The experimental political thread - be cool

[madbean]

I shut down a thread last week (something that rarely happens here) about the election results because I felt it was too soon to have a discussion. Emotions were high and I personally was feeling pretty wrecked (not joking: I had a migraine all Wednesday and was pretty out of it). But, I think there can be an opportunity for discussion and I am interested to hear member opinions on the result and the future of America in the next few years. And, also because we have many international members who can provide a unique perspective.

What I do not want and won't tolerate here: bashing other groups, political parties or forum members, gross stereotypes, disparaging remarks about race, religion or sexual orientation. If you have an opinion to offer, do it. But do so as gentlemen. Otherwise, in the words of Negan, "I will shut that shit down."

----------------------

About me: I am an unabashed liberal and make no apologies for it. But, I try to be rational and reasoned in my political opinions. I voted for Clinton because Sanders did not win and because I am a Democrat. I liked some things about Clinton and not others. I liked Sanders a whole lot more. I support a progressive agenda in all social policies and quite a few economic ones (although there are some conservative ideas about the economy which I think are good ones). I think Obama has been a good president and while I do not agree with some things he has done (and not done) I will truly miss him in office. And, his awesome family.

I am terrified right now. Not because Trump won, though. We have had bad presidents before and he will hardly be the last. That is something we can weather. I am terrified at the prospect of an unencumbered Republican control of all branches of government. I am terrified that we will normalize some of the awful conduct and opinions people have expressed during the long campaign. And, I am very worried for the future of important social tentpoles like Medicare, Social Security, women's and minority rights, voting rights, health care, the Supreme Court, and too many others to list. Lastly, I am worried that we Americans are at a tipping point where any hope of coming together despite (and in some ways, because of) our differences for the good of the country is quickly receding. I am also very concerned about the next steps we take regarding energy and dealing with climate.

I understand why "my side" lost. We lost because the DNC propped up the wrong candidate and ignored the concerns of many Americans who would have otherwise voted for a Democrat. We lost because HRC did not speak to enough Americans (and made one awful and stupid comment about a large portion of them). And, we lost because of this stupid and antiquated Electoral College. I understand that we are a Democratic Republic. I just think the elections themselves should be purely democratic (and I would say the same thing if the situation with the popular vote were reversed ((even though I would secretly be relieved))).

What I look forward to: the Democratic party re-molding itself into what more Americans want. Undoubtedly we need new, fresh faces. We need to increase the diversity of candidates to represent the many different kinds of people in this country. We need to listen. We should defend why we feel our ideas are the right ones for the country but not insist anyone who thinks differently is uneducated or believes what they do solely out of self-interest. We should call out those who express ideas that are counter to our democracy and who express racist or xenophobic rhetoric, but not stereotype others as embracing those views just because they happen to be in the same political party. And, much as it pains me to say, sometimes we need to fight dirty; it seems to be the reality we live in now.

----------------------

All that said, I'd like to hear other takes on it. And, like I said, let's stay adults.

[m-Kresol]

ok, I'll start. First off, my understanding of the american political system is rather crude, so please excuse if I make false statements.

I am and was very much against Trump. The things he said and has done in the past were quite shocking and I found it hard to believe that so many US citizens would actually vote for someone like him. One of things that surprised me most was that after his rating went down after all the things about his attitude towards women came to light, they went up again to a point were he was able to win. Did people just forget about that within a week? I can't imagine a situation where I would vote for a guy like that. At least he is very moderate since he has been elected and this has been a great relief. Apparently many of the things he claimed to do were just hot air after all. thank god for that.

That being said, I'm not so fond of Hillary Clinton either. She sure made mistakes during her time in the Obama administration, but at least she has experience in the field of politics. That alone made her a lot more suited for the job.

One of the problems I see is that there are factually just two parties in the US. Republicans and Democrats. That's it. Of course there are other parties, but due to the electoral college system, they are neglectable. Also watching Jon Oliver's portrait of those parties opened my eyes in that regard. Basically every vote you cast for those parties is lost. I think there is a choice between two parties in the end, and even if you'd rather vote for another party, you should consider voting for one of the big two, just to make sure you get "the lesser evil". I see that no political diversity can ever result from that and in a regular election, I would totally go for a third party. However, in this one, facing Trump as a potential president, I wouldn't for the reasons mentioned above.

And I believe very firmly that your voting system is outdated. I get that it can be important to protect/save heritage or customs, but this is just not one of those cases. If you really want to consider the US a democratic state, than popular vote is the only way to go. It ensures that every vote is equal, independent of race, gender, religion or any other background.

I hope that wasn't to blunt or anything. But who am I too say anything. In Austria, were having the 4th round to elect our president, which only has representative functions mostly. We managed to have a regular vote, than between the two most popular candidates (you need >50%). The later one was invalidated by the loosing party due to some mostly formal errors, but the decision was correct after all. This round was supposed to be repeated in September but got postponed because the optional mail-in voting had defect envelopes. To circumvent another invalidation, they opted out for a postponed voting on Dec. 4th.

It's a similar situation as in the US, just with less global effects. We have the former leader of the green party - a former university professor of economics - against a right winged populist who similar to Trump sees the evil in islam and immigrants. The first vote that got invalidated was 50.2% for the former green party member, so it's gonna be a close one too. I just hope people didn't get fed up by now with all the postponing and stuff. It will come down to how many people will bother to go to vote. I hardly think that many of the people who made up their minds at the first round would have changed, especially since the candidates couldn't be much different.

[icecycle66]

I can only address one of many factors regarding the results.

I am beholden to the same clearance and rights, although not read on to all programs, as Bradley, Snowden, and Clinton. (And thousands of other people in the Intelligence Community.)
Regardless of position in the military, State Department, Department of Energy, any department of the government you have to swear by, sign, and confirm your capability in the handling, storage, and transmission of classified information once you are provided with the clearance, access, and need to know of that information.

Bradley is in prison for intentionally releasing classified information. I'm cool with that.
Snowden is in exile for intentionally releasing classified information.  I'm cool with that.
I can name dozens of others in the same position as those two and I am cool with that. Not because i don't think it's fucked up, because in some cases it is, but because those individuals knew before they ever set eyes on the information that the intentional or unintentional release of classified information would get them shit canned.

I would go to jail for the intentional or unintentional release of the same information that Clinton did. 
I would go to jail if I kept classified information in my car, or my house, or my barn, or my laptop.
The senior intelligence officer for the Department of Defense would be fired, removed from service, and lucky if they did the same thing and not end up in jail.
GEN Petraeus was one of the best combatant commanders we've had in decades and he was raked over the coals and drummed out of the Army for releasing material to a person who did have clearance but not a confirmed need to know.

Clinton breaks the rules, meh, whatever.
She knew exactly what laws she was breaking.  If she didn't, then she isn't competent enough to hold the honor of President.
She did it anyway.  Regardless of personality and general shit-headedness of any competitor she went up against, I could not stand to cast my ballot for a person who falls under the same rules as everyone else but blatently disregards them because she thinks her position is more important.
Once the classified email scandal hit, Clinton lost the vote of millions of people with security clearances.

If she can't behave and act under the rules as Secretary of State, the real number 2 under the President, then she won't behave as President.
Things Clinton has done as Secretary of State have directly impacted me.  Whether it was behavior with rules listed above or other actions as Secretary of State.  My decision to go against her was not one of conceptual or principled thought.  It was result of very direct impact to my individual life because of her decisions.

Trump, while apparently not a nice guy, has done nothing to directly harm me or any actual individual I know.

[Luke51411]

Brian, you've voiced basically all of my concerns in a much more eloquent way than I could. I'm trying to come to terms with how so many people could be either onboard or indifferent to all of the groups of people Trump has hurt with the things he said.

[cajone5]

I can only address one of many factors regarding the results.

I am beholden to the same clearance and rights, although not read on to all programs, as Bradley, Snowden, and Clinton. (And thousands of other people in the Intelligence Community.)
Regardless of position in the military, State Department, Department of Energy, any department of the government you have to swear by, sign, and confirm your capability in the handling, storage, and transmission of classified information once you are provided with the clearance, access, and need to know of that information.

Bradley is in prison for intentionally releasing classified information. I'm cool with that.
Snowden is in exile for intentionally releasing classified information.  I'm cool with that.
I can name dozens of others in the same position as those two and I am cool with that. Not because i don't think it's fucked up, because in some cases it is, but because those individuals knew before they ever set eyes on the information that the intentional or unintentional release of classified information would get them shit canned.

I would go to jail for the intentional or unintentional release of the same information that Clinton did. 
I would go to jail if I kept classified information in my car, or my house, or my barn, or my laptop.
The senior intelligence officer for the Department of Defense would be fired, removed from service, and lucky if they did the same thing and not end up in jail.
GEN Petraeus was one of the best combatant commanders we've had in decades and he was raked over the coals and drummed out of the Army for releasing material to a person who did have clearance but not a confirmed need to know.

Clinton breaks the rules, meh, whatever.
She knew exactly what laws she was breaking.  If she didn't, then she isn't competent enough to hold the honor of President.
She did it anyway.  Regardless of personality and general shit-headedness of any competitor she went up against, I could not stand to cast my ballot for a person who falls under the same rules as everyone else but blatently disregards them because she thinks her position is more important.
Once the classified email scandal hit, Clinton lost the vote of millions of people with security clearances.

If she can't behave and act under the rules as Secretary of State, the real number 2 under the President, then she won't behave as President.
Things Clinton has done as Secretary of State have directly impacted me.  Whether it was behavior with rules listed above or other actions as Secretary of State.  My decision to go against her was not one of conceptual or principled thought.  It was result of very direct impact to my individual life because of her decisions.

Trump, while apparently not a nice guy, has done nothing to directly harm me or any actual individual I know.

As someone who works in the defense industry and is very familiar with clearance requirements, the idea that mishandling classified info automatically lands you in jail is entirely untrue.  Classified materials are frequently mishandled at all levels of the government.  They are frequently not stored, couriered, handled, disseminated, etc. in by the proper maner and this does not land you in jail automatically.  Statements like that are painting with a really broad brush and are very misleading.  The focus on investigations related to mishandling of classified information is on malicious intent and severity of consequence if the information is allowed to get "out" which is why there are different security levels for different information.  Anyway, I'm not justifying what was done or disagreeing with whether or not similar behavior from someone else would necessarily land them in jail.  That's stance speculation and nothing more.  I am just pointing this out so folks unfamiliar with the topic do not come away with the wrong impression.

In addition, I'll add my more moderate/liberal twist here and hope to not offend.  Bluntly, it would appear, to me at least, that holding this view point (that Clinton should be jailed for what she did) is synonymous with saying that the many people investigating the server issue and Comey himself are nothing but puppets who did not treat the investigation fairly.  That's a high charge for someone who is not privy to the actual facts and, personally, I would not take such a hard stance on such little evidence.

[icecycle66]

As someone who works in the defense industry and is very familiar with clearance requirements, the idea that mishandling classified info automatically lands you in jail is entirely untrue.  Classified materials are frequently mishandled at all levels of the government.  They are frequently not stored, couriered, handled, disseminated, etc. in by the proper maner and this does not land you in jail automatically.  Statements like that are painting with a really broad brush and are very misleading.  The focus on investigations related to mishandling of classified information is on malicious intent and severity of consequence if the information is allowed to get "out" which is why there are different security levels for different information.  Anyway, I'm not justifying what was done or disagreeing with whether or not similar behavior from someone else would necessarily land them in jail.  That's stance speculation and nothing more.  I am just pointing this out so folks unfamiliar with the topic do not come away with the wrong impression.

I agree with what you are saying and I'm not going to get into all the nitty gritty about clearances etc, but it doesn't make a CI agents job any easier when the Secretary of State does what she did.  In fact, it makes it much more unnecessarily difficult when somebody being investigates says, "Well, The Secretary of State did it on a much larger scale than repeatedly forgetting to get her courier orders renewed."  Remember, it is her direct impact on my life that caused me to go the other way, not the conceptual.

[midwayfair]

My vote was cast based almost solely on the fact that only one candidate who could get within spitting distance of the Whitehouse was not a climate change denier. All candidates are typically a mixed bag to me, and who knows if Hillary would have followed through on her (actually rather impressive) climate proposals. Climate change is literally the most important thing that will happen in the next 100 years, and will drive mountains of social and economic upheaval without adequate preparation, but the level at which climate issues were ignored this election cycle is simply unforgivable. Even the Green Party barely said anything. POTUSE Trump could barely even be bothered to admit that it exists and has a problem with renewable energy not because he thinks it doesn't work, not because he thinks the investment won't pay back, but because he thinks it takes too long to earn back what you paid into it. And while I'm happy to go back to working on this issue via charity and personal action and pressuring manufacturers, the level of coordination required to deal with this can't be done at a local or even state level; it can barely be done at a continent level. The coordination effort alone is too expensive for private enterprise and this is exactly the sort of thing that the ability of an immortal entity like the U.S. Government borrowing money is FOR.

That said, I also didn't think any candidate was nearly as bad as everyone tried to make them out to be, but maybe that's because I am contrarian as crap and tend to watch speeches or segments of speeches in their entirety rather than relying on soundbites and a very well developed BS detector.

I have friends at all points on the political spectrum and frankly I'm in perpetual disagreement with everyone. But I'll also listen to anyway and do my best to understand.

---

I am an unabashed liberal and make no apologies for it

I'm also a liberal (registered independent) but because words mean different things to different people, I think it's important to say what I mean by that. Below is an e-mail I wrote to a friend about it:

Liberalism is both actions and words. Liberal comes from the french word (spelled the same way) meaning "befitting free people; noble, generous; willing, zealous"; when first absorbed into English, it mean generous, noble (uhh ...meaning blue blood, in part, but not exclusively ... nothing's perfect!), and free and selfless and magnanimous. (OED or Etymonline for the history of the word.)

When I use the word "liberal" to describe myself, I do so meaning that generosity, selflessness, and magnanimity are the qualities I strive for. My personal moral compass is Kant's categorical imperative, which I see reflected in the U.S. Constitutional protections of equal protection under the law. Act in such a way that your action could become a universal law. Doing this requires thinking about how your actions would affect others, and in seeking to ensure that people are treated equally, you strive for generosity.

This meaning is being subverted. It's being subverted both by opponents of those aspects of liberalism as a philosophy -- I will explain this further later -- but also by self-described liberals who are ingenerous to people they disagree with, which is a big part of what that video is about.

It's classically opposed to conservatism.

Strictly speaking, conservatism is not a political system, but rather a way of looking at the civil order. The conservative of Peru ... will differ greatly from those of Australia, for though they may share a preference for things established, the institutions and customs which they desire to preserve are not identical. [Russell Kirk (1918-1994)]

(Etymonline again for the easiest source)


When a new element is introduced into a body politic, liberalism can incorporate it as-is. Conservatism can incorporate it only if it already fits in the system.

Liberalism is also not the same as progressivism. Progressivism is an intentional movement toward a goal that's defined as "progress." It's also traditionally understood as opposed to conservatism, and this is a better fit to my mind than saying liberalism is the opposite. Liberalism can oppose both progressivism and conservatism, because if the progress is not magnanimous and inhibits freedom in a universally applicable way (with equal protection), then the progress is illiberal.

I used the word "opposed," but I think it's important to realize that all of these can be good. There must be a way for societies to process new information, people, and ideas. There also have to be dissenting voices that say, "Wait, let's think about this for a second." That's not an evil sentiment.

The biggest problem I see now -- and this was touched on in that video (I watched it earlier) -- is that somehow people have gotten it into their head that their fellow citizens are an enemy.

I took a few years off Facebook, and when I came back in the middle of this election cycle, it was like I landed on a different planet. I barely recognized my friends based on what they said on there.

And while I thought people were being harsh and sanctimoneous before, thins actually managed to get worse afterward. People are angry, I get that. But some of them, it's like they learned nothing.

Last night, I listened to some people circle-jerking that Trump only got elected by stupid people, as if that would make his election illegitimate. These people describe themselves as liberal, and progressive, sitting around suggesting that hypothetically less intelligent fellow citizens (demonstrably untrue) should not enjoy the same protection of their right to vote simply because they picked a different person than they would have picked. And my Facebook feed is nearly flooded with articles writing the same thing, being shared by friends who say the same thing, and then moments later saying that they want to protect their friends who are minorities.

Here's a short list of some bad things:
1. Bigotry and prejudice;
2. Theft
3. Murder
4. oppression;
5. Other ways that treat other humans as less human;
6. ...

Having a particular political view does not make one less likely to do any of these things or anything else. Philosophies, including political outlooks, are simply tools. Tools are not inherently good or bad. They're just one of the millions of descriptors that can be applied to another human being.

I wrote earlier today that I'm in perpetual disagreement with nearly everyone. I think we would find a very strange thing if we all got better at discussion (and this is mentioned in the video): That we simultaneously disagree with each other more than we think AND have more common ground than suspected.

From here, I'll just copy something I wrote on Facebook, about a lesson in discussion:

Story time (finish this, because there's an important point at the end): As I posted just before going in to vote early, the environment is my ultimate deciding issue. A few months ago, I had a conversation with someone who disagreed with me on climate change. There are times when I didn't have the mental presence or energy to have an actual discussion about this. Frankly, the evidence is overwhelming and it feels like discussing gravity to me. But you don't learn anything about people by writing them off, so I let him talk.

He mentioned a lot of the usual stuff about solar activity and other common explanations, potential abuse of a carbon tax, and damaged competitiveness on the world stage, mixed in with a little bit of "I don't think humans are contributing" and "climate change scientists have something to gain by supporting it." He had heard all the arguments for human activity being the major factor in the changing climate and just wasn't convinced.
That's important right there. If I was going to continue this conversation, if I decided to argue the merits we were both going to walk away thinking EXACTLY the same thing at the end of it. No one would go anywhere.

There was a brief lull in the conversation where I got to ask myself, "Does this *actually* matter?" And so I asked different questions rather than making statements.

First, I asked if he thought that people working for oil companies who publish studies contradicting climate change have something to gain. I got an answer that surprised me but honestly shouldn't have: He said "Of course. They're selling you something." Already we had some common ground.

We talked a little about the economic implications. I am on the side that investment, even if it makes us weaker, even if it were to permanently put us in second, third, or tenth place economically, is ultimately right *because it's the right thing to do*. But I also recognize that's a big ask for people if their paycheck depends on it.

Eventually we got to a point in the conversation where I asked what he thought of investing in green technology, and the issue was that he just didn't want the government doing it. The dude has solar panels on his roof, drives a fuel efficient car (he might have even said his wife drives a hybrid), and he said he'd have a wind turbine too if he had room on his property.

At this point, not only have I been surprised, but I'm actually kind of jealous. I can't afford a hybrid; I live in an oak forest (despite being in Baltimore City) and can't put solar panels on my roof (I think it's actually forbidden by our HA), and certainly wouldn't be able to even think about a wind turbine.

Granted, this turned out to be an extreme example, but despite not agreeing with me on the goals, causes, or methods, he had reached a place that did some good toward the same ends.

[jubal81]

Well said, Brian. Pretty much my thoughts exactly. My headache lasted until Thursday because I couldn't get good sleep, to boot.


My partner is Latina and she's been having nightmares the past few months. She's had the word 'Trump' chanted at her and her family. Two days ago, her African-American colleague had a white man come up to her in Starbucks, get right up in her face and say, 'Go Trump.' Yesterday, at an anti-discrimination rally, a man in a truck drove by giving a Nazi salute and yelling, 'White Power.'



This is why this is so different - real terror. It's very troubling to see it dismissed as being upset that your 'team' lost, as if it were a football game.


Like you said, we have a lot of members here from around the globe, so I feel a bit as if I owe a bit of explanation.


About the Electoral College System: It was implemented to appease slave states. The slaves couldn't vote, of course, so those states needed a way to count that population to balance electoral power. It's very antiquated, but the Constitution is extremely hard to change, so it's stuck around.


About Hillary: You're wondering how such an unpopular candidate would be chosen. Basically, it was just her turn. She'd played the inside game of politics to perfection - raised all the money, spread it to the right people, was owed all the favors and loyalty - which is the way it's traditionally worked. She cleared the path for herself and the polls and traditional voting patterns indicated to everyone that she couldn't lose, even being as unpopular as she was. This was a double-whammy, though, because if you combine inevitability with low enthusiasm, you get very low turnout, which is exactly what happened. Trump didn't over perform, she just wildly underperformed.


Trump voters: I grew up in a single-wide mobile home on an Appalachian hillside and went to an all-white little mountain school. I'm related to Trump voters and grew up with them. I can sympathize with them. I was never part of their tribe because my mom was from Philadelphia and even though I grew up there, I didn't talk like they did. I went to college, which even though I don't make a lot money, means I'm 'elite.' Being 'elite' doesn't mean you're rich or powerful, it means you work behind a desk at a computer all day drinking coffee (not REAL work). Also, you are just like their smarty-pants boss. These people are angry and they cannot stand to be condescended to.


Their good jobs are disappearing. Their kids are hooked on drugs. Their life expectancy is actually decreasing. Their suicide rates are climbing. Their town is dirty and crumbling and didn't bother putting on a Christmas parade last year for the first time ever. The world and society is changing so fast it's scaring them. Their problems are very real and they don't think anyone is listening to them and they want 'elite' people to feel the anxiety.


I can't take credit for the analogy, but I saw an article that used 'Hunger Games' as an analogy. The 'good guys' are relegated to shanteys in the hillsides, hunting squirrels for food and the 'elites' live in cities, wear hipster clothes and are self-absorbed know-it-alls.


Of course I can't speak for every Trump voter, and they're not a monolithic bloc, but anecdotally I can say that every person in my Facebook feed who supported Trump has privately expressed to me racist and homophobic attitudes in person at some point or another, and they're very angry that 'the media' portrays them as 'bad guys' because of it. It's just something we have to deal with and it's hard being stuck in this situation. I certainly love my brother, but he doesn't like people of color and hates that pop culture allows gay people to think that 'lifestyle' is OK. There's just a lot of fear, anger and confusion here.


The outlook: I wish I could be more reassuring, but I'm genuinely worried. And my confidence is shaken after the U.S. took a turn I was so sure it wouldn't take. What I can say is that our government was purposefully designed to move very slowly and elections come often - the founders tried to foresee events like this. Society and technology is changing very rapidly and much faster than people can reasonably deal with. I look at people in my generation and younger and I really do have a feeling that the future will be better and eventually we will get past prejudices.

[cajone5]

As someone who works in the defense industry and is very familiar with clearance requirements, the idea that mishandling classified info automatically lands you in jail is entirely untrue.  Classified materials are frequently mishandled at all levels of the government.  They are frequently not stored, couriered, handled, disseminated, etc. in by the proper maner and this does not land you in jail automatically.  Statements like that are painting with a really broad brush and are very misleading.  The focus on investigations related to mishandling of classified information is on malicious intent and severity of consequence if the information is allowed to get "out" which is why there are different security levels for different information.  Anyway, I'm not justifying what was done or disagreeing with whether or not similar behavior from someone else would necessarily land them in jail.  That's stance speculation and nothing more.  I am just pointing this out so folks unfamiliar with the topic do not come away with the wrong impression.

I agree with what you are saying and I'm not going to get into all the nitty gritty about clearances etc, but it doesn't make a CI agents job any easier when the Secretary of State does what she did.  In fact, it makes it much more unnecessarily difficult when somebody being investigates says, "Well, The Secretary of State did it on a much larger scale than repeatedly forgetting to get her courier orders renewed."  Remember, it is her direct impact on my life that caused me to go the other way, not the conceptual.

Well put.  It was definitely a major "oops" that was very avoidable at the very least.  Good discussion.

[EBRAddict]

I find that online political discussions generally degrade into an echo chamber, wall-of-butthurt, and/or shouting matches in ALL CAPS... ending with the inevitable accusations of who is the bigger nazi, communist, racist, SJW and a moderator lock.

[madbean]

I find that online political discussions generally degrade into an echo chamber, wall-of-butthurt, and/or shouting matches in ALL CAPS... ending with the inevitable accusations of who is the bigger nazi, communist, racist, SJW and a moderator lock.

Well that's very true. But, much of that can be attributed to the anonymity that online forums affords IMO. Here the case is a bit different because many of us know each other and have interacted for a number of years. That doesn't mean we agree on anything and everything. I think it's possible to have an interesting discussion within the bounds I laid out in the first post. I might be proved wrong but even so this is most likely to be a time limited thread anyway. Unless people are willing to talk to one another things won't change, right?

[jimilee]

I'll say that I have an uneasy feeling about what's going to happen over the next 4 years. From his exiling Mexicans, muslims and his stop and search idea. All of his other policies are, "Were going to do it gooder" leave me uneasy, as well as total control of the house being republican also. It's just unsettling all the way around. My fear is a recession also.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[icecycle66]

total control of the house being republican also.

This is what I think people need to be worried about more than the Executive. 
The President can't do much, and can do hardly anything that endures, without the support of the Legislature.

[jkokura]

As a Canadian watching, about the only observation I have had is this: I feel like the American government system is broken. Also, how on earth could anyone think that Hillary was a better option than Sanders. If Sanders was in place, he would have won by a landslide.

I have more thoughts than these, but as an outsider it doesn't seem like I can really add much more than you're all already saying.

Jacob

[alanp]

Their good jobs are disappearing. Their kids are hooked on drugs. Their life expectancy is actually decreasing. Their suicide rates are climbing. Their town is dirty and crumbling and didn't bother putting on a Christmas parade last year for the first time ever. The world and society is changing so fast it's scaring them. Their problems are very real and they don't think anyone is listening to them and they want 'elite' people to feel the anxiety.

From my isolated town in an isolated country, my suspicion is that another part of it is the changing social culture -- most of the people you describe, from what I've heard, are white, and for years now, the narrative has been that whites oppress everyone, and owe. I've heard professors proclaim that all white people are racist, even if it is "unconscious bias", and all white people "benefit from the system" (this last one was from a black person, with a gold watch, who talked earlier about how he bought his mum a new house, but still insisted that a white homeless man had more institutional privilege.

I don't know how widespread this narrative is in the States. I see quite a few articles about universities going down this road. But no one likes being told that they are a racist, homophobic, misogynist asshole.

I'm not sure that the traditional USA Democrats/Republicans divide applies to this situation, either -- Trump was getting it dished to him from the traditional Republicans as well as the Democrats. (At least until it was obvious that he was going to be up there with srs contenders.)