OT: The next President of the United States: ★★★ Donald Trump ★★★

[Mech Engineer]

The policy direction that Trump is promising is inherently anti-immigrant and anti-minority.

Systemic racism is also racism.

OK, let's discuss his general policy discussions.

Immigration: He is clearly against illegal immigrants. He hasn't outlined much of a policy at all for legal immigrants. Illegal immigration creates a supply of cheap labor which suppresses wages for low skilled workers. Given that in many cases these are also minorities, this is not inherently racist. All of that being said, immigration on its whole is beneficial to the greater economy. Personally, I have a huge issue with ILLEGAL immigration on two fronts:
- It creates a second class group of people without the full rights and benefits of being a citizen who can be exploited.
- When presidents pick and choose which laws they enforce, then they become dictators. Its a really slippery slope.

Trade reform: The intent is to get more jobs for poor and middle class people who again are minorities. Not racist. Beneficial to the greater economy? Interesting debate.

Banning muslims: An immigrant from Afghanistan is far more likely to carry out a domestic terror attack than one from, say, Denmark. With that said, this policy is inherently racist as it is using statistics to paint an entire ethnic group. Beyond that, immigrants from Afghanistan are still pretty unlikely to carry out an attack.

Infrastructure spending: Not racist. Technically disproportionately benefits poor and middle class. Again, actually helps minorities more than white people statistically. Is it worth the additional debt though?

Repeal and replace obamacare: This hurts the working poor getting heavily subsidized health care from the government. Helps small business owners. A lot depends on what the "replace" is. Given the statistical distribution of minorities, this likely is not pro-minority.

Global isolationism: Not racist. Again, would technically free up money used for defense for domestic programs which disproportionately benefit minorities. Would this really be a good idea though?

I'm sure I am missing something. With that said, Trump's policies overall seem to benefit poor african americans more than anyone. . . . if they work. A lot of these things are aimed at helping poor and middle class people get jobs. With that said, if implemented poorly this could send the whole world economy in the toilet.

I just wish we could have a little deeper conversation about this than shutting down every discussion by shouting "racism".

As a side note, the biggest issue here is that Trump is blatantly anti-non American. He isn't trying to hide that. He is putting america and americans first and if he is successful, non americans will not benefit. A lot of the global angst is based around that. Not ever really discussed but important is just how much areas like Western Europe, Australia, Canada, etc. benefit from the global economic system that the US subsidizes. Trump is threatening to take those subsidies away.

Racism wouldn't be apart of the conversation if Trump didn't blatantly target those types of people. Minorities aren't fearing for the future of this country for no reason. Look around and read the stories and reactions that have developed since his win. You can't possibly just look the other way on that stuff. Are there some good things that can come from Trump during his term? Sure, but his actions, words and campaign hardly resemble a president-elect that we should give the benefit of the doubt and look on the bright side.

"But, there were minorities that voted for Trump, so how can he be racist!" The political equivalent of, "I'm not racist, I have a black friend and an Asian friend."

Many Trump voters and supporters/sympathizers/tolerators might not be racist but have to be very conscious of the impact of his words. Most minorities/immigrants in the US are already less aggressive because they have to face a new culture/approval for expression. They do not have the so called "white privilege" of past generations for wealth either. And, when some white people develop mob mentality, it is scary. But, when a president and his powerful supporters start giving a nod to this, it becomes worse.

Anecdotally, there are a lot of Asian/Muslim/Hispanic kids and girls who feel different today than what they felt last year at this time. There is no doubt that this has set the country back. Again, Trump might not do anything but he has empowered the right wing/racist people to bring their hidden views into the public/reality.

I am praying for the reverse impact. Hopefully, these racists/nutcases do not feel they are under siege anymore and show some empathy/tolerance towards minorities/muslims because they have their candidate as the leader.

[DuckIII]

You're right. And I don't blame them. BUT, I think they do it to the detriment of themselves and everyone. I hope they get what they want. I really hope we don't see another 4 years of just two sides hating and criticizing each other.

That's exactly what you are going to see.

Yeah, I suppose so. But it's ok cause the Trump people started it I guess?

Absolutely.

[Susan]

If standing up for the scientific community, women's, minorities and immigrants rights is going to divide this country, I'm not sure what to say.

These are things he ran on. These are things that he said. This is not a conspiracy theory like the birther movement was. These are cold, hard and very difficult facts about him and what he's done.

If standing up for people's RIGHTS is too PC for you, I'm sorry.

[Dr Spaceman]

The problem I have with the "Well, the percentage of white's is the same as Romney!" notion, is that Romney was a very qualified Governor, who by all accounts was a great person (Mormon). There were reasons to vote for that guy.

It should be rather alarming and/or telling that the white vote pretty broke the same way despite the seismic difference in candidate quality and character.

There was a lot of talk of the supposed "moderate" right that couldn't stomach voting for Trump. Obviously that was bull.

And don't even get me started on the Evangelicals...

What is funny is that Romney lost with that percentage. If you look at the numbers, Trump actually did better with minorities than Romney. Beyond that, the candidate quality between 2012 and 2016 for the democrats was also "seismic". Democrats don't want to hear this but apparently Hillary was driving away people even faster than Trump was.

Democrats have their heads in the sand on the racism thing. That's all they want to see. This election had a race based component, but that isn't what flipped it. As I have been saying, what flipped this election was a number of democratic strongholds that strongly went for Obama (meaning they aren't racist) switching to go for Trump. It was largely economic based.

Instead of having a discussion about the real why's and policy directions, we have this constant discussion about racism that had virtually nothing to do with the outcome of the election.

Yeah, and you know what? I'm okay with this being the case. In fact, I'm 100% in favor of this.

I draw the line with people. I've cut habitual drunk drivers out of my life completely. I've ended friendships over anti-gay or racist attitudes. These are people who brought plenty of positive things to my life, but there are some things I cannot and will not stand for, because I have principles.

What we found out on Tuesday was that people do not draw the line at being racist. And that makes me shiver', because I thought I knew things about this country that turned out to not be true.

The conversation should be about racism, because what we found out is that plenty of people are willing to overlook the most despicable and reprehensible thing a person can be if they personally reap benefit from it. And that has me reeling.

[League Circles]

That's exactly what you are going to see.

Yeah, I suppose so. But it's ok cause the Trump people started it I guess?

Absolutely.

Just to be clear, I wasn't really questioning whether Trump people started it. I was trying to point out that just because they started it doesn't make it effective to continue the divide.

When two kids are fighting, just because one started it, doesn't mean that the best thing for all involved is for the other kid to keep fighting. Sometimes the best thing is to be grown up and stop fighting. God forbid we get anything done as a nation and experience any unity.

The POTUS elect stated:

Hillary has worked very long and very hard over a long period of time, and we owe her a major debt of gratitude for her service to our country.

I mean that very sincerely.

Now it’s time for America to bind the wounds of division; have to get together. To all Republicans and Democrats and independents across this nation, I say it is time for us to come together as one united people.

It’s time. I pledge to every citizen of our land that I will be president for all Americans, and this is so important to me.

For those who have chosen not to support me in the past, of which there were a few people. . .

. . . I’m reaching out to you for your guidance and your help so that we can work together and unify our great country.

It’s a movement comprised of Americans from all races, religions, backgrounds and beliefs who want and expect our government to serve the people, and serve the people it will.

Now, who knows what he believes in his heart. Maybe this is lies. Maybe his previous divisive remarks were lies to get mouthbreathers to vote for him. Maybe both are true and he changed along the way. Who knows?

But, basically, this is the kid who started the fight apologizing and saying how he wants to make it right and how important that is. Now it's time for the other, allegedly more mature kid, who didn't seem to start the fight, to take the apology of the other kid at face value and move forward IMO.

[League Circles]

If standing up for the scientific community, women's, minorities and immigrants rights is going to divide this country, I'm not sure what to say.

These are things he ran on. These are things that he said. This is not a conspiracy theory like the birther movement was. These are cold, hard and very difficult facts about him and what he's done.

If standing up for people's RIGHTS is too PC for you, I'm sorry.

I think moving on is more important than taking a stance on the past. I felt the same about HRC's email situation FWIW.

To my knowledge, there has been nothing in Trump's campaign that has indicated he will do anything to abuse people's rights. Making disgusting comments about women's appearance is not an affront to their rights.

I'm unclear on his position on gay marriage rights, but to my knowledge he has not proposed anything that would violate minority rights. Just to clarify, immigrating to the US as a muslim (and I am a muslim FWIW) is not a right. Nor is staying here as an illegal immigrant. If you're talking about abortion rights, that's a philosophical question and a very legitimate one. It's about the right of the fetus to live vs the right of the mother to control her body. No easy answer and no illegitimate viewpoint IMO.

[ralphisBullsFan]

I think the idea of an American President (a singe person who stands above all else as the most powerful person in the country) is archaic and silly. I find most of the people who run for the position to be just as silly. Just a whole bunch of silliness all around that can cause dire situations with not so silly consequences.

[League Circles]

I am praying for the reverse impact. Hopefully, these racists/nutcases do not feel they are under siege anymore and show some empathy/tolerance towards minorities/muslims because they have their candidate as the leader.

I love this thought and have hope for it too.

[Mech Engineer]

One more thing to see how Trump will rule is how he chooses his cabinet. Is he going to staff his cabinet with the guys who were on the campaign(the yes guys and white guys) or is he going to get minorities/people who opposed him as some of the cabinet members. Obama kept people like Robert Gates and diversified his staff.

We will know then a lot of his rhetoric will start turning into policies and implemented by yes men who agree with his divisive statements(which they supported during the campaign).

[League Circles]

The conversation should be about racism, because what we found out is that plenty of people are willing to overlook the most despicable and reprehensible thing a person can be if they personally reap benefit from it. And that has me reeling.

Being a racist is despicable and reprehensible. But it is far from the most despicable and reprehensible thing a person can be, and I don't know how that is debatable. But the fact that a lot of America feels this way says a lot. For example, a lot of people probably think it's worse to ignorantly believe that the mexican family down the street is stealing your job than to launch a missile at a similar family across the world.

[Susan]

If standing up for the scientific community, women's, minorities and immigrants rights is going to divide this country, I'm not sure what to say.

These are things he ran on. These are things that he said. This is not a conspiracy theory like the birther movement was. These are cold, hard and very difficult facts about him and what he's done.

If standing up for people's RIGHTS is too PC for you, I'm sorry.

I think moving on is more important than taking a stance on the past. I felt the same about HRC's email situation FWIW.

To my knowledge, there has been nothing in Trump's campaign that has indicated he will do anything to abuse people's rights. Making disgusting comments about women's appearance is not an affront to their rights.

I'm unclear on his position on gay marriage rights, but to my knowledge he has not proposed anything that would violate minority rights. Just to clarify, immigrating to the US as a muslim (and I am a muslim FWIW) is not a right. Nor is staying here as an illegal immigrant. If you're talking about abortion rights, that's a philosophical question and a very legitimate one. It's about the right of the fetus to live vs the right of the mother to control her body. No easy answer and no illegitimate viewpoint IMO.

Moving on or holding somebody accountable for the divisiveness of their actions, words and the lows that his campagain went to help incite white nationalism for his own benefit?

Appointing Mike Pence as his Vice President is a direct attack on the LGBTQ community. Publcly funded conversion therapy is completely unacceptable.

A complete disregard for the scientific community and our impact on global warming is completely unacceptable.

Where is your line in the sand? Do you have one?

[Dr Spaceman]

Yeah, I suppose so. But it's ok cause the Trump people started it I guess?

Absolutely.

Just to be clear, I wasn't really questioning whether Trump people started it. I was trying to point out that just because they started it doesn't make it effective to continue the divide.

When two kids are fighting, just because one started it, doesn't mean that the best thing for all involved is for the other kid to keep fighting. Sometimes the best thing is to be grown up and stop fighting. God forbid we get anything done as a nation and experience any unity.

The POTUS elect stated:

Hillary has worked very long and very hard over a long period of time, and we owe her a major debt of gratitude for her service to our country.

I mean that very sincerely.

Now it’s time for America to bind the wounds of division; have to get together. To all Republicans and Democrats and independents across this nation, I say it is time for us to come together as one united people.

It’s time. I pledge to every citizen of our land that I will be president for all Americans, and this is so important to me.

For those who have chosen not to support me in the past, of which there were a few people. . .

. . . I’m reaching out to you for your guidance and your help so that we can work together and unify our great country.

It’s a movement comprised of Americans from all races, religions, backgrounds and beliefs who want and expect our government to serve the people, and serve the people it will.

Now, who knows what he believes in his heart. Maybe this is lies. Maybe his previous divisive remarks were lies to get mouthbreathers to vote for him. Maybe both are true and he changed along the way. Who knows?

But, basically, this is the kid who started the fight apologizing and saying how he wants to make it right and how important that is. Now it's time for the other, allegedly more mature kid, who didn't seem to start the fight, to take the apology of the other kid at face value and move forward IMO.

Well,

1. He needs to prove it with action. Either he'all deliver on all the terrible things he said or he won't, but this isn't the end, this is the beginning. People are fighting because they think he really is going to build a wall and banish muslims.

Because as it stands right now, "moving forward as a nation" means allowing our president to commit war crimes, because that's what he promised to do.

So forgive me if I'd rather the country be divided.

2. Him talking the way he did has already had incredibly damaging effects on the nation and our political discourse. What he did was a winning strategy. He gave a voice to the worst impulses of people, and that's a scar that likely will never heal.

[League Circles]

FWIW, notice that a lot of people who dismissed and called Derrick Rose (black) every name in the book in recent years are the same ones calling Trump (white) names now, and a lot of the people trying to give Rose (black) every benefit of the doubt in recent years are the ones trying to give Trump (white) every benefit of the doubt now. Sometimes it's not about race, but more about personality. I try to defend people across the board and give benefit of the doubt, even if I strongly question that person whether it may be about their policies and intentions or their quality as a basketball player. Not saying one attitude is right and one is wrong just saying there is more to the divide than race, sex, etc.

[League Circles]

Because as it stands right now, "moving forward as a nation" means allowing our president to commit war crimes, because that's what he promised to do.

All of war is a crime against humanity.

[DuckIII]

Yeah, I suppose so. But it's ok cause the Trump people started it I guess?

Absolutely.

Just to be clear, I wasn't really questioning whether Trump people started it. I was trying to point out that just because they started it doesn't make it effective to continue the divide.

Every significant social advancement in the history of the United States results from one side creating a divide, the other side overtly calling it what it is, and them prevailing over it through acts of non-unity.

Tuesday marked a day when whatever was left of the veil over American bigotry was ripped away by the bigots themselves.

There will be no acceptance of that involving compromise by the targets of that bigotry. So it's going to be an extraordinarily divisive time in our nation's history. At least that is my prediction.

As for Trump's words, I don't think you grasp the issue. It's not Trump. It's the election of Trump by America. That's a critical distinction.

[SpinninHouse]

Yes, Trump said (and did) awful things. I sure as heck didn't vote for him - and out of every one I know, only two voted for him. And Hillary Clinton did some equally deplorable things.

no she didn't

She risked national security by using a private server

stupid mistake, but 'deplorable'? and it was the government server that got hacked, not hers

She lied to the families who lost loved one's in Benghazi.

gross mischaracterization. and way overblown

She has fronted the Clinton Foundation as an altruistic non-profit when it was really just an expense account funded by frightening people (Saudis, Algerians, etc).

false. highly rated CHARITY with some dubious donors

If they both weren't so awful, Clinton would be the next POTUS.

she may be an awful candidate, but she's sure as hell not an awful person. as you well know, plenty of good people have lost political races

You retorts are not very compelling. In fact, you are notorious for one word or one sentence rebuttals. Far too often your responses lack substance. It's difficult to debate somebody who simply says "No" and nothing more.

It's a documented fact that Hillary Clinton lied about Benghazi. Obama, himself, later would say Libya was his biggest mistake during his 8 years in office. After the attack happened, the White House issued a statement calling it the result of "spontaneous demonstrations." By every single account, that was a lie. It was clearly a premeditated terrorist attack by extremists.

So why the false narrative? Clearly it was a political decision based on the 2012 Presidential election. Obama had just told the American people that Al-Quada "was on the run." Clearly this would have hurt his campaign. The Benghazi committee ultimately found that the State Department failed to protect the US diplomats who were killed. A month before the attacks, support weakened despite requests by the diplomats to have it increased.

But the best is you claiming The Clinton Foundation is "highly rated." I didn't realize that non profit organizations that pay for family member's weddings could be highly rated. I also didn't realize that Saudi Arabia was a "dubious" donor.

[Dr Spaceman]

If standing up for the scientific community, women's, minorities and immigrants rights is going to divide this country, I'm not sure what to say.

These are things he ran on. These are things that he said. This is not a conspiracy theory like the birther movement was. These are cold, hard and very difficult facts about him and what he's done.

If standing up for people's RIGHTS is too PC for you, I'm sorry.

I think moving on is more important than taking a stance on the past. I felt the same about HRC's email situation FWIW.

To my knowledge, there has been nothing in Trump's campaign that has indicated he will do anything to abuse people's rights. Making disgusting comments about women's appearance is not an affront to their rights.

I'm unclear on his position on gay marriage rights, but to my knowledge he has not proposed anything that would violate minority rights. Just to clarify, immigrating to the US as a muslim (and I am a muslim FWIW) is not a right. Nor is staying here as an illegal immigrant. If you're talking about abortion rights, that's a philosophical question and a very legitimate one. It's about the right of the fetus to live vs the right of the mother to control her body. No easy answer and no illegitimate viewpoint IMO.

Then you weren't listening.

Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on.

Stopping US citizens entering the country on the basis of religion is a violation of rights.

He didn't say "stopping immigration", he said a total and complete shutdown. The difference is clear.

[TheSuzerain]

What is funny is that Romney lost with that percentage. If you look at the numbers, Trump actually did better with minorities than Romney. Beyond that, the candidate quality between 2012 and 2016 for the democrats was also "seismic". Democrats don't want to hear this but apparently Hillary was driving away people even faster than Trump was.

Democrats have their heads in the sand on the racism thing. That's all they want to see. This election had a race based component, but that isn't what flipped it. As I have been saying, what flipped this election was a number of democratic strongholds that strongly went for Obama (meaning they aren't racist) switching to go for Trump. It was largely economic based.

Instead of having a discussion about the real why's and policy directions, we have this constant discussion about racism that had virtually nothing to do with the outcome of the election.

The policy direction that Trump is promising is inherently anti-immigrant and anti-minority.

Systemic racism is also racism.

OK, let's discuss his general policy discussions.

Immigration: He is clearly against illegal immigrants. He hasn't outlined much of a policy at all for legal immigrants. Illegal immigration creates a supply of cheap labor which suppresses wages for low skilled workers. Given that in many cases these are also minorities, this is not inherently racist. All of that being said, immigration on its whole is beneficial to the greater economy. Personally, I have a huge issue with ILLEGAL immigration on two fronts:
- It creates a second class group of people without the full rights and benefits of being a citizen who can be exploited.
- When presidents pick and choose which laws they enforce, then they become dictators. Its a really slippery slope.

Trade reform: The intent is to get more jobs for poor and middle class people who again are minorities. Not racist. Beneficial to the greater economy? Interesting debate.

Banning muslims: An immigrant from Afghanistan is far more likely to carry out a domestic terror attack than one from, say, Denmark. With that said, this policy is inherently racist as it is using statistics to paint an entire ethnic group. Beyond that, immigrants from Afghanistan are still pretty unlikely to carry out an attack.

Infrastructure spending: Not racist. Technically disproportionately benefits poor and middle class. Again, actually helps minorities more than white people statistically. Is it worth the additional debt though?

Repeal and replace obamacare: This hurts the working poor getting heavily subsidized health care from the government. Helps small business owners. A lot depends on what the "replace" is. Given the statistical distribution of minorities, this likely is not pro-minority.

Global isolationism: Not racist. Again, would technically free up money used for defense for domestic programs which disproportionately benefit minorities. Would this really be a good idea though?

I'm sure I am missing something. With that said, Trump's policies overall seem to benefit poor african americans more than anyone. . . . if they work. A lot of these things are aimed at helping poor and middle class people get jobs. With that said, if implemented poorly this could send the whole world economy in the toilet.

I just wish we could have a little deeper conversation about this than shutting down every discussion by shouting "racism".

As a side note, the biggest issue here is that Trump is blatantly anti-non American. He isn't trying to hide that. He is putting america and americans first and if he is successful, non americans will not benefit. A lot of the global angst is based around that. Not ever really discussed but important is just how much areas like Western Europe, Australia, Canada, etc. benefit from the global economic system that the US subsidizes. Trump is threatening to take those subsidies away.

The margin in this election was very thin. We could come up with quite a few things that tipped the election.

Clinton's failure to mobilize the minority vote being one of those. P.S. the Tim Kaine selection should go down as a Palin-tier VP choice.

But another factor in the result was Trump's frustrating ability to maintain the middle-right vote, despite actions and rhetoric that I assumed would have been disqualifying in the eyes of moderates. That was clearly not the case for white moderates. They voted for the guy in force. I think that warrants discussion on race.

But you are right that the other factors at play shouldn't be ignored either.

[DuckIII]

I think the idea of an American President (a singe person who stands above all else as the most powerful person in the country) is archaic and silly. I find most of the people who run for the position to be just as silly. Just a whole bunch of silliness all around that can cause dire situations with not so silly consequences.

But that's why we have a balance of power. Crappy as the result of this election is, our system is well designed.

There is no singular authority.

[Mech Engineer]

BTW, Colin Kaepernick hated both Hillary and Trump. He did not vote and this is where someone is wrong. He wants his problem solved by a black and white answer. These kinds of behavior is what leads to divisiveness. Hillary had her faults but she had addressed his issue directly in his favor. He could have worked with her but unfortunately he hurt his cause more now.