually relevant.)

hx879• 10 years ago

Except, you know, we don't have an Article 48, any proposed Enabling Act would be filibustered to hell, and our society is nowhere near as authoritarian as it used to be, much less 1930s Germany.

masklinn2• 10 years ago

It's like 1930s Germany all over again, except that Muslims are the new Jews.

Considering how a certain segment of the population interpreted Trump campaign's last ad and cheered at that interpretation I wouldn't "worry", Muslims are more Jew+ than new Jews: the old ones are still going in the oven.

eli_gottlieb4• 10 years ago

We Jews are still the Jews here.

leakybit• 10 years ago

coal isn't even economically viable with current natural gas and oil prices.

undersuit• 10 years ago

Oh I'm pretty sure the US government can free up some more money for coal subsidies.

Miner49er• 10 years ago

Yeah it is, just depends on where it's coming from. It's less economically viable, but there's still a demand.

pzh• 10 years ago

He is not going to follow through on absolutely any of those things. They were just campaign 'promises' that are going to be broken. It seems people forget really fast how politicians always renege on their promises--e.g. how Obama promised revolutionary change and the most transparent administration, yet turned out to be pro-surveillance, etc. It's almost like it was a different person who made the original promises, and the new one is left off the hook.

Trump is very pragmatic and he's also a seasoned reality TV personality who knows what to say in order to appeal to some of his voters' basest instincts and beliefs. As far as actual policies go, I wouldn't really expect anything too radical from him though. I guess many of his blue-collar voters will be disappointed, but then lots of others will be relieved...

jdc0589• 10 years ago

1 - no way to do this that isn't suicide for foreign relations.

2 - there won't be a deportation "force". undocumented/illegal immigrants aren't going to get auto-citizenship, and there may be additional requirements put on employers to verify citizenship.

3 - possible

4 - I'm not convinced Trump actually knows what countries and regions are affected by NAFTA. unlikely.

5 - sweet jesus I hope not.

6 - likely

7 - not possible. if he tries it's auto impeachment (or a vote for it anyway)

8 - also potential auto-impeachment. abuse of powers.

9 - I would like to see this happen, but the only way it could work is MASSIVE tax breaks to offset more expensive labor. It won't happen in 4 years, but some groundwork might be laid.

10 - "goes on camera and says something horribly offensive and xenophobic to leaders/citizens of a foreign country that seriously damages us": 10/10 will happen.

ajross6• 10 years ago

In all honesty: almost none. He just wanted to be president. Most of his time will be spend enriching himself by selling banal access and bloviating on the world stage. That's pretty awful, but not apocalypse-level awful.

Of your list:

The wall is a technical impossibility that everyone can recognize. There's no funding for a deportation force and the political optics of goon squads rounding people up is something congress won't do. No one actually wants to yank medical coverage from millions of voters (they'll just let the democrats filibuster it in the senate). There's nothing meaningful to renegotiate in NAFTA, no serious stakeholders have suggestions there. Coal hasn't really gone away, and permiting and regulation changes are going to take longer than four years anyway. "Bring back american companies" is just a fairy tale. Global economics simply doesn't work like that and there's nothing a chief executive can do.

That leaves: Muslim ban. Maybe, at least in some symbolic way. Tax cuts for the rich. Yeah, duh. But that's a republican staple and we've survived it before. US deficit spending is actually not nearly so serious a problem as people believe.

simonh3• 10 years ago

That's pretty awful, but not apocalypse-level awful.

My main concern is foreign policy. The House can drive domestic policy and hopefully not make a mess of it, but foreign policy is all Trump's domain. He's vain and temperamental, this provides two powerful levers that manipulative foreign powers like China and Russia are free to push and pull as they like. He's also notoriously bad at taking advice. Frankly, it's not looking good.

gdulli• 10 years ago

The wall is a technical impossibility that everyone can recognize

Right, and it won't get funded. And in 2020 when the same poor people are still poor, he'll claim it's not his fault, it's because he didn't get to build the wall.

sodafountan3• 10 years ago

I don't think you understand how ego works. He wants to be more than just president, he wants to be a great president, that's in his nature. I truly believe he'll do what it takes to make himself into a great president. Do you think he wants to be remembered more as a George W. Bush or a Ronald Reagan?

I'm about as worried about a Trump presidency as I am worried that I'll remember how to breath at night.

Human Nature says he'll strive to be the best and I have faith in that.

TheGirondin9• 10 years ago

The wall is a technical impossibility that everyone can recognize.

Please explain how building a wall is impossible. There are walls and fences everywhere.

lerpa6• 10 years ago

Spot on. People have to realize promises have next to zero value, they would say anything in order to be elected.

You have to judge those people by their track record, actual actions, not just empty words... which leaves both with very poor credentials.

dominotw• 10 years ago

11. Sue unethical and corrupt media to death. <-- can't wait for this.

einrealist• 10 years ago

12. Privatize everything that can be privatized (like roads, education).

What can possibly go wrong?!

jkubicek• 10 years ago

I'm not all that worried about Trump enacting any of his specific policies. I am worried about Trump legitimizing sexual assault and violence towards POC and Muslims. White men are going to get through the next four years just fine, women and minorities will very likely not.

erikpukinskis13• 10 years ago

Sexual assault is already legitimized. You can rape someone and you will almost certainly not be arrested, and suffer no real social consequences. Trump didn't change that he just made it more obvious.

elevensies4• 10 years ago

Predictions:

- @POTUS twitter account is going to start tweeting at 3AM

- I think illegal immigration enforcement could see the most drastic and immediate change. To my knowledge the status quo is not legislated in any way, and was created by preventing enforcement rather than any legal means. When low-skill unemployment bottoms out the motivation will start to weaken.

- whatever was done by Obama by executive order, I presume will be quickly undone, they will probably have reams of documents ready to be signed on day 1.

- Hillary Clinton: in order to prosecute Trump will need to nominate a new Attorney General to the DOJ, and then ask the FBI to re-assess I guess? I don't think she will go to jail, in some countries when power changes the losers get jailed but it hasn't been the case in America, and I don't think high level politicians want it to become the case. For all practical purposes I think Clinton will continue to be above the law.

- The WALL ... boy I don't know. I will be fascinating to watch if he tries to do this. The only utility will be economic stimulus.

- Trade war: I think the American dollar will go to a lower level which will decrease imports and increase exports.

- Muslim ban: I think he will disallow visas from active conflict areas and nearby. I don't think i.e. Malaysia will be effected, or Indian muslims for example. Maybe countries that aren't functional enough to carry out a criminal background check will be disallowed.

EDIT:

Also, I don't think Trump+GOP will enact or seek to promote any racist or sexist policies, I don't think they will mount an attack on the recent marriage equality ruling. I think the following people will suffer financially:

- undocumented immigrants

- industries that depend on a close relationship with the government: the guard is changing -- if you had relationships with the Bushes and the Clintons, you've had access to the most powerful organization to ever exist in the world for the past 27 years, that may or may not continue.

This is if Trump lives all four years. All of the above doesn't apply to Pence, I think Pence could do some real damage.

gecko• 10 years ago

They have literally announced they're going to try to undo Roe v. Wade and repeal all LGTBQ protections they can. Like, that literally already happened. So I think we're already past the "[won't] enact or seek to promote any racist or sexist policies". I suspect that's because Trump has effectively delegated the entire office of President to Pence.

ascotan2• 10 years ago

Mexico pay for the wall - yes, this is now a sure thing. A number of prominent Mexican politicians badly insulted Trump early in his campaign and are now in a very awkward position. My guess is that they have undermined their position at the bargaining table with this and are likely to end up 'paying' for the wall in some way, shape or form. We've never had a president as adamant as dealing with the immigration issue as Trump. Even Bush/McCain wanted some partial amnesty programs. Remember that we already have a partial wall with Mexico. Completing that wall and increasing border security is now likely a done deal.

Deportation on day one - this will never happen. There is a large complex body of laws dealing with immigration that will not be superseded by some desire to deport people without a hearing.

Repeal Obamacare - yes this will happen is some part. We already have the news stories of the massive increase in premiums coming and that combined with a stacked, house, senate, judiciary and executive branch makes it look very very likely that the worst parts of obamacare are going to go. It's not clear wether or not some of the more popular reforms (pre-existing conditions, kids under 26) will stay as part of some other reform bill.

Renegotiate NAFTA - yes. A president that has the cost of everything on his mind combined with the lack of decorum from the Mexican government might very well trigger this. This is especially true if the Mexican government continues to behave badly towards the new government.

Bring back coal - I have news for you - coal never left. West Virginia elected a Democrat for governor but was one of the first states to elect Trump last night. Coal has never forgotten Al Gore/Bill Clinton. Last night they made the point again. I think more seriously subsidies for green energy might decrease (with the exception of ethanol with is all produced in red states).

Reduce taxes for the rich - personal income tax no, corporate taxes yes. Corporate taxes in the US are the highest in the world and Trump will work to fix that to allow companies to come back to US soil to operate.

Ban muslims - no. Trump wanted to slow or stop immigration from Syria in particular until the people are better vetted for links to terrorism. This has been simplified to 'ban muslims'. Muslim immigration will not be prevented but it might be slowed to allow for better vetting.

Prosecute Hillary Clinton - yes. Trump will appoint a justice apartment head and a FBI director that is likely to reopen the case into the emails. It's not clear what the outcome of this might be. Ultimately the truth will prevail here.

matthewmcg3• 10 years ago

All but maybe #5 and #8 require legislation and thus the cooperation of congress (including 60 votes in the Senate to defeat a potential Democrat filibuster).

My view is that the most important job of the President is to ensure the effective functioning of the executive branch agencies. This involves selecting good department heads and pursuing effective policies through the exercise of discretion in rule-making and executive orders.

This is vital, but largely esoteric and technical stuff. It's also an embodiment of the "system" and the "elites" that Trump campaigned against.

I see three possibilities as to how he handles this part of his job:

1. He doesn't actually care and entirely delegates it to people that do, likely the existing right-wing policy apparatus of pro-business, anti-regulation ideologues. The tenor of the agencies changes much as it did under George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, some qualified people leave, but the essential machinery of government continues operating.

2. He delegates the "boring stuff" (SEC, FAA, FDA, IRS, DOE, etc.) per 1 but uses the executive branch machinery to pursue projects that are personally and politically important to him, e.g. leaning on the DoJ to "lock her up" or destroying the EPA. The boring agencies continue to function, but others become plagued by strife and a loss of morale.

3. He blunders, has a health issue, or a serious scandal emerges that politically paralyzes him and nothing happens till he is replaced. Remember, while he's spent a long time in the public eye, he's escaped the usual scrutiny that has been given to the health and financial affairs of post-Nixon candidates.

matthewmcg3• 10 years ago

After further reflection on his election night cabinet announcements, I'll add #4: he nominates "the best people," i.e. individuals selected on the basis of their public notoriety or prior fealty to his organization rather than their expertise or political leanings. This causes a delegation within the agencies to lower-level administrators and career personnel and some blend of the outcomes in scenario 1 and 2.

TheGrassyKnoll2• 10 years ago

You didn't mention the Iran nuclear deal. I'm expecting yet another war in Iran within two years.

40acres2• 10 years ago

Trump is going to erase the entire Obama administration, a decent amount of Obama's impact was felt through executive order, all it takes is a signature to erase that.

MrZongle2• 10 years ago

Live by the sword, die by the sword. Or pen, in this case.

I'm not excited about a Trump presidency. But from 2009-2011 Democrats held majorities in both the House and Senate. Then was the time to get the major work done, legislatively, that could not be undone by another Executive Order.

That's on Obama.

40acres2• 10 years ago

Dems spent all their political capital during those days on ACA, and even that was a struggle to pass.

happytrails3• 10 years ago

The sun will rise in the east and set in the west. We will keep moving forward. We have systemic issues we need to address in the country and if they don't get addressed in this cycle it'll get worse in the next. We have major income inequality. We have an issue with tax avoidance and we have a problem with US Companies dumping workers for foreign labor. We also have a healthcare issue that needs to be solved. I doubt this Republican majority will be able to touch any of it but these are still problems and will remain so until we find a solution.

webkike3• 10 years ago

The issue I have is that most of our progress will be undone. The Paris Climate Accord rejected. Obamacare dismantled. Dodd Frank repealed. It's easier to destroy the world than it is to save it.

tedajax• 10 years ago

Not even mentioning the existential crisis we face knowing that Donald J. Trump, a man who has stated the most important thing in life is to get even, has his finger on the nuclear button and there's nothing any of us can do to stop him.

cmdrfred7• 10 years ago

As this election shows many in the middle class aren't fans of Obamacare. Maybe it isn't a boon to them as many people claim. The middle class are finding high deducable plans that increase in price by 25% each year and when it becomes too unaffordable for them, they are forced to drop it and they are fined. You'd be pissed off too.

ryanx43517• 10 years ago

good. except for the climate accord, that should stay. but obamacare is a disaster and dodd frank sucks.

mikeash16• 10 years ago

Until the sun is obscured by vast clouds of dust as we sink into nuclear winter.

That probably won't happen, but it honestly worries me. The guy is far too unstable and vindictive for the kind of responsibility he's being handed.

If not that, then after all the talk of not accepting the election results, I'm worried he won't go quietly once his term or terms are over, or that he'll set a precedent for the next guy to work outside the system.

If it were just policy differences, no matter how deep, I wouldn't be a tenth as worried as I am.

ryanx43517• 10 years ago

Its crazy to me how different the information bubbles you and I exist in are: Everything I've seen over the course of this election pointed to Clinton being the one who would likely start WW3 and end the world in armageddon, while it would seem that you believe the exact opposite.

interesting.

curiousgal• 10 years ago

Ctrl - F Sanders

0 results. Hadn't Hilary been dishonest and, as much as I hate the word, crooked enough to not allow Bernie to face Trump, this wouldn't have happened.

pja2• 10 years ago

Yup.

I could also see an Elizabeth Warren / Joe Biden ticket doing well against Trump.

This article in Current Affairs turns out to be prophetic: http://static.currentaffairs.org/2016/02/unless-the-democrat...

snarf212• 10 years ago

Even Clinton/Warren or Clinton/Sanders would probably have won.

gthtjtkt4• 10 years ago

WikiLeaks summed it up pretty well:

By biasing its internal electoral market the DNC selected the less competitive candidate defeating the purpose of running a primary.

Hillary, the DNC, and all their cronies deserved this. I would've voted for any Democrat who won the primary fair and square, but I couldn't bring myself to vote for someone who stole an election (and from one of the most well-liked candidates of all time, no less). Many of my friends felt the same way -- they either stayed home, voted 3rd party, or voted without selecting a presidential candidate.

The fact that they tried to bully/guilt everyone into voting for her didn't help much either.

lern_too_spel9• 10 years ago

How did she steal the election, and how was her opponent, who received nearly 4 million fewer votes, one of the most well-liked candidates of all time? The data does not support your story.

andreyf• 10 years ago

Or Biden / Warren. Would have been a slam dunk. Le sigh.

lern_too_spel9• 10 years ago

In what way was Clinton dishonest and crooked enough to prevent Sanders from facing Trump? It was Sanders's 4 million vote deficit in the primaries that did that.

hourislate3• 10 years ago

I can't help but think how this election will look tame in comparison to what is to come. AI and Automation will continue to savage employment. Environment will continue to degrade. Millions of more in America and around the world will feel like they have been left behind.

Where do we go from here?

commenting5• 10 years ago

Indeed, and with regards to the environment, it's particularly worrying that Trump intends to reverse all the progress made so far in the US on addressing climate change.

(Though to be honest, that's one of my lesser worries concerning a Trump presidency. Along with increasing discrimination and divisiveness within the US, it's likely his proposed foreign policy changes will enable Putin to annex further regions of Eastern Europe.)

hourislate3• 10 years ago

Lets hope that it was all talk and he still believes in encouraging Freedom and Democracy around the world.

It is terrifying to consider the message he would send to Putin and other Dictators if he carried through on his foreign policy changes.

koolba4• 10 years ago

As someone who's actively vocalized his support for Trump in the past, both here[1] and in my meat space life, I'm ecstatic with the results of this election.

Not just the POTUS, but the trifecta of the house and senate as well. That's as loud of a mandate as can be expected from a strongly divided country. On top of all that, with the SCOTUS picks that are expected in the next few years, this election is going to be felt for many years to come.

I just hope that as we move forward with the transition to the new government, both sides can leave behind the incessant name calling and hate that's plagued this election. It's done, it's over, and the people have spoken. Now let's move forward on the direction that's been chosen and go about discussing it constructively.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12728645

_fizz_buzz_3• 10 years ago

That's as loud of a mandate as can be expected from a strongly divided country

Is not winning the popular vote really a strong mandate? http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/11/09/501393501/...

yahyaheee• 10 years ago

Seems like the people have spoken

applecore• 10 years ago

Politicians know the electoral college decides the election. If the candidates had been campaigning for the popular vote, presumably Trump would campaign harder for more votes in large states like California and New York.

belorn4• 10 years ago

Was discussing this earlier, how many countries are actually ruled by popular vote? The recent Iceland election brings in mind, where the six constituencies makes a vote in Reykjavík count less than any other vote. The reason for that is if they didn't, citizens of Reykjavík would have a majority on their own in any national election.

Similar, Sweden have a similar system where a vote from the small island of Gotland has 50% more impact compared to any other vote. The reason for that is that otherwise the island would only have 2 politicians in the parliament and the Swedish government wanted to have one more party representing the island than just the two major parties (which, based on those rules, means that the top 3 parties in Gotland is more or less guarantied one seat each).

noobiemcfoob10• 10 years ago

I can't fathom you interpreting the result as a "loud mandate." The presidential race has been extremely tight with ~200,000 separating the two. Is that a clear mandate?

No, it is a clear indication of the divisions in our country.

oarsinsync2• 10 years ago

> Not just the POTUS, but the trifecta of the house and senate as well. That's as loud of a mandate as can be expected from a strongly divided country
I can't fathom you interpreting the result as a "loud mandate." The presidential race has been extremely tight with ~200,000 separating the two. Is that a clear mandate?
No, it is a clear indication of the divisions in our country.

Yes, the country is divided. A single party taking all three major government divisions is as loud a mandate as you can expect in a strongly divided country.

nohate• 10 years ago

How do you reconcile your desire to leave behind hate when you cast a vote for a candidate who's core positions were one of hate? If Trump does not continue a platform of hate, how would you not view that as a slap in the face as a supporter? He promised you hate, you said "Yes, I'll take one of those", and now say don't do that? You can not have it both ways, your vote is one for hate whether you bury your head in the sand about that point or not.

nthcolumn2• 10 years ago

After his BS speech did you see him going down the line of people, kissing each woman on the left cheek, every one except the last one that is. She was about to pucker up and had to awkward kiss the guy next to her instead. Not racist? Yeah right. C'mon man she was at least a 7!

jernfrost7• 10 years ago

Exactly give the man back what he has sown! He has catered to hatred and divisiveness. That is what he should get back.

forgetsusername7• 10 years ago

He promised you hate

Can you point to where he actively promoted or promised "hate"?

You can not have it both ways, your vote is one for hate

You assume those with whom you disagree are below you morally. This mentality is why Trump is president.

pavlov3• 10 years ago

What are the milestones and key metrics for the "direction that has been chosen"?

In four years, if the rural mine workers are still out of work and iPads are still made in China, will you concede that the experiment failed?

I can't see Trump doing that. Deflecting blame has been a theme of his career. Therefore I'm frightened that he's going to need new scapegoats for his lack of achievements pretty soon... And considering the rhetoric he's used, there just is no telling who he might pick to receive the blame.

SketchySeaBeast4• 10 years ago

That's what I'm wondering about this whole thing - by what metrics can we test MAGA? I'm beginning to feel like this is Obama 2.0 when it comes to a revolution - in 4 to 8 years we will look back and go "huh, pretty much business as normal". I'm not worried about a random scapegoat, but I do just see this fizzling, and the anger and division being there again in 4 years time.

pc8610• 10 years ago

In four years, if the rural mine workers are still out of work and iPads are still made in China, will you concede that the experiment failed?

That's like saying that because people still have to pay for insurance in the US that Obamacare failed and he's a failed President and should feel bad about himself.

Asdfbla2• 10 years ago

Seems extremely disingenuous that Trump supporters of all people would criticize hate and name calling when Trump's campaign was run on those issues, but I guess it's always easier to strike a conciliatory tone when you've won.

TheGirondin9• 10 years ago

The entire collective campaign strategy of Democrats has been to name call, demonize, and fear monger. Don't even try to pretend it was them.

rndmio• 10 years ago

Given that the campaign was so divisive and acrimonious, what makes you think the losing side is just going to say 'ok' and get on board? If they think he's going to be as bad as they say surely they should do everything to frustrate him? Same as the Republicans did to Obama.

It's naive to think that just because the vote is in that it's over, look at the UK and Brexit.

ones_and_zeros2• 10 years ago

Can you explain to me what direction the country voted to move in? I'm really really trying to understand but all I see for the Trump voters is more economic pain under Trumps policies and I think will ultimately lead to more division as they dig their heels in as more time passes where they don't see the change they want. Trump supporters were sold the idea that illegal immigrants, legal immigrants, non-white people, muslims and gay people were a threat to the country and their livelihood. Removing these "threats" as Donald Trump has proposed will only benefit those at the top. So where does that leave us? Putting the screws to the perceived threats even more?

matthewmacleod2• 10 years ago

Now let's move forward on the direction that's been chosen

I guess one of the bigger problems is that it's utterly unclear what direction has been chosen.

I think it's fair to say—do correct me if you think I'm wrong—that most of the policies that were advocated by Trump prior to the election will not be put into practice. There are a few reasons for that – many of them are practically unworkable, or contradictory, or will be objectively harmful. It seems that the actual policies that will take effect will be markedly different from those of the campaign.

This is similar to Brexit in the UK, which was a campaign fought in a similar way – quite a few half-truths with no clear idea of what policy was being voted for.

To me, this seems like a dangerous situation. Practically speaking, it is unlikely that Trump with 'make America great again' by solving all of the problems that his supporters face – not because he's a liar, but because that's an astonishingly difficult task to achieve. What happens in a couple of years when relatively limited progress has been made? Trump has no political barriers within the US, so who will be blamed for his inability to deliver on his promises? I worry that such a situation is a breeding ground for nationalism of the worst kind.

ep1034• 10 years ago

This was a rejection of the political establishment, rejection of neo-liberal economics, and a rejection of both the neo-conservative and (to a lesser degree) the libertarian wings of the republican party.

gnaritas2• 10 years ago

There is no mandate here, and there will be no coming together; she's going to win the popular vote, dems win more votes in the house yet because of the electoral college and gerrymandering republicans carry the win. Nothing has happened here but a clear signal of how badly the system is broken when the will of the majority loses to a hateful minority due to a fucked up system.

odonnellryan• 10 years ago

I wouldn't be too concerned, but I'm really bent out of shape of any idea of repealing gay rights or abortion decisions.

mch8210• 10 years ago

What change are you hoping to see?

username3• 10 years ago

What about the people that voted for someone else? If popular vote mattered, more people in uncontested states would vote.

pc8610• 10 years ago

The popular vote does matter, to allocate the Electors for each state. Popular vote was never intended to elect the POTUS.

jernfrost7• 10 years ago

Don't think that is possible. If I was a democrat today I'd do like the Republicans have been doing the last 8 years and do my outmost to make the Trump Presidency be a major failure.

The way the republicans have played this game is so dirty, that you can't expect people to forgive. We can not reward such a divisive character like Donald Trump with his racism, xenophobia, mysogny, insults and bullying with a successful presidency.

Honestly I think the democrats should do the best the sabotage him and make sure everything he does fails. It should teach them a lesson that there is no reward in playing dirty and confrontational.

If we reward this behavior it will only get worse.

It is sad to say, but for the long term benefit of America it is probably better if it gets run to the ground over these four years. Then America will be spared for such leaders in the future.

buckbova2• 10 years ago

It is sad to say, but for the long term benefit of America it is probably better if it gets run to the ground over these four years. Then America will be spared for such leaders in the future.

I heard this EXACT phrase said about Obama 8 years ago! We always get what we deserve. Hope, change, make america great again.

If I was a democrat today I'd do like the Republicans have been doing the last 8 years and do my outmost to make the Trump Presidency be a major failure.

Good luck with that. GOP now has majorities and will probably pick up more in 2018. So be it.

goatlover• 10 years ago

Won't this just devolve into a vicious circle, where the politically expedient thing to do is to utterly sabotage the other side, and teach the voters a less each election cycle?

cableshaft2• 10 years ago

I don't think they should act like the Republicans did under Obama and vote against things they actually believed in just to make him ineffective. If they genuinely vote for things they believe in, maybe Trump will feel more of a reason to compromise instead of digging his heels into the dirt further and further and stomping on them anyway. It's because they did this that the country got further divided and less bipartisan.

But yes, Democrats better do whatever they can to stop anything that's outrageous or they don't believe in even a little bit. No "Oh, the people have spoken, so we better go along with it" shit. Republicans pulled every dirty trick they could with Obama, so they should feel free to do the same.

notacoward5• 10 years ago

do like the Republicans have been doing the last 8 years and do my outmost to make the Trump Presidency be a major failure.

I think I'd modify that just a little. Our too-few representatives in Congress should do everything to thwart the Trump agenda, but only because that agenda is itself a failure. By opposing it, we make America a success. Very different than what the Republicans have been doing.

paulcole• 10 years ago

the democrats should do the best the sabotage him and make sure everything he does fails.

Trump's got a lot more experience playing that game than they do.

woodchuck647• 10 years ago

Honestly I think the democrats should do the best the sabotage him and make sure everything he does fails.

I don't think this is necessary. With Obama, his policies were ultimately shaped, designed and compromised to benefit centrist to left-leaning voters, and so he was sharply opposed by the right and extreme right. With Trump, his policies will be ultimately shaped, designed and compromised to benefit Trump, so it is far from clear that this will give advantage to any class of voter at all.

erikpukinskis13• 10 years ago

I actually think we are facing real daily crises that need to be addressed. So no, I'm not going to try to sabotage my country in order to try to tarnish the Republican brand. I have work to do.

st3v3r6• 10 years ago

How can you expect the millions of marginalized people to just "sit back and move in the direction that has been chosen" when that direction is one that believes they should not exist?

oarsinsync2• 10 years ago

The same way as people do every 4 years when one side doesn't get their way. This is the system we've collectively chosen. This is how it works.

The alternative is even more extreme.

gaur5• 10 years ago

both sides can leave behind the incessant name calling and hate that's plagued this election

Trump ran his campaign on incessant name calling and hate. If you voted for him, that means you're OK with letting the incessant name calling and hate continue.

stagger87• 10 years ago

No it doesn't.

oh_sigh4• 10 years ago

Weird that 99% of the incessant name calling and hate comes from my liberal friends who believe that all Trump supporters are racist xenophobes

Scirra_Tom2• 10 years ago

So your link doesn't give any reasons. What reasons are you happy about Trump for?

inthewoods2• 10 years ago

"Now let's move forward on the direction that's been chosen and go about discussing it constructively."

A few thoughts on this:

- First, roughly half (and the majority of the votes) did not agree with this direction. That isn't much of a mandate.

- Second, the party that won has repeatedly shown that they don't want to work on compromise, or follow standard procedure such as allowing a sitting President to get a hearing for a nominee for the Supreme Court.

As a person that feels that this trifecta will change the country for years to come (as you rightly point out), my hope is that the Dems do exactly to Republicans what they've done for the last 4 years - obstruct in any way possible. I'm tired of one side feeling that they have to play by the rules and the other feeling they can ignore them. And I hope that Ruth Ginsburg serves at least for the first term.

pc8610• 10 years ago

allowing a sitting President to get a hearing for a nominee for the Supreme Court.

Let's talk about George W. Bush's nominees...

Politics is politics and to pretend that one side or the other plays them "dirty" and the other side plays them "clean" is naiveté of an astounding level.

plandis• 10 years ago

Why do you hate national parks

Why do you deny climate change?

Why do you support molesting women?

Why do you think black people need to be stopped and frisked?

Why do you hate gay people?

Why do you think all Muslims are bad?

Why do you think more religion in our government and schools is a good thing?

Why do you hate women's reproductive rights?

Why do you think we should actively consider using nuclear weapons?

Why do you want to allow health care providers to deny coverage to some people essentially signing their death warrant?

That's not name calling you voted for the guy and his running mate who think that way.

What the fuck? What do you have against my gay friends who just want health care? What have they ever done to you?

oh_sigh4• 10 years ago

What do you have to say about the women who voted for Trump. Do they support molesting themselves?

What about the black people that voted for Trump?

What about the gay people that voted for Trump?

What about the Muslim people that voted for Trump?

erikpukinskis13• 10 years ago

I'm actually happy for you. And I'm scared about some things (mostly health care access and wars due to climate change) but I am also excited to see how some of these conservative policies pan out in practice. I hope it moves the dialog forward.

That said, your mandate claim is kind of absurd. More people voted for Romney than Trump.

And Obama got almost 10% more votes than Trump did. So it's not nearly "as loud as can be". Turnout was very low.

nopinsight• 10 years ago

Since the GOP now holds both Congress and the Presidency, with a likelihood of continued Supreme Court majority, they may enact some protectionist policies to appease the voters. However, these could in fact make the economic situations worse and some people would start to blame other things.

Could the backlash spill to the technology and related sectors as well (e.g. a neo-Luddite movement might get started)?

Note: I did not grow up in the US, so I would like to hear your opinions on this, especially from Americans.

hx879• 10 years ago

Since the GOP now holds both Congress and the Presidency, with a likelihood of continued Supreme Court majority, they may enact some protectionist policies to appease the voters.

That would ignite a civil war in the Republican party between the populists and the upper-class free-trade establishment, and while the populists have a good chance of winning, it's not a done deal.

Could the backlash spill to the technology and related sectors as well (e.g. a neo-Luddite movement might get started)?

Unlikely, since anyone who gives up technology will be at a severe competitive disadvantage and screw themselves over.

WillPostForFood2• 10 years ago

Why neo-luddite? You can probably look at Trump's manic use of Twitter as an pro-technology indicator.

themckman2• 10 years ago

So, I voted for DJT (I like calling him that, for some reason). I didn't vote for him because I agreed with any of his policies (as best I can tell he never actually presented any during the course of his campaign) or because I thought he was the best representative for the people of this country. I did so for a couple of reasons:

1. I like a good underdog story. The people that support him, for a multitude of reasons, feel neglected by the ruling class in this country. Now I don't know who started all the name calling, but I personally dislike the way they're demeaned and patronized by the Democrats/Liberals as racists and deplorable. There is absolutely no respect from the left given to these people and their opinions. Yeah, there are some loud one saying some ridiculous things, but I refuse to believe that close to half the country hates people of color and wants to completely isolate us from the rest of the world by closing our borders. It just can't be true. I lived in Germany for the last year and was just stunned at how quickly the word Xenophobia was used to label anyone that disagreed with Merkel's policy regarding the refugees. If your opinions were so immediately dismissed with such a strong word, you're going to start harboring some pretty strong feelings of animosity towards those who so quickly judge.

2. I believed he was the candidate with the biggest chance of winning that would bring about the biggest amount of disruption and change. (By this account, I should have voted for Obama in 2007 instead of writing in Ron Paul. But goddamn if Ron Paul didn't seem to have the most reasonable, compassionate and "real" voice I've ever heard in politics.) This, I believe, is inline largely with why Peter Thiel was backing him. I don't know if any of that change or disruption is going to be good or bad for me or the rest of America, but things are certainly going to be interesting for the next four years. Both the Republican and Democratic parties are going to be in complete turmoil as they scramble to figure out what the hell just happened. I think we were all ready to talk about the, sort of, civil war that was about to erupt in the Republican party after this election, but we might end up talking more, initially, about the same thing happening in the Democratic party. Obviously things aren't rosy with the Republicans just because they won everything, but the Democrats really have nothing to do but try and figure out what went wrong and fix it. I, also, don't believe he can really do anything too awful that we can't recover from; I have some faith in the checks and balances laid out by the constitution that will prevent DJT, himself, from doing too much harm. Unlike the Brexit vote, a DJT presidency isn't permanent. We'll be back in four years to do it all over again.

Delmania8• 10 years ago

. Yeah, there are some loud one saying some ridiculous things, but I refuse to believe that close to half the country hates people of color and wants to completely isolate us from the rest of the world by closing our borders. It just can't be true.

You've never been to the deep south, much the south, have you?

2. I believed he was the candidate with the biggest chance of winning that would bring about the biggest amount of disruption and change

Anyone who believes Trump can change things is delusional and has very little, if any grasp, of how power works. Obama was voted in on the promise of change, as all we got was a watered down health care bill and the ability for gays to get married. The ACA probably won't be repealed any time because the Republicans do not have complete control. He will do a few things, and non-White, nonchristian people will suffer, but by in large things will stay the same. The simple fact is that the people who get you elected are not the same people you need to work with to enact legislation.

fuqted4• 10 years ago

non-white people will suffer

Please tell me how non-white Americans will suffer from the policies of Trump. I'd think, what with 65k Syrian refugees flooding in and flocking to places like California (where I live) and backed up by policies in to land them unskilled jobs, the minority demo would suffer much more than, for instance, some Americans having their illegal relatives deported for example.

jansanchez2• 10 years ago

Obama was voted in on the promise of change, as all we got was a watered down health care bill and the ability for gays to get married.

While I agree with the general sentiment, specially since they had majorities and they couldn't get a much better health care bill, we got more than that. For instance:

- Consumer Financial Protection Bureau

- Dodd-Frank

paulddraper7• 10 years ago

You do realize that a black man was just elected as president twice, by a respectable margin each time?

So...like the parent said, most Americans don't hate colored people. I do think most Americans are frustrated by Obamacare, haphazard foreign involvement, and bailouts.

themckman2• 10 years ago

You've never been to the deep south, much the south, have you?

I have been to the south (maybe not the "deep south") but your general assumption that I don't have a great understanding of the people that reside there is accurate. I do understand that there actually are people who truly hate people of color. What I was really taking issue with is the label of bigotry being so readily applied to anyone who supports Trump. I just find it unfair.

Regarding your last point, I wasn't necessarily trying to say that the change and disruption would happen specifically within government or by way of the laws we might pass. I apologize if that wasn't entirely clear. The most obvious place, as I mentioned, where we might see some of this is within both of the major parties themselves and how they operate outside of government. The Democrats will start that process immediately as they were the biggest losers and the Republicans will put that on hold as they do have some control over government, but clearly their party isn't in great shape either.

weberc24• 10 years ago

You've never been to the deep south, much the south, have you?

Even still, the left has treated the center and right like klansmen for the last decade. Perhaps the left's fatal flaw was failing to distinguish between actual racists and those who simply didn't drink the identity-politics kool-aid.

fuqted4• 10 years ago

I'm also a Trump supporter, and this post largely echoes my reasoning.

I refuse to believe that close to half of this country hates people of color

It's been confirmed that many pro Obama counties have turned pro Trump this election cycle. Clearly not racists.

csorrell• 10 years ago

I'm not a Trump supporter, but it has been really frustrating to watch the Buzzfeed crowd paint all Trump supporters as misogynist racists. My facebook feed has been loaded with articles about how white men failed the feminist movement and all sorts of other crap that misses the point. I thinks Trumps popularity is best explained by saying that people are sick and tired of politics as usual. It's really not because half the country hates minorities.

geofft5• 10 years ago

I refuse to believe that close to half the country hates people of color and wants to completely isolate us from the rest of the world by closing our borders. It just can't be true.

I have to agree with the other commenter who asks if you lived in the Deep South. I grew up in Louisiana. In the early '90s, we had David Duke (whose name you may recognize from this campaign), an actual, genuine, Ku Klux Klan Grand Wizard, be a state senator, run a very close to successful campaign for US Senate, and run a very close to successful campaign the following year for governor. Wikipedia recounts the vote totals for the gubernatorial election:

[Edwin] Edwards received 1,057,031 votes (61.2%), while Duke's 671,009 votes represented 38.8% of the total. Duke nevertheless claimed victory, saying, "I won my constituency. I won 55% of the white vote," a statistic confirmed by exit polls.

We can argue about what "hates people of color" means, precisely, but if 40% of voters, and 55% of white voters, are willing to put a KKK Imperial Wizard in charge of the state, it's not an implausible claim. Maybe not half the country. Maybe a quarter. Maybe the majority in some states and not others. Maybe the core constituency of some but not all senators. Is that okay?

And given this country's recent history of explicit anti-black political actions by people in power (see e.g. George Wallace's "segregation forever" and Lee Atwater's candid statement of the Southern Strategy), it's hard to argue that that all evaporated since then.

I don't know if any of that change or disruption is going to be good or bad for me or the rest of America, but things are certainly going to be interesting for the next four years.

There are a lot of people (e.g., me, presumably you) who can deal just fine with four "interesting" years. There are a lot of people who can't. My LGBT friends are freaking out, for instance, and with a vice president who believes in torturing the gay away, I don't blame them. My capable-of-being-pregnant friends are freaking out. My non-citizen friends on valid visas are freaking out.

Disruption to force change is a fine way to solve some problems, like Netflix's infrastructure being reliant on AWS not shutting down machines. But this isn't Netflix's infrastructure, this is people's lives. I know plenty of people who aren't asking whether to uproot their lives but how, and they're pretty uninterested in having an interesting four years.

dmode3• 10 years ago

If you think DJT will change anything you are sadly mistaken. That's not how the American government works. And American economy is deeply entrenched with the global economy, so nothing will be changed. Also, some of the things Peter Thiel mentioned are often labeled as "Big Government" spending - e.g., space, healthcare, education etc. Be sure that Trump's party is categorically against Big Govt spending. So none of that will come to fruition as well.

losvedir• 10 years ago

winning that would bring about the biggest amount of disruption and change

This is an interesting point. I've toyed with the notion lately that maybe the American political system is "antifragile"[0]. It's plausible, at least, to me that the system as a whole is stronger when it receives major shocks that disrupt the ossified structure in there. If you have the same politicians with the same policies as normal, then you get ties between the government and industry, and handouts and a ruling elite, etc. Now I don't think Trump is all that much of an outsider or has that much chance of disruption here (I voted Johnson, partly in this hope), but it's interesting to me you raise it as a reason.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antifragile

tcoppi9• 10 years ago

I think there is probably some truth to the antifragile theory, but we should remember that the system is made up of individual people and their choices to act within that system. Too many rogue players and there is no system.

jmcgough2• 10 years ago

I'm transgender and my people are in mourning. This might seem like a game to you, but there are very real consequences that will felt by vulnerable groups of people. He's already promised to repeal LGBT protections.

zo13• 10 years ago

Protections such as what?

At the base level: Laws still apply, people will go to jail if they harm you. It's not like he's going to declare open hunting season on LGBTQ people.

DavajDavaj• 10 years ago

I think the election of Trump is also a backslash against the PC, SJW, safe-space, trigger-warning, micro aggression tendencies that have been spreading in the U.S. for the last couple of years. This has become too much and millions of Americans are fed up with it, they have now spoken out.

arcaster• 10 years ago

I agree, although I did not support Trump I hope this shows supporters of PC and SJW culture that attacking people not their ideas doesn't enact real change. More importantly the notion that ethics and morals are separate from opinions and feelings.

ap22213• 10 years ago

How else can a bunch of very different people work together and be productive together without some level of decorum and safety? So, we get rid of 'political correctness' (i.e. respectfulness), and what then?

Many people don't like their co-worker's or neighbor's personal beliefs or behaviors. I can't see that letting people be persecuted openly will end well or fruitfully for anyone.

Addendum:

It's interesting that my other comments are getting downvoted or even detached. Wasn't part of this big 'movement' to get rid of political correctness? I guess I don't understand. But, I'll be done. Sorry.

psyc3• 10 years ago

The problem with SJW culture is not that they want respect, it's the utterly disrespectful, hostile, and dogmatic way they go about demanding it, and defining it.

RandomOpinion• 10 years ago

How else can a bunch of very different people work together and be productive together without some level of decorum and safety? So, we get rid of 'political correctness' (i.e. respectfulness), and what then?

Live and let live.

(Which is exactly what "safe spaces" and "check your privilege" and the political correctness under threat of ostracism _isn't_.)

mtaksrud• 10 years ago

Could you elaborate on what these things are? PC, SJW, safe-space, trigger-warning an micro aggression(?)

psyc3• 10 years ago

https://www.reddit.com/r/TumblrInAction/

EC1• 10 years ago

It is the flavour of the year political topics maintained by a small percentage of college students. It'll soon fade from those buzzwords and take on a new ideology. Due to the internet, it seems like much bigger of an issue than it really is.

citruscomputing• 10 years ago

PC means politically correct. According to wikipedia[0], this is defined as "used to describe language, policies, or measures that are intended primarily not to offend or disadvantage any particular group of people in society." In short, thinking before you speak because words have consequences and can make people feel things.

SJW means social justice warrior. It carries a negative connotation, being defined[1] as "[carrying] implications of pursuing personal validation rather than any deep-seated conviction, and being engaged in disingenuous social justice arguments or activism to raise personal reputation."

A safe space is somewhere "individuals who feel marginalized [can] come together to communicate regarding their experiences with their perceived marginalization."[2] This originated so that members of the lgbt+ community could talk freely and not feel like they would be persecuted for doing so. People today sometimes use the term to refer to places where they cannot be openly hateful, citing a violation of free speech.

A trigger is something that can cause someone to recall a previous trauma that they have experienced. Examples could be descriptions or portrayals of rape, graphic violence, suicide, or blood. Not all triggers are this directly connected to what people have experienced, but these are what people usually use in trigger warnings. Trigger warnings are little things saying "hey, there's some material following that may potentially trigger memories of trauma."

Microaggressions refer to actions that are not directly aggressive to a member of a marginalized group, but are still hurtful. They can be defined[3] as "rooted in racism, sexism, or discrimination based on nationality or sexual orientation. [They] can be delivered casually or even unconsciously." Examples could be sexist jokes, purposeful discrimination based on race, or misgendering trans people.

Some people use these terms to say that people today are so sensitive, it's just words, etc. Most of those people are not members of any marginalized groups.

[0] https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Political_correctness [1]:https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Social_justice_warrior [2]:https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Safe-space [3]:http://qz.com/787504/what-exactly-is-a-microaggression-let-t...

ddorian436• 10 years ago

pc=politically correct

sjw=social justice warrior

trigger-warning=just google it. there are people that go in panic when they hear certain stuff (kinda insane really)

safe space= a place that protects you from words that trigger you

micro aggresion= normal aggresion is hitting someone example, micro aggresion is looking wrong, or saying something ~"bad"~

a good example: watch the "hugh mungus" fenomen (original video and many reactions like https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4aVna3HohXI )

astockwell• 10 years ago

PC: Politically Correct SJW: Social Justice Warrior

mikeash16• 10 years ago

Which is ironic since Trump's supporters are the most PC, safe-space, triggered people I've seen. Clinton called some of them "deplorables" and there was such hue and cry. Point out that it's racist to criticize a judge based on his ancestry, or to propose banning immigrants based on their religion, and they got so tremendously offended.

some-guy• 10 years ago

This is spot on. "PC" "safe-space" and "SJW" are simply labels for specific people, but the same tendencies behind them exist everywhere.

The same people complaining about PC-culture and SJWs are the same people who are outraged about Colin Kaepernick taking a knee during the national anthem.

ng123• 10 years ago

Clinton called some of them "deplorables" and there was such hue and cry

I think this was Hillary's single biggest mistake. It was exactly what they were waiting for -- the "Washington Elite" telling them they were less than. It gave the outsiders a rallying call.

devopsproject6• 10 years ago

They were mad because she attacked US citizens

rudolf09• 10 years ago

I think you're making a false equivalency here. Both sides are very thin-skinned, no doubt, but one is a direct insult ("you are deplorables") and one is taking general offense on behalf of other people for perceived slights.

(I voted for Hillary, mind.)

kllrnohj2• 10 years ago

I don't see how. The millions of Americans that voted for Trump are not the people that subscribe to /r/The_Donald or spread dank memes.

PC, SJW, etc... had no presence in the mainstream election, and it was the rural mainstream that won Trump the election. Not pepe & dank memes.

antisthenes7• 10 years ago

I have to agree with this. I don't think the vast majority of the voters even know what terms are (outside of the 18-24 demographic), on both sides.

cooper12• 10 years ago

PC, SJW, safe-space, trigger-warning, micro aggression tendencies

You couldn't fit more reactionary buzzwords in there if you tried. Jesus... PC culture is not being able to call out Trump supporters for being bigots or else their feelings will get hurt.

api5• 10 years ago

I don't see much evidence that these things matter outside of loud minorities.

That and all societies have these things. In Saudi Arabia it is illegal to insult the prophet and they have declared what amounts to a "safe space" for Islam. That's one extreme and clear example but every society has taboos and ways of enforcing those taboos.

huac3• 10 years ago

I have a lot of thoughts, but here's one: Hillary focused her entire campaign on why people should stop Trump, at the expense of talking about why she should be president. In general, making the case against someone else rather than the affirmative case for yourself doesn't work. It's reaction versus action.

It's undoubtably true now that there was a very real populist anger towards the existing political order, and as a corollary, the political and economic elites. Instead of harnessing that energy and attempting to create a movement (see: Sanders, Bernie), the Democratic party anointed a candidate who is the definition of establishment.

The results are showing that Hillary lost, at least in large part, due to lower voter turnout, especially among liberal-leaning populations. With all else equal, Podesta, DWS, Neera Tanden, and the rest of the DNC cutup squad ignored the people and ran on the "man, Dangerous Donald, obviously you're not gonna vote for him!" platform. That, and shaming Bernie/Stein supporters about their support for a candidate who can't win - rather than explaining how Clinton's policies would be good. Well, the Democrats and 'moderates' didn't vote for Trump, but they sure didn't have a reason to vote for Clinton either.

gthtjtkt4• 10 years ago

at the expense of talking about why she should be president.

Hillary couldn't make that argument because it would've drawn more attention to her most damning flaw: The fact that she's a textbook demagogue who was on the wrong side of every progressive issue until she found it politically expedient to "evolve".

That's why so many people were so passionate about Sanders. You could go back to C-SPAN videos from 1992 and hear him saying the exact same things he said throughout the whole primary season.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vabeos-F8Kk

komali2• 10 years ago

There's that picture of him being arrested during civil rights protests.

weaksauce• 10 years ago

he would have been something you can set a clock to and someone that was on the right side of history before it was politically expedient to be on.

btkramer9• 10 years ago

That's why so many people were so passionate about Sanders. You could go back to CSPAN videos from 1992 and hear him saying the exact same things he said throughout the whole primary season.

This was this the exact same case with Ron Paul 4 years ago but it seemed to hardly matter

Asooka• 10 years ago

This twitter meme basically sums up my feelings: https://twitter.com/VoteTrumpPics/status/796032206238060545

If you can't open it, it's an exchange between Gimli and Legolas from the LoTR movie.

Gimli (wearing Bernie hat): I never thought I'd be fighting side by side with a trumpster.

Legolas (with MAGA hat): What about side by side with a deplorable?

Gimli (wearing Bernie hat): Aye.

Gimli (wearing Hillary for Prison 2016 hat): I could do that.

Ordinarily if the choice is bad I'd vote third party, but I really didn't want Hillary in and I was pretty sure this wouldn't be the election when the third party wins it.

greenshackle211• 10 years ago

Having the same opinion for 24 years is not a virtue.

In the (probably apocryphal) words of Keynes:

When someone persuades me that I am wrong, I change my mind. What do you do?

It's not a sign of vice either; I'm sure he's been believing that the Earth is round for 24+ years, and that's fine. What matters is accuracy, and updating in the face of new evidence, not consistency. Consistency in the face of new evidence is called faith.

VLM8• 10 years ago

There's a dependency tree required to get to the point of "vote", and you have to pass thru "respect" first.

I disagree with, but respect, Sanders, Stein, Warren, Feingold (and some other lefties). Hillary equals revulsion, repulsion. I can't be talked from "respect" to "vote" with someone I can't even respect first.

The D party worked very hard on converting "respect" people to "vote" people. I think they achieved 100% success. The problem is most of the country can never respect her, and there was zero effort put into making her respectable (perhaps it was recognized as impossible?)

There's something fundamentally wrong internally with the D party when the ground seems to be crawling with respectable (possibly votable!) candidates but instead we get a movie caricature of Lex Luther combined with a slightly more chicken hawk bloodthirsty Joker from a sequel rejected in the 90s. There's something just horribly fundamentally wrong with how people gain political power inside the D party, resulting in the wrong leaders at the wrong times.

ZeroGravitas5• 10 years ago

This was actually what I thought was Clinton's best quality. I believe it's called "triangulation" and it means figuring out what compromise can be achieved in the current political circumstances and going with that rather that what you believe to be the one true right answer, if that would lead to less pragmatic progress.

Basically, "the perfect is the enemy of the good" applied to politics.

e.g. "Don't ask, don't tell" is a crappy policy compared with letting gay people serve openly, but it's an improvement on the status quo at that time which was setting up sting operations to catch out gay servicemen and throw them out of the army.

I guess I'm condoning her fighting for something she doesn't truly believe is right, as long as it's better than what's currently the case. Does that make me bad? Does it make her bad?

burke• 10 years ago

she's a textbook demagogue

I mean, I know people have been redirecting Trump's flaws onto Hillary but this is just hilarious.

alkonaut• 10 years ago

It's interesting how my own political positions change over time and are completely unrecognizable compared to 20 years ago. I consider it a strength. Yet for a politician it's associated with hypocrisy or triangulation.

I'm a big fan of Bernie, but I'm not sure I want a politician with early 90s views of everything...

criddell5• 10 years ago

Hillary focused her entire campaign on why people should stop Trump, at the expense of talking about why she should be president.

I couldn't disagree more. This campaign was all about emotion, not rationality. Apparently facts don't matter and that's very hard to deal with.

huac3• 10 years ago

There are emotional and rational ways to make any particular argument. She just chose to focus on arguments that only her staffers care about, rather than appealing to the (obviously) very real populist energy and anger.

Facts do matter, and I think it's disingenuous to really argue that they don't, even to the American electorate. I think the overriding truth is that politics is about engagement, and it's a battle - just because you have the 'right' ideas doesn't mean you will win. You need to engage, encourage, and motivate people to vote for you - which the Clinton campaign could not do.

pluma10• 10 years ago

Contrast her making her candidacy a Feminist (and by absurd extrapolation LGBTQ and diversity) issue with Obama's campaign. Yes, everybody felt good about having elected a black president when it was over but he didn't offer "black cards" for download on his website and show grandiose self-promoting videos about the Black Man's Struggle.

A large part of Hillary's campaign (both officially and via her supporters on social media) was actively shaming people into voting for "the woman" instead of "the bigot". Unsurprisingly that seems to have backfired, leaving many liberals flabbergasted how "Women for Trump" was ever a thing.

I would have been upset with either candidate winning but the entire candidacy showed the worst side of American election cycles: mudslinging, character assassination and trying to convince everyone the other guy is literally the devil. Trump's accusations of Clinton being "a liar" and "a criminal" (IOW a typical career politician) were pretty harmless compared to the hyperbole (deserved or not) hauled at him.

thewhitetulip2• 10 years ago

What I find truly amazing is how people say "RIP Democracy" (not all of them), when it were the people of the US who elected Trump, didn't they?

Also that the media is totally disconnected with the ground reality, I know it is in my country, it is more in the US apparently.

nikcub3• 10 years ago

This campaign was all about emotion, not rationality.

Keep thinking that and you'll lose the next election as well. Amongst Trump supporters I know it was about jobs, the economy, the wars and a feeling that politicians no longer represented them.

I have no doubt there are some Trump supporters who are racist and sexist, but that doesn't win you the middle swing states and the rust belt (especially those states that voted Obama but went against Clinton)

rconti5• 10 years ago

I'm quite sure every campaign speech would disagree with you.

But that's not what gets coverage.

huac3• 10 years ago

The one where Hillary spoke about cartoon frogs?

Scirra_Tom2• 10 years ago

Hillary focused her entire campaign on why people should stop Trump

Until now I thought that wasn't a bad strategy against Trump as he had said and done so many repulsive things far far beyond what I would of thought the voting population would of tolerated.

For example, "grabbing women by the p*y" I would of thought would have alienated the entire female voting population.

For some reason, some women voters seemed to of tolerated this. It should of been easy win for Hilary.

gaius3• 10 years ago

But consider, "got 'em by the balls" is a commonly used expression. If Hillary had said that she had got Col Ghaddafi "by the balls" no-one would have batted an eyelid. It certainly would not have alienated the entire male voting population. The double standard meant that focussing on this one line, undermined Hillary's campaign.

BryantD3• 10 years ago

Yeah, this is a lot of why I am rejecting the easy answers. John Edwards was one of the most populist Democratic candidates we've seen in a while, and his political career ended because he had an affair. I can't really blame anyone for thinking that Trump's sexual misadventures would be a serious weakness.

croon3• 10 years ago

In general, making the case against someone else rather than the affirmative case for yourself doesn't work. It's reaction versus action.

Well that's blatantly false.

That was Trump's entire campaign. All I've heard all year was "Benghazi", "emails" and "crooked", all of which were just rephrasing of the same thing, repeated in perpetuum. It most definitely worked.

maratd• 10 years ago

All I've heard all year was "Benghazi", "emails" and "crooked"

It's true, that's all you heard, but that's not all that he was saying and the part that you didn't hear ... that's why he won. Those who voted for him heard a different message, one specific to their economic circumstances. It's always the economy. And while the aggregate macro picture looks good, we are going through some major shifts underneath those numbers.

gregd• 10 years ago

And his supporters continue to shout, "Jail her!".

lumberjack2• 10 years ago

Well your problem is you are using the wrong news sources then. I'm not even American and I know at the very least that Trump started out with a very bombastic and completely un-Republican plan that immediately got the people's attention.

He promised huge tax cuts, a reformed health care system which is more accessible and tariffs that brought back manufacturing jobs. He promised a lot of other things but I'm mentioning what attracted the working class towards him.

He only started attacking Hillary much later.

TheGRS4• 10 years ago

That's one piece of the puzzle though. I wouldn't say he won only on that platform. He also won on platforms of change, law and order, and a return to old school America. I personally thought it was a disgusting campaign that used fear mongering and hate to vilify numerous parts of the nation, but I would not say his only platform was "don't vote for Hillary". But for Hillary I would definitely say the opposite was her strongest message, perhaps even her only one.

revelation• 10 years ago

You're in a bubble. No worries, we all are, I think New York Times had that "Clinton win probability" meter at >90% for many many months. It slipped to >80% or so on election day.

I've come to realize that all their statistics foo is just peddled propaganda in opaque packaging. Utterly worthless.

mememachine2• 10 years ago

all of that was to shut out Dem turnout, none of that was why he got votes

clifanatic2• 10 years ago

You never heard him say "build a wall"?

jbkrule• 10 years ago

I disagree with you entirely on your first point. Trump's entire campaign was based on hate and that's why he won. It was all about building the base of people who hate the other side more.

cloakandswagger3• 10 years ago

The next four years is going to be very confusing for you if you can't ask yourself objective questions about your opposition and resist the reflex to paint them as a cartoon villain.

ltorresv2• 10 years ago

If you ever watched a rally he'd talk about Hillary 10% of the time. The rest was about America and his plans.

OTOH Hillary rallies were 90% Trump bashing distributed among different groups. - now all women!! - now all hispanics! - now [insert group name here]

You can't compare how both candidates ran their campaigns and it's hard to argue that HRC main campaign points were: 1. I'm a woman. 2. I'm not Trump.

BryantD3• 10 years ago

On the other hand, Trump focused his campaign on populist anger against Clinton, which seems very similar to making the case against someone else. "The woman, Hillary, it would be a disaster if she was elected and I can save you from her."

I'm not convinced by this argument.

macspoofing• 10 years ago

That was part of his argument. He also pushed immigration and anti-trade.

daodedickinson5• 10 years ago

turnout

"Obama got 65.9m votes in '12, Romney 60.9m. Clinton has 59.3m, Trump 59.1m. R vote didn't go up; Dem vote went down. 6.6m missing votes."

https://twitter.com/MaxBoot/status/796378238306160641

vkou8• 10 years ago

We don't have final counts yet - these numbers will increase. Voter turnout this election was high.

toomuchtodo2• 10 years ago

I sat out as a Sanders supporter. I am sure I am not alone.

EDIT:

1. I viewed Sanders support of Clinton as forced/coerced, as in "We let you compete in the Democratic primary, now you owe us". EDIT 2: By agreeing to support Clinton, she adopted some of his left leaning policies (in show only though, such as not supporting fracking or the TPP).

2. Of course I voted down ballot.

EDIT 3: Getting really tired of these HN throttling limits.

dannylandau• 10 years ago

This disparity in numbers is the most salient point about this election, period.

jarnix• 10 years ago

It's not entirely true. During the previous elections in France, people voted against Sarkozy, they did not vote for François Hollande.

pcunite3• 10 years ago

> ... and shaming Bernie/Stein supporters

This ... the voting public was told over and over what to think, told what was best for us. We decided for ourselves.

DominikR3• 10 years ago

This is true, she didn't make a strong positive case for what her policies would look like. And if she did then she didn't spend her time effectively trying to convey this. (can't actually remember even a single policy of hers except for easier abortions and confrontation with Russia over Syria)

But what I feel is problematic is that Trump was painted as some kind of Hitler, which is ludicrous if you spent a few hours watching some of his rallies. He says things he shouldn't say, and some might say he's an a-hole, but he certainly doesn't come across as a Hitler, a fascist or a Nazi.

Why is it so problematic for everyone? It increases the likelihood of violence, not just against Trump and his family, but against everyone showing public support for him.

In some way not only the people engaging in violence are to blame, but also the media and the campaigns, because when you somehow convince a large chunk of the population that a candidate is literally like Hitler then many will use violence believing it's justified in order to prevent a new Holocaust.

Also the Hitler comparison is used today too often. I believe we currently have 4 Hitlers according to the political establishment: Trump, Putin, Erdogan, Duterte

ltorresv2• 10 years ago

I remember the leaks mentioned something about reinforcing the "Trump = Hitler" idea.

This was all manufactured by the DNC and it didn't work. I wouldn't be surprised if they're currently planning ways to disrupt Trumps inauguration or other events during the next 4 years to see if he snaps and they can use that as ammo for the next election.

At the end of the day it's politics and playing dirty is expected but now that one side has been exposed it's hard to brush it off thinking everybody does it.

stcredzero7• 10 years ago

He says things he shouldn't say, and some might say he's an a-hole

I voted for Obama in previous elections. But I also remember how he'd said denigrating things about people who "cling to guns or religion." I suspect people voted for Trump because they thought he didn't put on one face for one public and put on another one for a different public. (Which I doubt is the reality.)

Our media "elites" aren't elites anymore, and they're very out of touch with walk of life lower on the socioeconomic ladder. Denigration and painting with a broad brush are now accepted as the "reality" of politics, the news media, and social media. The "savvy" line to to accept and skirt such things. This is done by both the right and the left.

I believe we currently have 4 Hitlers according to the political establishment: Trump, Putin, Erdogan, Duterte

Fox News made various comparisons of Obama to Hitler.

In a book from the 90's, Eric Drexler proposed that a networked world would save society and make it easier to disseminate the truth. In 2016, one finds that instead the internet has given the loudest voices to the coarsest, most hateful, and stupidest among us. (And by this, I don't mean Trump, but rather online activists on both the right and left.)

kafkaesq3• 10 years ago

I upvoted (or rather, anti-downvoted) your comment because (even though it does seem you could use a better historical perspective on things) it was undoubtedly sincere and civil.

But what I feel is problematic is that Trump was painted as some kind of Hitler, which is ludicrous if you spent a few hours watching some of his rallies.

The thing about Trump is that he's better classified as a "proto-" or "quasi-fascist", rather than anything of the old school, early 20th-century sort. For exactly the reasons you describe -- Middle America in 2016 doesn't particularly have an appetite for jackboots or Nuremberg-style rallies, and most likely never will.

But blatant anti-intellectualism, incessant emotionalism, button-pushing, and finger-pointing, combined with a healthy dose of naked bigotry and not-so-subtly implied threats of violence? "You betcha". Those are the seeds of fascist and authoritarian thinking. And they are at the very heart and core of what Trump and his people are about.

notacoward5• 10 years ago

Hillary focused her entire campaign on why people should stop Trump

I don't believe that. It might be what you saw but that's because the media wouldn't cover anything substantive. She tried; it just got drowned out by all the smears (including those against Trump) and horse-race coverage.

CountSessine• 10 years ago

The results are showing that Hillary lost, at least in large part, due to lower voter turnout, especially among liberal-leaning populations

I can't help but think of the similarity to the 2012 election where rank-and-file middle-class conservative voters were being asked to support a Republican candidate who built his fortune firing Americans and off-shoring their jobs. They didn't vote for Obama, but they sure didn't vote for Romney either.

maxxxxx• 10 years ago

I have heard something on the radio that rigs true: The Democrats used to be party for blue collar workers but they have totally abandoned them. At least Trump said the right things.

I agree that Clinton never made a case for electing her other than being there for some reason. In general, the Republicans have the courage to take clear positions no matter right or wrong. Whereas the Democrats and especially Clinton are super wishy-washy.

mch8210• 10 years ago

In what way has the Democratic Party abandoned blue collar workers? By supporting labor unions? By supporting labor laws? By supporting anti-discrimination laws?

I agree with you that the Democratic Party is horrible at communicating with voters.

CatMtKing• 10 years ago

I thought Michael Moore's reasons were pretty on point: http://michaelmoore.com/trumpwillwin/

Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin were indeed critical to the election, though it was by a hair that Trump won.

The liberal vote was not very enthusiastic, whereas Trump pulled in people that were die-hard fans.

disease• 10 years ago

Wow, this is eerily prescient and the best explanation I've seen so far of the Trump phenomenon. Great read for someone like me who like so many others, didn't know a single person voting for Trump.

pmuk• 10 years ago

This is very similar to what happened in the UK with Brexit; the remain campaign focused their arguments on the negatives / fear of leaving rather than the positives of being part of the EU.

btreecat• 10 years ago

That and we should take away the message that voter suppression efforts in states like NC worked.

ianai• 10 years ago

With how close it was it's disingenuous to look for reasons why she lost. People simply didn't think the entire rural population would vote enmasse and they underestimated the size of that voting block. Full stop.

SonicSoul• 10 years ago

I agree. Combine that with her pretty much saying what she thinks people want to hear, and no real history of standing for anything, she really sucked as a candidate.

I also believe that the Dems suppressed Bernie in order to have Hillary as their nominee. I don't think Trump had a chance against Bernie. I am hopeful that this will be a blow to the 2 party system where we're forced to vote for lesser evil.

narrator2• 10 years ago

I bet Peter Theil is going to have a full schedule holding court over the next several months as all the Silicon Valley power players are going to want to know how they can get in the good graces of the Trump administration.

dopamean6• 10 years ago

I wonder how he feels as a gay man knowing that he supported a candidate who ran on the most homophobic platform a major party has ever had.

narrator2• 10 years ago

I heard that Trump did not have a bad record, for a republican, on gay rights. Can you cite anything?

lettergram• 10 years ago

For better or worse, Trump's probably the next president... The weird part about this election, is the electoral college could still pull a fast one on us and elect someone else.

There are quite a few of electors and governors who REALLY hate Trump.

If anyone's curious, the elector college votes in December[1].

Edit: I don't think this will happen, but in a world where Trump won, anything is possible.

[1] https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/...

DamnYuppie• 10 years ago

I am not saying this out of anger or angst. If that was done the civility of the disenfranchised electorate, which showed up in force this election, would erode and devolve into violence at a pace that would astound those on the left.

SketchySeaBeast4• 10 years ago

You think anything can astound the left after last night?

Artoemius2• 10 years ago

Given that the race was pretty close, I wonder if we have Peter Thiel to thank for this result. Personally, I have a feeling that Trump would lose without Thiel's support.

ryanx43517• 10 years ago

the vast majority of Americans have either never heard of Peter Theil or straight up don't care what he thinks. Most people don't care about silicon valley because it doesn't affect their day to day lives in an overt manner.

readhn5• 10 years ago

That's part of the problem. We in SF, NY, Boston live in a bubble, "fantasy America". We do not see how the rest (75%) of America is doing. My friends are buying $800,000 - $1mil homes and think that they did pretty ok while some poor schmuck in Alabama is eating Oreos for dinner... The income gap is huge and these elections are the result of this historical inequality. I'm not calling for communism our socialism here just saying that half of the country are not doing well. Now if we get those self driving trucks rolling - what happens with the last accessible middle class paying job in USA - truck driver and huge portion of middle class America that is still hanging in somehow? We need a change that Hillary couldn't provide and I doubt that Trump could do it either.

jernfrost7• 10 years ago

Sigh, the only think positive I can imagine coming out of this is that now, I get four years I can make fun of how stupid American's are.

As the country descends into chaos and non of Trump's promises comes truth I can sit in my couch and keep repeating: "I told you so!"

Good thing Republican's get all the power. Now they fully own all the shit that is to come. They wont be able to blame that on anybody else.

I think Brexit and the Trump victory has hammered home that democracy in its current form doesn't work. It has no mechanism to protect itself against stupidity and ignorance.

Or perhaps it is a warning to every country about what happens when economic inequality gets too bad. Before you know it the crazies will grab power.

I hope the rich elites are horrified today. Because they have created this monster, by consistently funding efforts working against the interests of the middle class and eroding it. Now it has blown up in their face.

I almost feel a slight schadenfreude over the trade wars which will follow with China and Mexico and all the businesses which will lose money over this.

chriskanan• 10 years ago

> I think Brexit and the Trump victory has hammered home that democracy in its current form doesn't work. It has no mechanism to protect itself against stupidity and ignorance.

This is one of the main reasons why the founders of the US constitution feared direct democracy, and only gave the populous the ability to directly elect House members that serve only two year-terms. We now have something closer to a direct democracy, with the electoral college as an artifact.

afterburner• 10 years ago

I hope the rich elites are horrified today.

The rich? They're getting their tax cuts...

ryanx43517• 10 years ago

Sigh, the only think positive I can imagine coming out of this is that now, I get four years I can make fun of how stupid American's are.

it is this sentiment from the left that propelled trump to victory. Your elitism is disgusting.

Erik816• 10 years ago

One would hope that an elitist could write a proper sentence.

st3v3r6• 10 years ago

The reason people are demonizing Trump supporters is because they ran on a ticket of undoing just about all of the progress that many had fought hard for over the past eight years. LGBTQ rights are likely out the window, as is any hope at gender equality or income equality. So forgive me if I have no sympathy whatsoever for those that are being "demonized" on social media, as they likely aren't going to have to face any actual consequences for this decision.

dang15• 10 years ago

This is the sort of sharp step down in civility that we need to avoid when replying here. I'm sure you can express your views without doing that, so please don't do that.

We detached this comment from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12911283 and marked it off-topic.

st3v3r6• 10 years ago

You're going to have to explain what was uncivil in my statement. Nowhere did I call anyone names. Nowhere did I insult anyone. I explained the feelings that many of us have of what happened, and why we're not so eager to kiss and make up.

IanDrake3• 10 years ago

I didn't vote for Trump, but what LGBTQ rights are you talking about? I don't recall any federal law that passed granting them rights.

Also, what sort of income equality were you hoping a Democratic government would implement? How would the mechanics of that work?

rhodysurf2• 10 years ago

Marriage Equality?

scrollaway7• 10 years ago

There's nothing to forgive, and it's not like I hold grudges. Had I a vote in this election, it would have gone to Clinton (even though I don't particularly like her).

I get it. I get the disgust, the moral outrage, I get and even agree with most of it. But you're only hurting yourself by refusing to hear people out. And you're hurting your entire democratic system by putting people in two baskets. A system that's already really poorly designed (for the citizens, that is - it's great at keeping people in power).

How would you like it if I put the world in two buckets: "Americans" and "Non-americans", and said that obviously all americans love and agree with trump since they voted for him? Do you think that'd be productive, useful or right in any way?

Hear people out. Understand their issues. When there's bigotry, try to figure out where it's coming from.

If you're on this website, chances are high you're a software engineer, so hear this out: debug the damn issues, get to the root cause rather than putting the blame on whatever is most convenient.

sremani• 10 years ago

Is this a black swan event?

wnevets3• 10 years ago

The cognitive dissonance required to be a trump supporter is quite amazing. For example states that legalized weed but voted for trump.

fuqted4• 10 years ago

Ditto for Hillary.

forgetsusername7• 10 years ago

The cognitive dissonance required to be a trump supporter is quite amazing

I love how the left continues to believe that implying the right are stupid and incapable is still a winning strategy.

wnevets3• 10 years ago

I love how anyone who disagrees with the right must be on the left.

pasquinelli3• 10 years ago

maybe someone posting on a message board isn't part of "the left's" strategy, but rather a human being saying something.

pram2• 10 years ago

Trump isn't against weed?

wnevets3• 10 years ago

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/11/18/trump...

please tell me more

WillPostForFood2• 10 years ago

In regards to that issue last night, all three states that legalized recreational marijuana (California, Nevada, Massachusetts) voted against Trump. The one state that rejected it (Arizona) went for Trump.

slg7• 10 years ago

People always say things like politics doesn't work. It doesn't matter who you vote for, nothing changes. The president has very little actual power. Most politicians agree about 95% of things. I have always thought those people were naive. I wake up this morning hoping that I was the one who was naive and Trump will be unable to do the damage that many of us are worried he will do.

_of• 10 years ago

The president of the US has quite a lot of powers:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powers_of_the_President_of_the...

Delmania8• 10 years ago

The election of Trump isn't the real problem here. The real issue is that the Republican party now has control of the government, with only the fact that they don't have a supermajority in the Senate as the only check on their power.

This is an organization that openly admits to voter suppression and harbors some of the most virulent racists, misogynists, and homophobes. An organization that has launched an attack on education and science. An organization that publicly claims to call for smaller government but then enacts some of the most intrusive surveillance we've seen.

It's going to get a lot worse very quickly before it gets better.

pcunite3• 10 years ago

harbors some of the most virulent racists, misogynists, and homophobes.

Like those at the Chicago rally?

taxicabjesus2• 10 years ago

Four years ago, I wrote a sort-of tongue-in-cheek story for Kuro5hin.org (RIP) titled "Humanity's Second-Best Hope" [1]. I pointed out that the Democratic president had failed to deliver on the Change he had promised, and shared my faint hope that maybe Mitt Romney was a "political gladiator" who'd flip on the plutocracy once he was elected.

[1] http://www.TaxiWars.org/humanitys-second-best-hope/

Alas, Mitt Romney was no gladiator.

At some point in this election cycle, I noticed dilbert cartoonist Scott Adams' blog. On August 13, 2015 Scott had a post about Donald Trump titled "Clown Genius" [2]:

  Like many of you, I have been entertained by the 
  unstoppable clown car that is Donald Trump. On the 
  surface, and several layers deep as well, Trump appears 
  to be a narcissistic blow-hard with inadequate 
  credentials to lead a country.

  The only problem with my analysis is that there is an 
  eerie consistency to his success so far. Is there a 
  method to it? Is there some sort of system at work under 
  the hood?

  Probably yes. Allow me to describe some of the hypnosis 
  and persuasion methods Mr. Trump has employed on you. ...

[2] http://blog.dilbert.com/post/126589300371/clown-genius

For the entire election cycle, the political media promoted Hillary Clinton as the presidential heir-apparent, as if she was The Chosen One. Usually the plutocracy runs a Chosen candidate against a backup - someone who, even if fickle voters decided to not select the Chosen candidate, would still be useful to them.

Donald Trump was not a backup candidate. He was give free coverage during the primaries because he was considered a clown-candidate that wouldn't be taken seriously, it was an easy story, and because it was thought that The Chosen One could beat him. This was covered in one of the Wikileaks emails...

Donald Trump is the Gladiator that Mitt Romney was not. I'm optimistic.

devopsproject6• 10 years ago

The "Master persuader" series explains in great detail why and why trump won. It also explains how and why everyone got it wrong. great series.

taxicabjesus2• 10 years ago

The Trump Master Persuader Index and Reading List Posted February 18th, 2016

http://blog.dilbert.com/post/139541975641/the-trump-master-p...

hiven• 10 years ago

Policies aside, why does he always look so orange. It's not even a little bit.

open_book• 10 years ago

I think it's that fake spray on tan stuff. Tried it once and I was orange, too.

tcoppi9• 10 years ago

He has an orange spraytan.

AdmiralAsshat• 10 years ago

My takeaway from this is that our strategy of "shaming" people into voting a certain way doesn't work. Exit polls seem to suggest that plenty of people understated their support for Trump because they were embarrassed to admit they voted for him. But they still did.

In effect, you don't stop people from supporting racism, homophobia, or misogyny by calling attention to it. That only makes them support it quietly. You have to counter it with something. We failed to adequately counter his arguments, content to simply point at them and say that they were racist, sexist, or Islamophobic, because we (naively) assumed that drawing attention to it would be enough.

deadringerr4• 10 years ago

I like your points, I do think this is a big piece of the picture. I almost wish the polls let you vote either "for" a candidate or directly "against" a particular candidate - I think we'd see that many of the Trump voters would have preferred to vote "against" Clinton rather than "for" Trump.

Nadya3• 10 years ago

I think we'd see that many of the Trump voters would have preferred to vote "against" Clinton rather than "for" Trump.

That's an odd statement to make because many Clinton voters would have also preferred to vote "against" Clinton rather than "for" Clinton.* They were part of the "Never Trump" crowd. Not pro-Hillary but very anti-Trump.

E: Typo, apologies I didn't catch it before my post delay ran out. `"for" Trump` in my post has been corrected to `"for" Clinton`.

eru33• 10 years ago

You want Range Voting, or at least Approval Voting.

http://rangevoting.org/

MattyRad• 10 years ago

Stein suggested an interesting solution to this problem: https://youtu.be/py6sPkiQm8E?t=2m45s. Food for thought.

pcunite3• 10 years ago

Have you read WikiLeaks?

fivedogit• 10 years ago

Exit polls seem to suggest that plenty of people understated their support for Trump

This is incorrect. People stated their support. Poll models just underestimated how many of them would vote.

acbabis• 10 years ago

But I thought Hillary was leading in polls. Also, how would you know how many people lied in the polls?

ohsonice• 10 years ago

Yeah from what I've seen, Trump supporters are NOT embarrassed to be Trump supporters. Media and liberals are embarrassed for the Trump supporters but the actual supporters are proud and see the media as condescending

davidf182• 10 years ago

The issues were not racism -- Trump was against illegal immigrants. Rather the issue was economic uneducated immigrants were displacing Americans working class from their jobs as well depressing wage growth. The same was true of Britain and BrExit.

advantark210• 10 years ago

they were racist, sexist, or Islamophobic

This is a big issue here, and something that I don't feel that many democrats seem to understand. It wasn't a race issue, it was an immigration issue since many illegal immigrants have taken American jobs. It isn't sexist to acknowledge differences in the genders. It isn't islamophobic to see cultural issues with Islam that would cause integration issues, especially with a large influx of Islamic immigration.

Much of the issue here is because of lack of understanding of the perspective of the other side.

knz9• 10 years ago

It wasn't a race issue, it was an immigration issue since many illegal immigrants have taken American jobs.

I don't disagree with your point but how many "hard working" Americans want to work the fields and kitchens of the country for low wages? What impact is the removal of cheap labour going to have on the cost of food?

SPBesui• 10 years ago

Much of the issue here is because of lack of understanding of the perspective of the other side.

This sums up pretty much every political debate ever.

woodchuck647• 10 years ago

It wasn't a race issue, it was an immigration issue since many illegal immigrants have taken American jobs.

This is factually wrong. Immigrants and native workers compete for different low-skilled jobs: http://www.urban.org/urban-wire/immigrant-and-native-workers...

The big issue is the sheer amount of misinformation and falsehoods that the Trump demographic takes as truth. The lack of a good education-- and particularly the lack of a science education-- means most Trump voters are ill-equipped to distinguish fact from feel-good fiction.

gaur5• 10 years ago

It isn't sexist to acknowledge differences in the genders.

You know that is emphatically not the kind of statement that people were concerned with when they were talking about Trump's sexism.

RealGeek3• 10 years ago

It wasn't a race issue, it was an immigration issue since many illegal immigrants have taken American jobs.

How come a con man who employees illegal immigrants at his construction projects and manufactures his own products in China & Bangladesh is the solution for it?

hourislate3• 10 years ago

It wasn't a race issue, it was an immigration issue since many illegal immigrants have taken American jobs.

I'm curious, what jobs have they taken away? This was my father in laws biggest beef next to terrorism. He has been retired for close to a decade and although he is not the 1%, he is for sure in the 2-3%.

I asked him if he was thinking about taking a job at the local car wash or visiting Syria, Afghanistan, or Iraq soon?

I haven't seen a white guy cut my grass or dry my car or roof my house or lay brick or stone in at least 25 years. I actually tried to help the Mexican roofers by carrying a bundle of shingle up the ladder and almost had my wife call 911.

Is there illegal immigrants working as doctors, dentists, data scientists, engineers, nurses, financial professionals, police, fireman, teachers, computer programmers, IT Specialists, etc?

frankc• 10 years ago

In the same vein, it's also a wonderful validation of secret ballot elections, and why things like "card check" should never fly.

SkyMarshal• 10 years ago

In effect, you don't stop people from supporting racism, homophobia, or misogyny by calling attention to it. That only makes them support it quietly.

I think you're mischaracterizing the problem. The racists, sexists, and other ist's/phobic's/whatever had no problem being vocal about it since Trump himself legitimized it.

Rather it was other people like evangelicals who felt guilty but voted for him anyway b/c they are single-issue voters (Supreme Court). Or people who have lost their livelihoods and are desperate for a government that truly represents their interests and doesn't just pay lip service every election.

Effectively there are at least two types of voters in Trump's coalition - ist's/phobic's, and fellow travelers who enable all that bad stuff as a side effect but were voting for other issues entirely. Likely even more complex than that, but the mistake I see the left making is trying to simplify explanations which cannot be simplified. That's just a recipe for losing the next elections too.

bishnu• 10 years ago

Of course you can. Trump ended up winning fewer votes than Romney and McCain. The shame directed towards those that supported him publicly, I would argue, was very directly reflected in his vote totals.

But you need more than that, you need an inspiring alternative. Telling a bunch of destitute, hopeless rust belt voters that free trade was good, their Obamacare premiums were increasing, a $15 minimum wage and free college tuition was bad, and America was already great didn't motivate them to go to the polls nearly enough. Should be unsurprising, in retrospect.

grubles• 10 years ago

"Superpredators"

neves3• 10 years ago

It looks like Clinton has won the majority of votes: http://www.nytimes.com/elections/forecast/president

The USA electoral system is really crazy.

devopsproject6• 10 years ago

the electoral college is not the problem, FPTP is the problem

neves3• 10 years ago

What is this? Is it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-past-the-post_voting ?

CWuestefeld2• 10 years ago

On the contrary. If it weren't for the electoral college, we'd be governed, in effect, by a handful of coastal mega-cities. Whole states would have a voice equivalent to a rounding error.

The Presidency wasn't intended to be democratic - that's what the House of Representatives is for. Moreover, the Presidency has less power than people work themselves up to believe.

pikzen2• 10 years ago

As an outsider...what the hell did you guys just do?

There are many, many reasons for Trump's election. Maybe it's time to rethink a bit about how you guys do politics?[0]

Distrust of the establishment (of which HRC was the perfect embodiment). Jobs which have disappeared forever which were promised to be brought back. And as software developers for a lot of us here, maybe it is time to get more of us to think about the consequences of our work. Clear populism from Trump, always an easy way to get votes, and not just from the less educated. Enough disinterest from the american public in politics that a /pol/ meme ends up being elected. DNC primaries that were a joke, where HRC was selected against many odds. Candidates that campaigned not for themselves but against Trump while he just reaps free publicity.

I'm just... speechless. With the amount of power he's going to have as POTUS + SCOTUS nominations + House/Senate majority, the potential for a massive step back is insane. Roe vs Wade, ACA. Not to even mention the issue of dropping the Paris/COP21 agreements. The one small hope we had for the future just got destroyed. That's the second time you do that America please stop ;_;

[0] Being from France, I realize that we also have our problems and we also have to do that.

forgetsusername7• 10 years ago

Distrust of the establishment (of which HRC was the perfect embodiment)

This is what is so amazing to me: there was a massive surge in anti-establishment sentiment, from Sanders on the left to Trump on the right. It was unparalleled in my lifetime. Yet the DNC decided to run a candidate who is basically the epitome of Washington establishment? It's embarrassing.

LyndsySimon2• 10 years ago

To be fair, the GOP tried to run a similarly establishment candidate - they just lost control of the primary process with Trump's wave of enthusiasm.

duderific2• 10 years ago

But, the DNC is the establishment, so why would they do anything other than run an establishment candidate? And how much power does the DNC actually have over which candidate is run? That is decided in the primaries (see: RNC's control over which candidate was nominated).

chris_wot6• 10 years ago

Amazingly, you can agree with the first post here exhorting folks to be civil and courteous and it will be considered rude and belligerent, marked off topic and you'll be derided by a moderator who should know better.

Well done, YCombinator.

tommy_wiseau• 10 years ago

The valley need to get over themselves and learn to appreciate the lessons from the unlikely Trump victory.

Trump is the quintessential startup success story. Jump in the ring, breaks shit (always easier to ask for forgiveness than permission) then somehow makes his way to a hit product. He disrupted the business of politics much in the same way that uber disrupted the business of transportation.

Guess Peter Thiel really is the smartest guy in the valley after all.

Per Mark Cuban tweet (not a sv guy per se but still a voice representative of the community):

We all need to give President-Elect Trump a chance. Support the good. Lobby against what we disagree on. No one is bigger than us all

jernfrost7• 10 years ago

Having a population of idiots is not something Trump can claim responsibility for. He is simply an asshole who has exploited this for his own gains.

What exactly is there to learn from this? That democracy doesn't work when to large fraction of the electorate are ignorant fools.

The lesson should be a better school system for America. But of course that would not be in the interest of republicans. They rely on large number of idiots to win elections. So it is not going to happen.

They will make sure that there is an elite which gets good education which can run companies and create new ones. But there needs to be a large underclass of simpletons to keep the system going.

pixl97• 10 years ago

I'm glad you are so much smarter than the rest of us.

ryanx43517• 10 years ago

Having a population of idiots is not something Trump can claim responsibility for.
large fraction of the electorate are ignorant fools.

if you think the roughly half of all American voters that voted for trump are idiots or ignorant fools, than it is perhaps you that is the idiot. Simply by the law of large numbers there exists a significant number of them that are smarter and better educated that you are. Disparaging them as an lesser group is a dangerous way of thinking.

matthewmacleod2• 10 years ago

(I'm in the UK, but I think the discussion is broad enough to be applicable)

Given Trump's win, looming Brexit etc., what's the way forward for a moderately-progressive-mostly-centrist like myself?

I can completely understand where a big chunk of Trump's support has come from. For a large number of people, globalisation is shit. Employment has become less stable; the gap between rich and poor appears to be growing; there is a sense of disenfranchisement with politics, and there is rampant corruption. Generally, people have every right to be totally pissed off with this situation; they essentially feel ignored by a distant 'elite' or whatever, and it seems pretty obvious that there will eventually be a reaction against that.

I certainly don't feel that Trump-ism and Brexiteer-ism is an actual solution to these problems; they do seem like relatively opportunistic populist movements that have capitalised on popular resentment. I have basically zero confidence that these movements will solve any of the problems they claim they will, and think that they will likely cause lots of damage along the way.

But the big question is – where is the credible centrist or even leftist alternative to this approach? Was it actually Sanders in the US? (I'm a little unclear on the extent of his support). In the UK, there's a leftward swing in the Labour Party, but that's complicated by a lacklustre leader. But is it actually the same sort of populist rebellion, just expressed in a different way?

I don't subscribe to old-fashioned Socialist views of the economy – but still, I'd like to see a world in which corruption is tackled; in which all people have a fair chance to succeed; in which education and healthcare are widely available regardless of wealth; in which companies are free to trade but are responsibly regulated… but I'm now deeply unsure of what the next steps are.

ookdatnog• 10 years ago

The hardest problem of our time is the seemingly unstoppable rise in inequality, and I think the painful truth is that no one has workable solutions to this problem.

The establishment probably understands the problem but has no solutions, so they simply avoid addressing it. Populist politicians then get elected by simply naming the problem (often with a big dose of scapegoating), no matter how irrelevant or counterproductive their proposed solutions are.

CWuestefeld2• 10 years ago

In an election largely between two epically bad candidates, the outcome fell in the direction I'd felt would be less bad, but in a way that's worse than I'd expected. I had strongly criticized both Clinton and Trump, but felt that in the balance, Clinton was a more dangerous candidate. Seeing how the chips fell, though, I'm even less confident that this was the preferable outcome. There are two key factors leading me to this conclusion.

First relates to the big-picture politics. For all the disagreement about policy, Clinton really was the centrist candidate, and certainly within the Democratic Party, the strong voice of moderation (at least in domestic policy). Something I failed to consider was that this defeat weakens the voice of moderation, thus making the extremist voices from Sanders and Warren louder. Clinton may be a bad person, but Sanders and Warren represent some really bad ideas, and if this gives those ideas fertile ground to grow in, that's a real problem.

And there's a real possibility of that. The demographics representing Trump's win shows that his grasp on the rust belt manufacturing interests was much greater than previously thought. The thing is, Trump's not a Conservative and never has been. He represents populist ideas that overlap significant with the Sanders and Warren ideas. Politically they're on opposite sides, but ideologically they're quite the same. The election results give that ideology more weight, and Trump can see them realized.

The second relates to Trump's relationship with the rest of his party. Looking back to the summer and the party conventions, there was a clear rift in the GOP, with powerful members barely tolerating Trump, if at all. That was a good thing: it meant that should Trump win, his party would likely keep him in check. But unfortunately (and I do think it's unfortunate) it seems like that rift is healing. And with the GOP retaining control of both houses of Congress, it's dangerous to have so much control in the hands of one party, with Trump at the helm.

So where do we go now? Well, maybe there's a silver lining here. Maybe the prospect of Trump power with both political branches in GOP hands will inspire the Democrats. Maybe they'll re-discover the benefits of limited government, and in particular the boundaries of Presidential power.

Unfortunately I have little hope of that: Obama certainly said all the right things when he was in the Senate and GWB was in the White House, but when he got power himself, all of that restraint went out the window. So let me offer to my Liberal friends this olive branch: I'll be there fighting with you against overreaches from Trump and the GOP, but I hope you'll stay by my side in four years when the tide is likely to turn. And I hope that my Conservative friends who criticized President Obama for overreaches will remain consistent.

The trend toward populism is a thornier problem, and I don't have a satisfactory answer. My best hope is that people will come to their senses. It's intuitive and satisfying to believe things like "the Mexicans are taking all our jobs" or "our trade deficit shows we're losing out to the rest of the world" or "higher minimum wages are necessary to protect those on the lowest rung". Recently the Democrats have tried to market themselves as the party of intelligence and science. When trying to make that case - whether you’re a Democrat or a Republican - please first look to the scientific consensus on those topics.

pyre3• 10 years ago

And I hope that my Conservative friends who criticized President Obama for overreaches will remain consistent.

Unlikely. A majority of people just want to pick a side and rabidly defend it.

For example, the democrats contesting the Bush-Gore Florida results was just "sour grapes," but conservatives clamouring to see Obama's "long form" birth certificate to prove that he wasn't eligible for office wasn't?

anthony_romeo• 10 years ago

Agreed, and the likely response is "You can't complain, Obama did it!" And the cycle goes back and forth. Just like trying to, say, filibuster the nomination of Supreme Court justices.

serge2k5• 10 years ago

An insanely close election vs a racist conspiracy theory?

False equivalency.

pkd• 10 years ago

Clinton may be a bad person, but Sanders and Warren represent some really bad ideas

What are these very bad ideas exactly?

elcct• 10 years ago

I think people are tired of political correctness and left wing (or so called liberals if you will) stealing the fruits of hard work of the people in form of taxes and regulations and pushing "equality" agenda at all cost. People are not equal.

chillacy8• 10 years ago

That's funny, because you could also see this as the result of working class citizens without skills which would have made them valuable in the new global economy, vote for trade protections which would allow them to keep their manufacturing jobs.

Also:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

api5• 10 years ago

On the contrary I see inequality as a driver here. Working class people have become considerably more un-equal as a result of globalization and other policies, and a lot of that anger is boiling over.

pmarreck2• 10 years ago

People are not equal.

And yet, the right would have you believe that my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge (RIP Asimov). Because you are just an elitist educated librul, and how can you even breathe the thought that you're better than me in any way, shape, or form, especially when it comes to making important decisions that demand critical evaluation of a lot of evidence? I have a family and mouths to feed and can only afford 1 i-Whatever for the whole family, I don't hang out on Twitter or Facebook and only have time to listen to catchy patriotic slogans.

But hey, I sure as hell took the time to come out of the mysteriously dark woodwork and voted yesterday!

I guess all that effort I made to keep an at-risk youth out of prison and get him into college was pointless.

ryanx43517• 10 years ago

Its ignorant for you to assume that people on the right are ignorant and honestly the attitude of people like you were one of the driving forces of me supporting and voting for trump.

Here I am, working as a software engineer, with a BS in computer science, fluent in multiple languages, able to criticaly evaluate evidence in order to make decisions, and just as educated as you are, and you automatically assume that just because I'm on the right I am ignorant.

Its people like you that have poisoned the well of society.

jernfrost7• 10 years ago

Maybe this could be a golden age for Europe and Canada. We can get all the intelligent people in the US fleeing to seek more intelligent shores. We could get some of the bright minds of Silicon valley to come across the pond and help revitalizing European tech industry.

Not a new phenomenon. The German scientists fleeing Nazi Germany started the present American scientific lead. The French Hugenots fleeing France caused economic growth.

Inthenameofmine2• 10 years ago

Maybe Canada, however, Europe is doing the same insanity to itself atm.

dang15• 10 years ago

All: to help your fellow users today, please log out unless you intend to comment, so we can serve you from cache. The considerable extra load is making our poor little Racket process groan. More explanation here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12911042, and yes we have plans to fix this.

If you comment, please take extra care to do so civilly and substantively, in the spirit of this site.

unabst• 10 years ago

The impeccable insight of Peter Thiel.

http://gizmodo.com/peter-thiel-goes-all-in-for-donald-trump-...

I didn't realize how "simplified" his convention speech was until I saw this. In hindsight (of about a week), now he sounds text book.

myf01d• 10 years ago

Posted via Internet Explorer 6

akhilcacharya• 10 years ago

I think we're seeing the start of a post-fact era.

akiselev6• 10 years ago

My entire family feels a terrible sadness today. We immigrated here to the United States from Russia almost 20 years ago (to the day) and after all the immigration bullshit we were finally eligible for citizenship this year. My dad took his oath and got his US passport literally weeks before the election and this is what he gets for his first vote: a divisive demagogue beat a corrupt career politician. There are no words to describe our disappointment, both at the choices and the result.

For those that are unhappy with the results of this election, there is something you can do! I implore you to write, call, and otherwise pester your state legislators and your governors to pressure them to support the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact [1]. This is an interstate agreement approved by the Justice Department that activates when states with 270 or more electoral college votes sign it (by passing state legislation that implements the compact). When it activates, all of the states that signed it will, from that point on, allocate their votes for the presidential candidate that won the national popular vote, essentially destroying the electoral college. Already, the states that signed the compact have a total of 160 electoral college votes and legislation is in the works for Michigan and Pennsylvania, which would bring the total to over 180. Already a third of all electoral votes are part of this compact!

Take it from someone who has spent two decades on the sideline: you are not powerless. So few people make their voices heard that every voice counts when you're one of 50 or 100 state senators representing a state of a few million. With Trump's divisiveness front and center this is it. For the first time since the Voting Rights Act we have a chance to fundamentally change American democracy and we can do so in a way that cannot be obstructed by conservative states or dismantled by conservative Supreme Court justices.

Even if you are happy with the results of this election, I beg you to support the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. It's time we started to reform our electoral system and restore some of the legitimacy it has lost in the last few decades.

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Inters...

tcoppi9• 10 years ago

I'm so sorry. Maybe you can use your unique perspective to shine a light on how backwards Trump's support of Putin and Putinesque policies is.

akiselev6• 10 years ago

It's not just backwards, it is an existential threat to the United States and the rest of the developed world. We are at a critical time when Russia is only getting bolder and bolder, despite economic hardships and sanctions, and we need to once again provide balance against their power. Unfortunately, the entire military industrial complex was rapidly retooled in the 90s and the defense/intelligence apparatus lost all expertise on dealing with Russia. This expertise is important because Russia has historically placed a lot of importance on human intelligence, espionage, and geopolitical manipulation with long term operations. Any sort of conflict (military or otherwise) with Russia will leave much of the US establishment with their pants down because they are used to manipulating small countries without strong leaders and bombing civilians, not fighting a proxy war against a major power with a comparable (human) intelligence apparatus.

So not only is the US bureaucracy entirely unprepared for such a confrontation, but the US electorate just chose a failed real estate mogul turned reality TV show star to go head to head against a former Cold War operative that trained and worked for the KGB/Stasi. And go head to head they will. You can bet Putin will exploit the Trump presidency for as much as he can and there's little we can do to stop it other than voting Trump out of office next time.

wtbob6• 10 years ago

Destroying the Electoral College would be one more step in destroying the federal nature of the Unites States. Perhaps you think that's a good thing, but I think it's a terrible idea: I think that we should be more, not less, federal. What works for the people of Massachusetts is not what works for the people of California, or the people of Wyoming.

I'd like to see state legislatures selecting electors again.

Also, the Constitution states, 'No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.' Has Congress consented to this interstate compact?

akiselev6• 10 years ago

Destroying the Electoral College would be one more step in destroying the federal nature of the Unites States. Perhaps you think that's a good thing, but I think it's a terrible idea: I think that we should be more, not less, federal. What works for the people of Massachusetts is not what works for the people of California, or the people of Wyoming.

The electoral college is a net-negative contribution to the federal nature of the US because it allows a tiny, extremely unrepresentative minority to decide for the whole country while eroding the legitimacy of the executive branch, a legitimacy that is a key component of our system. Californians deciding policy for MA or WY due to sheer size is bad but that's how democracies and republics are supposed to work. A single precinct deciding for the entire nation is a perversion of the process that does nothing but destroy faith in our electoral process.

Besides, the executive branch is largely irrelevant to American federalism. We can eliminate the top layer of the executive branch today and the US government would still be as federal as ever because that's how our state and national legislatures are structured. The president has little power over the day to day of the average citizen and all of the hierarchies that do have that power are headed by people confirmed by the Senate.

Also, the Constitution states, 'No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.' Has Congress consented to this interstate compact?

This issue is actively being debated by constitutional scholars precisely because of the popular vote compact. The general consensus is that Congressional consent is needed only if the interstate agreement is "directed to the formation of any combination tending to the increase of political power in the States, which may encroach upon or interfere with the just supremacy of the United States" (emphasis mine), which was a precedent set by the Supreme Court in the early 1800s. That last part means that Congressional approval is only necessary if the agreement threatens the superiority of the federal government. Furthermore, a state's right to choose how its electoral votes are allocated is a right enumerated in the Constitution and the only power Congress has is to set how many electoral votes each state gets.

All of that is irrelevant anyway because there is no actual treaty or official agreement due to how the legislation is structured. Every state that has joined the compact has legislation to the effect of "All of the electoral votes for this state will go to the winner of the national popular vote if and only if similar legislation is active in enough states to tie 270 or more electoral votes to the national popular vote." No one from the federal government can stop them from doing this.

Edit: s/appointed/confirmed

erikpukinskis13• 10 years ago

Sometimes I get mad about the electoral college, but I always cool down. Because at the end of the day: this election was a tie. We use the electoral college to break ties. Maybe it's not ideal. Maybe popular vote would ve fairer. Maybe a coin flip would be fairer.

But really, I'm sad that Bush tied with Gore. I'm sad that Trump tied with Hillary. And I want to live in a country with better candidates, less party politics, and more decisive victories for my values.

From that perspective, the electoral college isn't really the problem, so I let it be.

cdelsolar3• 10 years ago

lol, go back about 8 years and try to picture reading this headline.

andyjohnson0• 10 years ago

Two questions from a non-USian:

1. Can Trump deliver the results expected by the people who voted for him?

2. If he can't, what happens then? In particular, what kind of leader comes after him?

pasquinelli3• 10 years ago

that's what's great: they don't expect anything from him.

edko8• 10 years ago

I doubt that, by consistently saying the same thing, anyone can be right for 24 years. The world changes; what is right 24 years ago may not be right today, and vice versa.

mattnewton3• 10 years ago

Equal rights for people regardless of race, creed or gender identity is going to be right for a hell of a lot longer than 24 years. The reality of class struggle is going to be right for a lot longer than 24 years.

edko8• 10 years ago

"Equal rights for people regardless of race, creed or gender identity" is not a Bernie exclusive. You do not win elections by being right (if you need proof, look at current events). Sometimes, being too absolutely right, and not in sync with the times, makes you lose elections to someone who is very wrong. That is what I mean by saying that you cannot be consistently right for 24 years: the timing of your message also has to be right.

SerLava2• 10 years ago

He changed in plenty of things, for example he went moderate on gun control. But he has been on the right side of a lot of social issues for a long time. Politicians everywhere have gravitated towards the same area he has also been inhabiting.

Also your comment is pretty needlessly rhetorical. Doesn't address anything.

dang15• 10 years ago

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12911860 and marked it off-topic.

dmode3• 10 years ago

A minority of Americans (note that Clinton is winning the popular vote) have too much power over the world. A Bush presidency destroyed the world, because people wanted to have beer with him. A Trump presidency will even do further damage because people "hated the establishment"

pasquinelli3• 10 years ago

and i suspect that they hated the establishment simply as a way of having a strong opinion without actually knowing anything about what's going on.

coding123• 10 years ago

All I can say is I wish we elected Romney 4 years ago.

antithesis• 10 years ago

I'm curious as to how instrumental automation and illegitimate poll voting have been in producing this result. I'm talking about things like pro-Trump Twitter bots[1], 4chan's /pol/ board mass-voting Trump in online polls, and automated thread voting to keep /r/The_Donald at the top of the trending subreddit list on Reddit. Does anyone have an idea?

1. A third of pro-Trump Twitter activity turned out to be automated. See: http://money.cnn.com/2016/10/18/technology/twitter-bots-dona...

daodedickinson5• 10 years ago

It's pretty interesting that Sam Altman wanted to stop Trump but YCombinator's Reddit was so instrumental in his victory, despite the opposition of it's employees. Facebook and Twitter helped Trump, too, despite Trump probably have sub-10% support among Facebook and Twitter employees. Google's SEME didn't seem to help as much as I thought it would. This will become more and more debated FAST now that Germany is beginning legal action against Facebook for helping promote political speech that Merkel and her allies have tried to keep from flaring up.

bcit-cst• 10 years ago

I am still not sure what are Donald Trumps foreign policy positions are .

1) ON Syria/ISIS . All he as said is that he will hit them very very hard. okay going from that , does it mean a) he plans on putting 100K US troop on the ground and engage in an all-out war. b) or just put 100's of drones in the Air and just start bombing shit.

How does he plan on bringing on board our Allies like Jordan and Iraqi government on our side with this plan?

2) What is his plan regarding South China Sea. Does he plan on confronting the Chinese government . From what I have heard he wants to bring back troops from South Korea and Japan.

3) What are his plans for Ukraine civil war and Russian Aggression?

4) Finally, I am trying to imagine what would Trump do if he was the president during the Cuban missile crisis. Would he be able to enforce the blockade? Does he understand the the MAD doctrine ?

so many questions .

ryanx43517• 10 years ago

do YOU understand the MAD doctrine?

it only works if your enemy believes that you will use nuclear weapons. If they don't think you will use nukes, than the threat of mutually assured destruction isn't a real threat, so MAD doesn't work.

purely in terms of MAD, it is actually good that everyone thinks that trump is eager to launch the nukes.

greenshackle211• 10 years ago

He doesn't seem to understand NATO though. He made every security expert shit their pants by stating he wouldn't necessarily defend NATO countries.

It makes me question his understanding of the strategic value of unconditional retaliation, which underpins MAD.

(Alternatively, he understands, but doesn't care if Europe gets stomped by Russia.)

rconti5• 10 years ago

I guess we'll all just have to take our huge tax cuts and go home. I was willing to vote against my own economic best interest, but now that the election is decided, I want to at least get something out of the deal.

Shivetya3• 10 years ago

The media and many people need to ask, why were the Republicans mocked for having seventeen contenders and no one made hay out of the fact that Democrats only had three

zigzigzag• 10 years ago

The stat that explains the election for me is 92% for Hillary in Washington DC.

Bear in mind that most US law is made by regulators, not Congress, and regulators live in Washington DC. Angry Republicans who feel it's "us vs the elite" and "nothing ever changes" are completely correct. If Trump wants to address the anger his voters feel for real, there's going to have to be a truly epic bonfire of regulators and regulation.

baristaGeek• 10 years ago

Just in case anyone is wondering the same thing as I last night:

The USCIS administrative act for the International Entrepreneur Rule (Startup Visa) won't be affected. First, because it's being passed as an administrative action, meaning that it doesn't have to be voted in congress in order for it to start taking an effect. Second, because it's actually aligned with Donald Trump's 3rd immigration policy driver (the first two have nothing to do with foreign-born entrepreneurs):

3. A nation that does not serve its own citizens is not a nation. Any immigration plan must improve jobs, wages and security for all Americans.

What Trump does believe is that the H1B1 is depressing salaries thus decreasing job opportunities for american citizens.

Therefore, if you have a startup and want to move it to the US you will have a better pathway. However, if you want to work as an employee in America, you'll have an even harder time.

new_user_name• 10 years ago

Do you have any news items or anything that I can read up? I am very hopeful of this new rule and thinking to bring our startup to US

nickbauman12• 10 years ago

I think we learned that fake news (used to pump up fake issues) is now a legitimate campaign strategy that works even on people who should know better.

Trump won on a mountain of fake issues:

Immigration: both conservative and liberal economists agree that immigration (illegal or otherwise) does not suppress wages and does not suppress job growth.

https://www.cato.org/research/immigration http://business.time.com/2013/01/30/the-economics-of-immigra...

Terrorism: more toddlers killed Americans than terrorists in 2015. For every terrorist killing someone on US soil, more than 4000 Americans killed each other.

http://www.snopes.com/toddlers-killed-americans-terrorists/ http://tinyurl.com/q3fqk69

Gay marriage: All it does is extend the same legal protections to people of the same sex that was already available to people of opposite sex. It doesn't take away any rights from anybody.

Who is using the bathroom: Historically virtually no jurisdictions have had laws in place to prevent men from entering ladies rooms or vice versa. There have been male registered sex offenders entering the bathroom with yours sons since time immemorial. Transgendered people are no more likely to be sex offenders than the general population.

Obamacare: While the program has its problems, the Trump administration will do nothing to address them and has said it will double-down on aspects that will make our health care system worse.

I could go on but this is plenty. Welcome to the post-factual political America.

eranation• 10 years ago

Welcome to America where the news are fake and polls don't matter.

sonthonax• 10 years ago

I think we learned that fake news (used to pump up fake issues) is now a legitimate campaign strategy that works even on people who should know better.

This, I think was the real genius of Trump's campaign. One role a journalist has in an open society to objectively seek the truth. I feel that Trump effectively defeated journalism through an utter disregard for it. Putin does the same.

rstupek2• 10 years ago

Which objective journalists are you thinking of? Wikileaks showed how many of these journalists were colluding with Hillary

thomyorkie5• 10 years ago

Terrorism: more toddlers killed Americans than terrorists in 2015. For every terrorist killing someone on US soil, more than 4000 Americans killed each other.

Terrorism isn't a fake issue. You're ignoring the potential devastating effects that a successful terrorist attack on U.S. soil could have. Terrorists are always trying to up their game and its because of this that they represent a significant threat. Toddlers, and homicidal fellow Americans, represent a fairly fixed threat compared to the unknown possibilities of terrorists (for example a chemical or nuclear weapon released in NYC).

gwbas1c2• 10 years ago

Terrorism isn't about an attack, it's about fear. When we sacrifice our freedoms to live in fear of terrorists, they win.

nickbauman12• 10 years ago

Are you statistics challenged? Even an attack on the level of 9/11 will be significantly lower than the number of Americans that shoot each other to death per year. If you want to read about the likelihood of a nuclear attack by terrorists, read Physics for Future Presidents. It's very, very low.

lucasmullens2• 10 years ago

"Fake issues" is a weird way to describe issues like universal healthcare and gay marriage that have been debated for decades. Half the country is on the other side of many of these issues, so I wouldn't call them fake.

mulletbum2• 10 years ago

I think he means, it isn't an issue that they will address. It is a built up for election sake, but will be ignored otherwise.

mitochondrion7• 10 years ago

Immigration isn't a fake issue. Take a walk around Miami or San Diego. Or New York. Or London. Or Paris. Or Malmö.

Gay marriage is just the final nail in the coffin of marriage, which was already basically dead. It's a mind-bogglingly stupid hill to die on, but nobody ever accused conservatives of brilliance.

Obamacare is a disaster because it enables still more people to suck still more dollars out of the system than there are people putting dollars into the system. The people getting more than they put in are parasites; the people getting less than they put in are suckers. When you don't pay for your own healthcare, you don't care how much it costs. Go to any veterinarian's office to see the cost of medicine in a free market.

dmode3• 10 years ago

I literally spend last weekend in San Diego and saw a very dynamic and happy place. What are you on about ?

rudolf09• 10 years ago

Gay marriage is just the final nail in the coffin of marriage, which was already basically dead. It's a mind-bogglingly stupid hill to die on, but nobody ever accused conservatives of brilliance.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here. Are you for or against gay marriage?

matthewmcg3• 10 years ago

"The people getting more than they put in are parasites; the people getting less than they put in are suckers. When you don't pay for your own healthcare, you don't care how much it costs. Go to any veterinarian's office to see the cost of medicine in a free market."

These are all problems with any system of insurance that involves risk pooling and are not unique to PPACA's reforms.

achompas2• 10 years ago

Immigration isn't a fake issue. Take a walk around Miami or San Diego. Or New York. Or London. Or Paris. Or Malmö.

I'm the son of Cuban immigrants, born in Miami, living in New York, and have walked Paris many times.

I don't understand your claim. Are you suggesting immigration is an issue because these places are diverse? Or have you somehow tapped into swaths of illegal immigrants in these areas that I've never seen or heard of?

nilkn• 10 years ago

Immigration isn't a fake issue. Take a walk around Miami or San Diego. Or New York. Or London. Or Paris. Or Malmö.

What exactly am I supposed to be looking for?

mundo• 10 years ago

The people getting more than they put in are parasites; the people getting less than they put in are suckers.

You're describing the same people at different stages in their lives.

ywecur• 10 years ago

Gay marriage is just the final nail in the coffin of marriage, which was already basically dead.

Please elaborate.

Enthouan• 10 years ago

Do you directly pay for your roads? Do you care how much it cost?

lliamander7• 10 years ago

What do you mean by "fake" issues? Do you mean "issues where there is no disagreement" or "issues where I don't perceive any reasonable disagreement"? The former is a reasonable definition of fake issues, so that's the one I'll use.

Immigration

If conservative and liberal economists agree, then this is the only issue that qualifies as "fake" by the above definition I mentioned. However, I don't think that the Cato position represents a right-wing consensus.

Terrorism

You're not employing the statistics you cited correctly. First, terrorist attacks are black swans[0]. Saying that terrorism killed very few this year or even past ten years is misleading at best. Second, most of those firearm deaths are suicides. Certainly sad and need to be addressed, but also dishonest to compare directly against terrorist attacks and using the word "deaths" to obscure the difference between suicide and murder rates.

Gay Marriage

May be clear cut to you, but is still contentious within the broader population and therefore not a fake issue. Also, there has certainly been conflicts with freedom of association. You can claim that restricting those rights is worth it, but you cannot claim they are not being restricted. There's also plenty to criticize in the legal reasoning behind the supreme court ruling.

Bathrooms

Who uses what bathroom has largely been a matter of culture and custom. You can claim that such customs are wrong and need to be changed, but if you mandate that change through law and you are going to have a bad time.

Obamacare

Not a fake issue.

[0]http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/08/31/terrorists-vs-chairs-an...

vsl• 10 years ago

Funny, I'd think the lesson is that near-total mainstream propaganda actually generates pushback. See also: Britain, Germany (where press in universally suppresses and labels any opposition as "neofascist").

Also consider the possibility that many people voted not for Trump, but against Clinton and her fake issues (like the discredited wage gap myth).

erikpukinskis13• 10 years ago

The wage gap hasn't been discredited. Science shows it is there. Much of the variance is unexplained.

And some of the "explanations" of variance that has been accounted for are themselves sexist. If job titles women tend to have get paid less than job titles men tend to have, that means we value women's work less than men's. Your assumption is that work must be worth objectively less, but the only proof we have for that is "the market said so" which I find unconvincing.

birdmanjeremy• 10 years ago

Any insight into potential impacts on the tech industry?

crivabene• 10 years ago

I believe what is hard to understand for us living outside of the US is how is it possible that the person who is declared President is not the candidate that the majority of people voted to be President. I tried to explain to my peers how the US election system works multiple times but I mostly got back puzzled faces and disbelief.

snarf212• 10 years ago

Part of the problem is how physically big the US is compared to most countries. Popular vote only would mean that cities (even a small set of them) would hold such a large percentage of the vote that the farmers and workers who drive the engines of agriculture and manufacturing could have almost no voice. Additionally, when this was all created, each state just wanted to govern themselves and they needed a compromise for what the federal government would be. So, instead each state was (and is) given a relatively proportional number of "special" votes to cast for President based on population. These have caps though so small, rural states get a little more power than they otherwise would (2 for Idaho instead of probably 0 e.g.) and super large ones get a little less. (This is not that dissimilar to how our Congress is set up). Additionally, each state is given the ability to decide how to vote for president. A state could say that the Governor just picks one or have an in-state vote that is a popular vote within that state (how most work) or anything they want.

api5• 10 years ago

If you want to know why Trump won:

https://morecrows.wordpress.com/2016/05/10/unnecessariat/

jliptzin2• 10 years ago

Everyone seems to be talking about what a strong repudiation this is of the Obama, Clinton, and liberalism in general, but at the time of this writing Clinton is actually ahead in the popular vote by a 200,000+ vote margin and it looks like she'll maintain the lead. Yes this was far closer than many expected, but Trump's victory is largely an anomaly of a system that heavily favors rural, geographically distributed voters. So I'd be careful to take this as a signal that America has been suddenly overtaken by a surge of populism and anti-minority sentiment.

irrational2• 10 years ago

Maybe after this we can get rid of the electoral college and move to popular vote? That's a joke of course. Politicians would never vote it through.

tcoppi9• 10 years ago

You don't need (federal-level) politicians to change this! The constitution is a wonderful thing. There is a process for amending it that bypasses Washington completely. Maybe we should put it on the table.

throw7• 10 years ago

This sucks. Web forums are the worst way to curate/understand/participate in a dialogue... especially something like this topic. All I see is a wall of text where supposedly "the good stuff" floats to the top by magic.

sigh

sparky_• 10 years ago

I hope both parties learn something form this result. Establishment Republicans and the DNC alike have had their asses handed to them handily. I suspect the Democrats will need to move more towards the progressive wing to be competitive in the future. Someone like Warren may be able to straddle the fine line of capturing Bernie enthusiasm without isolating more center leaning democrats.

davidw• 10 years ago

My optimistic take: he's probably going to be a Berlusconi. Generally bad for the economy, bad for freedom, but probably won't carry through on the worst of his bad ideas. I think there's a small chance he'll be more of a Mussolini. The obvious thing to look for there is if he starts trying to carry out the threat to deport illegal immigrants, which would require door to door searches, "papers please" and that kind of thing.

There are also some serious geopolitical things that could go real wrong real quick: if I were in one of the Baltic states this morning, I would be doing some serious thinking about defense.

tcoppi9• 10 years ago

That an American Berlusconi is an optimistic take is incredibly dark.

pg3146• 10 years ago

I had exactly the same idea: somewhere between Berlusconi and Mussolini. However, I don't think he is nearly as intelligent as either, so I don't think he will last more than 4 years.

I agree on the Baltic states. Also, if you're in Aleppo, may god have mercy on your soul. And Europe should prepare for more refugees and destabilisation (exactly what Putin wants). It's not going to be a pretty next 4 years...

tcoppi9• 10 years ago

Prepare for the worst, hope for the best...

guhcampos• 10 years ago

Disclaimer: I'm a Brazilian living in Brazil, so merely a watcher in the US Election.

On times like these, I try very hard to be optimistic, and for this specific historical moment I'd say the US is in a better place than Brazil - relatively speaking.

While Brazil has just gone through a major soft-coup, that has the majority of the nation, guided by media attention, agreeing with it.

For the US election, however, there's a bright side: the actual majority of the American people (even if for a thing margin) has voted for Hillary Clinton, or at least voted against Trump.

It really does not matter if you support one or the other, the sad fact is that, once again, the US will have a president who was not chosen by the majority of its people. This has significant social and philosophical implications. Maybe, just maybe, this election will be the one that drives change, encouraging states to change their laws and provide a better representative system.

I'm not saying that direct representation is better - I'm not entitled to say that - but there's a very obvious dissatisfaction among the younger American people, which are now in position, and willing, to demand changes and come up with creative solutions for the representative democracy.

homulilly• 10 years ago

People are saying this is about race and while I do think that's a big part of it, making it the whole story is dangerously counterproductive.

The Clinton camp basically offered nothing to working class people. Working class people of color turned out to vote for her because at least she wasn't spouting racist rhetoric but for working class whites who aren't concerned with race issues, if they're going to be equally neglected under either candidate, they may as well vote for the one who will be a brick through the window of the political establishment that has failed them. These are the voters who cost Clinton the election.

wodencafe• 10 years ago

This is not technology news.

rukittenme• 10 years ago

I unapologetically voted for DJT. My issues are listed from the most to least important (whether they are logical or not).

- I didn't want to intervene in Syria and wanted peace with Russia over Crimea. - The multiple FBI investigations into Clinton gave an air of illegitimacy. - Ethics reform. - Repeal of ACA. - Lower corp tax rate and more lenient corporate tax laws. - Lower income tax rate (would be nice) - Tighter restrictions on H1B visas. - The wall. - An audit of the federal reserve.

davidf182• 10 years ago

Typically, Democrats have been closer to supporting the working class and the Republicans have been closer to Wall Street.

Clinton ignored the suffering of the working class calling many of them a "basket of deplorables". Instead, she would take $675,000 for 3 talks to Goldman after many Americans had suffered from the housing crisis. These "deplorables" as Clinton would call them helped to win Trump the election.

Sanders had 85% of the youth vote but instead of changing her policies to reflect Sanders she criticized Sanders. Even after BrExit, which reflected the suffering of working class in Britain, Clinton still did not understand and have sympathy for the working class. So, the working class, "the deplorables" voted for Trump.

Animats3• 10 years ago

Trump's likely cabinet selections are in the press.[1]

Treasury - probably Steven Mnuchin, another Goldman Sachs guy. Trump may not be as anti Wall Street as he said he was.

State - Bob Corker (Senate foreign relations chair) or Newt Gingrich. Both are long-time Washington insiders.

Defense - about four candidates, mostly long-time Washington insiders.

Attorney General - Rudy Guilani, probably. As a prosecutor, he took down the New York Mafia, so he's qualified for the job.

Old, white, Republican insiders, all of them. Mnuchin is the only one below retirement age.

[1] http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/who-is-in-president-tr...

toss19414• 10 years ago

Why don't we wait and see? So little of what Politico or the MSM has said about Trump so far has been correct.

dopamean6• 10 years ago

Rudy Giuliani gets way, way too much credit for the decrease in crime in NYC during his term in office. If he's really going to go after big crime (corporate things, drug cartels, etc) then I might be able to stomach him as Attorney General. But if he want's to encourage stop and frisk type bullshit on a national level (I'm not even sure he can do that) I would be very, very worried.

ZeroGravitas5• 10 years ago

On the bright side, does this mean the election wasn't rigged? What will Alex Jones think now that Trump is in power? Will there be no more school shootings because Obama/Hillary and the federal government are no longer trying to take our guns away? Will ISIS no longer attack the US because Trump is being "tough" on them and the president is no longer refusing to say the words "radical islamic terrorism"?

So many intriguing questions posed by the victory of someone who, by many appearences, was happy to lose but rile up a big audience along the way.

devopsproject6• 10 years ago

What will Alex Jones think now that Trump is in power

Alex Jones needs clicks and pageviews so it will be more of the same

Will there be no more school shootings because Obama/Hillary and the federal government are no longer trying to take our guns away?

it will be because of democrats in the senate or house, or at the state or local level. Plenty of scapegoats to go around

Will ISIS no longer attack the US because Trump is being "tough" on them and the president is no longer refusing to say the words "radical islamic terrorism"?

it will still be their fault for letting isis happen in the first place

So many intriguing questions

Maybe for people who are new to politics. The same script will repeat in 8-16 years

readhn5• 10 years ago

The fact is Hillary is part of the corrupt machine, part of the problem. And Trump is ego centric lunatic who can not be trusted with our kids future.

America should have voted against all of them and ask for better candidates. But that would never happen.

foob• 10 years ago

One of the most notable things about this election has been how strongly disliked the two main candidates were. They famously have the lowest favorability ratings of any candidates in recent history. Putting aside any corruption and favoritism from within the parties for a minute, it seems like the primary system really sets the parties up to elect poor general election candidates.

For example, take a look at the states where Clinton performed best in the primaries. They're Mississippi, Alabama, South Carolina, Georgia, Louisiana, Arkansas, and Texas. All of these states were decisive victories for Trump in the general election and from a perspective purely of wanting to win, it doesn't make sense for them to be so important in the primaries. At the same time, Bernie won a number of states in the primary that ended up being important swing states (e.g Michigan, Wisconsin, New Hampshire, Maine, Minnesota, Colorado). From a strategic standpoint, it would seem to make sense to attach a higher weigh to those victories (the same is also true for Florida, Ohio, and some other states where he lost).

None of this necessarily means that Bernie would have won, I just think that it seems as though the primary process is not very well designed for choosing the best general election candidates. This is even more true if you consider what a large proportion of states have closed primaries that specifically exclude independents. It seems obvious that they will be far less likely to vote along party lines in a general election but, in many states, they're given no say in the primary process. I can understand why the DNC can't just say, "sorry, but the deep south doesn't count and neither does New York or California," but opening up the primaries seems like a perfectly reasonable strategy to put forward stronger general election candidates.

I don't really have a broader point beyond that, it just seems like the parties really set themselves up to produce such, to put it gently, sub-optimal candidates.

enlightenedfool• 10 years ago

It's French Revolution redux just waiting to happen. And it did. People voted Obama as a relative outsider to bring change. He failed and became the insider. People doubled down this time and got a complete outsider.

maxerickson• 10 years ago

People doubled down this time and got a complete outsider.

People that believe this is what happened are going to be disappointed.

We'll know real soon anyway, based on the hiring that his transition team does (they are a bunch of political insiders).

yourapostasy5• 10 years ago

The Trump administration and the Republican-dominated legislature probably has two years to show results consistent with an outsider persona, and if they don't deliver, other parties will probably get a good shot at breaking the Republican domination of Congress in the midterms. It's a pretty tall order, as most of the electorate do not understand how slowly the gears of government grind, but it seems to be the pattern in history.

happy-go-lucky• 10 years ago

He was trying to win. She was trying to stop him. That's all she did.

hypertexthero• 10 years ago

The U.S. needs to implement a Basic Income.

http://www.scottsantens.com/basic-income-faq

geigera• 10 years ago

I know, isn't it grand?

serge2k5• 10 years ago

So I've only been alive long enough to remember 5 presidential elections in detail. 2/5 the electoral college has disagreed with the popular vote. Previously it resulted (after court decision) in the election of Bush, widely seen as one of the worst presidents ever.

Second time is Trump, who is at best unqualified.

Why is this system still in use? What are the benefits of the electoral college? Other than disagreeing with the popular vote at times, doesn't it also discourage voting since a vote in california is worthless next to one from florida?

tcoppi9• 10 years ago

First 100 days plan posted, you can see, concretely, what he hopes to accomplish: https://assets.donaldjtrump.com/_landings/contract/O-TRU-102...

rak00n4• 10 years ago

"A requirement that for every new federal regulation, two existing regulations must be eliminated."

This makes me sad.

nemo44x• 10 years ago

Might be a good time to take a short out on AMZN. Trump promised they will be investigated for antitrust.

SSLy• 10 years ago

I'm gonna help by flagging this thread.

xorxornop• 10 years ago

Many here will recognise the formative childhood experience of having done something forbidden and getting caught doing it by their parents where, for the first time, instead of the usual response - their getting angry - you are taken completely by surprise when they simply say "I am so disappointed in you" or similar, accompanied by some expression in the realm of abject futility.

This is one of those.

That this could have had any realistic chance of happening at all says a lot about the current state of the US populace.

I find reading any political news out of the US to be particularly distressing: the extent of the echo chamber effect is very prominent and highly persistent. Admittedly, this is part of a more general phenomenon with regard to news today, given that people can construct their own echo chambers much more readily than in any other time of history - but it seems considerably worse in the US. I'm not quite sure why. Perhaps because the FPTP political system encourages game-theoretic strategies which unfortunately effectively optimise for polarisation and related properties..?

TheGrassyKnoll2• 10 years ago

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/03/technology/how-the-interne...

ocdtrekkie• 10 years ago

As of this writing, this post has exactly 666 upvotes. I screenshot it.

Exuma• 10 years ago

This has created a very large divide which is very interesting to watch unfold... how certain groups are so off the mark as to the cause, and to watch both groups react. Never thought I'd see something like this.

eruditely• 10 years ago

People are pretending that only rural whites voted for them, when the category for white includes Pashtuns, Persians, and other Iranians , and I'm almost certain a majority of Sikhs voted for Trump like I did. Thank god, this was nothing if not a complete rejection of he politics of New England.

spenvo• 10 years ago

random thoughts

tech: the kinds of tech challenges we'll be facing in the next 8 years are extraordinary - cyberwarfare, advanced AI, self-driving cars, brittle state of internet/device security, designer babies via genetic engineering. i'm worried about the general lack of competency of the exec branch in navigating through them.

thanks to the past 16 years, surveillance state powers are far beyond any in history.

the supreme court had some good decisions re privacy in the last few years, wouldn't count on that moving forward b/c scalia was pretty reasonable.

goodwill from silicon valley will drop off precipitously. revolving door from google, Facebook to government will stop (pros and cons there, but mostly cons)

election stuff: during this election there's been a flare up in racial tensions, a safe space for the alt-right, etc

but HRC lost states Obama won -- the disparity was huge between elections.

so, yes racism played a role (and set up the worst Republican candidate winning the thing), but in the general election it was only one of many many factors, and maybe more of a side effect rather than a cause of the result.

DNC will probably be scared about pitching husband/wife combos or dynasties moving forward, minor knocks against Chelsea, Michelle Elizabeth Warren has a strong path moving forward.

silver lining to all of this is the Democratic party has a chance to reform itself. demographic trends are favoring Democrats in future elections

Pulce• 10 years ago

Leslie Nielsen with an hidden script. Welcome on the stage.

Animats3• 10 years ago

What can Silicon Valley do to make America great again?

- There will be higher tariffs for China imports. The US needs to make more of its own stuff. Start planning on moving manufacturing to the US for sales in the US. Don't use Shentzen as much. Plan on exporting to China, and expect some help from the Government if China's government gives you problems. The US needs to get its imports and exports balanced.

- The wall will be built. It will need sensors. The IoT crowd needs to develop better sensors than the overpriced crappy ones from the last attempt in that direction.

- Better detection of illegal aliens is necessary. One of the biggest source of illegal immigrants is visa overstayers. For those, pictures are available from when they entered the US. Social media must be searched for them. Surveillance cameras need to be connected to cloud systems which recognize them. Police cars need very high definition cameras and face recognition to find those people so they can be deported. Deep learning systems will be needed to decide if a likely face match is worth investigation. With good automation, people will only be hassled once. Then they're either known as legal or on their way to deportation.

- E-Verify, the online system for verifying eligibility to work in the US, needs to be made available as a mobile app for employers. Pictures of documents, faces, and fingerprints should be used rather than typing in info. It should be possible to onboard a new hire in less than a minute.

- The immigration system is too paper-oriented and too slow. It needs to be online and fast. This will speed up deportations.

- Labor-intensive operations in farming need to be automated. The technology exists for automated picking of most fruits and vegetables, but the demo-level hardware is too slow, too expensive, and too fragile. That gear needs to be brought up to production level. Look for financing for farmers from the Department of Agriculture. This will reduce demand for low-paid illegals.

- Commercial cleaning needs to be automated. The Roomba was just the first step. There's still no good commercial-grade floor cleaning robot. The janitor industry is ready for a major downsizing.

There are opportunities here waiting to be seized. Get busy!

tdb78938• 10 years ago

I can't tell whether this is sarcastic or not. Either way the focus on illegal immigration is disconcerting.

knowaveragejoe4• 10 years ago

I don't get why you think some of these are essential to "make America great again"(as if you could actually reasonably quantify why it stopped being great).

- The wall will be built. It will need sensors. The IoT crowd needs to develop better sensors than the overpriced crappy ones from the last attempt in that direction.

My understanding is that the proposal is untenable for a variety of reasons, so we probably won't see "the wall", but maybe some additional walls in some places.

How does this concept not terrify you? Why do we need to go further in this direction? It sounds rational as far as achieving the goal. But the implications of spurring this development are immense. I don't get why you would willing move towards such a pervasive police state.

Animats3• 10 years ago

Trump's pitch was to stop the "race to the bottom", where Americans have to be "competitive" in wages with the cheapest countries in the world. The anti-free-trade stance and the anti-immigration stance come from that. Stem the tide of cheap labor and cheap imported goods, and wages for Americans will rise. Side effects, yes, but it might be an improvement. Few rich countries are as open to both immigration and imports as the US has been.

Whether Trump really intends to do that, or whether he'll just go for the generic Republican platform (tax cuts for the rich, few restraints on business, heavy military spending, God, guns and gays to distract the voters) remains to be seen. But that's not what he was elected to do, and he doesn't have political debts which force him to do that.

Trump talks about building infrastructure. That, he's probably serious about. He is, after all, a real estate developer, and they're a "build it and they will come" crowd. Sometimes they don't come, and Trump has a few bankruptcies behind him. But he did get stuff built. One could do worse. Japan's solution to a slow economy is to overspend somewhat on infrastructure. That beats pouring money into the banking system.

(I didn't vote for Trump. But about half of Americans did, and they have some legitimate beefs. So I'm writing about what to do to actually fix the problems Trump was elected to solve.)

elevensies4• 10 years ago

I have to say a big "I told you so" to everyone in the tech community who said Snowden was wrong to do what he did. As of January 20th the NSA works for Donald Trump.

If Trump actually makes a dent in the low-skill unemployment rates, it could actually fuck with the economics of on-demand economy companies, I think you're right about automation.

monodeldiablo9• 10 years ago

No offense, but your pro-police-state cheerleading against "illegal aliens" is terrifying. They're not taking your jobs, they commit crimes at a fraction of the native rate, and they are a net benefit to the economy (contribute taxes and labor without drawing any benefits).

Why terrorize these people? A path to legal citizenship is infinitely more humane, intelligent, and beneficial to all concerned.

kelvin0• 10 years ago

Well this would be scary if modern Presidents were the ones actually running things. They are part of a system which has more power over them than the other way around. Before down voting me, please take the time to reply instead, I would prefer your written feedback.

Kazamai• 10 years ago

I see a lot of comment saying "the USA cannot do this x,y,z because we don't have oil money to back it". USA is in the top three oil producers now at 10 million barrels a day. Yes even that won't cover the total cost for free health care or free education, but that is still a huge amount of money. More importantly, the amount of money the US government has wasted could have paid for the above. Trillions of dollars have been burned on Quantitative Easing and other ridiculous stimulus. And the result was over capacity in oil production and debt that can never be repaid. Instead of hundreds of billions burned, the US government could have given every unemployed individual a whole new education.

olivercreashe• 10 years ago

We're all fucked now!!

Houshalter• 10 years ago

I'm not a conspiracy theorist at all. But HN has story after story about how vulnerable voting machines are: https://hn.algolia.com/?utm_source=opensearch&utm_medium=sea... The more I look into the issue the more horrified I am. One place had voting machines that ran windows XP and sent votes over wifi, and were hacked with a default administrator password. This computerphile video goes into a number of problems with the concept: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3_0x6oaDmI

The fact that the polls were off by such a huge amount is concerning to me. States that weren't supposed to be even close somehow ended up going for Trump. It's known that Russia supported Donald Trump's campaign and had targeted voting systems, which is terrifying. Overall the election seems to be very close in terms of popular vote, and many swing states were won by very small margins or just a few counties. A small amount of fraud targeted in just the right places could perhaps have changed the outcome.

How concerned should I be about this? The fact that the election wasn't close in terms of electoral votes is comforting (if you are rigging an election, it's best to try not to overdo it and draw suspicion.) It would be nice to know that results are consistent across states and counties that use different kinds of voting machines or paper ballots. I don't know if that has been tested yet.

Donald Trump Is Elected President

Related Stories