So, What Now? (opinions are welcome)

[Chase]

I sometimes just like to hear what people think about what's going on and -not- challenging them. So....here's my contract to the people of reborn.

I solemnly swear not to challenge any opinions given on things I bring up in this threads.

Facts are a different story - but I don't care if we have two differing viewpoints. I just want to see where everyone is.

I don't know how to link threads, but I'd highly recommend reading and adhering to Kuro's debate etiquette thread. If you're lazy I'll probably do xem injustice in my three point summary and I'll deal with it.

• Try on your opponent's shoes and see it from their perspective. Feel for them.
• Don't use logical fallacies.
• Support your data with (hopefully credible) sources.

I think I have this precursory spiel over with..so let's go around the Hill.

What appears to be happening with the response to President-elect Trump from Democrats?

It's first important to note that President Obama is being a very honorable person and "good sport" during this process. It can be pretty tough to about-face from a campaign that essentially made the President-elect out to be unfit to the position to being a proponent of him for the good of America - and Obama is being an excellent steward. This might actually pay off for Democrats in a way I'll get to later.

Hillary Clinton's concession speech was not made the night of the election for obvious reasons. She had scheduled her victory party under an opulent ceiling made out of glass at NYC's Javitz Center - but when it became clear she would lose the race, giving the concession speech there would add insult to injury. Trump did indicate that the night of she called him on the phone to congratulate him and his voters - and after the sun came up she did publically concede at a different venue, wearing purple, indicating the sense that Red and Blue need to come together, and encouraging women to continue climbing.

With Trump, Clinton, and President Obama leading the way, it would seem like the top officials on the left would be encouraging peace and cooperation. While the well wishes would continue from slightly begrudging, further left political figures in Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, it was most evident that there would need some "put-up or shut-up moments from Trump to win over all Democrats - notably retiring Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada - who wrote a statement appalled at some of his party members at how quickly people were trying to normalize the president elect, who represents the litany of "-ism" movements in America.

On top of that, we've seen a full week of protesting in major cities that doesn't seemingly have an end in sight.

After essentially getting run out of the capital last Tuesday, Democrats internally have begun to do some soul searching. They have opened up the race for their new DNC chairperson - and a battle between establishmentarian Democrats and grassroots movements led by Bernie Sanders has resumed. Lefty mega-doner George Soros also huddled with Democrats, hoping to form a resistance force to President-elect Trump.

Republicans?

It really depends on who you are when it comes to the Republican Party. If you were one of the proud Trumpers from the very beginning you're excited and probably getting a cabinet position. If you were unsure about Trump and supported him as candidates fell off the board, you're at least happy Hillary Clinton did not win the White House. If you were like me and were a NeverTrump Republican, well - you're only cautiously optimistic, and are probably not getting a cabinet position.

In terms of things in the future, Republicans are excited about the possibilities and emboldened by things such as the initial stock market reception to Trump's victory, the inevitability that conservatives will retain the Supreme Court, and what appears to be four years of Republican majorities in Congress. There's good reason to believe Trump will get things done.

There also is reason to be concerned by some of Trump's early musings as President-elect for some on the conservative side - which I'll touch on later as well. Some of the things that have come out of the Trump transition team have caused some worry from various factions of the Republican Party

As far as party formation, Reince Preibus has been offered a job at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave, and thus leaves his Republican National Committee chair vacant. Early indications are that Mitt Romney's niece, the chair of Michigan's GOP, is a leading candidate.

Who is President-elect Trump taking with him to the White House?

Mike Pence - Vice President of the United States - Former Governor of Indiana

Reince Preibus - White House Chief of Staff - Former RNC chair

• Preibus was the first name to drop in the new White House. He goes from being the glue of the Republican Party to being the "establishment" representative of Trump's White House and official gatekeeper to the President-elect. CoS usually sets schedules, rides with the President everywhere, and gives clearances to people who NEED to talk to the President. Preibus has worried Trumpers most concerned with "draining the swamp" in D.C., but every other Republican - including myself - has been very appreciative of the Preibus pick.

Stephen Bannon - White House Chief Strategist - Former Trump Campaign CEO/Founder of Breitbart News

• Bannon will be the "outsider" equivalent to Preibus, giving both the establishment, and supposedly average people a place at the White House. Strategists are usually the president's advice folks and also ride along with the President everywhere. They mainly serve as counselors to their bosses. Bannon is a pick anybody from the left to some on the right are not happy about given his ties to Breitbart News, a sensationalist right-wing news site that caters to White Nationalist, Masculine, anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim, anti-Semitic, anti-gay conservatives. It's important to note that these are not Bannon's personal views, but he -is- also starkly opposed to normal Washington D.C. affairs, making it an attractive pick in "draining the swamp" but a scary pick for establishmentarians everywhere.

Who else could there be?

Rudy Guiliani - Possible Secretary of State - Former New York City Mayor

Dr. Ben Carson - Possible Secretary of Education/Secretary of Health and Human Services - Former neurosurgeon

Peter Thiel - Possible Secretary of Commerce - Founder of BitCoin (This would be an excellent pick.)

Jason Miller - Possible Communications Director/Press Secretary - Former Trump Campaign Comms Advisor

Sen. Jeff Sessions - Possible Secretary of Defense/Attorney General - Current United States Senator (Alabama) (AWFUL pick for either office.)

Kellyanne Conway - Possible Senior Advisor to the President - Former Trump Campaign Manager (She deserves a spot. Kellyanne is a major factor in Trump's victory last week.)

What would a Trump Supreme Court look like?

This was asked of President-elect Trump - kind of - in his latest interview with '60 Minutes' - where he gave an answer that seemed to indicate he was "fine" with the decision on same-sex marriage as it is because the Court had already made a decision on it.

LGBTQ people rejoi-...wait a minute. He would then go on to be asked about Roe v. Wade by the reporter, and Trump pivoted from his hunky-dory attitude on same-sex marriage to asserting, pointedly, that the Supreme Court Justices he appoints will be "pro-life".

This would indicate that Trump's personal fish to fry is Roe v. Wade, even though that case has "tenure" on Obergefell v. Hodges and it would seem that in order to overturn that ruling, you would need Justices that would seemingly not be so bullish on the later case as well.

To get to the math though, we know Donald Trump will get to appoint ONE Supreme Court Justice to fill the seat left by Justice Antonin Scalia, who died in February this year, and it's most likely going to return the court to a 5-4 conservative tilt. Keep in mind, that this 5-4 conservative court upheld the Affordable Care Act - twice - and was responsible for making same-sex marriage legal. Why? Because Justice Kennedy is a centrist more than he is a conservative, meaning the margin would not be enough - likely at all - to overturn Roe V. Wade -or- Obergefell v. Hodges.

However, the next two rumored Justices to leave the bench are liberal ones - 80-something year old Justice Ruth Bader-Ginsburg, and late 70 year old Justice Stephen Breyer, meaning that a retirement from one of them during Trump's presidency could potentially result in a 6-3 conservative tilt, while both retiring during a Trump presidency could result in an ironclad 7-2 tilt to the right. With a 6-3 court, the SCOTUS would only need an abortion case to come up through to pipeline to overturn Roe, or a same-sex marriage case to overturn Obergefell. Justices can leave at their own volition and serve to life.

It's most likely at this point however, that Ginsburg and Breyer try to wait out Trump's first term, making the greatest likelihood an Obama even-steven Court following Trump's one appointment.

What will Congress look like?

At this point, our Senate Majority Leader won't change. It will be Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, who looks like an absolute genius after successfully stalling out President Obama and Merrick Garland.

The harder-right House members are also coming around to previous House Speaker Paul Ryan, who was in danger of being ousted after not being a pro-Trumper consistently.

Democratic minority leaders will likely be different, as Harry Reid is retiring and I'm unsure about Representative Nancy Pelosi.

Both the Senate and House are controlled by the Republican Party, meaning most legislation will have a conservative-tilt.

[PedroHenrique]

I swear I'm trying real hard to read this text.

[Guest]

I swear I'm trying real hard to read this text.

oh this will never not be hilarious. lmao

i warned you, chase. i warned you about the wording.

Now keeping on topic...

Before anything, i think people need to chill.

The wave of tension that's been caused by people going apeshit is just turning an already bad situation even worse.

If the opposition ends up doing something they shouldn't, this is just going to make it even harder for them to be taken into consideration, and intolerance in congress will just scale up even more, sadly.

I also really doubt Trump really means half he says, even if that really did gather him votes. (which personally makes me kinda disgusted tbh... considering his platform was basicaly racism and people liked it.)

He's really not as "hard republican" as people make him to be, in fact, in the past, he went centrist,

Edited November 15, 2016 by Telos

[Gyaradoskiller]

"So, What Now?"

We just wait

Also

[Kurotsune]

The below is not related to the thread and with no attempts of mine to play nice.

I swear I'm trying real hard to read this text.

oh this will never not be hilarious. lmao

i warned you, chase. i warned you about the wording.

Now keeping on topic...

Before anything, i think people need to chill.

The wave of tension that's been caused by people going apeshit is just turning an already bad situation even worse.
If the opposition ends up doing something they shouldn't, this is just going to make it even harder for them to be taken into consideration, and intolerance in congress will just scale up even more, sadly.

I also really doubt Trump really means half he says, even if that really did gather him votes. (which personally makes me kinda disgusted tbh... considering his platform was basicaly racism and people liked it.)

He's really not as "hard republican" as people make him to be, in fact, in the past, he went centrist,

"So, What Now?"
We just wait

Also

First and foremost, let's remember writing a thread like this takes effort. And if I find it disheartening to see that all replies so far have some sort of derision regarding the length of the initial topic, imagine the author.

So while I'm completely willing to be tagged a hypocrite for saying this, let's adhere to the respect rule within this community and try to contribute to the thread with more than a joke about its length and a few sentences.

If you're unwilling to participate that's fine, but looking at the fruits of someone's research and spit in their face because you can't bring yourself to read anything is pretty rude.

And quite honestly, if you're unwilling to read a fairly medium size piece on politics you're probably not into politics and shouldn't even be visiting threads like these to begin with. I'm sorry if I come across as aggressive, but consider my statement.

I realize it's not really nice to say this but at the end of the day there's a lot of knowledge to digest out there and even put together, I've written fictional stories far lengthier than what's been discussed - And here we are, in one way or another, discussing the products of over a thousand years of politics. So yes, things oughta get lenghty.

No reason to give someone sass over it though. While I appreciate a joke as much as the next person, these kinds of jokes are very much onto the "straight-up mean" spectrum. Make a fun of a man, but not of his passions.

Now onto the thread itself.
I think the first think to analyze when discussing the United States' current political scenario and how its most likely to progress stems from the initial question of "Why did Trump win?" and, as it turns out, it's more than likely not because america shelters a majority of closet homophobics/transphobics/xenophobics/racists.

In fact, it's not even related to Trump at all. The issue has been how the Democratic party has elected (pun intended) to act during this campaign, and how it has undermined their own chances.

Ultimately, it boils down to the choice of candidate.

The website "InsideGov" allows one to view government data through a series of automatized research algorithms. It also, more pertaining to this discussion, it allows users to review and discuss politicians.

When one compares Bernie Sanders to candidate Hillary Clinton, we can spot a few interesting comparisons.

The first is how much more popular Sanders is compared to candidate Clinton - With a rating of 4.4 out of 5 (from 544 reviews) opposed to Clinton's 3.2 out of 5 (from 632 reviews).

This already gives insight into one of the reasons the democrats lost the election - Hillary wasn't a popular candidate to begin with.

This becomes even more interesting if we add Donald Trump into the equation since, even though all three candidates have a similar enough amount of reviews, Trump beats Hillary but is still far below Sanders with a 3.6 to his aforementioned 4.4.

Things get more interesting as we progress down the page and start comparing our three politician's opinions on several matters pertaining to individual rights, domestic issues, economic issues and defense issues.

A glance at the graphs already belies that Hillary's political spectrum, while lying far closer to Sanders' than to Trump's, is still fairly less liberal than the Senator's, with her views on several issues - specially defense issues - more or less contradicting the more traditional liberal views.

Finally, upon getting to PredictWise's prediction on which candidate would be nominated we see a staggering 96% for Hillary Clinton to Bernie's 4%.

This will be no news to anyone, but ultimately it boils down to this - if Bernie Sanders was the candidate, it's very likely he'd have won the election.

But he wasn't. Despite being more popular and more in-line with the Democratic Party's viewpoints, he was still nonetheless not elected to become the Democratic Party's candidate.

Why?

The answer is actually fairly simple - Trump was underestimated and was a considered non-threat and, thus, the Democratic Party felt more comfortable trying to ride on Clinton's popularity as former first-lady and bank on the ideal of her as the "first woman president".

As it turns out, Trump's bid for the "First Annoying Orange President" had more appeal! Little political joke for anyone who's stuck with me so far there. Good form, chap. Carrying on.

Ultimately, and I'm terribly sorry about this, but Hillary Clinton was not a good candidate. This is ultimately between what is the biggest difference between her and Trump - While Trump "says it like it is", Hillary Clinton has outright lied to attempt to gain votes, as can be witnessed in the below graph that displays Hillary's changing stances on several different topics and how they changed, conveniently as the election approached - from conservative opinions which clearly contradict her party's core views to more traditional liberal opinions.

At the end of the day, Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders stood for one similar concept - Change. For better or worse and in their own ways, both candidates recognized that the United States desperately needs a change of pace in management, whereas Hillary Clinton represents more of the same - In the form of a flip-flopping woman with desperate moves for attention (which ultimately failed miserably (resulting in the lowest turnout count in the history of American's politics, with a staggering 43% of the population not voting at all) - And thus, most people didn't want to support her.

Hillary represented the worst of the Democratic Party - The corruption within its ranks and the populist tactics it employed to gain attention and supporters.

And because of those things, people saw no reason to support her as a candidate.

And so Donald Trump wins. What next?

At one point, in Chase's For the Republic: All Entailed thread, I made the following statement in regards to Trump's statements in his path to power:

The appalling fact is not the inherent possibility of the man acting up on his opinions but rather that, when those opinions were public knowledge, this man was elected to the second highest seat of power within the American government.

If he's going to act on it or not is not as worrying as the inherent premise that one concludes from his election - Which is that the great majority of people agree with those ideals.

If the man ever does it or not doesn't matter. The fact people are okay with him saying that and still put him in power matters. Elections aren't decided by actions. They're decided by words. So regardless if someone does or doesn't act on those words, to disregard them because they are "prolly not gunna do it" is missing the point.

And while I stand by this statement in my personal opinion, I will provide a counter-argument to it for the sake of debate:

This is not the first nor the last time a politician has said something to gain votes and get elected.

So to answer what next - What next is "possibility."

It's pretty hard to say what Trump is going to do, but he's likely not going to do anything he has claimed.

In fact, his acceptance speech was fairly tame for his standards and showed a willingness to listen to his advisers that Trump had not done up to this point. It sets a nice precedent - One where, for better or worse, Trump is still worried about not royally fucking up his image as President, and is willing to listen to others to make sure of this.

At thus to answer the thread's namesake question -

What now?

As it happens, not much. Truth be told, there's not a lot Trump can do even if he wants to set about his more nefarious promises - The republicans are well aware such moves would be effectively popular suicide - and his government will at worst see some slight negative changes and, at best, see some slightly positive ones.

What's important to take from all this, though, is that politics are mutable and they're better off that way.

Any man-made politic system is doomed to failure because any of them are effectively flawed - There is no such thing as one perfect governmental system otherwise we'd already be using it. All systems have their ups and downs and, ultimately, it's better for a system to see change. It's a good breath of fresh air. Democratic and Republican viewpoints both work under different circumstances and the change of pace electing the Republican Party brings will be healthy to the american government, even if Trump isn't.

Ultimately, it's better to have some semblance of change on occasion to make sure that the bigger picture isn't lost, and that the ones who have been in power don't grow corrupt.

Ask anyone - myself included - who has lived under a country who's been in control of the same party for over 15 years - It gets stagnant, it gets riddled with corruption and it gets worse.

Although not all change is for the better, some change is still better than no change at all. And sometimes, we just have to tough things out for a term or two. This too shall pass.






PSA: This is only my opinion and as a left-wing extremist myself I'm fairly saddened to have to write a piece effectively singing the praises of the right, but ultimately facts are facts and are only to be understood, studied and accepted - Unless other facts prove them wrong.


And to those saying they'll "quit the country" or ask for a "do over" or go as far as call Trump being elected "fascism" - That's democracy. You're the democratic party, for crying out loud. Take your President's lead and accept victory with some grace.

And quite honestly, if you're unwilling to read a fairly medium size piece on politics you're probably not into politics and shouldn't even be visiting threads like these to begin with. I'm sorry if I come across as aggressive, but consider my statement.

[Chase]

I -do- apologize for typing an essay and a half - but I -did- try to bold and italicize the questions.

Maybe it would help if I colored them in? That way you don't have to read all of it at one time? I'll edit that for y'all.

Additional developments

Dr. Carson is no longer in consideration for a Cabinet position due to personally refusing to take one. Secretary of Education, and Secretary of Health and Human Services will go to someone else.

[Eviora]

What's next?

Obamacare is awful and should be repealed. Some parts of Obamacare are worth keeping, The Electoral College is undemocratic. The Electoral College is brilliant. We'te gonna build a huge wall. We're gonna build a picket fence. We're gonna repeal gay marriage. Gay marriage is already settled.

Pick an issue, flip a coin.

[HughJ]

What's next?

Obamacare is awful and should be repealed. Some parts of Obamacare are worth keeping, The Electoral College is undemocratic. The Electoral College is brilliant. We'te gonna build a huge wall. We're gonna build a picket fence. We're gonna repeal gay marriage. Gay marriage is already settled.

Pick an issue, flip a coin.

That's a very good point

I think that seeming circumstance of irreconcilable positions on important governmental decisions is a result of intensifying anti-party rhetoric from "both sides"

Not that there even are "sides"

I think the duopoly in modern American politics is very strange, and I've lived here my whole life. Looking from the outside in I wouldn't even know where to begin

[Ironbound]

Looking from the outside in I wouldn't even know where to begin

That's why I usually just observe these threads of Hunter's, and not generally participate.

That said, however, an outsider's view of Trump varies from jitteriness to unconcern to rage, depending on who and where said outsider is. Obvious statement is obvious, I know, but truth is usually not as subtle as a lie.

From the point of view of the Indian (here I mean the educated, globally aware Indian, not the average citizen who cares not a damn about things outside his own demesne), Trump is a wildcard. Our relative neutrality on the POTUS (unlike many countries who outright called Trump various names, whether justifiably or not, and who will now have to swallow them if only to stay pally with the top tomato of the geopolitical playground) may project us as one of the new establishmet's friends. Trump, whatever his domestic issues and personal faults, may be that one guy who will stop feeding the rabid dog in Pakistan, and hopefully better help India put an end to the shenanigans of its rogue neighbour. I also have a feeling that Trump would prefer India to be a check against the threat of China in our part of the world, as Modi gas no doubt also been quick to make the usual advances.

Ask anyone - myself included - who has lived under a country who's been in control of the same party for over 15 years - It gets stagnant, it gets riddled with corruption and it gets worse.

Although not all change is for the better, some change is still better than no change at all. And sometimes, we just have to tough things out for a term or two. This too shall pass.

It remains to be seen if he can really live up to all that he has gassed about exterminating terror and whatnot, or whether he'll just be another typical American president who continues the same sort of geopolitical nexuses. My mind disagrees with my heart here, but let's hope its more than wishful thinking.

At the very least, I hope, with some reasonable idea, that Indians or Indoamericans will not face as much of his anti-immigrant waffle.

[HughJ]

I think relations between India and the U.S. under Trump could go in several directions

Worst case scenario he tries to impose some crazy law where American-educated Indians are required to stay here (in a strange Trump policy twist) and contribute for the education "we gave them" which is a weird but unfortunately popular way of regarding the situation

I seriously doubt that would ever get enacted but the man has until this point spewed whatever inclinations come to his mind so

Best case scenario Trump will back up India in disputes over the Line of Actual Control, which have occurred as recently as 2014 when China placed a bunch of PLA soldiers at the border in the name of 'combating terrorism' (which is just the ultimate diplomatic excuse these days)

Increasing antagonism over the South China Sea and the US' stake in Micronesia have made firmer Indian-American relations a priority if not a necessity

[Chase]

Yeah, as someone wasn't a Trump voter, Trump reneging on his campaign promises is PROBABLY the best for the country in many of those cases.

• The Electoral College thing, be it from Trump or Senator Boxer of the left, is a situational thing. If Hillary had won the Electoral College it wouldn't even be an issue at all, and Trump of course - regardless of how he spins it - had a much easier time embracing it after it embraced his campaign last week. Truth be told, it gives value to the flyover states, making it much better than simply winning the popular vote.
• I don't believe, conceptually, that people are against the idea of healthcare for every American. I do believe that the Affordable Care Act was not the best way to provide it - and that is now proven true from President-elect Donald Trump to President Bill Clinton. Republicans in Congress had previously made alternative plans to the ACA with many of the same benefits for those with pre-existing conditions and whatnot prior to the election. Obamacare doesn't need to be completely scraped in order to be "replaced" as they put it.
• I do believe a physical component will exist (along the terms of border security and "building a wall") along with other ideas. This was Trump's simple campaign pitch though. Mortar and bricks is a fairly easy concept to understand and far less complicated than political jargon like "comprehensive immigration reform" the Clinton camp was peddling around. I do -not- think the wall will even scratch the architectural masterpiece of the Great Wall of China - no matter how much Trump may fantasize about it.
• Don't remember when Trump said he -personally- was going to repeal Obergefell v. Hodges - and I'm still waiting for someone to share that proof - but I do know Trump has been for same-sex matrimony in the past - at least in the sense that it's already happened and he doesn't have strong feelings of repealing it.

What's alarming though - is not so much Trump's rhetoric anymore, it's his level of preparedness and how his transition team seems to change every day. I believe Kuro when xe says the President-elect is starting to at least understand maintaining the image of a world leader and that he cares about it, but I also believe Trump.... may not have expected to get this far.

The biggest thing that would mar a Trump presidency? An unstable White House where there's too many cooks in the kitchen. Until the cabinet and such are pinned down, disorganization is going to be the biggest thing we as Americans have to weather.

[Ironbound]

Har har, LAC intrusions have happened as recently as last June, forget 2014. India dislikes China, all platitudes set aside, and outright loathes Pakistan...which is unfortunate, as that ill-begotten (always blame the Brits for every geopolitical problem that exists today) country itself is to be pitied. More proof of the evils of a dysfunctional government that goes on without change for too long. I understand people's concerns in America, but you lot have it very soft compared to the lives of people elsewhere under much worse heads of state.

Ahem, let me not get carried away myself (lame puns are lame) and stop this right here before I derail the topic. What next, you say?

Nothing much, I say. Chance of rain, possible rumblings, though.

[Chase]

I would think Trump's SINGULAR enemy abroad is that of his voter base - the Islamic State. Outside of that - there's reason to believe he's quite the isolationist. Telling Japan to arm themselves for protection against North Korea for example.

However, if Bolden is his Secretary of Defense, which is possible...well. There goes that.

[Eviora]

To steal an analogy from the Joker, Trump is like a dog who was chasing a car. He doesn't know what to do with it now that he's caught it.

[HughJ]

I genuinely don't think Trump expected to get this far either, but I do believe he planned for it, if not solely for a means of keeping morale up on the campaign trail. As a businessman he is a master of the code-switch and, in his words, "can be Presidential when [he] wants to be." I also think that his cabinet is going to be an assembled team of specialists he'll assign tasks to, as opposed to a consultative committee that a lot of Americans expect it to be. They're not going to back up the rhetoric of his campaign platform to a T, certainly, but they're going to be faithful to the general ideas he pushed - infrastructure renovation, firmer border control, and a more America-centric diplomatic standpoint

You have to ask yourself what he wants out of the Presidency, being the individual he is. He doesn't want political power like Hillary does, he doesn't want to drastically alter the world in his vision, he just wants glory. If his statements on his personal wealth are to be believed (and I have to admit at times they're pretty shaky), he probably looks at his current amount of cash as "enough." I know I would if I had even 1 billion dollars in my bank accounts. So his methods of achieving glory are going to be the promotion of immediate changes in the short term (think FDR) due to the stacked Capitol, and after that, probably more general promises and speeches in the way of Fidel Castro

And as a side note Viri while I don't think quite all of the geopolitical disputes of former British colonies are entirely the British's fault, the Pakistan/India/Bangladesh situation DEFINITELY is.

[Chase]

Can we talk about the implications of "not taking a salary"?

George Washington made that same claim when he was going into the office all the way at the beginning, and it's not hard to see why. If there's money involved, it can lead to the completely human reaction of being corrupt and holding onto to power for too long, which was something that Colonial Americans genuinely feared during their transition into being their own nation. However, Congress set the precedent of providing the salary anyway, against Washington's wishes, and George took his 25k a year.

This is largely due to the fact that Congress re-enforced the notion that "the Master is he who pays" - as Alexander Hamilton put it. Essentially, if we were to apply that to today (where the President earns 400,000 dollars a year) - The American people - through Congress - basically not only hand President Obama (and later President-elect Trump) a salary, but a reminder that We the People outweigh the wills and whims of the President.

By not taking the salary, what happens is that Trump establishes this idea that he's in a different league from everyone else. There begins the potential precedent that Americans need to be wealthy in order to even pursue the office, and perhaps worse, that the person is bigger than the people who are offering to pay him.

...I know that's a roundabout way of explaining why he should keep the precedent of taking the salary, but previous presidents have donated literally all of it to charity in the past. He should take the full amount.

[Eviora]

The cynic in me (i,e, 98% of my conscious mind) figured that taking a salary might just mess with his tax loopholes, but that's another wonderfully disturbing way to look at it. Ultimately, though, it's all just symbolic. Trump doesn't need the money whether we give it to him or not, and refusing it doesn't actually grant him any extra power. Just a narcissist being narcissistic.

[mde2001]

Realistically I think the reason why he didn't take the salary is that he's trying to dispel rumours that he isn't as rich as he says he is. By not taking any money he can appear to be so rich he doesn't need anything and also appear to be selflessly leaving more money to the American people even though it is a minuscule amount comparatively.

[Kurotsune]

What's alarming though - is not so much Trump's rhetoric anymore, it's his level of preparedness and how his transition team seems to change every day. I believe Kuro when xe says the President-elect is starting to at least understand maintaining the image of a world leader and that he cares about it, but I also believe Trump.... may not have expected to get this far.

Oh, I'm 100% sure he wasn't prepared nor expected to even get that far. In fact, I don't think anyone thought Hillary could possibly win based solely on how the press presented her and Trump.

The fact that in recent interviews Trump has sobered up significantly and has even claimed that he was "playing a character" during the election more or less shows that. I don't think he was downright lying about his opinions, no, but that he was voluntarily speaking without filter because he just thought it wasn't going to get anymore anyway. And now it has - And suddenly what even he might've seen as the long-running "president trump" joke has become a reality, one way or another.

Trump was a right up until the end of the election - And a great video on this is from a youtuber called ShoeOnHead who, while focusing mostly on anti-feminism, has also made a video about Trump, linked below:

Keep in mind this person employs sarcasm and dry humor to deliver her punchlines and will likely come across as brash/aggressive/bitchy to some.

Either way I am, while admittedly without much interest, watching the USA's politics from this election forwards to see how it develops.

[Chase]

As a conservative, it's reassuring to me to see a conservative candidate "sober up" - even after his inflammatory rhetoric. For those of us on the right side of the dial, it was about damn time someone called out the left and the establishment and the media and essentially everyone that Trump made the butt end of the "joke".

Especially if it was more-so for the sake of calling those things out and less actually going to turn the country on it's head.

This doesn't mean I believe EVERYTHING Trump said was needed and important. What he said about people groups like Mexicans, the Chinese, Muslims, Women, African Americans, the LGTBQ community, etc. (You know, people groups that are considered "protected" by the Constitution) was very much unacceptable and he should do more to dial the tension back on those fronts as President-elect. It's -those- things that make people absolutely fairly afraid and worried about the direction a Trump America might face.

However, we on the right were tired of fluffy politics that -CENTERED- on those groups to the point where, yes, White dudes who "have had their time" were feeling targeted and left out themselves. Especially in states the Democrats thought they had all but wrapped up from the previous Obama electoral map.

Finally, it's not like Progressive America actually has perfect attendance on fighting for those same people groups - which is how Trump better marks than Romney with Hispanics and with African Americans. It's how Republicans even -earn- some of the LGBTQ vote in the first place.

---

I wanted to lead this into a response to Kuro's main arguments about how Hillary Clinton lost the election.

• Hillary was not a good candidate.
• Change matters more than more of the same.

...but there's nothing to really argue there - but I do think there is more to it.

• As bluntly as this may sound, 'White Lives Matter' too - especially in Today's political arena where it's enough to turn Blue states Red.
• Enthusiasm is important for a successful presidential run.
• Straight talk is a valuable weapon.

I know - living in Texas - that I don't have the greatest example of a fairly swing-state environment - but I do have two examples of personal contacts from both sides of the political spectrum.

During the Primary, everyone I knew was voting for Ted Cruz if they were a conservative - because of his being a Texan like us and because Trump was a firebrand candidate that may not have actually been a conservative at all. The state would go to Cruz in a losing effort on the Republican side.

Hillary absolutely won Texas over Bernie Sanders (being the more conservative candidate matters in the states Democratic races) - but everyone I knew voted for Bernie in the primary.

Cruz voters were all over the map, but they unified behind the Trumpers (which I also knew of during the primary season) under the cause of keeping Hillary out of the White House. Most of the Trump/Cruz supporter discourse was light and we were all mainly in agreement.

Bernie voters were deeply dismayed by the primary results, and they fought amongst themselves over to support Hillary (a candidate they had BASHED VEHEMENTLY) or not participate. Most of them probably did end up casting a ballot for Clinton, but there was no enthusiasm for her campaign, other than keeping Trump out.

---

Supposedly, new reports are underway that South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley is under consideration for Trump's Secretary of State position.

As a person, Governor Haley is awesome. She's an Asian-American woman, which would immediately provide some diversity to Trump's cabinet. She's also business savvy, having turned her parent's upscale clothing line into a multi-million dollar company - which may prove to be valuable to Trump as a businessperson himself.

The issue she has is that her loyalty has NEVER been with the Donald - unless after the primary ended and she voted for him silently. She was a fervent supporter of Marco Rubio in the primary and switched her endorsement to Ted Cruz specifically to prevent Trump from getting the nomination.

In my opinion, she's a hell of a lot better pick than Rudy Guiliani.

[Eviora]

I've never really understood how minorities standing up for their rights is supposed to be neglecting white guys. It's not like we're saying "give us all your stuff." I obviously can't speak for others, but I just would like it if people would stop defining and persecuting me over the circumstances of my birth. Pass protective legislation. Unless you like discriminating against people for such things, it should barely even affect you.

But, apparently, treating minorities like shit has become somehow inextricably tied to conservative politics. And, election after election, most of the conservatives who don't look down on us in effect say "not my problem" and vote for whatever bigot gets put on the Republican ticket. It would only take one mass refusal to accept discriminatory behavior to send the necessary message, I think. I was hoping it would happen this year but, extreme pessimist though I am, it seems even I thought too highly of people. So, instead, we got the opposite message. It's okay for the president to be a sexist and a racist. It's fine that the vice president is an open homophobe who is on record for supporting legislation that would allow for the torture of gay children. And that message is being heard. That's why we're seeing more hate crimes. Of course Trump condemned it on TV. He had to. The violent bigots won't see that as a legitimate denouncement of their behavior, they'll see it as coerced.

And, meanwhile, despite empty assurances to the contrary, I and many others am being not just told but shown that we don't matter. So "what's next" for me is probably death, staying home forever, or Canada, and I find myself caring less and less every day what's next for the rest of you. Indifference is a two way street. If anything, I think it's high time this country be given an ample taste of humility, and maybe Trump is just the man to provide it. I've never been more ashamed to be an American.

[Chase]

1. Neglect is different from direct oppression. It literally means to pay too little or no attention to something with disregard.

2. It's absolutely okay for minority groups to stand up for themselves, it's not okay for the GOVERNMENT to disregard people when it's supposed to represent all of us. I have no problem with most progressive ideas, but I have a huge problem with them being the only ideas that matter to a presidential candidate.

Partly because yeah, I am a white male and I'm not concerned with fighting for social equality to the same level as most people who are in a protected group that Trump specifically threatens - but partly because the office of the President is supposed to be a role that serves all the people, damn white dudes who happen to be straight included.

Being neglectful of white working class voters - especially in traditionally Democratic states - is a reason Hillary lost the race.

---

I've already made my assurance to fight back against harmful legislation. I've been the first to point out problems with alt-right attitudes in my area and I've tried to call out others on this board of their actions. I've voiced how Stephen Bannon is a TERRIBLE pick for Chief Strategist.

I've done all I can so far as a singular citizen to voice concern. It's up to you to believe me or not.

However, if the Democratic Party holds the line that Trump ascended based on isms, bigotry, and disregard for minorities (who make the news a whole lot more than the white working class does) you're going to be disappointed in America for a long time.

It's not all about the white male, nor is it all about the trans woman, the African American teenager, the muslim child, or anyone in particular.

Trump hasn't even moved in yet.

[Eviora]

So... what do white, straight guys want? Apparently, it's something Trump is offering. A wall? Lower taxes? A ban on abortion? I'm not hearing any of those requests overwhelmingly from white males; it seems like they are pretty divided on those issues. It's almost as if the group is not some monolith, as if their desires aren't uniform across the entire group.

Minorities are like that, too. We don't all have the same positions on these issues. But one thing that oppressed people do almost uniformly seem to want is to stop being oppressed. If only we could achieve that goal, maybe we could talk about the other issues without having to worry about who's in what group.

The problem with the silent majority is that it's silent. How do we help them when they won't tell us what they need?

And you don't know that Trump won the election based on this matter, you're just assuming it. It's entirely possible that a less corrupt candidate with policies identical to Hillary's might have beaten Trump.

[FairFamily]

@Eviora

Fighting for your rights is good but sometimes the result is quite atrocious . In my country, belgium, you vote parliamentarians directly by selecting the people you like on a list of the party you want to vote on. It is important to note that the ordening of this list matters in general the higher the better. Now do our political correctness the list has too be exactly 50% male and 50% female and the first two places have to be of oposing gender. The question that then rises is "What if the 2 males are the best politicians of the party?" or "What if there are more competent females then males", "Should the males make place for the female even though they are more competent?" Logic ditactes no, yet it happens now. So they feel oppressed and in a way they are right. The rules also work in the opposite way , so you could say both sides are equally oprressed which is stupid, but I digress. The fact that the rules are made for the female protection makes it feel that females are oppressing males. It might be not true but it eels like that.

On top of that you also get a bit more of an attention problem, you see the problems of the oppressed people get more attention. Even though opression in the reverse is also possible. These problems are mostly ignored or waved away because they are the non-oppressed side and that doesn't make sense at first. So one side gets the attention for their problems and the others get far less which is to be honest unfair. This can make people feel that they are oppressed.

The final one, is that the opressed party starts invading where people feel it shouldn't invade. It is difficult to explain but I think people can find examples where they think:"'Why are they complaining about this?". This also feels that even innocent things fall victim to the terror of political correctness. It may be right or not, but that is the sentiment.

Well, a bit longer than I expected but here is why I think standing up for your rights can be considered neglecting/opressing the other sides.

[Chase]

I'll start by saying that you're spot on in terms of white people not being monolithic. This has been a recurring thing for a long time. A Republican that appeals to things like job creation (which is something Trump pitched often) and protection (which is something Trump pitched often) is actually making appeals to what were known as 'Reagan Democrats' - or the ordinary working white people who normally vote with workers' unions and rights in mind when Republican candidates fail to court to them.

However, bring in a Ronald Reagan or a Donald Trump - who spends an enormous amount of time addressing the things like the trade climate, jobs, and the economy - and you have a candidate that is playing well past the 'Blue Wall' and thus flipping blue voters.

From that angle, those -specific- white people want two things.

• Job creation.
• Job security.

That being said, How did people like John McCain or Mitt Romney fail to convince those Democrats? Romney suffered from challenging a popular incumbent president, but McCain suffered from a very similar situation Obama finds himself in right now. The people are aching for something different. Bush also was -not- a popular president to the tune of Obama, making it an even bigger landslide to climb up.

All the same, Hillary failed to overcome a want for change, for better or for worse.

Your point on oppression actually brings a valid reason white people would join the Trump cause. In the same vein minority groups want to stop being oppressed...

• Most white people would like to stop being labelled the oppressor simply because of their circumstances - especially if it's a false label.

Finally this brings us to issues we see between white people and minorities. The only place anyone can go if they are a white and they are having things like the Ferguson riots and the Dallas Police Shooting portrayed as what they actually are - tragedies - they turn to conservative news angles. Other media outlets - in an effort to represent the minority groups - often indicated that the police officers in those instances (as a COLLECTIVE - everyone knows there are bad cops too) were the bad guys.

• Most white voters would like their police departments not associated with the bad apples and championed for their service.

This goes all the way back to location. In cities and in college towns - white folks are pretty liberal and Hillary did quite well, but in suburban and rural areas (i.e. most of the United States electoral map) there's a different picture of race relations. In small towns, there's hardly any crime and it's not attributed to racial circumstances. Down here in Texas, there's several different racial make-ups in those small towns, and it's here you find not just whites - but MINORITIES who are willing to consider a candidate like Trump. Where whites and blacks are treating each other like crap in big cities, we're watching the news in our local diners shoulder to shoulder wondering what the hell is wrong with the world.

On top of that, there are fairly standard answers that Trump played to.

• White business owners would like less regulations on their businesses.
• White people would like to defeat ISIS and Obama has had a chance to do so.
• White people would like to pay less for healthcare.
• Yes, some white people -would- like to pay less taxes.

---

The silent majority didn't speak this time because look at how people rebuke people simply for saying 'Yeah, I'm going to vote for Trump.'

The first reaction their peers give is - You're a _____ and thank you for not considering -MY- rights and livelihood. Then the discussion ends there.

If the other side were more inclined to listen and hear each other out - maybe the silent voters wouldn't be silent.

---

I -too- would believe that a better Democratic candidate might have been the difference - but that -is- highly speculative.

You can't just shoot the messenger and say the Democrats got everything right either.